|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:.. | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| ORIGNAL g'
| |
| \, s UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
| |
| ~
| |
| PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-352 (LIMERICK GENERATlilG STATI0iO 50-353 O -
| |
| I.OCATION: PHILADELPHIA, PA PAGES: 20,886-21,019 l
| |
| DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1985 I
| |
| .O O 01!
| |
| ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
| |
| Official Reporters 444 North Cagitol Street D Ob Oh00bbS2 (202) 3 k7- 50 T Pilh NATIONWIDE COVERACE
| |
| ~
| |
| | |
| E
| |
| 'Jo3 W31~ 20,886 l
| |
| 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-p 3 . BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t
| |
| p s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x l 6 In the Matter of: :
| |
| : Docket Nos ., 50-352-OL 7 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : 50-353-OL
| |
| : f 8 (Limerick Generating Station, :
| |
| l Units 1 & 2.) :
| |
| : 9 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -X 10 ,
| |
| I II .Old Customs Courtroom ~ !
| |
| Room 300 l 12 2nd & Chestnut i L Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, July 16, 1985 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matte.
| |
| l' 16 ,1 convened at 9:30 a.m.
| |
| i, l I 17 BEFORE: :
| |
| l .
| |
| pp HELEN F. HOYT, ESO., Chairperson .
| |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission f*
| |
| Washington, D. C. 20555 L -- l1 20 RICHARD F. COLE, Member i
| |
| l-l 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 22 Washington, D. C. 20555 I
| |
| i 23 JERRY HARBOUR, Member "
| |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
| |
| e namnm, im. Washington, D. C., 20555 25 I
| |
| | |
| %3 " 20,887 1 APPdARN4CES:
| |
| 2 (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
| |
| 3 I
| |
| 4 5 l 6 ;
| |
| 7 1
| |
| 8 9l t
| |
| 10 ll ll Il !
| |
| 2 O iaii n
| |
| la > .
| |
| 13
| |
| !I 16 ll ,
| |
| 17 .,
| |
| 18 l 19 :
| |
| 1 20 21 22 23 24 9eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| Ace F 25
| |
| | |
| ~ _ ___ , _ _ .
| |
| Su Wolch 20,888
| |
| 'I _C _O _N _T. .E_ _N _T _S
| |
| .q
| |
| '~ 2 DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD WITNESS 3 Major John D. Case By Mr. Love 20,924 4 By Mr. Conner 20,931 By Mr. Otto' 20,940 5 By Mr. Love 20,941 By Judge Cole 20,945 6 By Mr. Hassell 20,949 7 Edward B. Lieberman By Mr. Hirsch 20,953 8 By Mr. Love -20,957' By Mr. Hassell 20,968 9 By Judge Cole 20,965 By Judge Harbour 20,97C Thomas Urbanik, II II 20,973 By Mr. Hassell By.Mr. Radar 20,979 I2 By Mr. Love 20,980 By Judge Harbour 20,985 James R. Asher Id and ,
| |
| Robert Z. Kinard 15 By-Mr. Hirsch 20,991 By Mr. Love 20,996 16 By Mr. Hassell 21,004 By Mr. Hirsch 21,006 17 By Judge Cole 21,00(
| |
| i By Mr. Hassell 21,007 18 LAY-INS The statement of Major John D. Case l- I9 together with his deposition 20,930 20 Prefiled testimony of Mr.
| |
| Edward Lieberman 20,956 21 Prefiled testimony of Mr.
| |
| ! 22 James Asher and Robert Kinard 20,995 23 Deposition of Robert L. Morris 21,013 24 ~ ORAL ARGUMENT on behalf of FEMA by Mr. Hirsch -- Pg. 21,016 1 Ac ril Reporters, Inc,
| |
| ~~~~~~~~
| |
| Applicant's Exhibi Identification Received t
| |
| Number 1 20,890 i
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| l-1-Joa Wal 20,889 1 (9:30 a.m.)
| |
| ) ' ~
| |
| 2 _P _R _O _C E _E _D _I _N _G _S 3 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Are we ready to begin 4 this morning?
| |
| 5 Very well, the hearing will come to order.
| |
| 1 6 The Board has received, and I suppose all the other parties 7 to this hearing have also received, a copy of document that 6 was discussed yesterday. It is a letter from the Pennsylvania
| |
| < l l
| |
| 9 Department of Corrections to Mr. Love and Mr. Otto, dated 4 l
| |
| 10 June 27th. l t
| |
| 11 l Does everybody have a copy of that? i i
| |
| 12 MR. CONNER : We distributed that this morning. ;
| |
| ; 13 , JUDGE HOYT: Yes, I was going to thank you for '
| |
| i 14l that, i i i l i 15 jj MR. CONNER: Do you want to give it a number?
| |
| 16 l An assigned number? '
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, I think perhaps we had best f
| |
| 18 do that, and I thought we had done that yesterday.
| |
| 19 MR. CONNER: I identified it only as Applicant's
| |
| * 20 Deposition, Exhibit No. 3, and we didn't give it a number j i
| |
| 21 in the proceeding.
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: I have looked at page 20,797, and 23 l some of the pages that follow and before this morning, and I 24 didn't see any reference made to it. I n i nnwnm. ine. {
| |
| 25 Yes, I think you are correct, and Mr. Conner we
| |
| | |
| 1-2-Joe Wal 20,890 1 should assign a number to it, and if I recall, it is No. 5, l
| |
| .O~#
| |
| 2 Graterford Inmate Exhibit No. 5 for identification.
| |
| 3 MR. LOVE: I believe that is incorrect, Your 4 Honor. It was the Applicant's exhibit.
| |
| 5 MR. CONNER: You will recall that this had to 6 do with a colloquoy between Mr. Love and Mr. Otto. We don't 7 care whether it is in or not. It is only offered for a clarification on that point. On the other hand, we have 9 no objection to identifying it as Applicant's next exhibit i l
| |
| 10 number. I 11 i JUDGE HOYT: I think Mr. Love indicates he i I
| |
| 52 doesn't want to put it in his, which is fine. We will put l i
| |
| I') 13' '
| |
| it in your exhibit group, and we will call it Applicant's i
| |
| \/ .
| |
| I !
| |
| 14 ' Exhibit 1 for identification, j
| |
| ! i XX INDEX 15 ,! (Above referenced document is 0
| |
| 16 marked Applicant's Exhibit No. 1 17 for identification.) l 18 MR. CONNER: This will be 108 then if you want i
| |
| l 19 to use the old system. i l
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: No, because I think this hearing j 21 is somewhat separate and distinct from the previous hearings, 22 and all those exhibits have already gone forward in another 23 proceeding, and are all attached to the matters discussed
| |
| ! 24 in the third partial initial decision.
| |
| ei Reponers. inc.
| |
| 25 And I think we would prefer to try to keep a
| |
| | |
| 1-3-Joa Wal 20,891
| |
| . I separate numbering system for this.
| |
| \m/
| |
| 2 It seems to me for housekeeping purposes that 3 might have a better result.
| |
| 4 MR. CONNER: If you are finished with that 5 point, we have. one other housekeeping matter.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: All right, go ahead Mr. Conner.
| |
| 7 MR. CONNER: With respect to Graterford 8 Prisoners Exhibit 1 for identification, there was some 9 question about the genesis of that particular page. I said to we would check, and this is the document that was, in fact, 11 '
| |
| initially submitted at the request of the NRC Staff, and 12 was entitled: Limerick Generating Station Preliminary
| |
| () 13 Evacuation Time Estimate, NUS Report No. 3552, NUS 14 Corporation, July 1980.
| |
| 15 The same page was ' submitted as part of i -
| |
| 16 Appendix H to the Limerick Generating Station Emergency '
| |
| 17 Plan, which is already in evidence in this proceeding, and i 18 finally, of course, as we noted yesterday, has long since 19 been superseded by the evacuation time study prepared by. l 20 HMM Associates, Inc., in Revision 10 to the Emergency Plan 21 dated August 1984, which.is Exhibit E-67, in the part of the 22 case leading to the third partial initial decision.
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Thank you for that 24 information, Mr. Conner. That explains where it came from.
| |
| al Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 Mr. Love, you indicated yesterday you had found in the file
| |
| | |
| r-n .
| |
| ! L1-4-Joa1Wal 20,892 L
| |
| 1-when you becane the attorney of record in this case.
| |
| i.O l
| |
| 2 MR. LOVE: Thank you, I appreciate that L 3 information.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Otto?
| |
| 5 MR. OTTO:. I have one additional housekeeping 6 matter. The letter that we were discussing yesterday I L believe was marked Graterford Innates Exhibit No. 4 for 7
| |
| 6 identification, the ' July 8th letter from Mr. Love to me, 9 was received by my office yesterday and was postmarked 10 July 12th.
| |
| So, it was not lost in the mail. I 11li ;
| |
| I 12 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. We still didn't get j
| |
| !(} ]-
| |
| 13 whatever we said yesterday we didn't get, so we have, I l
| |
| l 14 think, completed the recordkeeping matters here this 15 morning.
| |
| r !
| |
| 16 At the conclusion of yesterday's hearing, and
| |
| [.
| |
| l 17 after the record had been closed, the Board was approached 18 by a reporter from one of the local papers, or at least he I 19 had identified himself as such. And during the course of i . __
| |
| 20 yesterday's hearing, I noticed that the reporters had -
| |
| 21 come into the'well of the court, that is beyond the bar
| |
| ; -22 that' separates the counsel tables from the spectator area.
| |
| 23 Two things I would like to emphasize. One, ll 24 .as the Judges whose decision it is in this case, we feel i'
| |
| , al Rgemes,1N:.
| |
| f' 25 that we 'cannot answer questions, participate in any interviews i
| |
| :4 _, . ._ s_.,. :-,..,,. . -
| |
| | |
| 1-5-Joa Wal 20,893
| |
| . 1 or any discussions with persons and maintain a fair and V impartial position which is what we are charged with doing 2
| |
| 3 in this case.
| |
| 4 I am sure that those who are in the newspaper-5 television business will appreciate that we would, perhaps, 6 even wish to be more cooperative, or at least cooperative 7 from your point of view, but in order to maintain a position 8 of total impartiality, since there are four sides in this 9 case; the Commonwealth's, and the inmates, the Government's 10 position as represented by the NRC Staff, and the FEMA I
| |
| 11 Counsel, and the Applicant, each having their own point of i i
| |
| 12 view, and we do not wish to, in any way, express any ;
| |
| () 13 g opinions o.r to be asked to do so, and we will appreciate 14 the respect that the press will show us in that regard. i i I
| |
| .15 As far as reporters in the well of the court, l 16' l there are three -- nine attorneys in this room, all of whom 17 have their documents, papers , notes , and belongings on the l 18 table.
| |
| 19 The courtroom of any courthouse has the bar, 20 and all in the well of the court protected by the Court's i 21 orders. We wish the press to remain beyond that bar.
| |
| 22 If you wish to talk to anyone, please ask 23 them to come back to your area, rather than for you to 24 come into the well of the Court.
| |
| at Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 End 1
| |
| -Ars fols.
| |
| | |
| 20,894 Sim 2-1 And we will thank you in advance for that 1
| |
| participation as well. We expect counsel to also respect 2
| |
| that order of the Court, and this Board is willing to 3
| |
| accommodate you if you are in need to have some additional 4
| |
| time if you wish to talk or make discussions with other 5
| |
| individuals. But we must have this room free in this well 6
| |
| of the Court completely protected.
| |
| 7 I have nothing further to add in the beginnings 8
| |
| of the hearings this morning.
| |
| 9 I think the next inmate - I beg your pardon --
| |
| 10 (Laughter.)
| |
| 11
| |
| ! That is Freudian slip, Mr. Love.
| |
| 12 (Laughter. .
| |
| 13
| |
| )
| |
| We may all be one day. The next witness I believe ,
| |
| 14l j Mr. Love, is yours, and that is Mr. Case, or Major Case.
| |
| 15!
| |
| Which do you prefer, sir, Major or Mr. ?
| |
| 16 MAJOR CASE: Major' Case.
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: All right, sir. Major Case is the 18 next witness. You had indicated also that you wished to have 19 a brief opening statement or an opening statement. Do you 20 anticipate that this would be a brief statement or merely 21 an outline of what it is you intend to prove?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: Essentially I wanted to briefly trace 23 the history of how we got here today and then briefly 24 A er;l Reporters, Inc. discuss what I intend to prove and then talk about one or 25
| |
| | |
| 20,895 Sim 2-2 1 two procedural matters.
| |
| (~)/
| |
| x_ 2 JUDGE HOYT: I will tell you what we will do, 3 Mr. Love. We will accommodate you if you wish to talk about 4 the testimony you are to give. I don't want to take up the 5 time to go back through a long and involved history of 6 this. If there are some procedural matters to discuss, then 7 that may be another matter. But if you have some remarks, 8 I would suggest that you keep them brief, and by brief I 9 mean less than five minutes.
| |
| 10 MR. LOVE: Fine. I will attempt to accommodate 11 that.
| |
| 12 JUDGE HOYT: Or as close thereto as possible,
| |
| /~s . 13 sir.
| |
| b.
| |
| 14 MR. LOVE: Fine. I just would like to point out 15 for the record that we did enter the case in September of 16; 1981. The matter currently before us is regarding two i
| |
| 17 of the eight revised contentions that the inmates have filed.
| |
| 18 These two contentions involve the lack of an estimated time 19 of evacuation in the plan and the need for training of the 20 civilian personnel.
| |
| 21 Initially we point out that over the years the 22 State has offered three different time estimates as to how 23 long it will take to evacuate the Graterford State Prison.
| |
| ,_ 24 Early we saw a document submitted some four years ago that Ac ;rst Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 indicated a time frame of five hours and thirty minutes.
| |
| | |
| t 20,896 Sim 2-3 1
| |
| Earlier in 1985 we saw another estimate by the
| |
| ( )' 2 Department of Corrections of six to ten hours. . That is, 3 Mr. Otto was quoted in that regard, and yesterday we heard 4 testimony from Superintendent Zimmerman that stated that 5 the ETE is now belived to be eight to ten hours.
| |
| 6 I understand that we are further going to hear 7 testimony that it could perhaps be done in six hours by 8 Mr. Lieberman, and our witness, Major Case has suggested 9 that it could easily have been 12 to 20 hours.
| |
| 10 We contend that the overall methodology utilized 11 to compute the ETE is lacking in several respects. We 12 believe that certain factors were not entered into the 13 equation, such as the diminished roadway capacity for incoming
| |
| : b. f s 14 vehicles due to accidents and the potential for panic on the 15 highways by the general public who will be simultaneously 16 evacuating the area.
| |
| .- 17 We also believe that there is a potential for 18 delay and/or disruption. of the commercial phone lines which 19 will be necessary to mobilize the manpower within the one 20 to two-hour time frame suggested by Superintendent Zimmerman.
| |
| 21 We further believe that the wind conditions and 22 Possible releases of radioactivity may close down certain 23 corridors rendering certain evacuation routes unuseable.
| |
| 24 We also believe that past emergencies at Ac'/~) al Reporters, Inc.
| |
| '''1r 25 Graterford have not been worked into the equation and that b
| |
| | |
| 20,897 Sim.2 there is a definite need for proper orientation of the inmate evacuees.
| |
| 2 3
| |
| With respect to the particulars of the methodology 4
| |
| of the ETE, we believe that there is no reasonable assurance 5
| |
| that the evacuation vehicles can-arrive within two to four 6
| |
| hours for the previously mentioned reasons. We also believe 7
| |
| for the same reasons that the manpower cannot be mobilized 8
| |
| within the one to two-hour time frame.
| |
| s 9 We further believe that the lock-down procedures 10 will take considerably longer than 30 minutes, and.we base
| |
| .jj this upon the prior power failures, hostage seige and other 12 incidents that have occurred at Graterford.
| |
| 13 We also believe that the inmates need to ba j4 thoroughly indoctrinated or oriented as to the mechanics of 15 the plan and so far all we have heard is a promise of an 16 addendum by Superintendent Zimmerman to the Inmate Handbook.
| |
| .j7 We further believe that there is a very real 18 Possibility that the population estimates utilized to make
| |
| .jp the plan workable will be obsolete in the very near future, 20 and we point to significant population increases over the 21 past few years and charts and graphs of a report of a task
| |
| -22 'orce of Pennsylvania with regard to overcrowding that shows
| |
| .' 23 that the. changes are that these increases will continue for 24 the next several years and thereby leaving the population A f''T ~grs t Reporters Inc.
| |
| .25 estimates that the plan is based on to be woefully short.
| |
| | |
| 20,898 Sim 2-5
| |
| ) We further believe that the overall ETE is 2 unreliable in that local public officials such as Skippack 3 Township have refused to approve an evacuation plan until 4 they hear further details regarding the Graterford evacuation.
| |
| 5 ith respect to bus and ambulance drivers, we believe there is no reasonable assurance that the civiliah 7 personnel will receive the necessary training required to Perform their appointed tasks.
| |
| 8 9 He point to the fact that the training was offered 10 in April and to date there has been no responses to that
| |
| ); traini.g. We also point out that there will be at least g to date no financial incentives offered to the bus drivers in rder to enccurage their participation.
| |
| 13 g We also believe that there is no reasonable s urance that these personnel will be of any benefit in the 151.
| |
| g evacuation if they are not in fact trained.
| |
| W also believe that the civilian personnel should 17 18 r eive some training in inmate custody and control and be j9 made aware of the security precautions that will be taken to 20 protect themselves from the inmates during the evacuation.
| |
| g With respect to some procedural matter, I would like to point out that a conference call was held on June 22 23 17th, 1985 in order to set up the mechanics of this conference.
| |
| 24 That call was memorialized in the Board's order of June 18th, A ent Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 1985, which stated the purposes were for identification of I
| |
| | |
| 20,899 S m 2-6 1 witnesses, setting the schedule for depositions, directing the
| |
| ,~
| |
| ( - 2 use of depositions where agreements can be reached, set a date 3 for prefiled testimony and to set a hearing schedule.
| |
| 4 Inmates' counsel agreed to an expedited schedule 5 despite some concerns with regard to the Code of Federal 6 R egulations which suggests a much longer time frame to prepare 7 for these hearings. However, the inmates' counsel believed 83that this short time frame could work if the parties cooperated 9 and inmates' counsel was well aware of the applicant's concern 10 with respect to an expedited hearing and agreed for these 11 reasons.
| |
| 12 Unfortunately, the results of this short. expedited 3 13 hearing schedule are mixed. Informal discovery with PEMA, 14 the Department of Corrections and the Governor's Energy Council 15 took a day or two longer than was originally expected and 16 certain matters which were discussed yesterday are still at 17 issue. These matters revolve around the inmates' request 18 for log books and additional infoimasion regarding the lock-19 down times from approximately seven prior emergencies and
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 to date they have only received that information with respect 21 to one of those emergencies, although they did hear oral 22 testimony with respect to two other of those instances.
| |
| 23 A potential witness of the inmates was served 7_
| |
| 24 with a subpoena by the applicant despite the fact that the At rti Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 witness had not yet agreed to testify and had stated that if
| |
| | |
| 20,900 e agr e estify, he would be available on Wednesday, Sht 2-7 2 July 3rd, which in fact he was. He called me and immediately 3 expressed displeasure and wanted out of the case as soon as 4 he was served the subpoena. However, I did manage to calm 5 him down and he did in fact attend a deposition on July 3rd of 6 1985.
| |
| 7 During the telephone conference of June 17th, 8 1985 the applicant agreed to depose the inmate Thomas Martin 9 at the State Correctional Institute, but at a later conference 10 call reneged on this promise and therefore reintroducing the 11 ll problem of Martin's availablility to these hearings.
| |
| 12 The applicant refused to enter into any kind
| |
| - 13 of stipulation with respect to the Morris deposition knowing 14 about his unavailability and the f act that he would be glad 15 to respond to written interrogatories from this Board and I
| |
| 16]despitethe fact that they had the opportunity to cross-examine 17 him.
| |
| 18 In the interests of providing the Board with 19 a complete record, I would move that traffic control expert,
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 Robert Morris' deposition, be entered into evidence, and with 21 respect to the inmate Thomas Martin, I think that Mr. Martin 22 should be given some type of opportunity to place his remarks 23 on the record.
| |
| 24 Various alternatives as to how this could be Ac er;l Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 achieved would be for the panel to go to the State Correctional
| |
| | |
| }
| |
| 20,901 S m 2-8 ns d ute.at Graterford and F. ear b or to M ng b here W 2 for these hearings or to provide some sort of telephone in 3 he could participate or, if nothing else, to accept a state-
| |
| '4 ment that he has offered into evidence, end Sim 5 Sua fols 6
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 10 11 12 13 14 l
| |
| 15 i 16 'j 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A i -[rst Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| 20,902
| |
| #3-1-SueWali That's the conclusion of my remarks. And my first O 2 witness after we dispose of these procedural matters would 3 be Major John Case, Field Director cf the Pennsylvania Prison 4 Society.
| |
| 5 MR. CONNER: If the Board please --
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: Let me make one remark, Mr. Conner, 7 and then I will give you an opportunity and any other counsel 8 that may wish to make a remark.
| |
| 9 Mr. Love, this is the first time since the 10 conference call of June 17th that you have spoken with this 11 Board. None of the matters that you discussed here this 12 morning were made a note of record until this morning and 13 until this hearing began yesterday when you indicated that 14 you had made some demands for a log.
| |
| I 15 My recollection of the testimony of that log that l t
| |
| 16 you are asking -- or bringing up again this morning is that ;
| |
| i 17 the testimony of the State's witness is that no such log i 18 exists. So, you are simply perpetuating an error that --
| |
| 19 into this record in -- 1 20 MR. LOVE: I --
| |
| 21 JUDGE HOYT: -- that remark. Mr. Love, I gave you 22 full opportunity to make yours; I expect to be extended the 23 same courtesy.
| |
| 24 MR. LOVE: Excuse me.
| |
| Aa-#eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 JUDGE HOYT: I am going to find in the copy of the i 8
| |
| | |
| 20,903
| |
| #3-2-SueWat transcript of the conversation of June 17th that portion
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 where you agreed to the same deposition and discovery schedule 3 that you are objecting to this morning. I will find it.
| |
| 4 I obviously can't speak with you here and listen 5 to your' remarks and find that at the same time. But I will 6 find that to you, and I will point it out, and I will make 7 it a matter of record in this hearing this morning.
| |
| 8 Those are the two matters that I wanted to clear 9 up. Mr. Conner, you wanted to bring up something?
| |
| 10 MR. CONNER: I do indeed. I want to point out 11 that Mr. Love is generally reckless with the facts, but he i
| |
| 't 12 is categorically lying when he said'we changed any position I
| |
| I'T 13 . we had taken about the Graterford inm'ates.
| |
| \__/
| |
| 14 He flip --
| |
| 15 MR. LOVE: I will let the record speak for itself ;
| |
| 16 on that. ,
| |
| I i
| |
| 17 MR. CONNER: He flip-flops -- l 18 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, please let the counsel 19 finish and then-you may have an opportunity.
| |
| 20 Mr. Conner, let me suggest to you, and indeed 21 caution you, let's keep away from any inflammatory words.
| |
| 22 MR. CONNER: Had he not impuned our integrity, 23 I, of course, would not have. But we suggested that.if Mr.
| |
| (~} 24 Martin indeed had any competent testimony that it be taken
| |
| ' Ace 4w &l Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 as a deposition at the prison in order to solve the obvious
| |
| | |
| 20,904
| |
| #3-3-SueWah problems of his testimony. Mr. Love later advised us that he O 2 would not produce Mr. Martin as a witness.
| |
| 3 And then to our surprise we got the piece of paper 4 by Mr. Martin on -- I forget what day we got it. It was 5 dated the 8th. Now, much of what Mr. Love's opening state-6 ment contained is beyond the contentions in this case.
| |
| 7 And we will, in fact, object at the appropriate a time, because of trying to interject matters that have been 9 ruled out for this proceeding.
| |
| 10 With regard to Mr. Morris , because Mr. Love per-11 sisted in saying he would be a witness and because we wanted l 12 to meet the schedule we asked for the subpoena. However, when
| |
| ) 13 Mr. Love said Mr. Morris would in fact be available on July 3rd 14 instead of, I think it was July the 2nd, we agreed and he was 15 in fact deposed on that day. ,
| |
| 16 And he had no information at that time. ,
| |
| l 17 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Any other counsel? Mr. !
| |
| 18 Otto?
| |
| 19 MR. OTTO: I would just like to put it on the re-20 cord that the Department of Corrections certainly cooperated 21 in its fullest extent in providing Mr. Love information re-22 garding the five other occurrences that -- about the five 23 other emergency situations that he had asked for information 24 about.
| |
| Aa-#er: Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 As we heard yesterday, the log books don't exist.
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| s 20,905
| |
| #3-4-SueWah They still don't exist. They won't exist tomorrow. But we, O 2 in no way, tried to thwart his discovery of any of these 3 matters.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Anyone else? Mr. Hassell?
| |
| '5 MR. HASSELL: I thought I would just note for the XX 6 record, Mr. Rutberg, as I understand it, took some verbatim 7 notes of a telephone conference call regarding Limerick on 8 June 21st, 1985 that occurred at 1 p.m.
| |
| 9 In those notes, I would like to read Item 5, it 10 says: " Thomas Martin. Love will prepare a statement of 11 Martin's proposed testimony and distribute to the parties.
| |
| 12 The idea is to work towards a stipulation. He will have this
| |
| / to us by July 1st or July 2nd, 1985." l
| |
| , 13 ;
| |
| i 14 To my knowledge, I have never been provided a l i
| |
| copy of what Mr. Martin's proposed statement would be so 15 le 16 l that the staff could engage in the efforts of trying to see ;
| |
| i 17 if we could reach a stipulation. The first time I had any 18 knowledge of Mr. Martin's statement was when it was filed I 19 guess purportedly as prefiled testimony.
| |
| 20 So, I would submit the staff was never put in a 21 position of being able to negotiate the question of whether 22 we could reach a stipulation with respect to Mr. Martin's 23 statement.
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Anyone else?
| |
| Ace4eral
| |
| . Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 (No reply.)
| |
| | |
| 20,906 3-5-SueWall Mr. Love, the particular pages of conversation which
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 occurred on June 27th in a telephone conversation call which 3 was -- I beg your pardon, June 17th, 1985, which was recorded 4 verbatim occurred on Pages 20,728 and 20,729. The most 5 pertinent part of this particular reference is a statement 6 by you, and I will quote verbatim from Page 20,779, Line 6.
| |
| 7 729. If I misquoted, it's 20,729.
| |
| 8 "MR. LOVE: I have currently scheduled a review 9 of whatever documentation is forthcoming with my expert on 10 the 28th of June. So I would think that the mid-July schedule 11 Your Honor mentioned would seem to be appropriate under my 12 way of thinking."
| |
| /
| |
| l 13 Now, Mr. Love, that was your statement on June 17th, 14 and it seems to conflict with what you now have introduced in 15 your opening remarks here. I will make that transcript j 16 available to you if you wish to check it. l l
| |
| 17 MR. LOVE: Do I have the opportunity to respond?
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: If you wish to have it, yes. Go 19 ahead. j l
| |
| 20 MR. LOVE: Could you read the section with respect '
| |
| 21 to the Applicant's desire to depose Mr. Martin, since I've 22 been called a lier at this proceeding?
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: Well, Mr. Love, I don't have it 9 24 Am eder;l Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 readily available. You may peruse this transcript if you wish and find it. l
| |
| | |
| 20,907
| |
| #3-6-SueWall MR. LOVE: I'm speaking with respect to your June
| |
| ')
| |
| 2 18th Order memorializing the conference call of June 17th.
| |
| 3 I think the fact that I've been called a lier in open court 4 on the record, I think that this matter should be cleared up 5 right here and now.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: Well, what you think, Mr.' Love, and 7 what we may be able to do may be two different things. I 8 don't think that we are going to perpetuate this particular 9 dialogue any longer. I don't think it's productive of the 10 hearing into --
| |
| 11 MR. LOVE: Could I j ust -- l 12 JUDGE HOYT: -- the evidence of your -- the --
| |
| _ l 13 MR. LOVE: Just one sentence from Page 2 -- 1 j ,
| |
| 14 JUDGE HOYT: May I finish, Mr. Love?
| |
| I i
| |
| MR. LOVE: Excuse me.
| |
| 15 l 16 JUDGE HOYT: I don't think this particular dialogue;.
| |
| 17 is resulting in any evidence being sought from the witnesses 18 that have been called in this case. And we are much more 19 interested in litigating here this morning and indeed in these 20 days of hearings in this contention and its two bases the 21 rights and contention of your clients --
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: If I may just --
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: -- than into your individual character.
| |
| 24 MR. LOVE: If I may just read one sentence and Ameeral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 then I will let the matter lie at that and let the record
| |
| | |
| 4 20,908 f s,
| |
| #3-7-SueWah speak for itself.
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: What sentence and where are you taking 3 it from?
| |
| 4 LMR. LOVE: It is.from your Order of June 18th, 5 1985 memorializing --
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: That is a matter of record, Mr. Love.
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: I just want to state --
| |
| 8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love --
| |
| -9 MR. LOVE: -- it states Graterford --
| |
| 10 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love. Mr. Love.
| |
| 11 MR. LOVE: e- counsel indicates -- i
| |
| , i 12 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love. Mr. Love. Mr. Love, I have --
| |
| ( 13 14 MR. LOVE: --
| |
| agreemeat that this witness will be 15 deposed - -
| |
| 16 JUDGE HOYT: -- indicated to you that that is it.
| |
| 17 MR. LOVE: --
| |
| at the prison to avoid problem'of 18 transporting a' maximum security inmate to this hearing.
| |
| 19 I am not a lier and-I.do not like to be called 20 such by anyone'anywhere.
| |
| - 21 JUDGE HOYT: That is the last time I intend to have
| |
| - 22 a shouting match on-this record. If you are performing for 23 an audience, I think your audience must be sadly disappointed 24 in --
| |
| al Reportws, Inc.
| |
| 25 MR. LOVE: It's called the Appeals Court.
| |
| l
| |
| ~ . , , - . - . . . . . - . - - _ . . - _ . . . - ,. . - _ - ..- -. . ._
| |
| | |
| 20,909 63-8-SueWal JUDGE HOYT: -- the performance because it is --
| |
| 0 2 MR. LOVE: It's called the Appeals' Court.
| |
| 3 JUDGE HOYT: -- very badly done. Mr. Love, I d don't intend to permit that type of conduct again.
| |
| 5 Iexpect that after a brief recess which we will 6 now take that when we return you will apologize to this 7 Board and to the members of this court -- to this hearing, 8 excuse me.
| |
| 9 We will take a brief recess.
| |
| 10 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 10:00 a.m., to 11 reconvene at 10:10 a.m., this same day.)
| |
| l END #3 12 Val, Joe j 1
| |
| ws 13 ,
| |
| i I4 15 l i
| |
| 16 ,
| |
| 17 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 Aa ;st Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| 4-1-Jon Wal 20,910 1 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order.
| |
| 2 Let the record reflect that all the parties to the hearing 3 who were present when the hearing recessed are again present 4 in the hearing room.
| |
| 4 5 Mr. Love, the Board does expect that you will 6 offer an apology to the Counsel and to this Board for 7 that conduct.
| |
| 6 MR. LOVE: I will apologize to the Board for 9 disrupting the proceeding. Obviously, the issue here is the 10 evacuation plan and anything beyond that is not really of 11 tremendous importance. 1 I
| |
| 12 However, I will not apologize to counsel for i t
| |
| i j 13 ,
| |
| making slanderous remarks to me that I believe the record !
| |
| 14 vindicates my position on that statement. !
| |
| I i
| |
| 15 g JUDGE HOYT: I wholeheartedly agree with most everything you said, Mr. Love. Mr. Conner, I don't think 16l t
| |
| I 17 the use of the word, ' liar' was perhaps the best choice of l
| |
| ,18 words. I am sure on reflection you probably feel the same l 19 way. !
| |
| 20 We thank you, Mr. Love, for your participation i
| |
| 21 in the proceeding on the basis of counsel on the importance l
| |
| 22 of the clients that you represent.
| |
| l 23 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, I regret the 24 use of the term. l Am erai neporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 However, at no time did the applicant renig i
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| 4-2-Joa Wal 20,911 1 on taking the deposition of Mr. Martin.
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. The matter is closed 3 as far as the Board is concerned.
| |
| 4 Mr. Hassell?
| |
| 5 MR. HASSELL: Yes, Judge Hoyt.with respect to 6 another matter, if I am not mistaken I believe that the 7 Graterford Inmates have moved -- made a motion to have 8 received in evidence the Morris deposition, and the statement 9 of Mr. Martin.
| |
| I 10 I was wondering if the Board is going to take l
| |
| 11 l argument on this motions at this time. .
| |
| I i
| |
| 12 JUDGE HOYT: No. I did not understand Mr. Love ,
| |
| I
| |
| ( ) 13 ,; to have moved it into evidence at this time. Is that your a
| |
| n i 14!i intention?
| |
| H '
| |
| ii
| |
| ' 5 :.
| |
| . MR. LOVE: I did suggest that in my procedural l!
| |
| 16 it remarks that -- with respect to moving the Morris deposition 11 17 ! into evidence, and I do have an argument, if you want to 18 hear it, on that. l 19 And also some accommodations to Mr. Martin so
| |
| }
| |
| 20 '' that his remarks will be --
| |
| l 21 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, I recall that part of it.
| |
| 22 ,
| |
| Mr. Love, the Witness Martin was not deposed by any counsel, 23 nor do I recall that he was made available by you for 24 deposition. !
| |
| eral Reporters, lnc. j 25 We received probably at the same time that !
| |
| l l
| |
| r
| |
| | |
| 4-3-JoD Wal 20,912 1
| |
| counsel here have indicated that they received the affidavit
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 of what -- of what purports to be an affidavit of a Thomas 3 Martin, an inmate at Graterford Institution.
| |
| 4 Since the witness is not going to be here to 5 testify, and he was not subjected to cross-examination, it 6 obviously is not a statement that we can receive into i
| |
| I 7 evidence, and indeed, it is questionable whether the matters 8
| |
| discussed in the evidence would be relevant testimony to i
| |
| 9 the hearing on these two contentions. !
| |
| l 10 However, we will accommodate what purports to !
| |
| 11 fI be an affidavit by including it in the docket of the i
| |
| -- of this proceeding, but we will not attach it to this ;
| |
| 12 i..
| |
| 13h l record.
| |
| w ti la !! MR. LOVE: Can I -- I don't quite understand i o
| |
| M. that.
| |
| JUDGE HOYT: Well, let me put it another way, 16 [
| |
| il 17 l then. In essence, Mr. Love, what I am saying is we will 18 treat it somewhat the way any letter that would be written 19 to the Commission relevant to the Limerick Generating 20 Station in these licensing matters under these two docket 21 numbers, and will be placed in the docket, and we afford 22 that opportunity in two ways.
| |
| 23 , We either take it as a limited appearance t
| |
| i 9 24 Ae Muj Runnes, Inc.
| |
| 25 l statement at an oral hearing, or in the case of letters that are written to the Commission, those are distributed i
| |
| | |
| 4-4-Joa Wel 20,913 1 and placed in the docket by the secretary, and that is O 2 where we intend to put the statement of Thomas' Martin.
| |
| 3 MR. LOVE: May I respond to that?
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, surely.
| |
| 5 MR. LOVE: At that conference call on June 17th,
| |
| .6 I identified Mr. Martin as a witness in this proceeding. )
| |
| 7 The Applicant has had an opportunity to cross-8 examine him, which they chose not to avail themselves of.
| |
| 9 Obviously, I have mentioned throughout that 10 Mr. Martin had a problem getting here in that he is 11 l incarcerated. I have suggested several times the Board go 4 i
| |
| 12 to Graterford to listen to his and other persons testimony.
| |
| i ,
| |
| I will suggest now that he could, in fact, be produced at this i
| |
| -( ) 13 3
| |
| (
| |
| i!
| |
| 14 !! hearing with a subpoena or a telephone hookup, and in the i it .
| |
| Il '
| |
| 15 l, alternative, I do insist that I believe it is vital to my il 16 l' case that Mr. Martin's statement be included in the record ll 0 -
| |
| 17 as a part of the evidence.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, it couldn't qualify as l 19 evidence, since it hasn't been subject to all the other ;
| |
| 20 Procedural requirements , -including cross-examination.
| |
| {
| |
| i 21_ t MR. LOVE: I think -- ;
| |
| i l- ,
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: Let me finish. And I think that -l i
| |
| 23 is also, I would like to remind you, the reason that I :
| |
| 24 mentioned earlier that if that is the testimony of the witness
| |
| .r.: n.pon.,,, inc.
| |
| 25 it is not probative of any issues before this Board today.
| |
| | |
| 4-5-Jos Wal 20,914
| |
| , 1 This is a statement that the witness is V'f s certainly qualified to make, but if he were here and 2
| |
| 3 testifying in person, subject to cross-examination, Mr. Love, 4 if this is to be his testimony, then it is not probative of 5 the issues.
| |
| 6 MR. LOVE: I would just like to point out for 7 the record dhat the reason he is not here is because he is 8 incarcerated and he is unavailable, and the reason --
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: No. The reason he is not here, !
| |
| 10 Mr. Love, is that you chose not to make him available at i
| |
| 11 l this hearing, and it was your suggestion, if I recall the i t-l 12 ; conversation in the conference call correctly, and I believe !
| |
| i f3
| |
| ~i
| |
| : n. .
| |
| I do, that, that would be the method that you would use. !
| |
| li 14 !I That he would be subject to a deposition at the prison.
| |
| i3 S MR. LOVE: And then the Applicant changed their il u
| |
| yH mind, putting me right back into my original --
| |
| - l!
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: I am going to give Mr. Conner an 18 Opportunity to respond to that ' particular point, Mr. Love, l 19 because I think that is the' crux of the matter. That 20 he was not given that opportunity, or at least this is what 21 I am understanding from what is transpiring here. Mr. l 22 Conner, do you want to respond to that particular point, and f I
| |
| 23 that one only.
| |
| l 24 MR. CONNER: Again, at the conference call i ederal Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 transcript, beginning on page -- I believe it is 14, Mr.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 4-6-Jo:, Wnl_ 20,915 1 Love at that time first mentions, Line 21, the idea of f
| |
| 2 calling an inmate, and I said on page 15, of course I hadn't 3 heard of Mr. Martin befcre.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Could you give me the transcript' 5 Page numbers, Mr. --
| |
| 6 MR. CONNER: Fifteen.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Fifteen?
| |
| 8 MR. CONNER: Yes. It starts on page 14, line 21.
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: The pages I have, Mr. Conner, for 10 this transcript begin at 20,722.
| |
| l 11 0 MR. CONNER: I am sorry, I am talking about the d
| |
| l -
| |
| 12 { transcript that the Board made of the conference call. j
| |
| ! 13 ,; JUDGE HOYT: That is what I am talking about, ,
| |
| le I Mr. Conner. !
| |
| 11 i 15 MR. CONNER: Oh. The only thing I have is 16 [ marked page 14, and so forth. ,
| |
| 17 i JUDGE HOYT: Well --
| |
| l 18 MR. CONNER: May I show this to the Board. I 19 (Mr. Conner approaches the Bench.)
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: Would any of the counsel want to i 4
| |
| 21 look at this before it is shown to the Board?
| |
| 22 (No response.) l r
| |
| l 23 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, let me see where you -
| |
| 9 24 Am- ederal Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 are, Mr. Conner. If I can pick out where it is you are.
| |
| MR. CONNER: Now, wherever I was.
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 4-7-Jo Wal 20,916 1 JUDGE HOYT: You are at page 20,735 of the 2 verbatim transcript of the telephone conferenc~e call of 3 June 17, 1985.
| |
| 4 MR. CONNER: Very well. At Line 21 of that 5 page, for the first time Mr. Love notes the idea of calling 6 Mr. Thomas Martin.
| |
| 7 We say on the next page, which would be 736, 8 that anything we can do to expedite, we would.
| |
| 9 And further down, beginning on Line 20, I j 10 start by noting: Judge Hoyt, I don' t want anything that I l 11 l did not say to suggest that I would agree that Mr. Martin i l i 12 il. might have competent testimony by agreeing that the concept '
| |
| I 13 c of taking his deposition and possibly using it in lieu of l 14 4 direct testimony.
| |
| Il a '
| |
| 15 And we stood ready and did at that time, or the 16 ] period of discovery, to go to Graterford because we thought 17 " that might be a quick way of showing that Mr. Martin did not 18 have competent testimony. ;
| |
| 19 ' However, we were never given any understanding 20 l af ter that time that Mr. Martin would testify. In fact, Mr. ;
| |
| I 21 Love said he was not going to use Mr. Martin as a witness, and 22 that was the end of that.
| |
| 23 So, that is why we did not, and have no reason 9
| |
| Am- ederal Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 24 25 to do it in any event. I would note for the record that !
| |
| irrespective of any background, what Mr. Martin would offer ;
| |
| i 1
| |
| H
| |
| | |
| f4-8-Joa-Wal 20,917 is not competent testimony on any of the issues and represents O
| |
| V 1
| |
| 2 merely the opinion of a- citizen who happens io be an inmate 3 of Graterford.
| |
| 4 It is opinioned evidence, without any qualificatiend
| |
| ~
| |
| l 5 to. give the opinion or stating the firm basis for doing it, l l
| |
| 6 other than his own limited knowledge of what happens in his 9 7 cell block.
| |
| ;n.
| |
| . 8 Other than~that, the testimony is totally 9 incompetent.
| |
| 10 JUDGE HOYT: .All right. Mr. Conner, let me 11 l inquire of you when were you notified Mr. Martin would be f
| |
| l i 12 l a witness, if~at all. I
| |
| .J.i- ,
| |
| () 13 [
| |
| I
| |
| , MR . CONNER: Only on the occasion of the ,
| |
| 14 ! telephone conference call of June 17, 1985.
| |
| n i
| |
| !V i 15 oh And there was a conference call,.you will recall,; -
| |
| ~
| |
| Mh among counsel that I had suggested at 4:00 on whatever the [
| |
| n 1 17 following day.was , . and at that -time -- Mr. Radar took that i e
| |
| 18 call, so I~am going to.ask him to explain it.
| |
| ! '19 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. l i
| |
| (
| |
| L .
| |
| l "l . 20 MR. RADAR: At that time, Mr. Love suggested i {
| |
| I~ , S. ! 'd: I 21 the possibility of stipulated testimony. The parties agreed 22 that he would pursue that idea, and Ms. Ferkin was 23 . designated-to review that with him in an attempt to produce 24 a stipulated statement by Mr. Martin.
| |
| at Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 As Mr. Hassell indicated in his remarks, it
| |
| ;)
| |
| f "t Y r
| |
| | |
| L4-9-Joe Walt 20,918 I was agreed that Mr. Love would prepare that statement, show 7 .
| |
| E'q /~
| |
| it to Ms. Ferkin for. her approval, and then submit it to the 2
| |
| 3 parties for their concurrence, a
| |
| 4 That is the last we ever heard of anything 5 relating to Mr. Martin.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: Ms. Ferkin, do ycu have any input
| |
| -7 on this at'all?
| |
| 8 NS. FERKIN: I was at the conference call to 9 which Mr. Radar refers, and my recollection is that Mr. Love 10 was to provide us with a statement by Mr. Martin and pursue
| |
| 'f 11 with us the idea of whether or not the other parties would i l
| |
| i 12 , . stipulate to the substance of that statement, and have it- ,
| |
| .(f 13 , entered into testimony.
| |
| I i la l I received the statement of Mr. Martin some time I
| |
| !! I n
| |
| 15 after July 5th, in the same time frame as prefiled testimony, t
| |
| ;i 16 l ' .mul Mr. Love did not approach me af ter July 5th with respect i i 117 to the idea of whether or not we would stipulate to Mr. !
| |
| i
| |
| ,18 Martin's statement as testimony. -
| |
| l 19 That is all the input I can offer. !
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Mr. Love, I think it 21 seems to be the position of all the parties here that you 22 simply never made this witness available for deposition, or 23 never notified them.
| |
| 24 MR. LOVE: Can I respond to that?
| |
| el Reporters, Inc.
| |
| .25 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. But let me just add one more
| |
| | |
| 4-10-Joe Wal 20,919 g 1 point.
| |
| U 2 I again will offer you the option of placing 3 the statement as it is now written into the record, much as 4 we would place any statement of an individual who wished to 5 either give a limited appearance statement in an oral fashion 6 before the Board, or in filing a letter with the Secretary
| |
| \
| |
| 7 of the Board -- correction, F;cretary of the Commission -- i 8 who places it in the docket of the case.
| |
| 9 We will do that if you wish. Otherwise, the 10 witness is not available.
| |
| 11 h P I believe we have indicated to you several times,j l l 12 i Mr. Love, that we will not take any testimony at the State I
| |
| [ ')-
| |
| 13 correctional institution at Graterford. I don't think there was q ,
| |
| la !! ever any plan. We have done that by Orders where we have U f 1: -)
| |
| indicated to you what we will do, and what litigation we will '
| |
| 16 have here, and those are on these two contentions. 1 0
| |
| 17l As I tried to emphasize in my opening remarks 18 to you, those are the only issues we are going to litigate.
| |
| I 19 MR. LOVE: May I respond? l i,
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, you surely may, f
| |
| I 21 MR. LOVE:
| |
| Very briefly, it was my understanding j l
| |
| 22 the purpose of the June 18th conference call, or the memorandum' l
| |
| 23 memorializing the June 17th conference call, was to identify i t'
| |
| 24 witnesses.
| |
| eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| -25 At that time I identified Mr. Thomas Martin
| |
| | |
| 4-11-Joe Wa1. 20,920
| |
| - 1 as a witness.
| |
| k_/ ..
| |
| 2 At no time did I ever suggest that I would not 3 use Mr. Thomas Martin as a witness.
| |
| 4 The only discussions we had were regarding how 5 to get that statement of Mr. Martin into the record.
| |
| 6 We discussed, as was mentioned, the possibility 7 of going to Graterford. The possibility of bringing Mr.
| |
| 8 Martin here. The possibility of deposing him, and using 9 his deposition in lieu of testimony, and finally, agreeing 10 on a statement that other parties would stipulate to. ,
| |
| 11 llg I submitted the statement, per your order, I l i 12 1 prior to the July 8th 1985 deadline for pre-offered testimony.i
| |
| }
| |
| -(s,) 13 6, I heard nothing further. !
| |
| ! 4 14 I I feel that I have complied with the Board's I il I it 15 " requirements with respect to producing Mr. Martin as a ,
| |
| P 16 6 witness and I stand by my remarks. !
| |
| 1 17 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, I have the statement. l 18 If.you are interested in -- it was received -- we did not 19 receive the prefiled testimony;if you are going to rely upon l
| |
| 1 20 the fact that you think you filed it in time, it did not reach ~
| |
| 21 the Board until July the 10th, and we have dated copies which 22 will reflect that.
| |
| 23 I just want to call that to your attention. We 24 will -- it doesn't really change the issue at all, Mr.- Love, 4eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| Am-25 because we are not going to take the statement into evidence
| |
| | |
| 4-12-Jos Wal 20,921 1 -- _ into the evidentiary record of this hearing. .
| |
| O
| |
| /- We will attach it in the nature of a limited 2
| |
| 3 appearance.
| |
| 4 MR. LOVE: Fine. I just want to point out that 5 was mailed on the 5th of July.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: That is not what the Order of the 7 Board said, Mr. Love. It' is delivery in hand to the Board 8 by July the 8th, and we did not receive it until the 10th.
| |
| 9 But that doesn' t really control the issue, but I just want 10 to point that out to you.
| |
| i 11 l MR. LOVE: I would note also that I didn't receive I
| |
| 12 : several other testimonies until well aiter 'that deadline .i i
| |
| 13 also..
| |
| End 4._ 14 l l MS fols. It !
| |
| l! !
| |
| '15 ji ,
| |
| n 16 ll l '
| |
| ili i 17 '
| |
| 18 19 !
| |
| 20 21 ,
| |
| 22 23
| |
| {
| |
| 24 ffal Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 20,922 JUDGE HOYT: Let's see. I believe you have the Sim 5-l' I
| |
| ('~T next witness.
| |
| G' 2 MR. LOVE: I have one other procedural matter I 3
| |
| believe that we haven't addressed.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: All right.
| |
| 5 MR. LOVE: And that is that I have moved or will 6
| |
| at this time formally move into evidence Mr. Robert Morris' deposition due to the fact that he is unavailable during 8
| |
| this week, and I cite as authority for that Federal Rule 9
| |
| f Civil Procedure 45, Chapter 10, Code of Federal Regulations ,
| |
| 10 Section 2.743 (B) which gives Your Honor the discretion to
| |
| ))
| |
| admit this testimony, or I am willing to make an offer of g
| |
| proof under 2.743 (E) as to why this document should be p
| |
| 13 relevant to the proceedings here. n.
| |
| I JUDGE HOYT: You may make your offer of proof if you wish, Mr. Love. The ruling of the Board is, however, g
| |
| as we have indicated before. The statement will not be received into evidence.
| |
| 18 MR. LOVE: I am talking about a deposition of
| |
| )9
| |
| :" Mr. Morris.
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: Of Mr. Morris?
| |
| 21 MR. LOVE: Yes.
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: Oh, I bag your pardon.
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: We don't have that, Mr. Love. You 24
| |
| (~'N2r:1 Reporters, Inc.
| |
| AC
| |
| | |
| 20,923 Sim 5-2 1 Mr. Love, it is required that you produce these
| |
| .[h s-) 2 copies to the Board in two copies for the reco.rd. Do you 3 have the two copies?
| |
| 4 MR. LOVE: I don't, Your Honor, but I will at 5 the end of today's hearing provide you with an additional 6 copy.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Well, we will withhold a ruling 8
| |
| on the admissibility of it until you do have the copies, 9 Mr. Love. It is required by the Rules of the Commission 10 that two copies be submitted.
| |
| 11 MR. LOVE: I apologize for that oversight and 12 I will attempt to correct it as soon as possible. However, 13 I don't believe that matter should affect the material
| |
| (~}
| |
| b 14 issues in the case today.
| |
| 15 JUDGE HOYT: Well, the Board does believe it is 16 material, Mr. Love, and we will withhold ruling on it until 17 such time as you provide the appropriate number of copies.
| |
| 18 All right, any other matters?
| |
| 19 MR. LOVE: No, Your Honor.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Do you wish to call your 21 first witness?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: Yes. I would like to call Major 23 John Case to the stand.
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: Major Case, will you come forward jS Ai , Art! Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 and be sworn, sir.
| |
| | |
| 20,924 Sim 5-3 )
| |
| Whereupon, m
| |
| ) 2 MAJOR JOHN.D. CASE 3
| |
| was called as a witness on behalf of the Intervenor and, 4 having been first duly sworn by Judge Hoyt, was examined 5
| |
| and testified as follows:
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: Please be seated.
| |
| 7 Your witness, Mr. Love.
| |
| g DIRECT EXAMINATION INDEXXXXXXX 9 BY MR. LOVE:
| |
| 10 Q Major Case, I would like to give you a copy of 13 a deposition that was taken on July 1st. Do you recall that i
| |
| l' 12l deposition?
| |
| L 13 A I do.
| |
| ; l j4 l Q Do you also recall making a statement which 1
| |
| 15 y u signed and notarized I believe it was the day after il 16 u the deposition entitled " Statement of Major John D. Case"?
| |
| I l
| |
| j7 A I do.
| |
| 18 O And is this statement true and correct to the 39 best of your knowledge?
| |
| 20 A It is.
| |
| 21 Q And do you wish at this time to make any changes 22 in that statement?-
| |
| 23 A No.
| |
| 24 MR. LOVE: I would move that statement and I Ac r;.! Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 believe the deposition is already a matter of record. So
| |
| | |
| 20,925
| |
| -Sim 5-4 -I would at this time move the statement of Major John Case 1
| |
| () j into the record.
| |
| JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, two points. This state-3 4
| |
| ment as submitted to the Board is not a statement under oath.
| |
| You have represented it to be such, but we do not see any 5
| |
| , affidavit attach'ed to this.
| |
| y MR. LOVE: You are correct, Your Honor. I apologize for that. It was my understanding that'it had 8
| |
| been.
| |
| _9 JUDGE HOYT: The statement that the Board has had 10 j) submitted to it is a multi-page. document of five pages ntaining one with qualifications, two, estimated time 12 of evacuation and, three, bus driver training, and signed
| |
| %.) by Major Case.
| |
| g s dat de statemed dat you han idenMed, 15 16 l
| |
| Major Case, are you with me?
| |
| 7 HE WIMESS: I am sorry.
| |
| 18 j9 JUDGE HOYT: Is the statement that I have just 20 identified, and if you wish me to do so, I will go through it again. It is a multi-page statement containing fivs 21 typewritten pages beginning with the qualifications, No. 2 22 is estimated time of evacuation and, three, is a section 23 24 entitled " Bus Driver Training," and signed by you, John Af bral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| D. Case.
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| 20,926 Sim 5-5 -MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 1 Excuse me, Judge Hoyt, before
| |
| ()
| |
| 2 Mr. Case answers, and I could be wrong.
| |
| - I don't believe the 3 witness has been sworn, or has he?
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: I thought I did. That is all right, 5 Mr. Hassell. I have forgotten to swear them sometimes, too.
| |
| 6 Is that'what you identify as your statement, 7 and have so indicated to counsel, Major Case?
| |
| 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| 10 Any objections?
| |
| 11 MR. CONNER: Subject to examining the two sets 12 ! of documents proffered, which we haven't seen, we have no 13 objection to the documents coming in subject to cross-r-)
| |
| \e .
| |
| 14 examination.
| |
| 15 JUDGE HOYT: By "you haven't seen," do you mean 16 haven't seen the copy that the witness has before him, or 17 you have not received the statement, Mr. Conner?
| |
| 18 MR. CONNER: We have not examined either the 19 copy of the deposition or the copy of the statement tendered 20 to the witness. So subject to examination, we would have 21 no objection.
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: Allright. Mr. Love, beftre you 23 submit anything to the witness for their use in this 24 hearing, will you please submit it to all counsel in this Ac9 ors.! Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 case. If you will retrieve those from the witness and
| |
| | |
| 20,927
| |
| 'Sim 5-6 Present them to counsel for the applicant.
| |
| 1 2 MR. LOVE: . It was my understanding that copies 3 have been made available.
| |
| .4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, can I finish.
| |
| 5 Let me see if I can go back. Would you please 6 retrieve the documents and give them to counsel and let 7 him examine them so that we can make a ruling.
| |
| 8 Mr. Hassell, would you and Mr. Hirsch get over 9 there at that time and examine it at the same time and save 10 a little time.
| |
| 11 MR. HASSELL: I believe I have a copy of the 12 documents.
| |
| (~g 13 MR.' LOVE: All parties have a copy of this
| |
| - \_)
| |
| -14 document.
| |
| 15 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, Mr. Love. Whatever 16 you submit to-the witness and hand to the witness we expect 17 to be shown to counsel for their perusal, and Ms. Ferkin 18 -also,-I would like for the record to reflect, will have an 19 -opportunity to. examine.
| |
| 20 Mr. Love, if the witness intends to~ testify 21 from the-deposition, do you have a copy of it for the 22 Board?
| |
| 23 MR. LOVE: No, I do not have a copy for the i
| |
| j- 24 Board. I believe the Board has a copy. I believe that
| |
| ! Ac c)irti Reporters, Inc.
| |
| -25 yesterday ---
| |
| L________________________.__________________________________
| |
| | |
| 20,928 Sim 5-7 JUDGE HOYT: The Board did not receive a copy.
| |
| 1
| |
| [ j- MR. LOVE: Yesterday I think Mr. Hassell I believe it -was, or someone gave the Board a copy and it was moved into evidence, Major Case's deposition, or maybe it was Mr. Conner. I don't recall. But I know that 5
| |
| Major Case's deposition was moved into evidence yesterday and that a copy was given to the Board.
| |
| MR. HASSELL: Well, let's back up a bit. I believe that a portion of Major Case's deposition had been identified as an exhibit only, but not moved into evidence.
| |
| 10 ^h That-is my recollection. I believe at that time that the Board not having a copy, the staff had an extra copy of the full deposition which was not identified as an b
| |
| " exhibit, and I believe we did provide that copy to the 14 Board at the time. That is my recollection of what happened.
| |
| l JUDGE HOYT: I think you are correct, Mr. Hassell. and that follows along somewhat the same lines as my recollection.
| |
| All right, Mr. Love.
| |
| - Has everybody now had an opportunity to examine the copies that are before the witness?
| |
| Mr. Conner.
| |
| 22 MR. CONNER: We made spot checks of selected pages and it appears to be okay.
| |
| 24 A erd Reporters, Inc. Mr. Conner, I don't want to JUDGE HOYT:
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| m
| |
| , 20.929 (Sim15-8 j . qualify it. I want either'a yes'or I want a no, one way
| |
| 'n r the other.
| |
| T ,1 2 3
| |
| MR. CONNER: Then I will'have to give you a 4 yes.
| |
| 5 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| .6 .Mr. Hassell?
| |
| 7 MR. HASSELL: Yes, I have, Judge Hoyt.
| |
| 8
| |
| . JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch?
| |
| 9 MR. HIRSCH: I will rely on Mr. Hassell's 10 assurance. I didn't personally review the-document,'Your 11 Honor.
| |
| -12 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch, if you make any 13 objections, your reliance upon Mr. Hassell may be misplaced
| |
| .A U and you will be reminded of that at the appropriate ' time.
| |
| 14 15 Ms. Ferkin?
| |
| 16 MS. FERKIN: Judge Hoyt, the Commonwealth is 17 . satisfied with the documents.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. ''
| |
| 19 Now, Mr. Love, can you begin your examination 20 of the witness if there are any corrections, deletions or 21 revisions or additions to this statement.
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: There are no corrections, revisions 23 or deletions ~, and I would move both documents into evidence.
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: No objections being heard, the -
| |
| -A rtl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 statement of Major Case as.previously described will be I
| |
| V
| |
| .e-,__ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| Y 20,930 3
| |
| i Sim 5-9 j received into evidence.
| |
| 1 .
| |
| (The statement of Major John D. Case follows 2
| |
| INDEXXXXXXX 3 together with his deposition.)
| |
| 1
| |
| ^1 4
| |
| '5 6
| |
| 1 7
| |
| L 8
| |
| 2
| |
| -9 i
| |
| 10 11 a
| |
| l C 12 h
| |
| I i 14 i'
| |
| i 15 f i ;
| |
| 1
| |
| ; 16 l t
| |
| i 17
| |
| }
| |
| ! 18 f
| |
| : i. 19 20 1
| |
| 21
| |
| ; 22 t
| |
| 23 i
| |
| 24 i q i Acssrol Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 i
| |
| i j.
| |
| | |
| 4 JD
| |
| ; ls gg Q l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C g Q %~
| |
| V i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOE Y
| |
| l
| |
| . Before the Atomic Safety and Licensthg Board '
| |
| In the Matter of : ;
| |
| ., PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : '
| |
| I(Limerick Generating Station, :
| |
| l Units 1 AND 2) : Dockets No. 50-352, 50-353 ,
| |
| i i STATEMENT OF MAJOR JOHN D. CASE I
| |
| ;I. QUALIFICATIONS ,'
| |
| [ Major John'D. Case hereby incorporates by reference his
| |
| .; curriculum vitae, which has been marked as applicant's Exhibit N"1"duringhisdepositionofJuly1, 1985. I would also like to ,
| |
| l
| |
| . stress the fact that I have served as Brig Commander of LeJeune, .
| |
| .I l! North Carolina, and as the custody officer of the Naval Prison in Port Smouth, New Hampshire during my service in the United
| |
| !i
| |
| ;i States Marine Corps. Both of these jobs are similar to the i
| |
| , civilian position of a prison warden. I would also like to ;
| |
| ' I
| |
| ! stress that I was both warden and director of the Depart- !
| |
| ment of Corrections of Bucks County after I was released from the service. As Director of the Department of Correc-
| |
| .]tions, I was in charge of the adult jail facility, the Bucks -
| |
| ~
| |
| jCountyRehabiliationCenter,onejuvenilehome, and three f half-way houses. I would also like to note for the record !
| |
| that I do have prior experience in moving large numbers of
| |
| (
| |
| 'i individuals as I was in charge of the planning and the even-utal evacuation of 3,000 troops during the Korean Conflict 0 i i
| |
| I 1;
| |
| | |
| i .
| |
| r~w :
| |
| '_' l from the front lines of that conflict to the rear. My plans l
| |
| ('
| |
| called for an evacuation within 4 hours, and this was in fact I
| |
| ; achieved despite adverse weather conditions which prevailed at ,
| |
| s the time. I concluded that my original estimates were con-
| |
| . servative in that they were met despite the adverse conditions. !
| |
| i: i
| |
| !! I also note for the record that I am currently the Field
| |
| ] Director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, which was founded .
| |
| :i
| |
| ] in 1787 by Dr. Benjamin Rush. I a'1'so note that I have'been -
| |
| .i y a trainer and trainee on numerous occasions throughout my
| |
| 't career, which are listed in greater detail in my curriculum vitae.
| |
| ~
| |
| /' l !
| |
| n -) ; .
| |
| l ,
| |
| II. ESTIMATED TIME OF EVACUTION il -
| |
| 1:
| |
| i Iq is my opinion that the overall plan is specula-l il tive based upon a number of contingencies. These contingen- ,
| |
| I i cies include the inmate knowledge and education'of the p1'an, !,
| |
| j time of day of the accident, weather conditions, correc-I tional officer training, inmate response, bus driver training,
| |
| __ traffic patterns, ability to conduct simultaneous tasks men- ,
| |
| tioned in the flow chart, and the availability of the necess- !
| |
| I ary resources. It is my opinion that an equally realistic l
| |
| I estimate of the estimated time of evacuation as it has been presented to me and with the information currently available j i
| |
| rm *
| |
| ( I
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| (
| |
| a
| |
| )
| |
| is 12 to 20 hours. I am also concerned about certain specific items mentioned in the sequential analysis. Initially, I 7
| |
| i would like to discuss the estimated lock down time which is i given as 30 minutes in the flow chart. Given the current i i
| |
| knowledge of the inmate population with respect to the plan, j it is unrealistic to assume a 30 minut4 lock down time could !
| |
| l be achieved. This time is estimated during the best of condi- ,
| |
| !j tions during the normal operation ,of the facility. If the il :
| |
| i' inmate population hears of a nuclear accident through radio or ,
| |
| i j; other means at Limerick and has no concept of the evacuation .
| |
| u !
| |
| plan, the lock down could go as long as 4 or 5 hours. Past ;
| |
| incidents such as the power outage and subsequent riot on l
| |
| / '; J
| |
| ' is' C Block on 9/12/83 suggests this time frame to be appropriatd. -
| |
| ll n.
| |
| ; This incident occurred at 5:15 P.M. and D Block was not secured
| |
| ,li i until 10:05 P.M. The lock down time for the hostage siege
| |
| ! in October of 1981 also took over 2 hours to complete. Based i 1 !
| |
| ll upon my experience being involved in past lock downs and the l l data regarding prior emergency situations at S.C.I.G. leads me L
| |
| jj to believe that a lock down could take as long as 5 hours to complete. i With respect to the portion of the sequential analy-ll sis dealing with the arrival of the buses and other vehicles '
| |
| il
| |
| ( l I
| |
| v
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ~'. .
| |
| J l
| |
| j at the Institution within 2 to 4 hours, I believe this esti-i r^
| |
| \~-
| |
| ; mate may also be too conservative. If the buses are coming l ll. from up to 190 , miles away during a simultaneous evacuation of l
| |
| ! the general public, I do not know if the 2 to 4 hour estimate .
| |
| t l can be achieved. The factors that contributed include the l distance the buses will be required to travel, the training g the bus drivers have received, the weather conditions and the :
| |
| time of day, the congestion of the.. roadways, the ability to
| |
| !i '
| |
| ;; use main roads as opposed to secondary roads, potential bottle l'
| |
| l; necks, the possibility of spontaneous evacuations by individ-i
| |
| : k. uals not conforming to traffic signals and evacuation plans,
| |
| ~
| |
| ,s j and the type of buses to be utilized.
| |
| ( J'
| |
| ) li 1: I have also some concerns as to the ability to conduct the other activities mentioned such as the mobiliza-
| |
| ;; tion of manpower, assembly of loading teams, securing and ,
| |
| ,; loading inmates, and vehicle exit times; within the suggested h time frames. Eue to the obvious need to conduct many of these q ,
| |
| c activities simultaneously, the time estimates are speculative. i Q
| |
| I: -
| |
| E With a more thorough knowledge of the mechanics of the plan ,
| |
| t l
| |
| by someone such as Superintendent Zimmerman or another indivi- !
| |
| dual who has knowledge of the development of the time frames, ;
| |
| I it may be possible to achieve these tasks within the required I
| |
| ( l time. Today, however, without any additional knowledge, I ,
| |
| o
| |
| _.]
| |
| | |
| w-
| |
| , cannot state that these tasks can be performed with any reason-l able certainty within the time frame suggested.
| |
| () ,
| |
| l III. BUS DRIVER. TRAINING '
| |
| l l
| |
| il With respect to bus driver training, my concern i
| |
| j is to the guarantee that such training will in fact be offered ;
| |
| :: to the drivers and other civilian personnel. I believe there ;
| |
| I h
| |
| il is a need for an incentive to be offered in order to guarantee
| |
| ;! participation of the civilian personnel in said training. To t
| |
| i t :
| |
| i; date, no such incentive has been offered. Such possible h
| |
| li incentives should include primarily financial inducement such *
| |
| 'I ,
| |
| as overtime or extra pay for paiticipation in the training. !
| |
| /") !! i i (_/
| |
| 1 o
| |
| This would insure that all training would in fact occur. I
| |
| [ also believe that whatever type of training should also be j
| |
| offered on an ongoing basis and not as a once-only event. !
| |
| i I $
| |
| e '
| |
| t I' :
| |
| i i l ,S s I j' .#/ 9 l
| |
| Yh ? #~ .M
| |
| ! MAJOR JOHN CASE l /
| |
| !! i il I d
| |
| I 1
| |
| ( 11 i i
| |
| i O
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| L: s.
| |
| 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULTORY COMMISSION 3 ------------------------------X 4 In the matter of: :
| |
| b 5 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC C OM PA NY : Docket Nos. 50-352-OL
| |
| : 50-353-OL 6 (Limerick Generating Station, :
| |
| Units 1 and 2) :
| |
| 7
| |
| ------------------------------X 8
| |
| Philadelphia, PA, July 1, 1985 9
| |
| 10 Pretrial Ex am ina ti on' o f JOHN D. CASE 11 held in the offices of Wolf, Block, Schorr &
| |
| 12 Solis-Cohen, Packard Building, 12th Floor, at 1:25 13 p.m. on the above date before Janet E. Jameson, a 14 Registered Professional Reporter and Fo reig n 15 Commissioner of Deeds of the Commonwealth of 16 Pennsylvania.
| |
| 17 ------
| |
| 18 19 20 21 ,
| |
| 22
| |
| ( 23 FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
| |
| 24 1800 Architects Building -
| |
| 117 S. 17th St.
| |
| (^') Philadelphia, PA 19103 25 (215) 567-2670 FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| 4 I^ a-2 e .
| |
| 1 APPEARANCES:
| |
| 2 CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
| |
| BY: TROY B. CONNER, JR., ESQ.
| |
| 3 ROBERT N. RADER, ESQ.
| |
| , (1747 Pennsylvania Av-enue, N.W. #
| |
| . g3 4 Washington, D.C. 20006)
| |
| . dY Attorneys for Philadelphia Electric
| |
| ,-5 Company 6 DONALD F. HASSELL, ESO.
| |
| NATHENE A. WRIGHT, ESQ.
| |
| 7 (Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D.C. 20555) t Attorneys for Nuclear Reg ula tory 9 Commission Staff 10 THEODORE G. OTTO, II5", ESO.
| |
| (P.O. Box 598 j 11 Camp Hill, PA 17011)
| |
| Attorney for Pennsylvania Bureau of
| |
| . 12 Correction 13 ZORI G. FERKIN, ESQ.
| |
| f ''
| |
| (Governor's Energy Council 14 1625 Front Street
| |
| ; Harrisburg, PA 17105) 15 Attorney for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 16 ANGUS R. LOVE, ESQ.
| |
| (Mo n tg om er y County Legal Aid Service 17 107 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401) 18 Attorney for Prisoners of Graterford Prison 19 PRESENT:
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 ROBERT T. BRADSHAW 21 JOHN H. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
| |
| 1 22.
| |
| i c. ROBERT D. KLIMM ki 23 JAMES ASHER 24 l () RICHARD KINARD 9
| |
| FQsTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| -, , .,. - - . . _ , _ . . . _ _ . . . - . . , , , _ _ _ ~ . . . . . . _ . _ , . _ _ _ . . - _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _.. m, _ _. . . . - . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . , _ _ _ _ . , . _
| |
| | |
| 3 1 INDEX
| |
| (~' ;.
| |
| -\ 2 WITNESS PA GE
| |
| ~3 JOHN D. CASE
| |
| ,_t 4 By Mr. Conner 6 5 By Mr. Otto 59 ,
| |
| 6 By Ms. Ferkin 60 7 By Mr. Hassell 61 8 By Mr . Lov e 61 9
| |
| 10 '
| |
| 11 A P PL IC A!!T ' S EXHIBITS 12 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 13 1 vita 68 14 2 Appe nd ix 68 11 5 3 Le t te r , 6/27/85, to Love from Otto 68 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 25 FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERYlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| 4 1 MR. CONNER: We would note that all
| |
| ) 2 counsel have given their names and addresses to the 3 court reporter prior to the beginning of this 4 deposition. This deposition is taken at the request 5 of the applicant, the Philad elphi a Electric Company, 6 of Mr. John Case, perspective. witness for the 7 prisoners of Graterford Prison, who have been 8 allowed to intervene in this proceeding.
| |
| 9 We would propose to proceed as we 10 have normally done in Nuclear Reg ulh tory Commission 11 depositions whereby I would start by asking you 12 various questions and then counsel for the parties
| |
| ,7 13 representing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, 0(>
| |
| 14 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including both 15 PEMA and the Bureau of Correction, would then ask 16 questions, followed, of course, by your counsel, Mr.
| |
| 17 Love, for whatever purpose. But as you may or may 18 not know, this is more or less backwards of what you 19 do at an evidentiary hearing. That's why we would 20 start out.
| |
| 21 The purpose of the deposition, as I'm. .
| |
| 22 sure you know, is to determine what testimony you i
| |
| (. 23 would propose to give at the evid entiary hearing and 24 what qualifications and so forth you have to offer O 25 such t e s t im on y .
| |
| FCSTER Court REPomflNG SERvlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| '~
| |
| 5 I 1 I would first ask Mr. Love, as I
| |
| ) 2 recall the colloquy between you and Mr. Radbr last ,
| |
| l 3 week, you were to let us know by the 27th, I think )
| |
| 4 it was, as to whether or not Mr. Case would be C., ;j.
| |
| e 5 offered as a witness on the tr.aining issue.
| |
| 6 MR. LOVE: I had several colloquys 7 with Mr. Rader last week, none of which were very 8 helpful. That statement was dependent upon me 9 receiving certain materials by mid week of last week, 10 which I had a tentative underst ndihg with Miss 11 Ferkin that I would receive.
| |
| 12 I d id not receive the materials in 13 hand until Thursday, the 27th, and I had one 6
| |
| 14 discussion with Mr. Rader. He had told me he would
| |
| , 15 get back to me on Friday, the 28th. He never called 16 back, so I had ne further discussions with him. But ..
| |
| 17 Mr. Case will be making a few short remarks with 18 respect to training.
| |
| 19 MR. CONNER: Do you propose to offer 20 him as a witness on the training issue before the 21 NRC Licensing Board?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: That is correct, sir. And, 23 of course, the estimated time of evacuation issue.
| |
| 24 MR. CONNER: Yes.
| |
| . (Z) 25 ------
| |
| FOSTER CCURT 4EPORTING SERVfCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| 6 1 ... JOHN D. CASE, having been duly
| |
| , (] '
| |
| (s 2 sworn, was examined and testified as f ollo ws :
| |
| 3 BY MR. CONNER:
| |
| 7) 4 0.. Sir, do you prefer to be called Maj or or Mr.
| |
| 5 Jo,hn Case?
| |
| 6 A. Major.
| |
| 7 Q. Major Case, do you have a curriculum vitae or 8 anything with you? It might save us a lot of time.
| |
| 9 MR. LOVE: For the record, I wo uld -
| |
| 10 note that his vitae was attached to'an earlier 11 motion of mine when we were discussing the issue of 12 disclosure.
| |
| 13 A. Th a t ' s up to date through '84.
| |
| 14 Q. Tha t's through the end of
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 A. '84.
| |
| 16 MR. CONNER: I would request that 17 this-document entitled " Vita, John D. Case" be 18 marked as Applicant's Ex hib i t No. 1 for the Case 19 deposition. It consists of seven pages, typewritten,
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 and we will obtain copies later for you to put it 21 with the transcript.
| |
| 22 Q. Sir, what. year were you born?
| |
| (-. 23 A. 1922.
| |
| 24 Q. And your vitae, sir, does not, unless I have O 25 missed it here -- sir, where d id you attend high FOSTER COURT REPORTING SCRVICE, INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. COOO 7 1 school before you went to Fordham?
| |
| () 2 A. I went to Aldine High School in Cold Spr ig ,
| |
| 3 New York.
| |
| 4 Q. And you graduated from there in 19407 5 A. 1940, yes.
| |
| 6 Q. Then you attended Fordham University for two 7 years, and then enlisted in the Marine Corps?
| |
| 8 A. That's correct.
| |
| 9 Q. And for your f o rm al education during your 10 Marine Corps career you attended Fordham University 11 and George Wa s h i ng to n College or University?
| |
| 12 A. University.
| |
| , 13 Q. George Washington Un iv er si ty in Washington, iv -
| |
| 14 D.C.?
| |
| 15 A. Yes.
| |
| 16 Q. But you d id not get a d eg ree .
| |
| 17 A. I d id not.
| |
| 18 Q. What course, academic studies d id you follow in 19 college?
| |
| 20 A. Well, pr im a r il y it was a Bachelor of Arts 21 degree.
| |
| 22 Q. Did you have any courses directly relating to
| |
| ( 23 penology?
| |
| 24 A. Yes. At American University I attended the
| |
| ' O 25 Institute of Correctional Administration, which was FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. CGGO 8 1 a two-month sort of a postgraduate course in
| |
| ) 2 training people to be correctionai a dra i n i s t r a t o r s .
| |
| 3 Q. I'm sorry, sir. Was that --
| |
| you said American g 4 University. I gather that was after --
| |
| L.
| |
| 5 A. In Wa shi ng ton , D.C.
| |
| 6 Q. Was that part of your f o rm al ed uc a ti o n that you 7 referred to on the last page here of your vitae?
| |
| 8 A. No, I don't think so. I don't know that that's 9 mentioned there. It's probably mentioned somewhere 10 else in there as part o f my education and training.
| |
| 11 Q. Just limiting to yo 't studies at Fordham and 12 George Wa shi ng to n University, d id you have any 13 cources in penology or --
| |
| 14 A. At that t im e when I was in college at Fordham?
| |
| 15 Q. Yes.
| |
| 16 A. No.
| |
| 17 Q. Or at George Wa shi ng to n University in 18 Wa shing ton .
| |
| 19 A. No.
| |
| 20 Q. How about evacuation studies of any kind?
| |
| 21 A. Well, I don' t know that those things existed in 22 college. I certainly had that kind of work and
| |
| (, 23 training in the Marine Corps.
| |
| 24 Q. Did you have any courses in dem og raphy or .
| |
| }
| |
| 25 geography or matters of that type as part of your FOSTEP COURT REPORflNC SCRV)CC, $NC.
| |
| | |
| .- i i John D. COGe 9 1 formal college education?
| |
| O I O ~2 A. No.
| |
| 3 Q. Sir, how long were you in the Marine Corps?
| |
| -(; 4 What year did you leave?
| |
| o . 5 A. Ap pr o x im a t el y 21 years.
| |
| m-6 -Q. . What year d id you leave the Marine Corps?
| |
| I 7 A. I left the Marine Corps in December 28, 1962.
| |
| 8 Q. Withs the rank of major.
| |
| 9 A. Yes.
| |
| 10 Q. D id you retire?
| |
| 11 A. I retired, yes.
| |
| 12 0 Is that when yo u became the head of the Bucks
| |
| ,/^% 13 County Department of Corrections?
| |
| *O~
| |
| 14 A. Correct. Warden of the Bucks County Prison.
| |
| 15 Q. And that was frer. 1963, I would guess --
| |
| 1
| |
| ] . 16 A'. To January of '77. December '62 to January '77.
| |
| 17 Q. Did n' t even take a break.
| |
| 18 A. No. The old wa rd e n had died unexpectedly.
| |
| l 19 Q. N w, sir, tell me again, you were the warden of I -_
| |
| 20 the Bucks Co un ty ' Pr i so n?
| |
| 21 A. I was the warden of the Bucks County Prison, 22 and then in 1969 they formed the De pa r tm en t of r.,
| |
| 23 Corrections and rI also became the director of the 24 Department of Corrections.
| |
| 25 Q. Tha t's what I want to get clear. In yo ur mind resYtm COUnf atPORTING stavlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| l '
| |
| John D. Coco 10 1 is there any distinction between a prison and a jail?
| |
| () 2 A. Only in Pennsylvania.
| |
| 3 Q. Would you explain that for the record.
| |
| () 4 A. Well, for some reason some of the jails --
| |
| the
| |
| - 5 older jails have been called prisons for years, and
| |
| ( 6 generally i t's a term used for the larger prisons.
| |
| 7 But it's a jail. Whatever you call it, it's a jail.
| |
| k 8 Q. If I lapse into s a y i ng Bucks County Jail, then 9 we all understand?
| |
| 10 A. Tha t's okay. I understand that.
| |
| 11 Q. I want to make sure there wasn't some 12 distinction that m ig h t be of some im po r t a nce .
| |
| 13 e,( }
| |
| Do I u.n d e r s t a n d correctly that the 14 Bucks County J a il was rebuilt or something d ur i ng 15 your tenure? l 16 A. No. In 1964 we opened a minimum institution 17 called the Bucks County Rehabflitation Center.
| |
| 18 Q. Has the Bucks Coun ty j ail or prison been 19 rebuilt or anything in the last several years?
| |
| 20 A. The new jail just opened last month.
| |
| 21 Q. Tha t's what I want to make sure. And you were .
| |
| 22 not associated with it.
| |
| 23 A. No, I had nothing to do with it.
| |
| rm, 24 Q. What was the size of the old Bucks Prison that V
| |
| 25 you were the warden of in t e rm s of number of inmates FOSTCR CQWRT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. CC00 11 1 and so forth?
| |
| [/
| |
| s_ 2 A. It was originally built to house 48, I think, 3 inmates, but actually at the time I left the prison (g 4 housed approximately 150 inmates, and the 5 r e h ab il i,t a t i o n center had about 100. I also ran the 6 juvenile detention home and three halfway houses, 7 and they had about maybe 35 to 40 juveniles in those 8 institutions.
| |
| 9 Q. While we ' re into this we may as well to be j
| |
| )
| |
| 10 informal, d id the Bucks County Prison have an l 11 evacuation plan during your tenure?
| |
| 12 A. A fire evacuation plan, yes.
| |
| 13 Q'. There was some question about that e'a r l i e r on
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 and I just want to es tablish d id you have an 15 evacuation plan?
| |
| 16 A. Yes.
| |
| 17 Q. Did you ev er ,im pl em en t it?
| |
| t 18 A. Only in the sense of having drills to move the 19 inmates out into the yard within the prison, but 20 never outside of the wall.
| |
| {
| |
| 21 Q. You never put them on buses and took them 22 elsewhere.
| |
| 23 A. Oh, no. We had no reason to.
| |
| s 24 Q. Sure. How o f ten d id you have these drills?
| |
| 25 A. Monthly.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. BNC.
| |
| | |
| John D. C000 12 1 Q. Did you have the same type of emergency plan
| |
| () 2 for the other two institutions?
| |
| 3 A. Yes.
| |
| g 4 Q. Did you work in any way with the Comm onwe al th 5 of Pennsylvania in these em e rg e ncy plans? I 6 A. No; except that the Commonwealth of 7 Pennsylvania in s pec t ed the prison and rehabilitation 8 center --
| |
| ( 9 (Mr. Asher and Mr. Kinard entered the 10 conference room) .
| |
| 11 0 I'm sorry, sir. I d id n ' t mean to interrupt you.
| |
| 12 A. Only in the sense that the Commonwealth of f
| |
| ( 13 Pennsylvania and the then Bureau of Correction 14 i n s p ec t ed the prison and the rehabilitation center.
| |
| 15 The De pa r tm en t of Welfare inspected the youth center
| |
| ( 16 or j uvenile detention home and the halfway houses 17 for juveniles. Your question was d id I work with i
| |
| 18 them, and only in that they came in and they looked
| |
| : i. 19 to see that you had done it and yo u had these kind 20 of things in place.
| |
| 21 Q. But was this part of the emergency plan or was .
| |
| 22 that just what they did routinely as part of the
| |
| -- 23 normal duties?
| |
| 24 A. Oh, no. They d id that routinely.
| |
| 25 O. Did you have any special relationship with the FCSTER COURT REPCRTING SERVICC. INC.
| |
| | |
| , John D. Case 13 1.,
| |
| 1 state police to assist you in any of these drills?
| |
| i 2 A. No. .
| |
| 3 Q. How many deputies or police officers or guards,
| |
| .{;
| |
| 4 whatever the proper title was, d id you have 5 available at the prison?
| |
| 6 A. Corrections officers would be the proper title. ;
| |
| 7 And I suppose at that time between the three j 8 institutions corrections officers and j uvenile 9 workers we probably had about 80 all told.
| |
| ; 10 Q. Sir, let's continue a little bit on your 11 background and experience. You went in to the Marine [
| |
| 12 Corps in 1942, then your curriculum vitae picks up i i
| |
| 13 in 1948. Would you just brie fly describe what you 14 were doing between '42 and '48 without describing '
| |
| 15 World War II.
| |
| 16 A. Th a t ' s what I was doing. I was an infantry [
| |
| ! 17 officer. First of all, I enlisted --
| |
| I was an 18 enlisted man and.then I was an infantry officer.
| |
| 19 And I guess it picks up in 1948 because tha t's 20 probably when I went to school or something, I 21 suppose. But I just, you know, d id the n o rm al 22 things you do in the Marine Corps. I went to war p
| |
| '\.
| |
| 23 and I was a c om p a n y commander, that kind of thing.
| |
| 1 24 Q. Be t we e n 1948 and 1950 you described yourself as l 25 a custody officer, naval prison, Portsmouth, New l l
| |
| FOSTER court REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| l
| |
| .- , . - . - . . - - - ~ , - - , , . , . . . . . , - . - , - . - - - - . - - , - - - - - - , - , - , . , , . . , , .-
| |
| | |
| John D. Ccco 14 4
| |
| 1 Ham psh i r e .
| |
| \J 2 A. I was the custody officer at the Port of New 3 H am p s h i r e Prison. Port of New H am p s h i r e at that
| |
| (; 4 t im e was a f airly maj or institution with about 1,500
| |
| . 5 i nma tes . The c us tody of ficer is the equivalent to 6 the deputy warden for security in a state or federal 7 institution.
| |
| 8 Q. Now, perhaps it's in the these reven pages, but 9 I do not r em emb e r ; what particular qualifications 10 did you have that qualified them to' g iv e you that 11 MOS number, or whatever it is in the Marine Corps?
| |
| 12 A. I was sent up there because I had an additional 13 MOS as a rehabilitation officer, which had nothing 14 to do with corrections and had to do with helping to 15 rehab ili ta te marines back into c iv ili an life. And 16 when I got up there, the colonel looked at me and he 17 sa id , "Yo u' re too b ig to be a rehabilitation officer.
| |
| 18 You're going to be the cus tody o f ficer ." So tha t's 19 how I became a cus tod y o f ficer .
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 Q. Did you have any formal training in pe nol og y?
| |
| 21 A. At that time, none whatsoever.
| |
| 22 Q. It's blank here between '50 and '54. I assume
| |
| '- 23 you were just d o i ng routine marine duties?
| |
| 73 24 A. I was in Korea.
| |
| d 25 Q. And then you pick up again in 1954 to '57 as an FOSTER COJ RT R EPORT3NG SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| 1 John D. Coco 15 l'
| |
| 1 in st r uc to r at the Marine Corps command staff school
| |
| ()
| |
| i ,--
| |
| 2 of Quantico. Does that relate in any way to what 3 I'm loosely calling penol og y, for lack of a better.
| |
| ? 4 word?
| |
| . {v ,
| |
| 5 A. No. .
| |
| 6 Q. Then there's no t im e g iv en between '57 and '60.
| |
| 7 What were you doing in that period?
| |
| 8 A. I was the command ing officer of the 9 h e ad q u a r t er s battalion of the S e c o nd Marine Division 10 at Cam p LeJuene.
| |
| 11 Q. And that had nothing particularly to do with --
| |
| 12 A. No. -
| |
| - 13 Q. Okay. '60 to '62 you.were brig officer, Marine 5s,) .
| |
| 14 Corps base F. t Camp LeJuene. What does a b r ig 15 officer d o?
| |
| 16 A. It's equivalent of the warden in c iv il ia n 17 prison.
| |
| 18 Q. Is there any meaning ful d istinc tion between a 19 c u s t od y officer and a brig officer?
| |
| 20 A. It was just a matter of title. Back in '48 21 they used that as the title. You were in charge of 22' custody. That was it.
| |
| 23 Q. Did you have any particular qualifications that i
| |
| 24 caused you to be selected for that post?
| |
| () 25 A. No; except that I had been up at the naval FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Ca00 16 1 prison in Po r tsm ou th and had a tour of duty working
| |
| () 2 up there, and when the general d ec id ed he wanted me 3 to be the brig officer, I b ec am e the brig officer.
| |
| 4 Q. So you had in the Marine Corps two a s s ig nm en ts ,
| |
| 5 if you will, which relate to what I,am calling 6 penology, which we have just d e sc r ib ed . Then how 7 did you happen to become warden of the Bucks Prison 8 as soon as you left the Marine Corps?
| |
| 9 A. Well, I had d ec id ed that I had two possible 10 c iv ili an careers based on my backg ro und. I could 11 run a rifle range or perhaps I could run a prison.
| |
| 12 So I sent out resumes to various places and I was 13 interviewed by the prison board in Bucks County and 3
| |
| .V 14 they appointed me as the warden. There weren' t many 15 rifle ranges in c iv il ian life that I could look for 16 a job. There were a lot of prisons.
| |
| 17 0 Other than these two tours of duty that we have 18 just d i sc u s s ed had you up until the December of 1962 19 had any formal training in penology again?
| |
| 20 A. Well, I had been sent by the Marine Corps to 21 that t wo- m o n th course at Am e r ic a n Un iv er si ty that I 22 spoke about, and al so to a course at --
| |
| I forget. I
| |
| (._ 23 think it was in Fort Gordon, Georgia. It was a 24 short course, maybe two or three weeks on pe nol og y V 25 or on running a b rig , running a s tockad e.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 17
| |
| ~1 Q. That was what, in January of 1962, correctional f'%
| |
| s/ 2 administration course, Class No. 1, Fort Gordon, 3 Georgia?
| |
| {} 4 A. Yes, tha t's it.
| |
| , 5 Q. And that was followed in the same year by the 6 American University course.
| |
| 7 A. Th a t ' s correct.
| |
| 8 Q. Now, after yo u had become warden of the Bucks 9 Prison, co uld you briefly de scr ibe what f o rm al 10 training ycu.had in penology, with iny emphasis 11 there might be on the areas of evacuation.
| |
| 12 A. There were none that wo ul d relate to the areas -
| |
| , 13 of ev ac ua tion per se.
| |
| ~
| |
| 14 Q. How about penology in general?
| |
| 15 A. Well, I a ttend ed many workshops and courses, as 16 you can see there, of short d ur a tio n , anywhere from, 17 you know, three days to a week or so throughout that 18 period of t im e in various aspects of corrections.
| |
| 19 Q. You list several published articles. Were 20 these all wr i t te n by you alone or were they at 21 s em in a r s or combination articles?
| |
| 22 A. Most of them were written by me alone. I think
| |
| ( --
| |
| 23 probably all those that are listed there were 24 written by me alone.
| |
| 25 O. Tha t' s fine. Now, you have listed co n s ul ta n t FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 18 1 experience and s tud ie s o f almost a page counting the
| |
| ()
| |
| \> 2 special proj ects . Did any of these involve 3 ev acua tio n of prisoners in energ ency cond itions?
| |
| . {j 4 A. No.
| |
| 5 O. Sir, what is the Pennsylvania Pr i so n . So c ie ty?
| |
| 6 A. The Pennsylvania Prison Suciety was fo und ed in 7 1787 by Benj am in Fr an kl in and Dr . Benjamin Rush, one 8 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
| |
| 9 It wa s at that t im e called the Philadelphia Society 10 for the Alleviation of the Miseries'of Public 11 Prisone, and 100 years later they chang ed the n am e 12 to the Pennsylvania Prison Society.
| |
| 13 We are still concerned about o
| |
| 14 all ev ia ti ng the misery of public prisons. Tha t's 15 part o f wha t we do. We're concerned wi th better 16 corrections. We are c o nc er n ed with, you know, not 17 just prison conditions per se, but we're concerned 18 that the officers receive decent salaries and good 19 training.
| |
| 20 We're concerned that the standards 21 that exist either by law of the state or s ta nd a rd s ,
| |
| 22 of s uc h b od ie s as the Am er ic a n Correctional
| |
| .c 23 Association and Am e r ic an Med ic al Association are 24 followed within the State of Pennsylvania.
| |
| 25 Q. Does the interest or scope of the work of this FOSTER CCURT REPORTING SERVICE. lNC,
| |
| | |
| John D. Caso 19 1 society cover all penal institutions in Pennsylvania f')s
| |
| ( 2 operated by the state or counties?
| |
| 3 A. All in Pennsylvania except the f ed er al p
| |
| u..
| |
| 4 institution, 5 Q. What do you do as field d ir ec to r? .
| |
| 6 A. My j ob is to set up branches of the society 7 thr o ug ho u t the state as its field d ir ec to r ; to train 8 v ol un te er s and to designate them as official 9 visitors. By virtue of an old law we have the r ig ht 10 to go into any prison a nd talk o any prisoner 11 pr iv a tely . So that we have -- we have official 12 visitors, which is our designation for the people 13 who are able to go in and do that.
| |
| ?,
| |
| 14 Q. When you said " we , " I just want to pin that 15 down.
| |
| 16 A. I mean the Pennsylvania Prison So c ie ty .
| |
| 17 Q. A member of the Pennsylvania Prison Society.
| |
| 18 A. A member who is d esig na ted by us as an official 19 visitor. Not all m embers are g iv en the card that 20 pe rm i t s them to go in and do that because we don' t 21 want ev er yb od y with a card being able to just wal k 22 in an institution.
| |
| ( 23 Q. Th a t' s interesting, but I d on' t think very 24 relevant here.
| |
| O 25 A. Probably not, no.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING 3CRVICE, INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 20 1 Q. So I'll go on. Yo ur work as field d ir ec to r ,
| |
| 2 does it have anything to do with em e rg e nc y planning .
| |
| 3 or evacuation of prisoners in any Pe nn s ylv an ia 4 institution?
| |
| 5 A. No.
| |
| 6 Q. In that capacity as field d ir ec to r have you had 7 any special courses which relate to em e rg e nc y 8 planning or evacuation of prisoners? -
| |
| 9 A. No.
| |
| 10 Q. You listed roug hly a page and 'a half as under t
| |
| 11 the heading ex pert witness." Does any of the
| |
| ' 12 t e s tim o ny listed in these various cases or 13 appearances r ela te to em e rg e nc y planning or 14 ev ac ua tio n?
| |
| 15 A. No.
| |
| 16 Q. Sir, have you had any training in relation to 17 r ad i ol og y or r ad ia t ion ex po s ur e or an yt h i ng of that 18 nature?
| |
| 19 A. Only in the Marine Corps, very briefly I 20 a t t e nd ed some courses on the tac tic al use of a t om ic
| |
| -21 weapons. That-was a long tim e ago.
| |
| 22 Q. Sir, are you f amiliar with the document I'm p
| |
| % 23 holding i n my hand and displaying to yo u e n ti tl ed :
| |
| 24 " Criteria for Preparation a nd Evaluation of V 25 Rad iol og ic al Em e r g en c y Response Plans" and " prepared FOSTER COURT REPCRTING SERylCE. INC.
| |
| r- y -- - .m,%ry, . , c,w .- r-y.-- . , _ - _ - c--. - . , < ,-.-- ,,--,----,.e-
| |
| | |
| - ~_
| |
| John D. Case 21 1 in support of nuclear power plants" known generally 2 as N UREG -0 6 54 ?
| |
| 3 A. Yes, I have b r ie fl y r ev ie wed that.
| |
| .; 3 4 Q. If you want to look at that, you may.
| |
| w' 5 A. I know what it ,i s .
| |
| 6 Q. When d id you first look at this?
| |
| , A. Last week.
| |
| 8 Q. Did you look at it in relation to your proposed 9 testimony in this pr oc e ed i ng ?
| |
| 10 A. Yes, I did.
| |
| 11 Q. Where d id you get the book?
| |
| 12 A. From Mr. Love.
| |
| f 13 Q. And what d id he tell yo u he wa s g iv ing it to C\
| |
| 14 you for?
| |
| 15 A. Well, he explained to me that this was the w
| |
| 16 criteria that was used for pr ov id i ng em e rg e nc y 17 response planning and he wa n ted me to look at it.
| |
| 18 And he gave me a copy of the -- I guess i t's the ETA 19 appe nd ix wi thi n there that I also reviewed.
| |
| ~~-
| |
| 20 Q. Wo uld you d e scr ibe the a ppe nd ix yo u' re t al k i ng 21 about.
| |
| 22 A. Appe nd i x 4.
| |
| (.. 23 Q. Ho w d id you use this d oc um en t in the week since 24 you first saw it?
| |
| O 25 A. Well, actually I reviewed it and determined FO$TER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caso 22 1 that really the only part of it that se em s to fh
| |
| 'l .
| |
| 2 pertain to this case is Paragraph C on Pag e 4 -3, 3 special f acility po pul a tio ns.
| |
| .(; 4 Q. Do you have any comment you care to make on
| |
| ,5 that particular Paragraph C, which only consists of 6 three sentences?
| |
| 7 A. Well, there are other parts of it obviously 8 that apply, but this i s -- I mean, this was the main 9 issue here is that yo u' re d ealing with a special 10 facility population, and that has to be done on an 11 institutional basis. Yo u d on' t set up a plan that 12 covers the whole zone, the w-h o l e area and all the f^3 13 people in it. You h av e to plan for thi s ,ind iv id ual et/ -
| |
| 14 population, which, of course, is a very s pec i ali red 15 population when yo u' re talking about a prison.
| |
| 16 Q. Sir, I think you sa id you have to read this in 17 conj unc tion wi th o ther parts of the document. Can 18 you be more specific as to what other parts yo u' r e 19 tal ki ng about.
| |
| 20 A. Well, some of them, the things that I've 21 und e rl in ed here are that you have to note your 22 special facilities on your maps. You have to have a e,
| |
| " '? -
| |
| 23 c om pl e t e r ev ie w of the road network. You have to 24 make an analysis of travel t im e and the potential 25 location for s er io us congestion in potential FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cane 23 1 co r r id o r s . And the method for c om pu ti ng total
| |
| ]) 2 evacuation time has to be s pec i f i ed , and the 3 s im pl e s t approach is to a s s um e that events are 3 4 sequential. And i t's from l oo ki ng at the flow chart
| |
| . .j 5 I gather that tha t' s the approach that was used in 6 this plan.
| |
| 7 Q. Sir, you are referring to a d oc um en t . What is 8 that document?
| |
| 9 A. The s am e one we just d iscussed , Ap pe nd ix 4.
| |
| 10 Q. I see. You have a separate copy of it. I just 11 want to make sure we ' r e talking about the sam e thing.
| |
| 12 MR. HASSELL: He has al so referred, I 13 believe, to a fl ow chart.
| |
| 14 A. And the flow chart, State Correctional 15 Institution of Graterford fl ow chart, RERP 16 Evacuation, which is this document.
| |
| 17 Q. Yo u' re referring to this top pag e o f fiv e- od d 18 pages?
| |
| 19 A. Th a t' s correct.
| |
| 20 MR. CONNER: We better mark this as 21 Ap pl ic an t' s Ex h ib i t 2, Case deposition, s im pl y to 22 keep track of it.
| |
| g
| |
| (- 23 Q. Since yo u have identified this, have yo u mad e 24 any c om pa r i s o n between Appl ic an t's Exhibit 2 and the 25 NUREG-0654?
| |
| rosren count acroariNG SEnVICC. IN .
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| John D. Caso 24 1 A. Well, they all, of c our se , are spec ul a tiv e in
| |
| ) 2 that if yo u . ta ke the a pplican t's , we' re t al k i ng 3 about se que n ti al tim e s , but we also are talking
| |
| (? s 4 about e s t im a t ed times. We' re sa ying , for ex am ple ,
| |
| , 5 that the l oc kd own is going to take 30 minutes and l
| |
| l 6 the population count can take 30 minutes. And I
| |
| ! 7 would assume that tha t' s based on the ex pe r ienc e of 8 the institution and how long it takes to lock
| |
| ; 9 Gr a ter fo rd down, how l o ng it takes to count the l 10 population.
| |
| 11 I can see that hav ing some variables.
| |
| 12 If yo u' v e got ev er yb od y locked up al r e ad y and this 13 happens at 3 o' clock in the morning, yo u' re not
| |
| : 14. g o i ng to need 30 minutes. If yo u' ve go t ev er yb od y 15 out of their cells and they' re out in the yard and 16 it happens at 3 o' clock in the afternoon and the 17 MA's have r ad io s on to indicate to them that 18 something has happened that m ig ht affect them, then 19 it m ig ht take some tim e l ong er than 30 minutes.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 Q. How long?
| |
| 21- A. I have no wa y o f d etermin ing this because i t' s .
| |
| 22 a g ue s s tima te . This is really in a sense a c
| |
| U- 23 gue s s t im a te because i t' s based on what happens in 24 no rm al c o nd i t ion . . No w , in ab no rm al conditions 25 there's no assurance that yo u' re g oing to do it in FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D.'Ca00 25 1 30 minutes. I'm not saying you wo n' t; I'm just 2 sa yi ng this is not h amm er ed in b ron ze .
| |
| 3 0 Sir, what I'm getting at here is yo u' ve b een in
| |
| {}; 4 penal work, wha t ev er that may mean, in Pennsylvania
| |
| =
| |
| 5 for 23-odd ye ar s . Have you ever seen a l o c kd o wn at 6 Gra ter fo rd?
| |
| 7 A. Ye s ; at the n av al pr i so n in Po r t sm o ut h and at 8 m y o wn institution. But what I'm trying to get 9 across is tha t not just using this a ppend ix as an 10 ex am ple , but you asked the question'what is the -
| |
| 11 c om pa r i s o n between this and Ap pe nd ix 4.
| |
| 12 For ex am ple , you have in here or in j eg 13 the letter that was a covering letter for this, I O
| |
| 14 believe, that there's a 190-m il e distance from the 15 state correctional institution at Gr a ter fo rd . This 16 is a letter to Mr. Love of June 27 from Mr. Otto.
| |
| 17 And on the second page it shows the 18 buses will be c om i ng from within a 19 0-m il e distance 19 from the s ta te c orrec tio nal institution at
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 Gr a ter fo rd . And then it sa ys that the vehicles are 21 going to be a r r iv ing b e twe en two and four hours, on 22 adverse co nd i t io ns fo ur to six hours. So I question 23 whether they can do it in 190 mil es .
| |
| 24 Q. Le t me go back just to this l oc kd o wn time.
| |
| 25 Given your experience and fir s thand kn o wl ed g e of how FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 26 1 this works and what I assume to be your sort of f~
| |
| 2 worse case e s t im a te when everybody was out in the 3 yard, I think you said, what would you estimate as 4 to be a m ax im um time that m ig ht be required?
| |
| {w.?+
| |
| 5 A. I think that would depend entirely upon how 6 well in f o rm ed the i nm a t es were as to what was going 7 to happen to them in the event that if the pl um e 8 were c om i ng the ir way, that they a he ad of time had 9 been advised as to what was going to happen. And if 10 they ex pec ted that, then you could do it in 30 11 minutes.
| |
| 12 If they had been well educated by the je') 13 authorities, by Superintendent Z imm e rm an and the t \j 14 other pe o pl e at Graterford so that they had arrived 15 at the conclusion that, "Well, we better lock up 16 because un til we lock up we ' re not going to get out 17 of this place; and if we stay here, the plume is 18 liable to come r ig ht over us," if that kind of 1
| |
| 19 ed uca tion d id not exist, it m ig h t ta ke you, I don' t 20 know, two ho ur s , three hours. Yo u mig ht never be 21 able to get ev er yb od y l oc k ed up.
| |
| 22 Q. How far is Graterford from the Lim er ick pl an t ,
| |
| .U 23 if you know?
| |
| 24 A. It's within a 10-mile radius, I believe, isn't 25 i t? As far e. s I know. I do n' t really know ex ac tl y FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERV 4CE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cooo 27 1 but I think it is. -
| |
| (3 w 2 Q. Do you know i t's appr ox imately eig ht and a half i
| |
| 3 m il es from L im e r ic k to I think the closest gate or
| |
| (]j 4 part of the Graterford c om pl ex ?
| |
| . 5 A. Yes.
| |
| 6 Q. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but 7 I und er s ta nd that to be correct.
| |
| 8 A. I understand it's within 10 miles of Gr a ter fo rd ,
| |
| 9 tha t's my u nd e r s t a nd i ng .
| |
| 10 Q. Don't yo u think that a person who understood 11 r ad ia tion and so forth as a prisoner m ig ht want to 12 use, call it a panic, to set up mayb e a wa y to 13 escape ta k i ng adv an t ag e of the other peo pl e's fear? .
| |
| 14 A. I think that might be possible, but what I was 15 tr y i ng to get across was that you were asking me 16 about the l oc kd own t im e 30 minutes and what wa s my 17 best estimate as to in a worse scenario. And what I 18 was trying to say was that if there's a good 19 ed uca tio n al program at Gra ter f o rd for both the
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 officers and the inmates as to what should be done 21 and the reasons for doing it in the event of a 22 problem at Lim er ic k , then I think you would be very
| |
| (
| |
| .~.
| |
| 23 likely to get the i nm a te s cooperating so you can 24 meet this lockdown t im e .
| |
| 25 Q. Take a, quote, no nr ad iol og ic al condition at FCSTER COUF;T RCPORTING $CRVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| T John D. Case 28 1 Graterford. How l ong do you think based on your
| |
| ('N
| |
| \ 2 ex per i e nce it would take for a m ax im um time .for a 3 lockdown?
| |
| {. 4 A. Well, I b el iev e that yo u have two e x am pl e s of 5 this where i t's going to ta ke up to fo ur hours 6 perhaps to get everyb od y locked down in an emergency 7 situation.
| |
| 8 Q. Is that the power failure one?
| |
| 9 A. I'm not sure. At 3:35 there was an assault on 10 Captain --
| |
| 11 Q. Which one are we looking at?
| |
| 12 A. March 20. -
| |
| 13 Q. All r ig h t .
| |
| 14 A .. At 3:35 commissioner ordered the j a il locked 15 down. And this i nd ica tes that at a ppr ox im a t el y 16 2040 hours, or 8:40, all personnel were accounted 17 for.
| |
| 18 MR. OTTO: That must be out o f o rd er ,
| |
| i 19 M R. CONNER: Yes, o r m ix ed up here. '
| |
| 20 MR. OTTO: If I may, the May 20, 1979, 21 m em o r a nd um with regard to the assault on Captain 22 Felix is a o ne- pag e d oc um en t . The September 12, r.
| |
| k- 23 1983, m em o r a nd um r eg a rd i ng the incident at the 24 institution r eg ard ing a power failure is the two- pag e 25 document.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. case 29 1 A. (Continued) Well, I d on' t have that c om pl e te
| |
| ( 2 in f o rm a t ion here so I can' t g ive you that on the i'
| |
| 3 power failure. Bu t I b el iev e I've heard it took up 4 to fo ur hours to get people locked up at that time, 5 because it takes a chance to run around and pl ay ,
| |
| 6 games.
| |
| 7 Q. At that t im e , are you talking about --
| |
| 8 A. The po wer f a il ure .
| |
| 9 Q. All r ig h t . Rem em b e r we were talking about two
| |
| : e. -
| |
| 10 documents here and we' re not sure which is which.
| |
| 11 A. It wa s my und er stand ing .
| |
| 12 Q. You understand, or at least I understand that
| |
| - 13 t he y n o'w h av e emerg ency lig hting available at-14 Gra ter fo rd which was not av a il able at the time this 15 occurred in 1983.
| |
| 16 A. You asked me how long wa s the most -- you know, 17 that then they have em e rg e nc y l ig h t i ng .
| |
| 18 Q. I'm merely asking yo u for your e s t im a te as to 19 ho w l o ng a lockup should ta ke in adverse conditions, 20 whatever that m ig h t mean to you, at Gr a te r fo rd .
| |
| 21 A. A nd I'm sa yi ng to you, sir, that that'is 22 speculative, but I can speculate that it m ig h t take 23 up to fo ur hours.
| |
| 24 Q. You don' t think it would take two or three days.
| |
| 25 We are not t al k i ng in t e rm s of, say, a prison riot FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERylCE. $NC.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 30 1 or an'ything like that.
| |
| O (J 2 A. I d on' t know. I have no wa y o f knowing. how the 3 prisoners are going to react if they think the plume
| |
| ; 4 is c om ing across Gr a ter fo rd . There's no way I or 5 anybody else can make even a guess on that I would 6 think.
| |
| 7 Q. You make a distinction between --
| |
| I c an' t think 8 of the place in New York that had the riot.
| |
| 9 A. Attica.
| |
| 10 Do yo u consid er that a si uation where a Q.
| |
| 11 l oc kdo wn was im po s s ibl e ?
| |
| 12 A. Well, at the m om e n t when they had everybody out 13 in the yard it was pretty close to im po s s ible for a 14 long tim e , yes.
| |
| 15 Q. I'm trying to make sure there's not a semantic 16 problem here is really all I'm doing. When you have, 17 say, a block held by a group of prisoners but the 18 rest.are l oc k ed do wn , do you co n s id er that a 19 loc kd own or do yo u consid er it not yet a lockdown?
| |
| 20 A. Well, I g uess i t's not really a full lockdown 21 until ev er yb od y is locked and under control in their. .
| |
| l 22 cells. So I wo uld .say that you have to have
| |
| -23 ev er yb od y in and under control. It doesn't say you l i
| |
| 24 c a n' t opera te mo st of the institution, ho wev er . If O 25 you had a segment of the institution tha t's out of i
| |
| l FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| s John D. Caco 31 1 control at the m om en t but the rest of it is in
| |
| () 2 control, yo u' v e got ev er yb od y locked, basically 3 yo u' re in control.
| |
| 4 .
| |
| .x 4 Q. Ar en' t the d esig ns o f most prisons such that 5 you a r,e able to block off sections of prisoners and A
| |
| 6 therefore --
| |
| 7 A. Yes.
| |
| 8 Q. Like the c om pa r tm e n t s in a ship; you can seal 9 off various c om p a r tm en t s and deal with them with 10 whatever the problem is in the one yo u' re hav ing 11 trouble in?
| |
| 12 A. All things working well, yes.
| |
| 13 Q. I mean, is Graterford designed that way?
| |
| / ,\
| |
| \O -
| |
| 14 A. Oh, yes. Every place is, yo u' re quite r ig h t .
| |
| 15 Q. So even then if s om eb od y were doing something 16 strange in one cell block, you would still be able 17 pr e s um a bl y to lock do wn the others and get them 18 ev ac ua ted and so forth.
| |
| 19 A. Yes; if the other people cooperated.
| |
| 20 Q. Yes. If the y d id n' t cooperate, you send them 21 all to Attica.
| |
| '22 Now, you have ex am in ed , which I have
| |
| . f u 23 not, the evacuation plan for Gr a ter f o rd , as I 24 understand it; is that correct?
| |
| 25 A. Yes.
| |
| FOSTER court REPORTING SERvlCE. INC.
| |
| _ . _ _ , . . - . . ,m . - _ - - .._ __. -_ . _ _ .
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 32 1 Q. This will be a str ang e deposition because I
| |
| )
| |
| :d 2 don' t know any of the factors. The two areas of 3 contentions wh i c h we are discussing in this 4 f o r t hc om i ng he a r i ng I assume Mr. Love has ex pla in ed
| |
| (.$.h, 5 to you are the s o- cal l ed Basis C, training 6 contention, and Basis E, e s t im a t ed t im e of 7 ev acua tio n ; is that correct?
| |
| 8 A. Tha t's correct. -
| |
| 9 Q. And yo u have r ev iewe d these. This is from the 10 June 12, 1985, order a dm i t t i ng certain r ev i s ed 11 contentions of the Graterford inm a te s and denying 12 others.
| |
| ', es 13 A. Yes, he's e x pl a i n ed that to me.
| |
| %)
| |
| 14 Q. And attached to that are the two contentions on 15 three pages.
| |
| 16 Sir, d id yo u participate in the 17 preparation of these contentions?
| |
| 18 A. I d id not.
| |
| 19 Q. When d id you first see these contentions?
| |
| 20 A. I d i sc u s s ed them with Mr. Love on the phone and 21 also at a meeting. Within the last two weeks I've 22 d i sc u s s ed it, but I d o n' t have -
| |
| record of it here.
| |
| 23 MR. CONNER: For the record, Mr. Lov e 24 is c o n s ul t i ng with Mr. Case. Ther e's no obj ec tion (q.)
| |
| 25 to tha t , but I d id hear Mr. Love sa y " two t im e s ," so FC$TER COURT REPORTING SERylCE. INC.
| |
| - w . .- -y-_ . - - - . _ _ . , _
| |
| . ..m.. --.-,-
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 33 1 let me ask a basic question.
| |
| (~%
| |
| \/ 2 M R. LOVE: I said two. conferences.
| |
| 3 MR. CONNER: I'm s o r r.y .
| |
| ~y 4 M R. LOVE: I'm referring to the two 5 conferences we had, general discussions r eg ard ing 6 this issue.
| |
| 7 Q. Wh e n d id yo u first discuss this pr oc eed ing 8 before the NRC with Mr. Love to the best of yo u r 9 r ec oll ec ti o n?
| |
| 10 A. I have to look here a minu e. 'I believe it wa s 11 about the middle of June.
| |
| 12 0 1985? -
| |
| -% 13 A. Yes, I think so. About two - we e ks ago.
| |
| 6L)
| |
| * 14 Q. Had you discussed this p roce ed ing --
| |
| and I mean 15 the Nuclear Reg ul a to ry Commissio n -- wi th a n yb od y 16 else prior to t al k i ng to Mr. Love about it?
| |
| 17 A. No .
| |
| 18 Q. So yo u d id not do any work in this case until 19 abo u t m id-June 1985.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 A. Oh, no. I've been involved before then. You 21 asked me when I d i sc u s s ed this particular hearing.
| |
| 22 That was two weeks ago.
| |
| '. 23 Q. We want to get the full facts.
| |
| s 24 A. Well, I've been involved wi th Mr. Lo v e on this s
| |
| 25 since several months ago, and te s ti fi ed al so or FCSTER COURT REPORTIPvG SEmvlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Coco 34 1 worked with him as his ex per t witness at pr ev io us 2 hearings as back as far as probably March, I. think.
| |
| 3 Q. March of 19857 1985, yes.
| |
| .{ 4 A.
| |
| . 5 Q. What hearings are you referring to?
| |
| 6 A. The he ar i ng s in H a r r i sb u rg before the --
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: They were conferences 8 wo uld be a better word.
| |
| 9 MR. CONNER: Yo u mean with the Bureau 10 of Correction and the s ta te .
| |
| 11 MR. LOVE: Correct. The two closed 12 conferences we had. And just for the r ec o rd , I 13 g believe it's been since either De c em b e r or January 14 of this year when I first o n tac t ed Mr. Case.
| |
| 15 MR. CONNER: Fine.
| |
| 16 BY M R. CONNER:
| |
| 17 Q. Ro ug hl y since the beginning of 1985 you have 18 been pa r t ic i pa t i ng with Mr. Love in this case.
| |
| 19 A. Rig ht .
| |
| 20 Q. Had you pa r tic ipa ted in any other fashion in 21 this case before the Nuclear Reg ula tory Commission 22 prior to that t im e?
| |
| 23 THE WITNESS: Well, wasn't that the
| |
| ,ey 24 Nuclear Reg ula tory Commission a dm i n i s t r a t iv e j udge L.)
| |
| 25 that we had?
| |
| FOSTER COURT F EPORTING service. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cane 35
| |
| . 1 MR. LOVE: Th a t' s what we talked b)
| |
| '- 2
| |
| =
| |
| about, the two closed conferences in H a r r i sb u rg .
| |
| 3 Tha t's the extent of it.
| |
| 4 Q. When d id you first see the un sani ti zed , as we
| |
| {.<L
| |
| - 5 call it, emerg ency plan for Gr a ter fo rd?
| |
| 6 A. I do n' t have the dates, sir. It was --
| |
| 7 HR. LOVE: Are you talking about Pl an 8 1 or Plan 2?
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: I think the un sa n i t i ze d 10 version was Plan 2.
| |
| 11 MR. CONNER: When you refer to Plan 1, 12 Mr. Love, yo u' r e r e f er r i ng to the blocked-out, 13 deleted sec tio n?
| |
| 14 M R. LOVE: Correct.
| |
| 15 M R .* CONNER: And Plan 2 is the full 16 and c om pl e te plan that you ob s e rv ed .
| |
| 17 MR. LOVE: In c am er a under the 18 pro tec tiv e o rd er of the court.
| |
| 19 M R. CONNER: Right.
| |
| 20 M R. LOVE: Correct.
| |
| ! 21 BY M R. CONNER:
| |
| l 22 Q. Now, when d id yo u first observe Plan 2, Maj or
| |
| ~.
| |
| 23 Case?
| |
| i g ,\
| |
| 24 A. The sani ti zed version I would think I had to
| |
| (/ )
| |
| 25 see sometime in March, I wo uld think.
| |
| i FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| i l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| John D. Caso 36 1 Q. Can we agree that about March 15 is when the 2 unsanitized version wa s made available?
| |
| 3 MR. OTTO: It wa s .
| |
| f, 4 A. Yes.
| |
| 3 5 Q. So you have had roug hly a little more than 6 three months to do wha t ev er you wish to do with that 7 material in terms o f yo ur prsposed testimony on the 8 contentions in this proceeding; is that correct?
| |
| 9 A. Tha t' s c or rec t .
| |
| 10 MR. CONNER: I'll ask Mr. Love, you 11 do not have a pro po s ed draft te s t im o n y yet?
| |
| 12 MR. LOVE: No , I don't. It wa s m y 13 und er s ta nd ing there's a possibility that this 14 depo si tion may suffice for that pur po se .
| |
| 15- M R. CONNER: I'm just tr yi ng to save 16 tim e .
| |
| * 17 M R. LOVE: And we cer ta inly wo uld be
| |
| : 18. happy to discuss that when i t's over.
| |
| 19 BY M R. CONNER:
| |
| '~~
| |
| 20 Q. Maj or Case, let's see if we can j um p r ig ht into 21 this. Do you have a copy of the contentions in 22 front of you?
| |
| k 23 A. No.
| |
| 24 Q. Di r ec ting yo ur attention to Basis C, training --
| |
| 25 as a ground rule, it is not my intention to ask FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| , John D. Case 37 1- anything on this record that would be c onsid er ed O 2 security or im pro per . And I do n' t intend to ask a 3 question, but if I inadvertently a sk something that
| |
| (]) 4 is, I will rely, I ho pe , on Mr. Otto to blow the 5 whistle or Mr. Love, b ec ause I'm only trying to-6 establish f und am en t al s here.
| |
| t 7 MR. LOVE: Fine.
| |
| 8 Q. (Continued) And the essence of what the 9 Licensing Board apparently sees as the heart of the 10 contention on tr a in i ng is in the last sentence, 11 which says "The i nm a te s contend that the two- ho ur i
| |
| 12 course o f f er ed .by PEMA is not as c om pr e h en s iv e as l l
| |
| 13 the one o f f e r ed to the bus d r iv er s o f school 14 children, and is there fo re in adequa te in this 15 respec t ."
| |
| 16 M R. LOVE:. I object to the fo rm 'o f i
| |
| 17 the q u,e s t i o n . I do n' t believe with one sentence you 18 can c ha r ac te r i ze it as the ' essence, but I object to 19 that for the record.
| |
| 20 Q. (Continued) Let me tell you where I was g oing .
| |
| 21 I was g o i ng to say, sir, do you agree that that .
| |
| 22- d esc r ib es the inm a te s ' co n te n ti o n? And if not, what t
| |
| 23 do you see additionally within what has been allo wed gs 24 by t h e' Licensing Board wo uld be n eed ed to expand it?
| |
| 25 A. Well, I do n' t k no w that I can answer for the FOSTER COURT REPORTING sERvlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 38 1 inmates. I think tha t's up to their counsel as to O
| |
| V 2 whether they feel --
| |
| what their f e el i ng is about it.
| |
| 3 As far as what I think to d riv er training, I spent a
| |
| () 4 great deal of my life in training in the mili tary 5 and also in corrections, and it se em s to me that 6 we' re t al k i ng about a tr a in i ng program for bus 7 d r iv er s . And whether or not a t wo- ho ur course is 8 ade qua te or not, I don' t think an ybody c an really 9 d e te rm in e until yo u' ve pr ov id ed some of it and found 10 out, you know, what are the r es ul t s of this tr a in i ng .
| |
| 11 And I d on' t think tha t's been done.
| |
| 12 Q.' I'm sorry. Have you not seen the material
| |
| /"T 13 f ur hished by the Comm onwe al th under letter dated
| |
| %) .
| |
| 14 June 26, 19857 15 MR. LOVE: I d on' t believe he has.
| |
| 16 Can I have one m oment with my witness?
| |
| 17 MR. CONNER: Sure.
| |
| l 18 (Counsel confers with the wi tne s s) 19 A. No, I have not seen that pa r tic ul a r d oc um en t .
| |
| 20 And I do n' t k no w that I need to see that pa r t ic ul ar 21 d oc um en t to make the sta tem en t I was going to make, 22 which was, if I may conclude that, the concern that t
| |
| 23 I would have is that this training should be at
| |
| ~T 24 least' par tially g iv en --
| |
| that there s ho uld be some (V
| |
| 25 a t tem pt to g iv e it to see wh e the r it gets across to
| |
| * FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caos 39 1 the av er ag e civ ilian bus d r iv er what he needs to do 2 and what he should know in this c i rc um s t a nce . I 3 don' t think that you can j us t say we are going to 4'
| |
| -([) p r ov id e t r a in i ng unless you go ahead and test it and 5 try it. .
| |
| 6 Q. ,
| |
| Sir, have you s tud ied the Disaster operations 7 Plan, Ann ex E, Fix ed Nucle'ar Facility I nc id en t s of 8 the Comm onwe al th o f Pennsylvania; PEMA, in other 9 wo rd s? !
| |
| 10 A. No, I d on' t think so. It doesn't ring a bell j 11 with me.
| |
| 12 Q. Are yo u a wa r e o f wha t that document calls for 13
| |
| } in t e rm s of tr a in i ng , in this case, bus d r iv er s?
| |
| 14 A. I hav en' t seen it, so no, I'm not aware of i t .' ;
| |
| 15 Q. You hav en' t r e ad thi s ma ter ial that I just 16 received uoday.
| |
| l 17 A. No, I have not seen this. I note i t's d a ted 19 June 26 to Mr. Love, and it has not been p r ov id ed to
| |
| ! 19 me since that date.
| |
| 20 MS. FERKIN: For the record, al tho ug h 21 the cover letter for the material to which Mr. Case 22 ' refers does not r e fl ec t this, this wa s pr ov id ed by 3 Fed er al Ex pre s s to Mr. Love on June 26, 24 Q. In any event, Mr. Love had not shown it to 25' Major Case be fore this time.
| |
| POSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| 4 --
| |
| | |
| Jo hn D. Case 40 1 A. Tha t' s correct.
| |
| O 2 MR. LOVE: If I can just ex ped i te 3 ma tters , Maj or Case will not be c omm en t i ng on the
| |
| ([] 4 specifics of the training. My intention as to the 5 availability of the tr a in i ng would be the o nl y . i s s ue 6 that he would speak to, to g uar an tee that'the 7 tr a in i ng would be g iv en to the c iv il i an personnel.
| |
| 8 BY M R. CONNER:
| |
| 9 Q. We understand from Mr. Lov e that the only ,
| |
| f_
| |
| 10 te s t im on y you would o f f er would r ela te 'to the issue
| |
| ~ i 11 as to whether the training that would be gven by 12 PEMA to bus d r iv er s for the possible evacuation of l
| |
| 13 prisoners wo uld in fact be g iv en ; is that your g" }
| |
| 14 po si tio n?
| |
| 15 A. Yes, sir.
| |
| I.
| |
| 16 Q. Wh y d o you feel that s uc h training wo ul d not be 17 g iv en by PEMA?
| |
| 18 A. Well, I think yo u' re dealing with c iv il ia n bus 19 d r iv er s . A nd I have not seen or he a rd an yt h i ng to l 20 indicate to me that t he r e ' s been any inc en tiv e 21 o f f er ed to these bus d r iv er s to a t te nd such training I
| |
| L p,
| |
| 22 once it is o f f e r ed . I think if there were an i
| |
| '~
| |
| 23 assurance of some way that bus d r iv er s are going to r~g 24 be c om pe n s a ted eno ug h to make them go-to this
| |
| %)
| |
| 25 tr a in ing , but'these are people who cannot be forced FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| - - _ - .=. -
| |
| John D. Case 41 1 to take this training, as I understand it. So 2 yo u' r e g o i ng to have to have some kind of an 3 incentive that will makc them wa n t to take this
| |
| . 4 tr a in i ng .
| |
| 5 Q. Maj or Case, I d id n' t r e al i ze we were g oing to 6 get into ps yc h ol og y here. Have you --
| |
| 7 A. I d on' t know that yo u can keep psychology, if i
| |
| 8 you want to use that term, out of any relationship.
| |
| 9 But my ex perience as a trainer is, for ex am pl e , in 10 tr a in i ng corrections officers that if I were to say, 11~ "We ' r e g oing to have this course and we ' d like yo u 12 all to a t te nd ," there would be a few a t t e nd .
| |
| 13 But I'm going to say, " We ' r e g o i n g to a
| |
| 14 have this course and I'm going to pay. time and a 15 half or d oub l e t im e ," then I wo uld hav e everybody 1
| |
| .16 there. And what I'm sa yi ng is that you can offer 17 the greatest course in the wo rld , but-unless ther e' s 18 some incentive fo'r me to ta ke it or for tho se bus 19 d r iv er s to take it, I d on' t think they' re g oing to
| |
| < 20 be there.
| |
| ; 21 Q. I c an' t resist; ho w d id yo u do it in the Marine
| |
| , 22 Corps?
| |
| 23 A. It wa 3 a d if ferent matter. I had no question
| |
| ~
| |
| 24 in 'the Marine Cor ps . I or an yb od y el se there just
| |
| , . - 25- did as we were told. Bu t I d on' t think tha t's FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| .-, _.__ - . . . _ - , _ . _ . ~ . . _ . - , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ , . _ , . . , _ . _ , . _ , . _ , _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . , , , _ - . _ , . , - - ~ ,
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 42 1 n ec e ssa r il y true when yo u' re dealing wi th c iv ilian
| |
| () 2- bus d r iv er s or corrections o f ficer s as far as what 3 yo u' re doing wi th their o f f- dut y t im e ,
| |
| j , 4 Q. Why do you assume that these bus drivers would
| |
| , 5 be trained in o f f-duty times?
| |
| 6 A. Well, then if yo u' r e not g o i ng to do that, then 1
| |
| 7 I think i t' s incumbent j ust to say so. We ' r e going 8 to train them on duty time and we' re g o i ng to pay 9 their em pl o ye r for that t im e . But there's nothing 10 been sa id to ind ica te that -- my oniy question is I 11 think really a matter of clarification. If you can 12 c om e up with an assurance that the se b us d r iv er s are 13 going to r ec eiv e this in either o f f- duty o r o n- d u t y 14 time, then I wo uld say fine, go for it.
| |
| 15 Q. How d o yo u know these ind iv id ual s m ig h t not 16 have s om e other i nc en t iv e o f f er ed' to them?
| |
| 17 A. I d on' t; but I d on' t know what the other 18 i nc en t iv e s m ig h t be.
| |
| 19 Q. Ho w d o you know that these pe o pl e are not
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 al r e ad y s ta te em plo ye e s who m ig ht do this as par t' o f 21 their r eg ul ar duties?
| |
| 22 A. Because that wa sn ' t the wa y it wa s presented.
| |
| 23 It wa s my u nd er s ta nd ing that if t'he se pr iv a te bus
| |
| )
| |
| 24 c om pa n i e s hav e em pl oye e s who will not pe r fo rm , will j I
| |
| 25 not drive the b uses , then tb" state is g o i ng to h av e j resrca couar nuentma senvice. me.
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 43 1 corrections o f ficer s trained who will d r iv e the 2 buses. But I've heard nothing to indicate that they 3 would be s ta te em pl o ye e s as s uc h .
| |
| .{j 4 Q. You made the s ta t em en t s om e t h i ng to the effect 1
| |
| 5 about t h r.e e sentences back that you were not g iv en I j
| |
| 6 any reason to u nd er s ta nd or that wa sn' t the way 7 something wa s presented to yo u . Do yo u recall 8 ma k i ng that s ta t em en t?
| |
| 9 A. I'm sorry, I d on' t.
| |
| 10 Q. I fo rg e t j ust what words you used, and I was ;
| |
| i 11 merely trying to find out what you were referring to .
| |
| 12 I got the im pr e s s ion you were' t al k i ng about some
| |
| - 13 meeting wi th the state or something like that.
| |
| 'u ,
| |
| 14 A. Well, no. What I sa id was I wa sn' t g iv en to 15 understand tha t the training wo uld be on o n- d u t y 16 hours or o f f- d u t y ho urs . My point was not concerned 17 with that; it wa s what inc en tiv e are yo u going to 18 use to train these em pl o yee s to get them to go to 19 school.
| |
| 20 Q. And yo u d on' t know whe ther these ind iv id ual s 21 will be g iven i nc en t iv e s or whether they will in .
| |
| 22 fact be trained on duty time; is that c orr ec t?
| |
| '- '23 A. No, I do n' t know. But I think i t's incumbent 24 upon the Bu r ea u or Ph il ad el ph i a El ec tr ic perhaps to O 25 i nd ica te how this tr a in i ng is g o i ng to be pr ov ic ed .
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| - l John D. Cano 44 1 Q. Well, now sir, how do you know tha t the 2 ind iv id ual s involv ed might not v ol un te er for such 3 training, same wa y peo pl e volunteer for Red Cross
| |
| (({; 4 training?
| |
| 5 A. I cannot -- well, I d on' t know that. I d on' t -
| |
| 6 know that except that I've been a ro u nd a l o ng t im e 7 and I j ust c an ' t im ag in e pe o pl e volunteering fo r 8 this type of tr a in i ng except for very few peo pl e 9 perhaps. I j ust c an ' t im ag in e that you wo uld get 10 all the bus d r iv ers , for ex am ple , would v ol un te er 11 for training on in f o rm a ti o n concerning m ov ing pe o pl e 12 in the ir bus in a r ad iol og ic al d i sa s ter .
| |
| 13 Q. Do you hav e any idea wha t l ev el s o f r ad io-14 ac tivity wo uld be present at Gra ter fo rd in this 15 disaster that yo u j ust referred to?
| |
| 16 A. No, I h av e no way of kno wing that.
| |
| 17 Q. Do yo u know if there would be any lev els of 18 r ad ia t io n?
| |
| 19 A. I have no wa y o f knowing tha t.
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 Q. Sir, i sn' t it a fact that yo u' r e j ust 21 s pec ul a ting ?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: I object to this, i
| |
| (~'
| |
| ' 23 THE W IT NES S: Sho uld I answr the
| |
| . 24 que s ti o n?
| |
| 25 A. Certainly I'm spec ul a ting , but so is all of FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Ca2@ 45 1 this s pec ul a tiv e , sir.
| |
| n s_j 2 Q. Do yo u know whether or not what is being done 3 here is in acc o rd a nce with and consistent with 4 N UR EG-0 65 4 and Annex E of the Comm o nwe al th of 5 P e nn s y lv an i a ' s em e rg ency plan?
| |
| 6 A. No, I d on' t know that. My concern only is a 7 very s im pl e one as far as d r iv er training; is it 8 going to be prov id ed , and if so, wha t- inc en tiv e are 9 you g o i ng to have to see that the d r iv er s take the 10 training. Tha t' s a rather s im pl e m a t te r . I'm not 11 sure that all the t h i ng s that have been written 12 i n d ic a.te anything that I have seen at least that
| |
| - 13 wo u ld reassure me or I t h in k assure the party here N
| |
| 14 that this training will take pl ac e .
| |
| 15 Q. All of what th i ng s?
| |
| 16 A. The bus d r iv er training fo r c iv il ia n s .
| |
| 17 Q. No things that you have seen?
| |
| 18 A. Nothing that I had seen or read has told me how 19 this tr a in i ng is g o i ng to be pr ov id ed ; that is, what 20 inc en tiv e are yo u g oing to have to see to it that 21 these d r iv er s get this tr a in i ng .
| |
| l 22 Q. Sir, on a training issue I d on' t think we ' ve 23 id en ti f i ed an yth i ng that yo u h av e read yet.
| |
| 24 M R. LOVE: Tha t' s the problem. There O' 25 i sn' t .
| |
| I FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 46 1 M R. CONNER: I'm trying to pin down f%
| |
| T/ ' 2 what Major Case is referring to .
| |
| 3 MR. LOVE: He ' s sa yi ng he ' s seen (B
| |
| %s 4 nothing yet.
| |
| . 5 M R. CONNER: He said o f all the 6 t hing s that he has read he has not seen an yth i ng .
| |
| 7 M R. LOVE: Ex ac tl y.
| |
| 8 A. Tha t' s correct.
| |
| 9 Q. You have seen nothing then on training upon 10 which you would there fore base yo ur opinion?
| |
| 11 MR. LOVE: He has seen nothing to 12 suggest there is an incentive for the people to be f-1 3' trained. ~
| |
| -(
| |
| 14 Q. ( Co ntin ued) Have yo u seen any d ocumen ta tio n 15 r el a t i ng to training?
| |
| 16 A. This.
| |
| 17 Q. That you saw today, which you hav en' t read ye t .
| |
| 18 A. Rig ht .
| |
| 19 Q. Which we are r e fe r r ing to the June 26, 1985,
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 letter.
| |
| 21 Directing your attention, sir, to the 22 second contention, e s t ima ted time of ev ac ua tio n --
| |
| ,r "
| |
| 23 M R. CONNER: Mr. Lov e , i t mig ht save 24 us time if you will tell us what'you in t e nd to offer 25 Maj or Ca se for here, the sam e wa y yo u d id on the FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 47 1 other one.
| |
| i
| |
| '- 2 M R. LOVE: I think this one i.s a 3 li t tl e b ro ad er . I wo uld n' t like to confine him to
| |
| !{'; 4 any par ticul ar area in respect to this. We are 5 c o nc er n ed with the method ology which was ab sen t 6 prev iously and is cur ren tly av ail able in the form of 7 a letter of. June 27 and a co r re s po nd ing flo w c hart ,
| |
| 8 which is Ap pl ic an t' s Ex h ib i t 2. And Maj or Ca se will 9 c omm en t on both the letter and the flo w chart.
| |
| 10 BY M R. CONNER: '
| |
| 11 Q. Here again, in an effort to m ov e this r ig ht 12 alo ng , do you find it more c o nv en ien t to di scuss the
| |
| : g.(^g 13 flow chart or the letter first?
| |
| U 14 A. I think the letter.
| |
| 15 Q. What do you see wrong, bad or wh a t- ha v e-y o u 16 about the letter?
| |
| 17 M R. CONNER: Which I s ug g e s t we mark 18 for id en ti fica t ion as Appl ic an t's Ex hib i t 3, which 19 is a letter dated June 27, 1985, to Ang us R. Lov e 20 from Theodore G. Otto, III, co n s i s t i ng of two pages 21 and a t tachm en ts , which are not part of the exhibit.
| |
| 22 A. Well, the o nl y p r obl em I have with the letter 23 is tha t which, o f cour se --
| |
| and it ties into the
| |
| , 24 in fo rma tio n on the flow chart. It i nd ica te s that
| |
| -' 25 the buses will be c om ing f r om wi thin 19 0 -m il e FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Ccce 48 I
| |
| 1 distance from the state correctional institute at
| |
| - O( > 2 Gr a ter fo rd , and that it wo uld be appro pria te. for the 3 expert to base his e stim a ted tim e on the pr em i se
| |
| {} 4 that the De par tm ent wo uld use maj or ro ad s wh er ev er 5 possible.
| |
| 6 And the pr ob l em I have with that is 7 that if we' r e c om i ng from 1 90 m ile s -- and I think 8 you have to a s s um e that o the r pe o pl e are going to be 9 m ov i ng on these ro ad s to get out of the area. I 10 don' t know t ha t -- they say a vehicles will be 11 a r r iv i ng within two to fo ur ho urs , and u nd er adverse 12 co nd i ti o n s four to six ho ur s m ax im um . And below
| |
| - 13 nere we ind ica te that the ev ac ua tion will be 14 com pl e ted within e ig ht to ten hours. And 15 sequentially I do n' t qui te see how that ties in with 16 buses t r av el ing 1 90 mil e s one wa y . It s e em s to me 17 that yo u' r e c om i ng up with a h ig her t im e than e ig h t 18 to ten hours.
| |
| 19 The o the r thing is that there are 20 really some questions that I think really can o nl y 21 be answered o nc e Su pe r in te nd en t Zimm erm an or 22 s om eb od y from the Gra ter fo rd answers it. I am
| |
| ' (* 23 making a s s um pt i o n s that all of these thing s a s m uc h 24 as possible will be ta k i ng place at the same time.
| |
| O 25 Q. Sir, j ust a second. Yo u are now r e fe r r ing to FOSTER COURT REPCRTING SEmytCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. CO2O 49 1 Ap pl ic an t' s Ex hib i t 2 for the last several
| |
| () 2 sentences.
| |
| 3 A. Tha t' s correct.
| |
| '4 Q. Do I understand yo ur last sentence to mean that 5 you dnd er s ta nd each step of the operation has to be 6 p e r fo rm ed at the same t im e?
| |
| 7 A. Oh, no . What I'm sa yi ng , a s much as possible 8 you will pe r fo rm things at the same tim e . For 9 ex am pl e , d ur i ng the t im e that the dr iver s are c om i ng 10 190 miles from wherever the y' re comlng yo u will be 11 c a ll i ng your o f f- d u t y per so nn el in. Yo u' d be 12 'a s s ig n i ng yo ur l oad ing te am s and pr epa r ing the 13 i nm a te s for the ev ac ua t ion . You wo uld n' t wait until (O 14 the buses got there to do that, you see. Th a t' s all 15 I'm s a y i ng .
| |
| 16 Q. Well, yo u' re the expert. If yo u were starting 17 this o per a tion , how wo u ld you do i t? Wo uld you lock 18 down the prisoners first?
| |
| 19 A. No. I wo uld do both. I wo uld lock dowr the 20 pr iso ner s . I'd also call fo r the buses. I'd do 21 ev er yt h i ng I co u ld a s m uch at the same t im e as ,
| |
| 22 possible. And I a s s um e tha t tha t's what they' re I 23 g o i ng to do here.
| |
| ~24 Q. Well, you have read the pl an , again, which I O 25 have not. And here ag a in , without sa y i ng an y t h i ng FOSTER court REPCMTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 50 1 we sho uld n' t say in this open record, has the state (G./ 2 not done an yt h i ng that you just s ugg e s t ed would be 3 an appr c pr ia te procedure?
| |
| 4 A. No. My question is on the t im i ng with their 5 ev ac ua tio n tim ing . Yo u know, we were talking about 6 the l oc kdo wn o rd er before and ho w that could be a 7 really good e st im a te of 30 minutes or it could be 8 wa y o f f de pend ing on the co nd i t ions , the t im e of the 9 day and so on. I think the sam e thing is tr ue when 10 you start t h in k i ng abo ut how 1 ng i 's it g o i ng to 11 t a ke for the vehicles to arrive. If these vehicles 12 are tr av eling 1 90 m iles , it s e em s to me that the two
| |
| ,_ 13 to four hours i s -- I d o n' t think yo u c an get them e A 14 there in two hours. The earliest ~ yo u' d get them 15 there wo uld be four.
| |
| 16 0 Are you a s s um ing tha t all vehicles are 190 -
| |
| 17 m il e s away?
| |
| 18 A. No . I'm assuming tha t the most furthest 19 distance is 1 90 m ile s from the institution. But I 20 don' t know how many vehicles tha t includ e s , you see.
| |
| 21 It co uld be one; it co u ld be 10. It could be half 22 of them.
| |
| ( 23 Q. Well, how fast can a bus go, if you know?
| |
| 24 A. Well, I do n' t know. S om e of them go pretty
| |
| )
| |
| 25 fast. Bu t here again, if we ' ve got an ev acua tio n l rosita count acront:No senvect. $NC. !
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 1 John D. Case 51 1 going on of the area, they may not be going very 2 fast at all. They may be getting in to all kinds of 3 cross traffic and road blocks.
| |
| (j 4 Q. That would only be for the last 10 miles, 5 wo uld n' t it, or some such number? -
| |
| 6 A. Well, all I can say, sir, is that when I came 7 to work this morning , I got tied up for an hour 8 because a bus got stopped in front of me and I 9 could n' t m ov e in any d irection. So I think they can 10 run into the same thing.
| |
| 11 Q. As you said earlier, yo u d id n' t have the 12 s t im ul u s of a r ad ia t ion scare.
| |
| ,q 13 ,
| |
| You understand, sir, that if these 14 buses were tr av eli ng to wa rd Graterford on a major 15 h ig h wa y that they could make pretty good time?
| |
| 16 MR. LOVE: I obj ect to the form of 17 the stion. It's a l ead ing question.
| |
| 18 A. I think you have a question there in my mind as 19 to whether ev er yb od y' s going to be traveling awa y 20 from Gra ter f o rd in a nice, neat orderly group of 21 p eo pl e all traveling in one direction, or whether 22 the state police, for ex am ple , m ig h t decide that
| |
| .r .
| |
| 23 they want pe o pl e to move on both sid es of the 24 turnpike perhaps in an evacuation.
| |
| -Ov 25 Q. Sir, have you read the evacuation t im e s t ud y FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| John D. Cane 52 i 1 that was offered in this proceeding or the Licensing
| |
| () 2 Board's decision in this case or Annex E as it 3 applies to Lim e r i c k for how the evacuation, if it 4 were ever necessary, would occur for the 10 mile EPZ
| |
| .g?
| |
| Q 5 for Lim er ick?
| |
| 6 A. No.
| |
| 7 Q. Then you are basing your last r em a r k s purely on 8 speculation and not on any of the d oc um e n t ar y ev id e nc e 9 in this case?
| |
| 10 A. Not only on s pec ul a tio n , but also,. sir, on 11 ex per ience . When I was in the Marine Corps, one of 12 the jobs I had wa s to --
| |
| l 13 0 Are you f am iliar , sir, with this document that
| |
| ~ 14 I am d is pl ayi ng to you called " Ev ac ua ti o n Tim e 15 Es t im a te s for the L im e r ick G e n e r a t i ng Station Plume 16 Exposure Em e rg enc y Planning Zone," final draft dated 17 May 1984, which is already Ap pl ic an t's Exhibit E-67 18 in this procedure?
| |
| 19 A. No, I have not seen that document.
| |
| 20 MR. LOVE: Can he finish the answer 21 that he was a t t em p t i ng to g ive you?
| |
| 22 MR. CONNER: I'm sorry. I thought he
| |
| (. 23 had.
| |
| 24 A. (Continued) Wh a t I was trying to say is that I 25 have not seen that document. But my ex per ience in FCSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John'D. Case 53 1 the service, for example,' included being at one time
| |
| () 2 the operations officer and another time the 3 logistics officer of the Fifth Marine Regiment,
| |
| .g3 4 First Marine Division in Korea. The regiment in the v>'
| |
| 5 Marine Corps consisted of roughly 3,000 troops, 6 vehicles, tanks, all kinds of equipment.
| |
| : 7. One of the jobs I had is to prepare 8 plans for eventualities, to prepare plans.for moving 9 this regiment from the front lines to the rear lines.
| |
| 10 And I can recall making that pl n and basing it on 11 good weather in the daytime, because I assumed we 12 would not move except under those circumstances.
| |
| f 13 My plan was wrong. We moved at night.
| |
| .D, -
| |
| 14 We moved in a downpour. We moved based on my plan 15 and it worked perfectly. The plan was all wrong, 16 but it worked perfectly, because I had apparently 17 overestimated everything.
| |
| 18 And all I'm saying is that you can 19 make the best plans and sometimes they will work and 20 sometimes they won't. And in moving troops or in 21 moving prisoners and people moving from this area of '
| |
| 22 up around Limerick, I'm not sure that we can --
| |
| you
| |
| ( 23 know, that document can say this is the way we're 24 going to do it. But I'm not sure that's the way O 25 it's going to happen.
| |
| FCSTER COURT REPOR? LNG SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| ~.^ \
| |
| John D. Case 54 1 And all I'm saying is that we may O 2 have here in the flow chart, until we hear from 3 superintendent Zimmerman as to how this whole thing
| |
| '() 4 has been put together, it may not be e ig h t to ten 5 hours; it may be 12 to 20 hours for the evacuation 6 t ,im e .
| |
| 7 Q. How~ far d id yo u m ov e yo ur r eg im e n t in Korea?
| |
| 8 A. Two m iles .
| |
| 9 Q. How long d id it take? ,, ,
| |
| 10 A. Four hours ronghly. g 11 Q. Tha t's about the s am e distance the Graterford 12 prisoners would have to move to be o u t s id e the EPZ, 13 wo uldn' t it?
| |
| ]) ._
| |
| 14 A. Could be.
| |
| 15, Q. Did yo u hav e g ood road s?
| |
| 16 'A. Oh, no.
| |
| 17 Q. Th a t's what I thought.
| |
| 18 A. We d id n' t have good roads. I also think you 19 may not be able to use those good roads that you 20 have. You may have to use other roads. You may 21 have to use secondary roads. The good road s may be 22 blocked by citi zens moving freely throughout the
| |
| :(~ 23 area.
| |
| 24 Q. I've d oub t if you had even secondary roads in
| |
| {
| |
| : 25. Korea, d id you?
| |
| FC$7ER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| -, - - . . . _ . _ , . , _ . ~ . . . _ _ . - _ . _ . _ _ . . - ~ , . . _ _ . . _ _ . . , _ _ - _ . - . . , , _ - - . _ _ - _ _ . - . - . _ - - . _ . - . , -.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cece 55 1 A. Some, some.
| |
| /3
| |
| \J 2 Q. The ones yo u m ov ed on in this bad we a ther .
| |
| 3 A. They were not good roads, no. I'm just using (b
| |
| 4 this as an ex am pl e of planning, which, you know, 5 doe sn' t al wa ys follow through. -
| |
| 6 Q. Sir, how can you say thoug h that you d on' t know 7 whether the plan that we have in this case for 8 ev acua tion of the Lim er ic k EPZ wo n' t work if you 9 hav en' t read it?
| |
| 10 A. I'm not saying that. I'm not s a yi ng it wo n ' t 11 work. Re ad i ng it wo uld n' t make it work. What I'm 12 saying is if you want this plan, this plan is going 13 to work. It m ig ht work on the basis of e ig ht to ten
| |
| )
| |
| 14 hours. It m ig ht be on the worse case situation, 15 which would be maybe 12 to 20 hours.
| |
| 16 Q. Well, do you understand, sir, that the 1 17 e s t im a ted t im e of evacuation und er this document 18 that I'm referring to 0654 again and others, are 19 merely as a tool to let the people who have to make 20 the decisions in an emerg ency d ecid e whether to 21 evacuate or not? Do you u nd er s t a nd that they do n' t 22 have to be exact?
| |
| g-23 A. I understand what an e st im a te is, yes. I l l
| |
| 24 understand that, certainly. l O 25 O. Then do you see anything about these e st im a te s 1
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SEnvlCE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 56 1 that you think wo uld make them incorrect as
| |
| .O As# 2 e s t ima tes , to the ex tent that you have read any of 3 the material here, particularly the Graterford
| |
| ({j 4 evacuation plan?
| |
| 5 A. Well, the po in t that I' ve mad e that I think 6 until there's -- I can' t really ans wer that question 7 completely unless I were to know, for ex am pl e , that 8 yo u' re going to- use so many b uses. And le t's say 9 you were going to use 40 buses and that two of them ,
| |
| 10 are c om i ng 190 miles and the rest of them are c om i ng 11 from are d the corner. And then I could g iv e you 12 s om e be er idea as to whether these estimates are
| |
| ,r % 13 going to Frob ably wo rk or not.
| |
| L-]
| |
| 14 Q. Sir, l o o k i ng at Ex h ib i t. 2, it i nd ic a te s 58 15 buses, three am b ul an c e s and 10 vans.
| |
| 16 A. R ig ht . I u nd e r s ta nd that.
| |
| 17 0 S,u p p o s e you j ust prorated them by units of 18 In your ex per i ence as a planner of three.7 19 ev ac ua tio n s or tro o p m ov em en ts do yo u think that --
| |
| 20 can you get any j udgment , g iv en your knowledge of 21 the Pennsylvania hig hwa ys , as to whether the .
| |
| 22 e s t ima te is reasonable or unreasonable?
| |
| ' 23 A. I d on' t think I could answer that question.
| |
| 24 I'd have to know much more than that in o rd er to O
| |
| V 25 come up with a reasonable answer to that question.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Caco 57 1 Q. Looking at this sam e d ocum en t for a minute h
| |
| 4 l'J k 2 where the evacuation is 200 i nm a t e s , Class 4- and 5, I
| |
| l 3 one minute per one man and so forth, do you see tha t?
| |
| (}; 4 A. Yes.
| |
| 5 O. Do you see anything now that you disagree wi th 6 on tha t?
| |
| 7 A. All of the tim e involving the inmates there is 8 not a matter of my ag r ee i ng or disagreeing; i t's a 9 matter of being advised as to what kind of ,
| |
| 10 in f o rm a tion , what kind of ed uca tion are the inmates 11 going to be g iv en ahead of time so that they' ll 12 coo pe ra te . And if they cooperate, sure, you can
| |
| ,. 13 meet this.
| |
| 14 Q. Would that s am e conclusion apply to the other 15 t im e e s t im a te s and things on this pag e?
| |
| 16 A. Yes, same thing.
| |
| 17 Q. Is it yo ur position then that if the inmates 18 were fully briefed on the condition as to why they 19 were being evacuated, that this would be a 20 reasonable e s t im a te that would probably work?
| |
| 21 A. Yes, e x ac tl y.
| |
| 22 Q. Do yo u hav e any reason to d oub t that the
| |
| (~
| |
| '' 23 i nm a t e s would be advised of the facts u nd er the 24 cond i ti o ns?
| |
| 25 A. No. I'd j us t like to be told that they would i
| |
| FOST ER COURT R EPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| . - . . _ - - - - ..a,., , . - . . . . - . - . , - . . - . . - . - - - - . - - , . , . . . . .- , - _ . , . . , . - - - - .
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 58 1 be. I'd like to know what Superintendent Zimmerman
| |
| () 2 and his staff are planning or what the De par tmen t of 3 Correction is planning in order to advise the qy 4 i nm a te s as to why they should cooperate with this.
| |
| 5 MR. CONNER: I d on' t know if I s ho ul d .
| |
| 6 ask any more questions in this area. Mr. Ot to , .d id
| |
| .z..
| |
| 7 you want to ask any questions in this area? I think 8 you see my problem. -
| |
| 9 MR. OTTO: I d on' t think we, the 10 De p a r tm en t , have any p r o bl em . ,
| |
| 11 BY M R. OTTO:
| |
| 12 0 I b eliev e , Mr. Case, in one o f -- I think it 13 was the March 22 or the February conference we had 14 that we had told you, and I believe we even cited 15 the plan where we would be advising the i nm a te s on a 16 regular basis r eg ard ing d ev el o pm en t s . Is that the 17 type of in f o rm a tion you wanted the i nm a te s to --
| |
| 18 A. I think tha t' s essential. And I think that 19 these times are as good a guess as an yb od y co uld 20 come up with.
| |
| 21 BY M R. CONNER:
| |
| l 22 Q. Did you tell the 3,000 men in Korea when you r- '
| |
| T-23 were mov ing out?
| |
| 24 A. Ye s . It wa sn ' t a war t im e . We we r en' t 25 ac t iv el y s hoo ti ng at the enemy at that point. So it FCSTER COURT REPCATING SERvtCE. INC.
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| John D. Coco 59 1 was the weather was even worse than anything else.
| |
| I) 2 M R. CONNER: I have no further 3 questions.
| |
| {} 4 (S h o r t r ec es s) 5 BY M R. OTTO: .
| |
| 6 Q. Mr. Case, I j ust hav e one or two questions j us t 7 to make sure I'm clear on what you te s t i f i ed to .
| |
| 8 Looking at Ap pl ic an t ' s Ex hib i t No . 2 9 under the evacuation section that we were just 10 talking about before we broke, was it yo ur s ta tem en t 11 that if the i nm a te s were adequately notified that 12 those times were reasonable and attainable?
| |
| y- 13 A. Yes. That yo u' re g o i ng to have -- if you had a
| |
| ' V) 14 proper indoctrination ahead of time of the i nm a te s 15 and per i od ic all y r ene wed that, then it would seem to 16 me that those are as good a guess as anyb od y could 17 come up with.
| |
| 18 0 Just to make sure that we ' re clear, is there 19 an yt h i ng el se on this document, Appl ic an t's Exhibit 20 2, tha t you would have any problem with in term s of 21 the methodd olog y or the numbers?
| |
| 22 A. No . Only what I had pr ev io usly sa id , which was
| |
| (~~
| |
| 23 that if the maj ority of the buses were c om i ng from 24 190 mil e s , then I think that your e s tim a te is wrong.
| |
| k~
| |
| 25 But if the maj ority are c om i ng frem, say, 50 miles, FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICL INC.
| |
| | |
| I John D. Case 60 1 then probably your e s t im a te is okay. So I think p' /
| |
| 2 this is where we need s om e ed uca tion as far as not 3 where they' re c om ing from, but as far as distances (h 4 are co nc er n ed and numbers o f vehicles i nv o lv ed .
| |
| 5 That m ig h t be v ery r ead ily r esolved .
| |
| 6 M R. OTTO: I have nothing further.
| |
| 7 MS. FERKIN: I have one or two brief 8 questions.
| |
| 9 BY M S. 'F ER KI N : ..
| |
| 10 0 This is a little irregular, I understand, but 11 Mr. Otto and I have in fact d iv id ed r e s po n s ib ili t y 12 for the contentions. I j ust have one question for A 13 you, Mr. Case.
| |
| g) 14 We were referring before to this 15 NUREG-0654. Do you recall that d i sc us s io n?
| |
| 16 A. Yes.
| |
| 17
| |
| ~
| |
| 0 And yo u had ind ic a ted yo u had reviewed, I 18 b el ieve , o nl y Appe nd ix 4 of this document; is that 19 cor r ec t?
| |
| 20 A. Pr im a r il y . I had gone thro ug h the document, 21 but I have scanned the d oc um en t a nd I had reviewd 22 Appendix 4 p r im a r il y .
| |
| s' 23 0 So the r e fo re yo u d id not review the section of j~g 24 the d oc um en t known as Criterian O with respect to V
| |
| 25 rad iol og ic al em erg ency r espo nse training?
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERYlCE, $NC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cace 61 1 A. May I see it?
| |
| n 2 Q. Yes.
| |
| 3 A. I scanned that. Ye s , I r em em b e r scanning it.
| |
| 'hh 4 Q. But you had not r ev ie wed it to the same d eg r ee 5 you had r ev ie we d Ap p e nd ix 4.
| |
| 6 A. No.
| |
| 7 MS. FERKIN: Tha t's all the questions 8 I have. Thank you.
| |
| 9 BY M R. HASSELL: .
| |
| 10 Q. I'm Mr . Hassell, counsel for the NRC staff, Mr.
| |
| 11 Case. I believe you kno w me . We' v e me t before. I 12 only have one clarifying question.
| |
| 7 /")
| |
| \s 13 Other than your believing that 14 incentives should be o f f e r ed to the c iv ilian bus 15 d r iv ers , do you have any other basis for b el i ev i ng 16 that the c iv il ia n bus drivers in this instance will 17 not e ng ag e in training?
| |
| 18 A. No .
| |
| 19 , MR. HASSELL: I d on' t have any o ther 20 questions.
| |
| 21 MR. CONNER: Mr. Lov e , d id yo u want 22 to --
| |
| 23 MR. LOVE: One or two points, n 24 BY M R. LOVE:
| |
| V 25 O. Wi th respect to the fl ow chart, you d isc us sed FOSTER court RCPCRTING SERytCC. INC.
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| , John D. Cace 62 1 the po ssibility tha t a l oc kd own may take a 2 con s id er abl y lo ng er time than 30 m in u te s . You also 3 discussed the po ssib ility o f the buses perhaps not n
| |
| '(,, . 4 a r r iv i ng within, say, two ho ur s , especially if 5 t hey' re coming from 190 miles.
| |
| 6 Now, with respect to some of these 7 other duties that must be pe r fo rm ed , is it not your 8 opinion that there has to be further clarification 9 with respect to some of these d, u t i e s to make s u r .e 10 that they are go ing to occ ur s im ul t a n eo u sl y as you 11 had sa id earlier? ,
| |
| 12 A. I'm not quite sure I understand that question.
| |
| 13 Q. Let me rephrase that question. For ex am ple ,
| |
| yN~]s 14 from this c har t i t' s not clear what duties will be 15 per f o rm ed at the same t ime ; is that not co rr ec t?
| |
| 16 A. No , I d on' t know that the chart d oesn' t show 17 that. ,But it wa s my under stand ing from what I had 18 been told and other pl ac e s read that these would go 19 o'n as close to s im ul ta n eo u sl y as possible. In other 20 wo rd s , it wa s my und er stand ing , for ex am pl e , that 21 you call your o f f-d ut y personnel in. That m ig h t .
| |
| 22 take one to two ho ur s ; in bad co nd i ti o n s i t mig ht
| |
| ~
| |
| 23 ta ke two to three hours. Now, then you would have 24 your vehicle l oad ing te am s a ssig ned as soon as yo' u 25 got yo ur per so nn el in, I s up po se , and yo u' v e got two FOSTER COURT REPORTING StnytCE. INC.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| John D. Cage 63 1 hours that have been used up there.
| |
| () 2 Now, if that's not a correct 3 assumption on my part, then yes, then I would have a g 4 lot of questions. But I don't really have any g(J 5 questions about that particular thing. I just think 6 that the whole thing is speculative and it has to be 7 speculative because it is an estimate. You can't 8 possibly narrow it down to a minute by minute kind 9 of a thing.
| |
| 10 As I said, I have some questions 11 about whether this will work. If the inmates are
| |
| - 12 well educated, then I think it will work.
| |
| 13 Q. When you speak of the inmates being well 14 educated are you talking of them being educated at 15 the point of time of the emergency or are you 16 talking about them being educated prior to the 17 emergency?
| |
| 18 A. No. I'm talking about them being educated 19 prior to the emergency. And it's my understanding 20 from previous conversations with counsel from the 21 Department of Correction that they would have such ,
| |
| 22 an indoctrination and it would be constant --
| |
| it s 23 would be ongoing, not constant, but it would be 24 periodically repeated as you get new inmates so that 25 they would know what we're talking about.
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICE. lNC.
| |
| 6---
| |
| | |
| John D. Case 64 1 Q. Now, going back to yo ur experience as a wa rd en 2 in the Bucks Co un t y s y s t em , yo u men tioned that you 3 had conducted fire drills at that point in t im e on a
| |
| () 4 monthly ba sis ; is that correct?
| |
| 5 A. Th a t' s correct. -
| |
| 6 Q. Were the inm a te s i n f o rm ed of the mechanics of 7 the fire drills ev en t ho ug h , as I think you sa id ,
| |
| 8 the y d id n' t ac tually ev acua te the pr iso n? Bu t you 9 d id have these drills. Were the inmates in f o rm ed 10 prior to the --
| |
| 11 A. First of all, I'd like to correct yo u . They 12 d id ev ac ua te the prison in the sense that they went 13 into the yard of the prison. Th e y d id n'.t go out the 14 front door. A nd they were in f o rm ed in wr i ti ng and 15 they were also in f o rm ed in their initial
| |
| , 16 indoctrination as they c am e in to the prison about 17 fire d r ill s and so on. And tha t's the kind of thing 18 that I ho pe I'm correct in now understanding that 2
| |
| 19 the De pa r tm en t of Co rr ec tio n wo ul d be pr ov id ing to 20 ensure an o rd e rl y evacuation.
| |
| 21 Q. Going back to the need for training for 4
| |
| I 22 c iv ilians , do you believe it may also be a good idea
| |
| '(-
| |
| 23 to have retraining on a periodic basis?
| |
| , gs 24 A. Well, yo u' r e g o i ng to have to have s om e
| |
| (
| |
| 25 retraining at least. Yo u' r e going to have new FO$TER court RCPORTING SERVICE. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cace 65.
| |
| 1 p eo pl e . The bus d riv er s aren' t a l wa ys going to be
| |
| ('D
| |
| \_/ 2 the same peo ple . And I'm sure yo u' r e going to have 3 to repeat that. Yo u' re going to have to train new
| |
| {}; 4 d r iv er s . And there may be s om e need for refresher 5 training once a year or something of that sort I 6 wo uld suppose.
| |
| 7 M R. LOVE: I have nothing f ur ther at 8 this time. -
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: Waive sig na tur e.
| |
| 10 M R. CONNER: Mr. Love, are yo u go ing 11 to o rd er a copy o f the transcript? Are yo u g oing to 12 be o f f er ing it at trial?
| |
| - 13 M R. LOVE: I wo uld m ov e that this
| |
| ' s.)) 14 wo uld suffice for preoffered te s t im on y , if i t's 15 ag ree abl e to all par ties .
| |
| 16 MR. CONNER: I c er ta inly have no 17 obj ec ti on to this. I want to read the transcript 18 first to ma ke sure that --
| |
| this yo ung lady is almost 19 too c ha rm ing to not hav e mad e a mistake. Subject to 20 that, of course, we agree with that.
| |
| 21 M R. RADER: Yo u said pr eo f f e r ed . You 22 mean o f f er ed in lieu of oral te s t im ony .
| |
| 23 M R. LOVE: No; in lieu that the 24 requirement to o f f er something by the 8 th of July I O 25 believe --
| |
| FOSTER COURT REPORTING SERVICC. BNC.
| |
| | |
| . 1 John D. Case 66 l- MR. HASSELL: I think he means O 2 pr e fil ed .
| |
| 3 MR. LOVE: Pr e filed , excuse me.
| |
| s
| |
| ((Dy 4 MR. CONNER: I can' t say that we 5 would have any f ur the r c ro s s- ex am in a ti o n . The' Board 6 may h av.e questions is all I'm s ugg e s t ing . And a 7 question occur s to me yo u mig ht wa n t to ex pl o r e wi th 8 the Bo a rd whether they would want any questions of 9 Maj or Case so that he m ig ht not,even have to show up 10 In which case if you prefile is all I'm po in t i ng out.
| |
| [
| |
| 11' the te s t im ony , yo u mig ht ask the Board that question.
| |
| 12 But I'm s pea k i ng o nl y for the applicant now. I l} 13 don' t know about the staff, of course, or the 14 C omm on we al th .
| |
| 15 MS. F ER KI N : The Comm o nwe al th would 16 agree with the applicant. We wo u ld have no 17 add i ti o nal c ro s s- ex am in a tio n anticipated based on 18 t od a y' s deposition.
| |
| A 19 M R. HASSELL: The NRC staff has no 20 obj ec tion to it being o f f er ed in lieu --
| |
| 21 MR. LOVE: We d on' t intend to offer
| |
| __ 22 it in lieu o f te s t im ony .
| |
| 23 M R. HASSELL: I'm so rry. I 24 m i s und er s tood .
| |
| )
| |
| 25 MR. CONNER: I misunderstood yo u too.
| |
| FOSTER Count REPomflNG SERvlCC. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cnao 67 1 M R. LOVE: We will offer this as a 2 s ta t em en t per the Board's r e q u i r em en t that te s t im on y 3 be prefiled by the 8th of July. We will not offer
| |
| ([) 4 this deposition as to testimony itself in lieu of
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 liv e te s tim ony .
| |
| 6 M R. CONNER: Yo u mean yo u' re going to 7 use the deposition and written prefiled testimony?
| |
| 8 M R. LOVE: No . I was going to use 9 this as the written prefiled te s t imon y , if i t's 10 ag reeable. -
| |
| 11 M R. RADER: Mr. Love, do yo u 12 understand at the hearing Mr. Case wo uld not be 13 e x am in ed by you on d irect?
| |
| r^}
| |
| GJ His prefiled t e s t im o n y 14 constitutes his direct testimony.
| |
| 15 M R. LOVE: Then it wo ul d just be the 16 question of additional --
| |
| 17 M R. CONNER: Cross.
| |
| 18 M R. LO VE : In that l ig ht we will 19 offer a s ta tem en t , a wr i t te n s ta tem en t.
| |
| 20 M R. CONNER: It's your intention then 21 to offer both the d epo si tio n and certain canned 22 testimony that we are not aware of at this point.
| |
| 23 M R. LOVE: Correct.
| |
| 24 M R. CONNER: Will it address any new rw) e v
| |
| 25 or different matters than Maj or Case has talked FOsttR count RCPORTING SEmytCC. INC.
| |
| | |
| John D. Cace 68 1 about tod a y?
| |
| O 2 M R. LOVE: No , it will not. 'I t will 3 seek o nl y to clarify them in l ig ht which is e,
| |
| (;; 4 favorable to the position.
| |
| 5 M R. HASSELL: Now th'at I u nd er s t a nd 6 the pr o po sa l , the NRC staff has no objection to this 7 transcript be i ng a part of the pre f il ed te s t im on y 8 sub j ec t to our r ev ie w .
| |
| 9 (V i ta marked Ap pl ic a n t' s Ex hib i t 1) 10 ( Append ix m ar ked Appl ic an t's Ex h ib i t 11 2) 12 (Le tter , 6/27/85, to Ang us Love from O 13 Theodore Ot to m ar k ed A p pl ic a n t' s Exhibit 3)
| |
| 'U 14 (Wi tn ess excused) 15 (Whereupon the ex am in a t ion adjourned 16 at 3:05 p.m.)
| |
| 17 ------
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 v.
| |
| 4 24 e ,
| |
| 25 i
| |
| FOSTER COURf REPORTING SERVtCE. INC.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 69 1 ------
| |
| ) 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
| |
| 3 COUNTY OF PH I LA DE LPH I A : SS.
| |
| 4 ------
| |
| C'' I, Janet E. Jam eso n , a Commissioner of 5 De ed s in and for the C omm o n we al th of Pennsylvania, do hereby cer ti fy that the witness wa s by me first 6 d ul y sworn to testify the tr uth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that the fo reg oing 7 ex am in a t ion was ta ken at the time and place stated herein; and tha t the said ex am in a tio n wa s recorded 8 s tenog raphically by me and then r ed uc ed to t ype wr i t i ng under my d ir ec tio n , and constitutes a true record of 9 the te s timon y g iv en by sa id witness, 10 I f ur ther certify that the in s pec tio n ,
| |
| r e ad i ng , and s ig n i ng of s a id examination were wa iv ed 11 by counsel fo r the respective parties and by the witness.
| |
| 12
| |
| * I further certify that I am not a
| |
| ,, 13 r ela tive , em plo yee , or a t torne y o f any of the
| |
| (~) 14 parties, or a relative or em pl oye e of either counsel, and that I am in no wa y interested d i r ec tl y or ind ir ec tl y in this action.
| |
| 15 In witness whe r eo f , I have he r eun to 16 set my h nd and a f fix ed my seal of office t h i sj2nd.
| |
| 17 day o f _ th ,
| |
| lQ.
| |
| \
| |
| 18 19
| |
| __ b -
| |
| b_W +
| |
| Jar e t E. Jameso Re g[u s t e r ed P r o f e .; s i o n a l Re po r te r g,,,.g
| |
| ,,g,,,
| |
| 20 Commissioner of Deeds te rie. Jer:ey in Pennsgvin; Mr Ccmmoon b; ires Agn12. lo90 21 -
| |
| 22 23 24
| |
| ,o 25 FOST ER COUMt M CPORTING SE MytC C. INC.
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 20.931 JUDGE HOYT: Is the witness tendered for I
| |
| Sim 5-10
| |
| / '
| |
| cross-examination, Mr. Love?
| |
| MR. LOVE: Yes, he is, Your Honor.
| |
| JUDGE HOYT: All right. We will start with the applicant then.
| |
| MR. CONNER: If the Board please, as a preliminary matter, I am not sure that the deposition tender included 7
| |
| the vita of John D. Case or of the document called the
| |
| " Flow Chart" which was designated as Applicant's 1 and 2 9
| |
| to the deposition. Now I assume those are offered as well j) as the letter of June 27th, which for the deposition purpose g was called Applicant's Deposition 3, and which has now been marked in this record as Applicant's Exhibit 1. I just want 13 l l I gq to make sure the record is clear on that point.
| |
| l!
| |
| JUDcE HOYT: I belicve that in the text of the 15 now admitted statement, Mr. Conner, Major Case's statement adopted those other exhibits as his own in this one, if g you are concerned about that, j9 MR. CONNER: No. I just wanted to make sure it
| |
| - was clear, 20 g JUDGE !!OYT: Very well.
| |
| CROSS-EXAMINATION 22 IhDEX XXX BY MR. CONNER:
| |
| 23 0 Major case, directing your attention first to 24 A< er;l Reporters. Inc.
| |
| 25 y ur statement, the five-page document, I note that it
| |
| | |
| 20,932 Sim 5-11 1 is undated. Do you know the date upon which it was first i
| |
| 2 drafted?
| |
| 3 A No, I am sorry, I don't.
| |
| 4 0 Was it drafted before or after your deposition on 5 July 17 6 A It was drafted after the deposition on July 1.
| |
| 7 0 Do you recall was it the next day or the following 8 day or July the 4th or July the 5th?
| |
| 9 A It was several days after and I don't recall the 10 exact day. .
| |
| 11 q Q Several days, okay. Did you do the draft?
| |
| o 121! A No. Mr. Love did the draft and we discussed it il em 13 l and he made some modifications, and then I approved it and u
| |
| 14 { signed it.
| |
| Il 1514 Q And do you recall what day you signed it?
| |
| i!
| |
| A :;o , I an. carry, I do not recall the exact day.
| |
| 16 [
| |
| 17 0 Did you carefully review it for accuracy?
| |
| 18 A I did indeed.
| |
| 19 Q Sir, how do you spell Fortsmouth Naval Prison
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 in Portsmouth, New Ilampshire? If you will look on page 1 of 21 your testimony.
| |
| 22 A Portsmouth is -- well, it is all one word of 23 course.
| |
| 24 0 Is it correct that on the first page of your L
| |
| g,rdp,porteriinc.
| |
| 25 testimony in line 6 that it is spelled "P-o-r-t S-m-o-u-t-h"
| |
| | |
| 20,933 Sim 5-12 1 as two words?
| |
| 2 A That is correct.
| |
| 3 Q Sir, directing your attention to the bottom of 4 page 1, you point out, as you properly did in your 5 deposition, that you had prior experience in moving large 6 numbers of individuals during the Korean conflict. Do you see 7 that?
| |
| 8 A Yes.
| |
| 9 Q How many times did you conduct an evacuation of 10 your regiment of Marines in Korea?
| |
| 11 A Well, I think that the evacuation of the regiment 12 from the front lines to the rear lines was one time. There woro numerous times when we conducted troop movements in that
| |
| {} 13 I
| |
| conflict in which I was engaged.
| |
| 14 l 15 Q Okay. Well, I mean you had said in your deposition.
| |
| l l 16 you referrod to one inctance when you moved them, I think 17 it was two miles in four hours, and here your refer in the 18 planning of an eventual evacuation of 3,000. Do you make l
| |
| l 19 a distinction in your mind between evacuation and troop i~~ 20 movements?
| |
| 21 A Well, I think the word as it is used now in 22 similar to the way I would have used tho word in troop movement, 23 but I also indicato that I had prior experience in moving 24 largo numbor of individuals in the Korean conflict.
| |
| Ah.,el n. porters, in.
| |
| 25 0 Did you participato in, plan and conduct more than f
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| I 20,934 Sim 5-13 1 one evacuation?
| |
| 2 A The word " evacuation" bothers me. It implies 3 almost -- it almost implies a retreat in my mind. I prefer
| |
| ! 4 the use of the word " troop movements," and in that case I 5 did, yes, participate in more than one movement of troops 6 in the Korean conflict.
| |
| 7 Q Sir, agreeing that the Marines only advance l
| |
| l 8 to the rear, I am using it only because you used the word r
| |
| l 9 " evacuation" in your statement..
| |
| 10 The clarification on another point at the bottom 11 of page 2, I would like you to tell us what you mean by
| |
| , 12 the sentence that begins at the bottom of the page where t 13 you are referring to the estimated time of evacuation and l
| |
| l 14 you say "It is my opinion that an equally realistic estimate 15 of tho estimated time of ovacuation as it has boon presented 16 to ma, and with the information currently availabic in 12 to 17 20 hours."
| |
| 18 Now that was given, I assume, in the contoxt of 19 Mr. Zimmerman's estimate of 8 to 10 hours. Are you saying
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 that his 8 to 10 hours is equally realistic to your 12 to l 21 20 hours?
| |
| 22 A It is my opinion, sir, that Mr. Zimmerman's 23 ostimato is speculativo as is mino. !!aving sinco this state-24 mont road Mr. Zimmerman's writton testimony and heard part 7-A<ged n.p.,i.rs, Inc.
| |
| 25 of his vorbal testimony, I am of the conclusion that i
| |
| | |
| 20,935 Sim 5-14 1 Mr. Zimmerman's statement of 8 to 10 hours is based on rather 2 ideal conditions. Mine would be based on adverse conditions.
| |
| 3 Neither one.of us would be in a position to know what those 4 conditions would be if there were an evacuation.
| |
| 5 0 Then you are saying that it is not equally 6 realistic. You are saying that your assumption is adverse and 7 you seem his assumptions to be for good weather conditions?
| |
| 1 8 A No, I think that it is an equally realistic i 9 estimate to Mr. Zimmerman's. I am just saying that his is 10 an estimate based on what appears to be rather ideal conditions 11 and I would introduce what I would call a Jcasus factor, or 12 a "J" factor,'which we used to have in my experience in troop 13 movements. That would be the application of the Murphy Law, f 14 that is anything can go wrong, it will.
| |
| 15 And it is my opinion that you might well considor i 16 that in the movemont of the inmatas of Graterford you would 17 have a possibility of panic outside of the institution, i 18 automobile accidents and so on, which would cause the estimated l
| |
| 19 timo to be longer, and that is all I am saying, that I think
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 wo ought to realize that Mr. Zimmerman's estimato is not 21 hammered in bronzo. l i 22 0 Sir, directing your attention to pa>lo 58 of your
| |
| . 23 deposition ---
| |
| i !
| |
| l 24 A Yos, sir. I 4
| |
| Adlhed hpews. lu. {
| |
| 25 0 --- you will note that beginning on pago 12 you !
| |
| i i 1
| |
| | |
| 20,936 Sim-5-15 ~
| |
| are asked a question by Mr. Otto about Superintendent 3
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 Zimmerman's assumptions. Do you see that,beginning at line 127 3 A Yes.
| |
| 4 Q And do you see the answer that you give beginning 5 on line 187 6 A Yes.
| |
| 7 Q And this question of course involves educating 8 inmates to the conditions.
| |
| 9 A May I read the question and the answer first?
| |
| 10 Q Please.
| |
| 11 (Pause.)
| |
| 12 JUDGE HOYT: I would like to go off the record 13 just a moment.
| |
| 14 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 15 JUDGE HOYT: Back on the record.
| |
| 16 T!!E WI".' NESS: Yos, I havo rcad tho question and 17 my answer.
| |
| 13 BY MR. CONNER:
| |
| 19 Q And isn't it the casonco of your answer that
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 Commissioner Zimmerman's estimatos are "as good a guess as I
| |
| 21 anybody could como up with"?
| |
| j 22 A Yos, and I coo nothing in my statomont to change I
| |
| ! 23 that. I fool that Mr. Zimmorman is a professional person and 24 his staff in profossional and that ho has como up with tho AO,an.,.=ri.w.
| |
| V ?
| |
| l 25 boat ostimato that ho couin at that timo. My only I 1
| |
| 9 t
| |
| | |
| 20,937 Sim 5-16 1 point is that it is an estimate and that I think it was
| |
| () 2 designed with ideal conditions in mind and that it might well 3 be that it would take longer than 10 hours.
| |
| 4 Q Sir, at the deposition I asked you about your 5 familiarity with the document known as NUREG 0654. Do you 6 . recall that? .
| |
| 7 A I do recall that.
| |
| 8 Q Have you further reviewed NUREG 0654 since your 9 deposition?
| |
| 10 A No, sir, I have not.
| |
| 11 0 You have no reason to draw any different 12 conclusions then from your testimony ir. your deposition 13 relating to NUREG 06547 14 A No.
| |
| 15 Q Have you examined Appendix E of the Pennsylvania l
| |
| 16 l Emargency Management Agency called the "The Disactor Operatione 17 Plan"?
| |
| Is A No, I havo not.
| |
| and Sim
| |
| --Suo fois 20 21 22 23 24
| |
| 'Ahrer n.perieri, tu, 25
| |
| | |
| 20,938
| |
| _#6-1-SueWalj 0 Then, there is no change from your position that 2 if the inmates are properly acquainted with the reasons for 3 the evacuation, if it were made, that they would cooperate; 4 is that correct?
| |
| 5 A That is correct, sir. But Mr. Zimmerman made it 6 very clear that it is his experience -- and it would also y be mine -- that the inmates are going to cooperate if they 8 feel by their cooperation they could get out of a life-9 threatening situation.
| |
| 10 0 And you heard -- you were present in the court-11 room yesterday I believe when Mr. Zimmerman testified about 12 how the inmates' handbook would have an addendum describing the conditions? !
| |
| ['1
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 l
| |
| 14 l A Yes. I thinx that's a very good addition to the l l
| |
| handbooP 13l lo '
| |
| ' 16 1 0 Sir, directing your attention to Page 44 of the ,
| |
| i 17 deposition which refers to training, do you have it? i 18 A I have Page 44, yes.
| |
| 19 0 Well, back on Page 43 also.
| |
| I 20 A Yes.
| |
| I 21 O Your teatimony in general related to the situation I i
| |
| 22 that you believe that the bun drivern, thecivilianpersonnell l
| |
| 23 an distinguished from State pornonnel who might participate !
| |
| 24 in driving bunen or ambulancen, for a potential evacuo: ion of i A.9i.,e n mete,.. inc. l 25 Graterford would need nomo incentive to cunduct or to participat(
| |
| l e
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 20,939
| |
| #6-2-SueWaf in training; is that correct?
| |
| 2 A That's correct.
| |
| 3 Q And I asked you at the time whether you had any 4 basis for knowing that such employees might not volunteer 5 as Red Cross workers would, for example.
| |
| 6 Do you recall that?
| |
| 7 A Yes.
| |
| 8 Q And I said, did you have any basis for knowing 9 whether or not such employees might be trained on on-duty 10 hours.
| |
| 11 Do you recall that? j 12 A Ye s .
| |
| () 13 0 !! ave you received any further information to 14 increaso your knowledge of the incontivos that might or 15 might not be available to such employees sinco the timo of ,
| |
| 16 the deposition?
| |
| 17 A The only information I roccived is a copy of the 18 testimony of Donald F. Taylor.
| |
| 19 0 Which, of courno, was that given in the hearing 20 hero yeatorday?
| |
| 21 A Woll, I have a copy of his written statement. I ,
| |
| 22 do not havo the transcript of the hearing from yostorday.
| |
| 23 Q I'm sorry. Woro you horo whon Mr. Taylor (3 24 testified?
| |
| l A .' d .i neno,teri,ine.
| |
| 25 A No, I was not.
| |
| | |
| 20,940
| |
| #6-3-SueWall MR. CONNER: Oh, okay. We have no other O 2 questions.
| |
| 3 JUDGE HOYT: Ms. Ferkin, do you wish to cross-4 examine this witness? Or, Mr. Otto.
| |
| 5 MR. OTTO: Thank you, Judge Hoyt. Just one quick 6 point.
| |
| 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION Indexxx 8 BY MR. OTTO:
| |
| 9 Q Major Case, turning to your deposition on Page 10 63 --
| |
| 11 A Yes.
| |
| I 12 Q Okay. In that page we are talking about the in- i i
| |
| J~l 13 mates being notified as' to what types of things are going to l 14 happen to them during the evacuation process. l
| |
| \
| |
| 15 And I would like you to read your testimony begin-l I
| |
| 16 l1 ning on Line 18 and just going to the bottom of the page.
| |
| 1 17 A (The witness is reading the document.) I 18 Yos. I 19 0 Now, that testimony indicatos that you and I had i 20 previous conversations regarding an indoctrination, as it l 4
| |
| 1 21 is called in thoro.
| |
| l 22 Do you have any recollection when thoso convorca- l 23 tions took placo?
| |
| 24 A Thoy woro como timo ago. I'm norry, I don't havo j A.eera n.rmie, . ine, i I
| |
| 25 a recollection as to when.
| |
| I
| |
| \
| |
| l i
| |
| l l
| |
| 6
| |
| | |
| 20,941 e 6-4 -S ueWall Q But would it be accurate, and would it be your 9 2 recollection, that it took place prior to your deposition 3 of that date?
| |
| 4 A That's correct.
| |
| 5 0 Would it reflect your recollection if I indicated 6 to you that it would have been March 22nd, 1985 during the --
| |
| 7 one of the conferences we were having regarding this matter?
| |
| 8 A Yes.
| |
| 9 MR. OTTO: I have nothing further.
| |
| 10 JUDGE IlOYT: Very well. Mr. Hirsch?
| |
| II MR. IIIRSCII: I have no questions, Your !!onor. l l
| |
| 12 JUDGE ilOYT: Mr. Ib s s ell , for the Nuclear Regulatory l
| |
| ) 13 n Commission staff? >
| |
| f 14 MR. !!ASSELL: If I may have juct onc minute juct l' 15 l to review whether I have any questions at all.
| |
| 16 I (Pauso.)
| |
| r 17 I have no questions in view of the cross-examination 18 that han occurred.
| |
| l 19 JUDGE !!OYT: Vary well. Mr. Lovo, do you havo '
| |
| 20 any redirect baned upon the mattern brought up in the cross- ,
| |
| 21 examination?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: One or two. I l
| |
| 23 JUDGl: IlOYT Very well. Proceed, nir.
| |
| ( 2d R I: D I IU; C T 1 X A M I N A T I O N
| |
| .A.. .:o nemetees, ine.
| |
| l 23 ind xx:c IJ Y MR . LOVI:s '
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| 20,942 6-5-SueWall Q Major case, just for the record, when was the 2 first time you heard of this potential addendum to the 3 inmate handbook?
| |
| 4 A One moment, please.
| |
| 5 (The witness is looking through some papers.)
| |
| 6 I think it's in Mr. Zimmerman's written testimony, 7 and it was also mentioned in his oral testimony yesterday.
| |
| 8 Q Do you know what that addendum will bo?
| |
| 9 A No, I do not.
| |
| 10 0 And what do you believo should bo the appropriato 11 orientation for the inmate population? ,
| |
| 12 A Well, I think it has to be concluded, as was
| |
| ) 13 indicated to mo by councol for the Department of corrections, i, i
| |
| 14 it would be concluded in the inmato indoctrination, and now l
| |
| f 15 Mr. Zimmerman has indicated that they would have, I would 16 l auppoco, a page of explanation in the inmato handbook.
| |
| I, t 17 0 Do you bolicyc that drillo should be conducted in 18 addition to the addondum, or do you fool the addondum would l 19 be sufficient if the wording is propor?
| |
| 20 MR. CONNER: I would object to tho question about ;
| |
| i 21 drilla as going boyond anything on crono, i l
| |
| 22 MR. HASSELL: Tho staff would join in that objection.
| |
| 23 JUDGU H0YT Mr. Lovo, it did not appear in tho 24 A.lll,a nenorte,i, em direct examination. l 25 MR. LOVCs Well, the innuo -- l l
| |
| i h
| |
| | |
| 20,943
| |
| ,{6-6-SueWaly JUDGE HOYT: I beg your pardon -- the cross-
| |
| / T 2
| |
| examination.
| |
| MR. LOVE: The issue was what type of orientation 3
| |
| the inmates would receive, and I'm just trying to -- while we 4
| |
| 5 have Major case here and he is an expert --
| |
| JUDGE FOYT: All right. Within that scope of 6
| |
| 7 the question, I think the witness should be able to answer 8
| |
| thet without going too far afield beyond what was raised on 9
| |
| Cross.
| |
| 10 Major Case, if you can answer that as expressed I
| |
| )) by Mr. Lovo. ,
| |
| WITNESS CASE: Ucll, in any omorgency proceduros f 12 l
| |
| (~) 13 I would believo it is a good policy to have a drAll, a firo ,
| |
| i
| |
| \j drill, for examplo. I would think that a drill testing l 14 15 those procoduren up to the point of moving pvopic from one 16 aroa of the ihatitution to another to the loading areas ,
| |
| 17 might well bo indicated. l 18 DY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) l 19 Q Major Cano, with respect to the catimated tim.
| |
| 20 of ovacuation, would inmoto knowledgo, cooporation, orionta- !
| |
| i 21 tion, whatever you want to call it, hava any bearing upon 22 the venicle ontry car tho manpower mobilization anpocto of 23 the flow chart?
| |
| 24 A I'm not suro I understand that quantion.
| |
| (~}
| |
| A.-. _x nne,ie,i, ine.
| |
| 23 Q If or if not the inmaton woro trainod, and if it
| |
| | |
| . 20,944 6-7-SueWall was proper, regardless of that, would that have any bearing 2 upon the two to four hour vehicle entry estimatc, or the one 3 to two hour nanpower mobilization estimates that were in 4 the flow chart of Superintendent Zimmerman?
| |
| 5 MR. CONNER: Objection. Beyond the scope of 6 cross.
| |
| 7 JUDGE IlOYT: Yes. I think we are getting much 8 too far beyond that scope, Mr. Lovo.
| |
| 9 MR. LOVE: Your lionor, if I might --
| |
| 10 JUDGE !!OYT: Yeah.
| |
| II MR. LOVE: -- I believe that Mr. Conner asked f l
| |
| 12 some questions with respoet to if the inmates were properly l l
| |
| 13 I trained wouldn't it bo, in fact, truo that the ectimatos ,
| |
| i I
| |
| Id I l could be reached. '
| |
| l And my point in that inmato training will havo no 15 l 16 bearing upon the vuhiclo entry or thu manpower mobilization. ,
| |
| 17 JUDGE !!OYT Well, I --
| |
| 18 MR. LOVE: Becauno tho inmaton aren't involved 19 I'm just trying to clonr that up.
| |
| in thono aspecto.
| |
| 20 JUDGU llOYT: I undoratand your point. And from 21 your point of view, I'm nuro it'n a good argument but I 22 don't think thin witneno han any tontimony furthur on that, I l
| |
| 23 Mr. Lovo.
| |
| 7d Woll, if that's clear for tho record, MR. LOVCs A.#i.e.i menorie,i, ine.
| |
| [
| |
| 25 that'n fino, i i
| |
| | |
| 20,945 6-8-SueWal JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| 2 MR. LOVE: Nothing further.
| |
| 3 JUDGE fiOYT: Ms. Ferkin and Mr. Otto, there was 4 a question on Mr. Love's redirect concerning the aspects 5 of the training that you may wish to examino on. Was there 6 anything brought up in that?
| |
| 7 (Ms. Ferkin and Mr. Otto nod in the negative.)
| |
| 8 JUDGE HOYT: You have nothing further on that?
| |
| 9 All right. It just appeared to me that it might be a ques-10 tion thoro.
| |
| 11 Very well. Any other questions? l 12 l i (No reply.) 6 13 i Major Cano, Judge Colo has some qucations.
| |
| indo:::: 14 DOARD EXAMIMATION d
| |
| 15 ! DY JUDGE COLE:
| |
| h 16i O Just one or two quustions, Major Cano. On Pago 3 l
| |
| 17 of your tantimony, you refor in difforont parta of that 16 pago to the lock-down timo.
| |
| 19 Sir, you woro proacnt in the courtroom yesterday 20 when Suporintendent Zimmorman testified, woro you not, air?
| |
| 21 A Yon, I wan. At least, for part of his tuntimony. ;
| |
| 22 0 All right, sir. Do you recall hin atatemonto '
| |
| I 23 concorning tho ovonto montionod on Pago 3 of your tuntimony?
| |
| i )
| |
| 24 ror examplo, tho power outago and nubcoquant riot j A4... . a n.imei,,.in.
| |
| 25 on C Dlock and tho other incidentu involving lock-downn? l i!
| |
| | |
| 20,946
| |
| '6-9-SueWa11 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 2 0 Do you recall his testimony about the installation 3 of emergency lights?
| |
| 4 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 5 Q All right, sir. Well, Lines 6 or 7 of your testi-6 mony you state that: It is unrealistic to assume a thirty 7 minute lock-down time could be achieved.
| |
| 8 Could you explain to me why you think that's 9 unrealistic, sir?
| |
| 10 A Well, I think it ties in with this thing, given Il the current knowledge -- my current knowledge -- of the l
| |
| 12 inmato population with recpcet to the plan. Since my making '
| |
| 13 l h this statement, I have received a copy of Mr. Zimmerman's ,
| |
| I
| |
| 'd testimony and I have heard his testimony. i 15 I would think that it is realistic at this I
| |
| 16 point, given the inmato cooperation, that you could achieve l
| |
| l 17 a thirty minuto lock-down.
| |
| 18 All right, sir. Considering what you know about ;
| |
| 0 I9 inmato responso, do you think that a thirty minuto lock-down !
| |
| 20 timo in now realistic?
| |
| 21 A You, I do.
| |
| l 22 0 All right, sir. The lact part of the paragraph l 23 that beginn -- No11, the fourth and fivo linou from tho ,
| |
| 2d bottom on the pago, you indicato that a lock-down could tako A.#s.c n.,n ,,, ine.
| |
| 25 an long an fivo hourn to completo. !
| |
| i J :
| |
| 4 l
| |
| | |
| 20,947 66-10-SueWan Considering the nature of the emergency that would O 2 be presented with a situation at Limerick, and what you know 3 about Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony, and your knowledge 4 of prisoner response or inmate response, do you think that a 5 five hour lock-down time is realistic?
| |
| 6 A If the inmates feel that their cooperation would 7 result in their being moved expeditiously from Graterford 8 to a place of greater safety, then I think the realistic 9 time is thirty minutes.
| |
| 10 If the inmates were to feel that this were not 11 l happening, that it was not in their best interests, then it i i t
| |
| * l 12 would take I would think up to five hours. j 13 But in view of what Mr. Zimmermanhastectifiedto,l ,
| |
| l 14 I think the inmates -- and I can only speculate as anybody !
| |
| 15 uise can -- are going to operate in their best interest, which would be to got into their cello quickly so that they 16 l l
| |
| 17 could be moved quickly to a place of greater safety.
| |
| 18 Q All right, sir. Thank you. Now, at the bottom j i
| |
| 19 of Pago 2 of your tostimony and the top of Pago 3, you l 20 indicato that -- talking about an equally realistic ostimato ,
| |
| 21 of the cotimated timo of ovacuation, and you indicate twolvo i
| |
| 22 to twenty hours, f 23 Now, concidoring what you havo learned and ovary- l t
| |
| 24 thing that han taken placo in the laut two days, would you i Ajgg.cnnen..n#
| |
| 25 modify your antimato? j
| |
| | |
| 20,948
| |
| [
| |
| C-ll-SuEWdl A Not appreciably, because my estimate was not solely 2 concerned with the inmate actions but with the situation that 3 might exist outside the walls of Graterford as far as panic, 4 as far as. accidents, as far as the cooperation of private 5 bus drivers and if the bus drivers were not cooperative then 6 the need to supply officers of the Department of Corrections 7 to be bus drivers. There may be some reduction as a result 8 of my feeling now that we probably could go for a thirty 9 minute lockup.
| |
| 10 But I do feel that the whole thing is speculative l
| |
| 11 f and that as a result the time might be more than eig!t to 12 ten hours, and it might be up to twelve to eighteen hours --
| |
| ) 13 3 or twelve to twenty hours.
| |
| i Id I O Thank you, sir. Do you recall scme testimony 15 i concerning the possible evacuation of the prison in the ;
| |
| 16 f vicinity of the Three 1411e Island facility that was planned l '
| |
| 17 as a possibility for evacuation?
| |
| 18 Do you recall that, sir? l 19 A I am not familiar with that.
| |
| 1 20 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. That's all I have.
| |
| 21 Thank you, Major Case.
| |
| l 22 JUDGE !!OYT Judge liarbour has no questions, and !
| |
| 23 I have no questions, Major Cape.
| |
| I ') 24 Are there any other mattern? !
| |
| A . _ ;a m n m iees ina.
| |
| j 25 Mit . IIASSELL: I have one narrow follow-up based i
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 20,949
| |
| .#6-12-SueWaA upon Judge Cole's examination.
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, I thought perhaps there might 3 be. Mr. Hassell, if you would --
| |
| 4 MR. HASSELL: Just one narrow area.
| |
| 5 JUDGE HOYT: All right, proceed, limited to those 6 matters, of course, brought up by Judge Cole.
| |
| 7 MR. HASSELL: Of course.
| |
| 8 RECROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| ind:xx 10 Q Major Case, I believe you testified in response 11 to Judge Cole's questions that your twelve to twent; our '
| |
| 12 estimate would essentially remain the same because of certain 13 ,
| |
| factors external to the prison. ,
| |
| 14 I believe you identified panic and lack of coopera l i I i
| |
| 15 tion of bus drivers. Is that correct?
| |
| I 16 h MR. LOVE: And accidents, I believe he said. l l
| |
| 17 MR. !!ASSELL: I believe the witness should answer i
| |
| 18 or correct my statement, Mr. Love.
| |
| 19 The question is directed to the witness, not ,
| |
| 20 counsel.
| |
| 21 WITNESS CASE: I'm sorry. I'm confused. I didn't 22 hear what Mr. Love said, but it distracted me. And I winh 23 you would repeat your question. l l
| |
| 24 MR. !!ASSELL: Okay.
| |
| A.t,a nnenero ine. l l
| |
| 25 DY MR. !!ASSELL: (Continuing) '
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 20,950
| |
| #6-13-SueWaA 0 In response to a question from Judge Cole, I O 2 believe you responded -- and correct me if I'm wrong --
| |
| 3 that your twelve to twenty hour estimate would remain the 4 same notwithstanding prisoner cooperation because of certain 5 factors or things that you believe would happen outside of 6 the prison.
| |
| 7 I believe you mentioned two matters, panic and 8 lack of cooperation of bus drivers. Have I correctly 9 characterized your testimony?
| |
| 10 A Yes, I think that's correc't.
| |
| cnd #6 11 !
| |
| JoeW flws j 12 i i
| |
| . I 13 ;
| |
| 14 I I I i e is lji ,
| |
| 16 ,
| |
| t 17 !
| |
| 18 i 19 ,
| |
| __ j 20 l
| |
| 21 22 /
| |
| l l
| |
| 23 I I
| |
| <' 2a l
| |
| A.. ;ei nnertees, #ne, j 25 l l
| |
| l l 1
| |
| | |
| 7-1-Jo3 W31 20,951 1 Q Mow, with respect to the lack of cooperation 2 of bus drivers, what is your basis for that concern?
| |
| 3 A I heard nothing to indicate that -- I have 4 heard nothing or read nothing to indicate that the private 5 bus drivers would have a reason to cooperate.
| |
| 6 The testimony of Mr. Taylor indicates that i
| |
| 7 letters were written to six different bus companies, and I
| |
| 8 he has received no response.
| |
| 9 It would seem to me, in my experience, as l
| |
| 10 a troop leader, as a leader of men, men motivated by various i l 11[' things; compassion, love of their fellow man, patriotism, il 12 q and monetary reward.
| |
| 13 lli,
| |
| -s
| |
| ; None of which has been indicated to me that the le bus drivers have been given any reason to think that it would
| |
| #5 be within their best interest to move to Graterford and If move the inmates.
| |
| a Q Yes, sir. My question -- If I may have onc 17 [!
| |
| 18 follow up question, Judge lloyt -- what evidence or information 19 do you have that there would be a lack of cooperation by 20 bus drivers?
| |
| I Whr.t information do you have today that indicates 21 22 ,
| |
| that there would be a lack of cooperation of bus drivers? i l
| |
| 23 ! A I have no information to indicate that there i
| |
| 24 would be a lack of cooperation of bus drivers.
| |
| A9a.c: nnerie, . inc I 25 The only information I have is a lack of l
| |
| J 0
| |
| | |
| L7-2-Jo3 Wal 20,952 1 information as to what training would be provided, and O 2 therefore on that, I base an assumption that the bus 3 drivers would be uncooperative.
| |
| 1 4 MR. HASSELL: I have no further questions. l r
| |
| ~
| |
| $ JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Is there any need '
| |
| 6 for this witness to be retained, Mr. Love? -
| |
| l i
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: (Nods head negatively )
| |
| JUDGE HOYT: Any counsel for other parties f 8 9 that wish to have the witness retained?
| |
| 10 (No. response.)
| |
| 11 JUDGE HOYT: Major Case, you are excused, sir. l 4
| |
| ,j .
| |
| l 12 Thank you. l
| |
| ( ) 13 WITNESS : Thank you. [
| |
| 4 I :
| |
| 14 WITNESS STANDS ASIDE. I ,
| |
| i 1 I l r !
| |
| 15 j JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch, are you going to be ;
| |
| ,i .
| |
| ready to go with Mr. Licberman next?
| |
| 15 f l i I 4
| |
| 17 ' MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
| |
| ) 18 JUDGE HOYT: You, I take it, will not have an l 1 :
| |
| 1 j 19 opening statement. ,' i
| |
| !- lI i
| |
| 20 MR. HIRSCH: No, I will not, and we are ready j. j 21 to proceed.
| |
| ) 22 JUDGE HOYT: All right. We will take a brief 23 recess, however, prior to the testimony. If you need a little i i t i
| |
| i i 24 time to speak with your witness beyond what the recess is, i j s noorwn. nu.
| |
| 25 please let the Board know, Mr. Hirsch, and we will see if we i
| |
| | |
| 0,953 7-3-Jos Wal 73 1 can provide it for you.
| |
| U 2 We will recess for ten minutes.
| |
| 3 (Short recess taken.)
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch, are you ready, or 5 do you need any more time.
| |
| 6 MR. HIRSCH: We are ready, Your Honor.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. The hearing will 8 come to order. Let the record reflect that all the parties 1
| |
| 9 to the hearing who were present when the hearing recessed are-10 again present.
| |
| 11 Mr. Hirsch, you have called as your first witness 12 ,. Mr. Edward Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman , if you will not get i f
| |
| ! l
| |
| ('^ ,%
| |
| ) 12 n too comfortable and rise and let me swear vou, please?
| |
| n 18 Whereupon, !
| |
| XX'INDEX 15 - EDWARD LIEBERMAN, ,
| |
| 16 ll' was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, .
| |
| Il !
| |
| I 17 testified as follows:
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: Your witness, Mr. Hirsch.
| |
| 19 DIRECT EXAMINATION i i __-
| |
| 20 BY MR. HIRSCH. ;
| |
| 21 Q Will you please state your name for the record? I r 22 A My name is Edward B. Lieberman.
| |
| l
| |
| : l. 23 Q Mr. Lieberman, did you prepare any- prefiled !
| |
| 24 ' testimony for use in this proceeding?
| |
| w a s seporars,ine.
| |
| l 25 A Yes, I have.
| |
| | |
| 20,954.
| |
| 7-4-Jos Wal
| |
| . 1 Q Do you have a copy of that before you?
| |
| \ !
| |
| '^'
| |
| * 2 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 3 Q And is that a ten page document, along with 4 your resume attached?
| |
| 5 A Yes, it is.
| |
| 6 Q Do you have any corrections to make at this 7 time to that testimony?
| |
| 8 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 9 Q Could you explain those corrections on'a page-by-10 page basis, please?
| |
| 11 l A Yes. The first correction is on page number 3. j l i 12 On the very top, instead of 75 inmates in 5 vans,,it should l t
| |
| () 13 ;
| |
| read 50 inmates in 4 vans. !
| |
| \'
| |
| la Following through on that, the top of the next ;
| |
| 4 15hi page, page 4, the first line should read: Vans: 10 instead 16 of 11.
| |
| I 17 And finally, on page 9, Item 3, the first j i
| |
| 18 sentence should read in its entirety: The number of vans ;
| |
| i
| |
| -19 allocated is adequate.
| |
| _ {,
| |
| 20 That part of'the existing first sentence, j 21 starting with the number 11, and ending with the word, ;
| |
| I 22 ' allocated,' should be struck.
| |
| 23 Also, in the next sentence, the number 12 should
| |
| {
| |
| L 24 teral Reporters, Inc.be reduced and replaced by the number 11.
| |
| Ace 25 That completes the corrections to my testimony.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 7-5-Jon Wal 20,955 1 Q As revised, this is your current testimony, 2 is that correct?
| |
| 3 A That is correct.
| |
| 4 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, I have no further 5 questions of the witness, and he is tendered for cross-6 examination.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Do you wish his statement to be 8 moved into evidence, Mr. Hirsch?
| |
| 9 MR. HIRSCH: Yes, I do, Your Honor. Mr. Hassell l
| |
| 10 and Ms. Wright both suggested that as you were asking the l
| |
| 11 lI question.
| |
| o i l i I wish this witness' prefiled testimony to be .
| |
| 12 [
| |
| . () ;2 ,
| |
| a moved into evidence as well.
| |
| la ll JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Let me correct your !
| |
| a i if , characterization of the testimony, however. There are eleven ll 16 h pages actually to the testimony that the Board at least 17 4 received, Mr. Hirsch. i I .
| |
| la The first page was not numbered in the copy that j i
| |
| ; 19 we received, and it was not -- the numbering system did not i 20 start until the second page, so it is 11 pages of testimony (
| |
| l 1 i
| |
| 21 Pl us the Resume of Mr. Lieberman.
| |
| l 22 MR. HIRSCH: That is correct, Your Honor.
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Any objections? ,
| |
| 24 (No response.)
| |
| Am. el Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. The testimony as
| |
| : 7-6-Jon Wal 0,M6
| |
| .g' 1 described by-Mr. Hirsch will be received into evidence, and V
| |
| , 2 . attached to this record for insertion in the t'ranscript at
| |
| '3 this point.
| |
| -XXX INDEX -4 (Prefiled testimony of Mr.
| |
| 5 Edward Lieberman follows.)
| |
| 6 ,
| |
| 7 i
| |
| e 8
| |
| 9 i
| |
| 10 i
| |
| 11 l '
| |
| i' l !
| |
| 12 i !
| |
| 10 II l
| |
| , la il i
| |
| : l. . If t 1 i; 4 15 h 16 lI ll jl >
| |
| 17 i
| |
| 18 l 19 i
| |
| (__ ,'
| |
| 20 1
| |
| 21 l t
| |
| l 22 l 23 l l
| |
| 1 24
| |
| . Ace- et Reporters, Inc.
| |
| . 2S
| |
| | |
| , . . _ . . . . . - . . - _ - . = . . . - . . . _ . - . . . . . . . - - . . . - . _ -_ . . - -
| |
| .,J b
| |
| UNITED STATES OF At1 ERICA NUCLEAR REGilLATORY C0t1 MISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the_ Matter of: ) '
| |
| )
| |
| Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket tios. 50-352-OL
| |
| ) 50-353-OL (Linerick Generating Station, )
| |
| Units 1 and 2) )
| |
| )
| |
| O
| |
| * FEDERAL EMERGEt4CY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S TESTIMONY ON EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE CONTENTION OF THE GRATERFORD INMATES O
| |
| | |
| Testimony of Edward Lieberman
| |
| ({}
| |
| My name is Edward Lieberman. I am Vice President of KLD Associates, Inc. (KLD), an organization specializing in providing research and consulting services in the area of Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning. KLD is located at 300 Broadway in Huntington Station, New York 11746.
| |
| Over the past five years, I have developed procedures for accurately estimating evacuation travel times from the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of nuclear power stations and performing studies using these procedures. Specifically, these procedures take the form of a computer system named I-DYNEV. The I-DYNEV
| |
| (} software is incorporated within the FEMA Integ, rated Emergency Management Information System (IEMIS) and is used to perform studies of evacuation scenarios for nuclear power stations.
| |
| Using I-DYNEV, KLD has conducted evacuation studies for EPZ's of six nuclear power stations.
| |
| I was also the principal in developing the evacuation plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and in performing an
| |
| , analysis of evacuation travel time for the Indian Point Nuclear i
| |
| Power Station. A summary of my professional experience is f enclosed.
| |
| In preparing this testimony, I relied on the following j references:
| |
| I t
| |
| I t
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| : 1. Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction, Radiological Emergency Response Plan (RERP); Annex 1 to Appendix E of the Bureau of Correction's Emergency Plan, October 26, 1984.
| |
| : 2. Testimony of Superintendent Charles H. Zimmerman, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353.
| |
| : 3. Order Admitting Certain Revised Contentions of the Gaterford Inmates and Denying Others, with Appendix, June 12, 1985.
| |
| : 4. Proposed Revised Contentions of the Graterford Inmates with Regard to Radiological Emergency Response Plan, -
| |
| Docket l'os. 50-352 and 50-353.
| |
| : 5. Evacuation Time Estimates for the Limerick Generating Station Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone, Final Draft, Prepared for: -Phildelphia Electric Co., May, 1984.
| |
| The information contained in.these references, as it pertains to the evacuation of the inmates at the State Correctional ,
| |
| Institution [at] Graterford (SCIG), may be summarin.d as follows:
| |
| O 1
| |
| : 1. Transportation resources would be fully mobilized at the Site Area Emergency level, and dispatched to SCIG on authorization from the commissionar of correction.
| |
| : 2. The supply of vehicles for evacuating the inmates from SCIG would be provided as follows:
| |
| 58 buses from throughout Pennsylvania 2 ambulances from within Pennsylvania 2 security vans each from Graterford and four -
| |
| support institutions; a total of 10 1 ambulance from another source
| |
| ( Total resources: 56 buses, 3 ambulances, 10 vcns.
| |
| ' Buses accommodate 42 inmates, each; ambulances, 2 each; Vans 12-16, each.
| |
| : 3. The number of inmates at SCIG is 2450, according to the plan basis. Ref. 4, however, asserts there are over 2500 inmates at SCIG.
| |
| : 4. The evacuation procedure is organized as follows:
| |
| I Level I inmates will evacuate first: '
| |
| \
| |
| i i
| |
| 2
| |
| --.-m c-- , .,,,,.-_.-e,- r.,n _...,,.m.- ___ _ n. . , , , . . . . , _ , , , . . , _ _ , _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ , , , , , _ _ .,. _ . . _ _ , , , . , , , . , , --
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| fb pL JRr inmates in Y vans to one support institution in O Pennsylvania 25 inmates in 2 vans to a second support institution in Pennsylvania 25 inmates in 2 vans to a third support institution in Pennsylvania -
| |
| 25 inmates in 2 vans to a fourth support institution in Pennsylvania Level II inmates will evacuate next:
| |
| 250 inmates in 6 bucco to one cupport institution in Pennsylvania 250 inmates in 6 buses to a second support
| |
| (''
| |
| ' inctitution in Pennsylvania 250 inmates in 6 buces to a third support institution in Pennsylvania Level III, IV, V inmates following:
| |
| 1575 inmates in 38 buses to a support institution
| |
| ' - - in Pennsylvania Ambulances will travel to a support institution in Pennsylvania f
| |
| O 3
| |
| | |
| /0 Total Required: Buses: 56; Vans: Ad:
| |
| o Total Assigned: Buses: 58; Vans: 10 ,
| |
| 4
| |
| ; 5. Estimated distances which buses must travel to SCIG from their respective depots range from 90 miles to 192 miles. Estimated travel times which buses must t
| |
| ; travel to SCIG from their respective depots range from 115 to 245 minutes in good weather conditions and from 165 to 350 minutes in inclement weather conditions.
| |
| The estimated speeds are based upon an examination of the highway map and the types of connecting highways l O (Interstate, Non-interctate). Ncn-interstate are assumed to be two-way, two-lane roads. Average speeds were assumed to be 50 mph along expressways and 30 mph along i
| |
| local roads. Inclement weather speeds are estimated to t
| |
| be 70 percent of normal weather speeds.
| |
| : 6. Five loading areas are identified within SCIG where
| |
| ~~
| |
| inmate boarding of vehicles can proceed concurrently. 1 Total estimated boarding time is one hour. Time required to lockdown order and inmate count, a total of one hour, 4
| |
| i is not on the critical path since the travel time of buses from their respective depots to SCIG will take b
| |
| longer than one hour.
| |
| /} ;
| |
| - 4
| |
| | |
| s b 7. Time to evacuate the EPZ is estimated at 4 hours and 50 minutes for a winter weekday with fair weather and 6 i
| |
| hours and 45 minutes for winter weekday with inclement weather conditions. Traffic within the EPZ will evacuate in directions which are generally radial relative to the power station.
| |
| : 8. An estimate of the travel time to evacuate inmates from SCIG to the EPZ boundary may be based upon the known distance of SCIG from the power station (8.3 miles) and the knowledge that the EPZ boundary is frem 10 to 12 miles from the power station. It is thus reasonable to estimate that the distanco from SCIG to the EPZ boundary
| |
| (~s '
| |
| A-) cheuld not exceed 5 miles, regardless of the routes tchen if the movement is, for the most part, in a direction away from the power station.
| |
| : 9. The sequence of activities along the critical path for evacuating the inmates of SCIG, together with their respective estimated times, are presented below (assuming
| |
| -- an "immediate" General Emergency):
| |
| Activity Description Estimated Times (min.)
| |
| O 5
| |
| | |
| <s Weather Fair Inclement (j
| |
| : 1. Notification of bus and van 5-45 5-45 drivers and other support personnel
| |
| : 2. Travel of bus and van drivers 10-30 10-40 to pick up and fuel their vehicles.
| |
| : 3. Travel of buses and vans 115-245 165-350 from depots to SCIG (see step 5, above)
| |
| O 4. Boarding of Inmates 30 50 (maximum delay after arrival of vehicle)
| |
| : 5. Travel out of EPZ 10 15 Note that the estimates given for Activities 1
| |
| ~~
| |
| and 2, above, are reasonable, based on the assumption that the bus drivers are within 10-15 miles of the depots when notified and that notification procedures are implemented effectively. Since traffic movement
| |
| () associated with evacuation will be outbound 6
| |
| | |
| gm from EPZ, while the movement of these vehicles
| |
| ~
| |
| will be inbound, the assumed average speeds used for Activity 3 are reasonable.
| |
| Since buses and vans will arrive intermittently over a period of several hours, we need only consider the maximum delay expected in loading one bus -- not the aggregate time to load all inmates. Loading time should average less than 10 minutes per bus. Travel time out of the EPZ for the last bus will take. place after the general public has evacuated; thus an average speed of at least 25-30 mph is reasonable in fair weather.
| |
| : 10. It is not proper to simply add all the minimum times together, then all the maximum times together, to arrive at the total range of time for evacuating the inmates at ,
| |
| SCIG. Nevertheless, if one is interested in estimating the absolute maximum time that all these activities can consume, that upper bound may be found by adding the
| |
| ~~
| |
| maximum numbers given in step 9. l On these bases, the following estimates follow:
| |
| Weather
| |
| {}
| |
| 7 l
| |
| | |
| " l Fair Inclement ,
| |
| l l
| |
| Maximum Estimated Time for Buses and Vans to Evacuate Inmates from SCIG (Hours: Minutes) 6:00 8:20
| |
| : 11. Conclusions
| |
| : 1. Based on the analysis presented above, the estimates presented in Reference 4, by Superintendent Zimmerman are certainly reasonable and somcwhat conservative.
| |
| Buses and vans should start to arrive at SCIG within 3
| |
| ( hcurs of the Notice to Evacuate and all inmates should be evacuated frem the EPZ within 6 hours in fair weather and within 8 1/2 hours in inclement weather.
| |
| : 2. The number of buses allocated (58) is adequate based upon the figures presented. However, I recommend that at least 63 buses be available at all times for the
| |
| -- following reasons:
| |
| a) The population of SCIG may experience fluctuations which exceed the planning basis of 2450 inmates.
| |
| O U
| |
| 8
| |
| | |
| O b) It must be assumed that some buses may not be available due to maintenance activities, and a few may experience mechanical difficulties during the evacuation.
| |
| : 3. The number of vans allocated is M adequated 1-1-ere needed-vs'the 10-that-are-allocated. For the reasons given in item 2, above, I recommend that a total of 62 //
| |
| vans be allocated for evacuating inmates from SCIG.
| |
| : 4. The plan for loading Level I inmates first, then Level II inmates, etc. may not be efficient from the point of view of matching available vehicles with inmates. If buses arrive at SCIG before all vans have been dispatched, then these buses would be kept waiting for the vans to arrive. If security can be maintained, it would be better to load the vehicles as they arrive, and dispatch them when loaded, thereby reducing the radiological exposure potential of all personnel.
| |
| : 5. The evacuation of inmates from SCIG will not affect the estimated evacuation travel times for the following reasons:
| |
| a) The small number of vehicles involved in the evacuation of inmates from SCIG, even
| |
| {}
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| . . . _ _ . - _ . - . . - . . - _ . ~ . = - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - . . . - . . - - . _ - - . . _ ,
| |
| t T
| |
| considering the police escort vehicles, relative
| |
| .i to the number of vehicles used to evacuate the ,
| |
| 4 j' general public.
| |
| 1 1
| |
| 4
| |
| [
| |
| l b) Most buses and vans will probably leave SCIG I after all -- or almost all -- of the general ,
| |
| i I s
| |
| ! public has evacuated. (compara the estimated l
| |
| ! I times of step 9 with those of step 7). I t
| |
| J
| |
| \
| |
| 1 I
| |
| i
| |
| ~
| |
| : O .
| |
| I J
| |
| r f
| |
| a
| |
| ' emme
| |
| ,' r a
| |
| s I
| |
| i 4
| |
| 4 ;
| |
| j O ! I i )
| |
| i 10 ,
| |
| | |
| EDWARD LIEBERMAN 7
| |
| V Position: Vice President Education: B.S., Civil Engineering, 1951, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn M.S., Civil Engineering, 1954, Columbia University M.S., Aero Engineering, 1967, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Subsequent studies toward a Ph.D. in Transportation Planning at Polytechnic Institute of New York Professional Backcround: With almost 30 years' professional experience, Mr. Lieberman has managed numerous major projects.
| |
| Mr. Lieberman pioneered the development and application of traffic simulation models, making major innovations in the state of the art in the Traffic Engineering profession. He has also been responsible for many engineering studies involving data collection, analysis and design of traffic control systems to expedite traffic flow and relieve congestion.
| |
| He has developed simulation models to study traffic performance on urban networks, on freeways, and on freeway corridors. These programs include consideration of pedestrians' interacting with vehicular traffic, truck and bus operations, special turning la.nes, and vehicle fyel consumption and emissions; both pretimed and actuated traffic signal control are represented. Selected
| |
| ( ). project activities include:
| |
| e Responsibility for the theoretical development of DYNEV, a dynamic evacuation simulation model. DYNEV is designed to be used as a tool to develop and optimize evacuation plans needed as part of general disaster preparedness planning.
| |
| DYNEV was used to analy:e an existing evacuatien ccenario at the Con Edison Indian Point Nuclear Power Station and was used to develop an extensive evacuation plan for the LILCO Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on Long Island, New York.
| |
| o Serving as a principal in the development of an evacuation plan for the Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Mr. Lieberman's activities in this
| |
| ~~
| |
| project include, definition of evacuation scenarios, definition of the evacuation network, analysis of trip tabics, analysis and optimization of simulation results, the preparation of formal documentation and testimony, and providing testimony at public hearings conducted as part of the licensing procedures.
| |
| e Responsible for the development of the I-DYNEV model, an interactive version and enhancement of the DYNEV model, under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). I-DYNEV, in turn, was integrated into the
| |
| ( )x
| |
| | |
| t O -
| |
| I Integrated Emergency Management Information System
| |
| ; (IEMIS), developed by FEMA.
| |
| e Applied I-DYNEV to estimate the evacuation times for the >
| |
| - Evacuation Planning Zones (EPZ) for six nuclear power l stations.
| |
| i e Developed course material and conducted training for emergency planning personnel at the National Emergency l Training Center (NETC) in Emmittsburgh, MD. ,
| |
| a
| |
| ; I
| |
| ! e The design of the NETSIM microscopic traffic simulation' f model (formerly UTCS-1) for urban environments to evaluate 1 traffic operations, for the Federal Highway 4 Administration.
| |
| 4 e The SCOT model which simulates traffic on freeway corridors was developed for the Transportation System l Center of the Department of Transportation. The latter l program includes a dynamic traffic assignment algorithm i
| |
| : which routes traffic over a network to satisfy a specified
| |
| ! origin-destination table, in response to changing traffic
| |
| : flow characteristics.
| |
| )
| |
| 4 e Mr. Lieberman has developed advanced traffic control policies for urban traffic for the FNWA-sponsoted UTCS !
| |
| Project, as well as a bus preemption policy to enhance the
| |
| () performance of mass transit cperations within urban environs.
| |
| i
| |
| : l. e He designed and programmed the advanced " Third Generation" f i area-wide, cycle-free control policies for moderate and
| |
| ! congested traffic flow for computer-monitored real-time sycte=s.
| |
| o He developed a cycle-based, off-line computational procedure named SIGOP-II, to optimize signal timing l
| |
| patterns to minimize system "disutility."
| |
| 5 1 e He led a group of traffic sngineers and systems analysts l in developing a system of macroscopic traffic simulation models designed to evaluate Transportation Systems 4 Management (TSM) strategies. This software system, named !
| |
| l TRAFLO, also includes an equilibrium traffic assignment I model. This model has been distributed to other agencies including FEMA.
| |
| i 4
| |
| e An " Integrated Traffic simulation System," named TRAF, has been designed by Mr. Lieberman. This model will incorporate all the best traffic simulation models available. Using structured programming techniques, TRAF l will integrate: NETSIM, TRAFLO, INTRAS (a microscopic
| |
| () freeway traffic simulation model), and a microscopic rural-road traffic simulation model.
| |
| i t
| |
| i F
| |
| i i
| |
| i
| |
| - - - - m-,-- ,,--.v,-,----e----, ,-em,----9%,-.--3-w,--w,, __ _ m._-n y_.-m y.y-.-&,-r,w,,,y,-- .,w-.,.,,,ww, % y-,e,.,v-,,'
| |
| | |
| )
| |
| l
| |
| () e Mr. Lieberman served as Principal Investigator on NCHRP Project 3-20 entitled, " Traffic Signal Warrants." This project involved both field data collection and the application of the NETSIM model to study intersection !
| |
| delay as a function of traffic volume, type of control and geometrics. New signal warrants were developed and documented.
| |
| e Under NHTSA sponsorship, Mr. Lieberman directed a research study to evaluate a Driver Vehicle Evaluation Model named DRIVEM. This model simulates, the response of motorists to harardous events. The effort included analysis of the model formulation and software and sensitivity testing. A workshop was designed, organized, scheduled and conducted by KLD; experts were invited from all over the U.S. to recommend specific NHTSA research. activities for the further development of the mode. A recommended research program constituted the major output of the contract.
| |
| Prior to 1960, Mr. Lieberman applied his skills to the areas of stress analysis, vibrations, fluid dynamics and numerical analysis of differential equations. These nn:1yces were programmed for the IBM 7090 and System 360, CDC 6600, G.E. 625 and UNIVAC 1108 digital computers in assembly language, FORTRAN and PLI. He also designed the logic and real-time programming for a. sonar simulator built for the Department of Navy and monitored by a PDP-8-process-control digital computer.
| |
| (} Member of the American Society of Civil Professional Activities:
| |
| Engineers, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Accociation of computing Machinery and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) .
| |
| He is-a member of the Capacity Committee and of the Traffic Flow Theory and Characteristics Committee of the TRB. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in New York and in Florida.
| |
| Honorary Society: He is a member of the Chi Epsilon Honorary Fraternity.
| |
| Selected Publications:
| |
| "DYNET - A Dynamic Network. Simulation of Urban Traffic Flow,"
| |
| ~~
| |
| Proceedinas, Third Annual Simulation Symposium, 1970.
| |
| " Simulation of Traffic Flow at Signalized Intersections: the SURF System," Erpceedinas, 1970 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 1970.
| |
| " Dynamic Analysis of Freeway Corridor Traffic," ASME paper, Trans. 70-42.
| |
| " Simulation of Corridor Traffic: The SCOT Model, Michway
| |
| /~T Research Record No. 409, 1972.
| |
| V
| |
| | |
| " Logical Design and Demonstration of UTCS-1 Network Simulation g
| |
| (,3) Model," Hichway Research Record No. 409, 1972 (with R.D. Worrall and J.M. Bruggerman).
| |
| " Variable cycle Signal Timing Program: Volumes 1-4," Final Report of Contract DOT-FH-ll-7924, June 1974.
| |
| " Traffic Signal Warrants, KLD TR-51, Final Report on NCHRP Project 3-20/1, December 1976 (with G. F. King and R. Goldblatt).
| |
| " Rapid Signal Transition Algorithm," Transoortation Research Record No. 509, 1974 (with D. Wicks).
| |
| "Subnetwork Structuring and Inerfacing for UTCS Project-Program of Simulation Studies," KLD TR-5, January 1972.
| |
| " Development of a Bus Signal Preemption Policy and a System Analysis of Bus Operations," KLD TR-ll, April 1973.
| |
| "SIGOP-II - Program to Calculate Optimal, Cycle-Based Traffic l Signal Timing Patterns, Volumes 1 and 2, " Final Report, Contract t DOT-FH-11-7924, KLD TR-29 and TR-30, December 1974. Summary Reoort in Transportation Research Record, 596, 1976 (with J.
| |
| Woo).
| |
| " Developing a Predictor for Highway Responsive System-Based ,
| |
| Control," Transoortation Research Record, 596, 1976 (with W.
| |
| () McShane and R. Goldblatt).
| |
| j "A New Approach for Specifying Delay-Based Traffic Signal Warrants," Transportation Research Special Report 153 - Better Use of Existinct TranFDortation Facilities, 1976.
| |
| "Notwork Flow Sinulation for Urban Traffic Centrol Systems,"
| |
| Vols. 1-5, PB230-760, PB230-761, PB230-762, PB230-763, PB230-764, 1974 (with R. Worrall). Vols. 2-4 updated 1977, KLD TR-60, TR-61, TR-62 (with D. Wicks and J. Woo). ;
| |
| " Extension of the UTCS-1 Traffic Simulation Program to Incorporate Computation of Vehicular Fuel Consumption and Emissions," KLD TR-63, 1976 (with N. Rosenfield).
| |
| ' ~ ~
| |
| " Analysis and Comparisons of the UTCS Second- and Third-Generation Predictor Models," KLD TR-35, 1975.
| |
| " Urban Traffic Control Systems (UTCS) Third Generation Control (3-GC) Policy," Vol. 1, 1976, (with A. Liff).
| |
| " Design of TRAFIC Operating System (TOS), KLD TR-57, 1977.
| |
| " Revisions to the UTCS-1 Traffic Simulation Model to Enhance Operational Efficiency," KLD TR-59, 1977 (with A. Wu).
| |
| O'
| |
| '- "The Role of Capacity in Computer Traffic Control," in Research
| |
| | |
| ('
| |
| Directions in Computer Control of Urban Traffic Systema, ASCE, 1979.
| |
| " Traffic Simulation; Past, Present and Potential," in Hamburger W. S. and Steinman, L., eds., Proceedines of the International Symposium of Traffic Control Systems, University of California, Berkeley, 1979.
| |
| "TRAFLO: A New Tool to Evaluate Transportation System Management Strategies," presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1980 (with B. Andrews).
| |
| "Detormination of the Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection," presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1980.
| |
| " Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the Left-Most Lane of an Approach," presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1980 (with W.R. McShane).
| |
| " Development of a TRANSYT-Based Traffic Simulation Model,"
| |
| precented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1980, (with M. Yedling).
| |
| " Hybrid Macroscopic-Microscopic Traffic Simulation Model,"
| |
| presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1980 (with M.C. Davila).
| |
| "A Model'for calculating Safe Passing Distances on Two Lane Rural Road," precented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 1981.
| |
| l l ($)
| |
| [
| |
| | |
| 7_-7 Joe Wal 20,957 1 JUDGE HOYT: The witness has been tendered 2 for cross-examination, and we will begin with Mr. Conner
| |
| ~
| |
| 3 for the Applicant.
| |
| 4 MR. CONNER: The Applicant has no questions.
| |
| 5 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Do you wish to go 6 next, Mr. Love, or the Commonwealth? j 7 MR. LOVE: I will be happy to go next.
| |
| 8 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, Mr. Love. Proceed.
| |
| l XXX INDEX 9 CROSS EXAMINATION l
| |
| 10 BY MR. LOVE:
| |
| 11 il Q Mr. Lieberman, a few questions with regard 12 ,I to your qualifications.
| |
| Have you ever been trained in l
| |
| 13 ;
| |
| h
| |
| '; evacuating a penal. institution before?
| |
| n 14 !! A No, n i u
| |
| 15 ..
| |
| O Have you cver been involved in estimating -- or
| |
| * 16 preparing an estimated time of evacuation for a penal il 17 institution?
| |
| t 18 A Not for a penal institution, but other ti'.20cial 19 , facilities.
| |
| [
| |
| 20 j Q Have you ever been trained in the custody and I
| |
| 21 ' control of inmate populations?
| |
| 22 A No, I have not.
| |
| 23 O With respect to the merits of your testimony, t
| |
| 24 --
| |
| one moment, please.
| |
| A Am3 Reportets, Inc.
| |
| 25 You state that -- on page 6 you give a breakdown ,
| |
| I h
| |
| | |
| 7-8-JoD Wal 20,958 1 -- the time frames it would take to conduct the necessary 2 tasks in order to get the vehicles to the prison.
| |
| 3 In No. 3, you state travel of buses and vans 4 from depots to SCIG, 115 to 245 minutes under fair conditions; 5 165 to 350 minutes under inclimate conditions.
| |
| 6 Can you te'll me what you mean by the word, l
| |
| 7 'inclimate?'
| |
| 8 A Inclimate conditions in this case would be ;
| |
| I 9 hard packed snow, with a possible combination of ice, but 10 with access open on the roadways.
| |
| 11 Q Now, can you tell me what other factors you
| |
| * I 12 e utilized in de' ermining t that estimate?
| |
| ; 13 ,
| |
| A That estimate is based upon empirical studies v
| |
| 14 that have been performed to estimate vehicle capacity on Il
| |
| <l
| |
| : a. snow covered pavements.
| |
| ll 16 ] O Do these calculations take into consideration il 17 the possibility of accidents on the roadway fron the evacuation 18 of the general public that will be conducted simultaneously l 19 to the vehicle entry?
| |
| 20 A Evacuation is outbound, whereas the vehicle 21 entry is inbound, so they would be on different roadways 22 for the most part, but to answer your question, these l I
| |
| 23 i estimates do not include any lane closure for any purpose.
| |
| 24 Q So they do not include the potential for
| |
| : u. ,,o ne n m ....ine.
| |
| I 25 accidents ? !
| |
| {
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 7-9-Joe Wal 20,959 1 A They do not include lane closure. Not all 2 accidents translate into lane closures.
| |
| 3 0 Why don't they include lane closures?
| |
| 4 A Because accidents of the more moderate type 5 you can very quickly move the vehicle to a shoulder off the 6 roadway, leaving the lane access open.
| |
| 4 7 0 Now, does your analysis take into cosideration ;
| |
| i t
| |
| 8 the potential for panic by the outgoing vehicles? j 9 MR. HIRSCH: Objection, Your Honor. I believe 10 that this is one of the issues that Mr. Love attempted to l 11 d raise in one of the contentions that was not admitted in the e
| |
| l 12 ;,l proceeding.
| |
| t 13 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, I think that j r correct, Mr.
| |
| 14 Love. That was a separate contention, . separate basis, and n
| |
| is . that was rejected by the Board.
| |
| y' MR. LOVE: If I may clarify that point, Your in I!
| |
| 17 o Honor. The contention with respect to panic that was denied ll 18 by Your Honor was --
| |
| l 19 l JUDGE HOYT: By the Board, Mr. Love.
| |
| h L
| |
| 20 MR. LOVE: By the Board, excuse me, was involving 1
| |
| l 21 , panic within the institution.
| |
| l 22 f Major Case testified as to the potential for I
| |
| 23 g panic on the roadways, and that is the panic that I am referring 24 to at this point in time, serJ Remrters, Inc, j 25 JUDGE HOYT: I believe though, Mr. Love, Major t
| |
| l li
| |
| | |
| 7-10-Joe Wal 20,960 x 1 Case's expertise was not outside the facility, and certainly
| |
| ~
| |
| 2 he has no qualifications as the Board has read that would 3 qualify him as a witness in transporation matters.
| |
| 4 MR. LOVE: Perhaps if I rephrase the question.
| |
| 5 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Let's try it that way, 6 then, if that will help get whatever point it is you wish I
| |
| 7 to make.
| |
| 8 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) 9 Q In your analysis of this time frame, did you 10 take irito consideration the possibility that certain members II of tre public while evacuating may cross over either to the ll i 12 a emergency shoulder or to the other side of the road in order '
| |
| ) 12 , to get to where they are going?
| |
| Id A Well, again, the assumption here is that thoro ,
| |
| O is no lane closure for whatever reason.
| |
| '6 Q So, you are assuming then that they will not J
| |
| 17 " use the emergency shoulder or the inbound lancs when you 18I prepared this analysis, is that correct? I l
| |
| I9 I A Not to the extent that there is any blockage.
| |
| 20 ll i O And is it your testimony today that you do not l
| |
| 21 ' believe that either the emergency shoulder or the incoming 22 ; lanes will be utilized by the public when they evacuate from the arca?
| |
| 23h 24 9ie.c nepo, tees, inc. A Well, they may be utilized, certainly. But Aa, 25 i not to the extent of blocking the movement of vehicles, or l '
| |
| l a
| |
| | |
| ._. __ __ ___ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _.__ _ _ ._. . _ ___._ m ._
| |
| .7-ll-Joa Wal '
| |
| i i these buses and vans toward the facility.
| |
| ( '
| |
| t.
| |
| 2 There is always the opportunity, of course, 3 for those vans to use alternate paths.
| |
| 4 Q But you haven't worked that into the equation?
| |
| l 5 A Nc, I don't think it would have any appreciable !
| |
| 6 effect.
| |
| 7 Q Now, with respect to the weather conditions, i
| |
| 8 have you given -- have you worked into your equation the 9 possibility that certain corridors may be closed due to 10 ; radioactive releases and wind conditions? l<
| |
| 11 I A No, I have not done that. I have assumed that ;
| |
| l ..
| |
| - 12 l the facility will be accessible to the buses, and if some !'
| |
| ()
| |
| i
| |
| ! 13 ,, corridors are, in fact, closed and there are alternative !
| |
| la n
| |
| paths, there would be alternative paths available for the l'
| |
| it ;j buses and vans to reach the facility, j l
| |
| 16 f Q Wouldn't that, in fact, take a longer period of l i I l 17 ' time? }
| |
| i 18 A It is possible, but I would expect it to be a !i I
| |
| 19 very short period of time, since we expect such 20 contamination presumably would be within ten miles of the -
| |
| i t
| |
| I 21 power station, and the facility is located, as I understand I ltf l
| |
| l 22 it, about eight and a half miles from the power station.
| |
| I
| |
| ! t i
| |
| . 23 Thorofore, to the extent that perhaps a mile !
| |
| l l l 24 and a half there would some effect, and I think an alternative l l
| |
| [ s n=ei...ix. l 25 route over that distance would not consume an appreciable j lr I
| |
| l l i
| |
| {
| |
| | |
| 7-12-Joa Wr2l 20,962 1 amount of additional time.
| |
| 2 Q You are assuming that once they get beyond 3 the ten mile border, then there is no more harm from any 4 radioactive releases? Is that what you are stating?
| |
| 5 A No, your earlier question pertained to blockage 6 of a road due to decontamination. This question is unrelated I
| |
| 7 to that one. I am not sure what you are asking for. l l
| |
| 8 0 I will move on. As an expert in traffic l 9 capacity, I may be overstepping your expertise, but do you ,
| |
| 10 have any knowledge of the utilization of commercial phone lines during an emergency situation?
| |
| 11 ]
| |
| O A You are right, that is outside my expertise, 12 [
| |
| m j
| |
| ; 12 l, Q Fine. Have you studied the meteorological data a
| |
| a available for this region when you prepared your estimate is with respect to inclimate weather?
| |
| 4] A Not in great detail, no.
| |
| il 17 0 What basis for inclimate weather did you use?
| |
| 18 A Only to the extent that the pavements could be 19 j; covered with snow, and that such snow would be plowed to li 20,i whatever extent is usual.
| |
| 21 0 Did you contemplate how much snow, or anything 22 l of that nature? '
| |
| I 23 ! A No, I did not.
| |
| 24 I Q In this same estimate of 115 to 245 minutes for serei n.norteri, inc.
| |
| 25 l the travel of buses and vans from depots to SCIG, didyoutakel '
| |
| ll li a
| |
| | |
| 7-13-Jo] W o.1 , 20,963 l
| |
| i 1 into consideration the fact that they have to make a stop 2 at a support institution?
| |
| 3 A Yes.
| |
| l 4 0 So, this does include the support institution 5 stopover?
| |
| i 6 A That is correct. I have assumed here, without 7 knowing specifically the position of the depots relative 8 to the support institution, that they are reasonably close; 9 within ten miles, i !
| |
| 10 Q All right. Now, before I ask too many questions 11ll about this, you state that it would take thirty minutes to i
| |
| I i i' 12 j board the inmates in your estimation. I am not sure quite --
| |
| 1 12 ' could you explain -- does that mean two thousand, four hundred !
| |
| ~
| |
| it i j 14 li and fifty inmates will be placed in buses in thirty minutes, i ll h
| |
| U g or is that just per bus, a
| |
| A No, that is on a per bus basis.
| |
| 16 ]
| |
| 6! >
| |
| 17 0 Well, how does that coincide with your overall 18 estimate of, I believe, six hours? l 19 j A I think they said five hours and some minutes.
| |
| 20 Q Now, in your five hour and some minute estimate, 21 how much time do you give for boarding of inmates?
| |
| 22 A I think I just answered that.
| |
| I I
| |
| 23 0 Thirty minutes? ,
| |
| 24 A Right.
| |
| A c,.i nenorteri, ine. !
| |
| 25 0 So, then you cze stating that all inmates, all l t
| |
| [ ,
| |
| I h
| |
| | |
| 7-14-Jon Wnl 20,964 1 two thousand, four hundred and fifty inmates, can be loaded 2 within thirty minutes?
| |
| 3 A I am saying that is maximum delay on a bus load 4 basis.
| |
| 5 Q On a per bus basis?
| |
| 6 A On a per bus basis, that is correct.
| |
| 7 Q Well, there are 58 buses. Does that mean we should multiply that times 58?
| |
| 8 l
| |
| 9 A No, by no means.
| |
| i 10 Q Well, then -- i li i! A There may be no delay for many buses. If the 12 ,il; inmates are available at the loading dock, or near 'the i' '
| |
| !? ;!! loading dock when the bus is there, then they would Board '
| |
| ll 14 !! immediately, and then the boarding time would be less than i n l
| |
| '. I " thirty minutes, I would assume.
| |
| 4i Again, you are touching here on an area that 11 il 17 q I am not qualified as an expert. What I do is present my o
| |
| 18 estimate' figure as a reasonable one, not one which I propose 19 . to represent as an expert.
| |
| l 20 ! Essentially, if I can elaborate on that, for 21 normal conditions it takes approximately two to four seconds 22 per passenger alighting a normal transit bus , so if you l 23 multiply that by roughly forty people, you have something 24 on the order of a minute and a half to two minutes.
| |
| ed neponen, inc.
| |
| 25 So, what I have done, essentially, is to expand i
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 0,965
| |
| >7-15-Jo3 Wal 1
| |
| that considerably, with the understanding that the inmates 7y
| |
| '' are constrained.
| |
| 2 3 Therefore, it would take much longer.
| |
| 4 Q Would I be correct in saying, then, that 5 y ur overall estimated time of evacuation is merely for 6 one bus;'the six hours and some odd minutes is merely for 7 what.it would take one bus to go there, to board and to ,
| |
| 8 leave?
| |
| 9 A No, not at all. What I have outlined here -
| |
| is generally along the lines of what is called the critical 10 l.
| |
| l 11 path method, in~which you identify a sequence of activities ,
| |
| 12 and the range of times associated with each.
| |
| And what I am asserting here is that the buses
| |
| () 13 i
| |
| 14 are going to arrive over a period of time which extends !
| |
| ll .
| |
| ;3 l4 anywhere from two hours to five hours, and over that period l r n ,
| |
| 16 I of time on a per bus basis, the boarding of inmates will 17 take approximately thirty minutes. l 18 That is an estimate on my part, not based upon 19 any expertise in that particular function. ,
| |
| 20 0 Is that also basing your assumption that as soon l
| |
| 21 as a bus reaches Greaterford it will begin loading? !
| |
| I 22 A Not necessarily. There may be some queueing, !
| |
| i 23 and the thirty minutes takes into account such queuing. I 24 If you look on page 7 of my testimony, the !
| |
| l
| |
| ; eral Reporters, lnc. i l
| |
| 25 first full paragraph under Item 9, which starts on the I
| |
| 1'
| |
| -,e-, , , , - - - , . . - - . - . - . , , - - , - - - - - . .-
| |
| | |
| 7-16-Joe Wal 20,966 i previous'page, there'is an explanation for the basis for 2 .that estimate.
| |
| 3 0 You suggested on page 9 that the plan calls 4 for loading of level 1 inmates first, is that correct, No. 4?
| |
| 5 A That is my interpretation of the paragraph.in 6 one of the references.
| |
| 7 Q Which paragraph was that, what reference?
| |
| 8 A That would be the first reference cited on 9 page 1 of my testimony.
| |
| End 7. 10 MS fols. ,
| |
| 11 i i
| |
| 12 1 ~.1
| |
| , 0 *,
| |
| l 14 i l 1 i i 15 6 16 I' .
| |
| I
| |
| !! i
| |
| -17 L-1 18 19 ,
| |
| ~
| |
| l 20 l
| |
| 1 21 22 23 i
| |
| & 24 Amhe Repon <s, Inc.
| |
| * 25 L
| |
| | |
| 20,967 i Shu 8-1 I ! l Q The first paragraph, page 1.
| |
| 2 A Yes, Item 1 or Reference 1. I am talking here o'f Annex 1 to Appendix E of the Bureau of Corrections' 3
| |
| 4 emergency plan.
| |
| 5 Q In other words, you_ reviewed the plan and the :
| |
| 6 plan stated that level one inmates would go first; is that
| |
| .7 correct?
| |
| 8 A That is the way I interpreted one paragraph 9 in that document.
| |
| 10 0 Well,.since this time we have had testimony to i
| |
| II l_ indicate that they will not in fact go first, that whoever t
| |
| 12 gets there first will be loaded first. Would that in fact
| |
| , 13 change your opinions at all?
| |
| { g}
| |
| 14 A No. As a matter of fact, my opinion were based 15 l upon a first-come/first-load basis. If you will look back 1.
| |
| l 16 il on my conclusions at Item 4 on page 9, I make that 17 -conclusion.
| |
| 3 18 Well, not that you know this, would that reduce 0
| |
| 4 19 your estimates then?
| |
| i 20 A No. My. estimate was. based upon the premise i
| |
| 21 that they would in fact load on a first-come/first-serve
| |
| . 22 basis.
| |
| 23 MR. LOVE: I have nothing further of this 4
| |
| 24 witness.
| |
| If
| |
| ,A.h.ral Reporters. Inc.
| |
| j 25 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| ..a - - - , . _ , . _ . - _,_,_...._-....._..-_u__,__..- . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . , _ . ~ . - _ _
| |
| | |
| b i 20.,968
| |
| .iSim.I8-2 Il Ms. Ferkin.or Mr. Otto for the Commonwealth?
| |
| MR. OTTO:
| |
| 2 The Commonwealth has nothing,.Your 3 Honor.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hassell? ~*
| |
| 5 MR. HASSELL: The staff just has one clarifying 6 question, if I may.
| |
| !7 CROSS-EXAMINATION INDEXXXXXXX.8 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 9 ~ Good morning, Mr. Lieberman. My name is Q
| |
| 10 Mr. Hassell, counsel for the NRC Staff. I just have one 11 clarifying question.
| |
| 12 I believe you testified in response to Mr.' Love's 13 cross-examination that the 30 minutes that you were discussing I4 would~ include some queuing. Do you recall that testimony?
| |
| 15 A Yes, I'do.
| |
| I0 Q 'Would you please explain for the record what you I7 mean by queuing?
| |
| ,18 A If you look on page 7 of my testimony, the last I9 paragraph before Item 10, I estimate, not based upon any 20 expertise in loading inmates, but rather an expertise in 21 how long it' takes passengers to load buses under normal 22 circumstances and then expanding that value to take into 23 i account that inmates have constraints.
| |
| 24
| |
| ;. A I have esimated that just the loading time, given l Ayertl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25
| |
| -that the inmates are at-the loading dock and at the bus, it
| |
| | |
| 20,969 I
| |
| .Sim 8-3 .i would take approximately 10 minutes per bus. The 30 minutes, R( 2 therefore, implies that bu'ses are queued at a particular 3 point in the loading dock and that some inmates who are '
| |
| 4 ready to broad will not be able to do so simply because of 5 logistics.
| |
| 6 Therefore, I make the assumption that even though 7 they could load 10 minutes per bus, the queuing of buses 8 awaiting their arrival could expand that figure to 30 minutes.
| |
| 9 MR. HASSELL: I have no further questions.
| |
| 10 JUDGE ~HOYT: Very well.
| |
| Mr. Hirsch, do you have- any redirect?:
| |
| 11l 12 MR. HIRSCH: No, Your Honor.
| |
| 0 13 JUDGE HOYT: This is Judge Cole, Mr. Lieberman.
| |
| 14 BOARD EXAMINATION INDEX 15l BY JUDGE COLE:
| |
| 16 O Just one question, Mr. Lieberman, and it has'to 17 do with Item 4 on page 2 of your testimony, or the page 18 numbered 2 where you state "The evacuation is organized 19 as follows," and then you indicate which level of inmates
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 will evacuate first and second.
| |
| 21 What was your source of information on the order 22 of evacuation?
| |
| 23 A Again, there was a small paragraph in Reference 1, l 24 and that is the first reference on my page 1, which indicated l Ac''O l ~ t Reporters, Inc.
| |
| "';,g l 25 to me, or at least was interpreted by me as implying this V _ _-_ - - _
| |
| | |
| , .. ._- _ - - . . -_ - . . _ - _ - -- . _ ~ _ - . -
| |
| 20,970 Sim'8-4 1 order of evacuation.
| |
| 2 Q All right, sir. But you testified that you did 3 not consider that in your evaluation.
| |
| 4 A That is correct. It didn't seem to make sense 5 to me that if buses arrived before all of the vans had arrived, 6 which I presume would occur, that the buses would sit idle 7 waiting for all the vans to arrive.
| |
| ~8 JUDGE COLE: I understand your position. Thank 9 you, sir. That is all I have .
| |
| 10 BOARD EXAMINATION ,
| |
| 11 BY JUDGE HARBOUR:
| |
| INDEXXXXX 12 O I have one question, sir.
| |
| 13 In the estimation of the arrival time of the ,
| |
| 14 buses, or the travel time of the buses to the institution and 15 the concideration of the lack of interference of traffic, do 16 you, or did you have any information or knowledge as to what 17 specific routes those buses would be taking?
| |
| 18 A No, I did not.
| |
| 19 Q So do you know whether there will be significant
| |
| ' ~ ~
| |
| 20 traveling of the buses through the 10-EPZ on their way to the ~
| |
| ?
| |
| 21 institution or not?
| |
| 22 A No. I did know the locations or whence the buses
| |
| ! -23 originate, and I was able by examining a map to infer what 24
| |
| ;A ertl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| routing they could take without knowing for sure what routing 25 they could take, and most of their travel would be far outside
| |
| !. i
| |
| | |
| 20,971 Sim 8-5 1 the EPZ.-
| |
| 2 JUDGE HARBOUR: All right. Thank you.
| |
| 3 That is all I have.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. I have no questions.
| |
| 5 Is there any need for this witness to be retained?
| |
| 6 (No response. ) ~
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Mr. Lieberman, you mayf 8 be excused, sir. Thank you for your testimony.
| |
| 9 (Witness Lieberman excused.)
| |
| 10 We will recess for lunch and we will entertain 11 any tine frames that the parties feel are necessary. You 12 may have some business to conduct during this period. '
| |
| 13 MR. CONNER: If the Board, please, and this could 14 be off the record.
| |
| 15 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Ua vill gc cff the record.
| |
| 16 (Diccussion off the record.)
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing vill go back on the 18 record.
| |
| 19 During the brief off-the-record time the Board
| |
| ~
| |
| l 20 with the parties discussed some time frames for the remaining 21 portion of the hearings and discussion of lunch hour provisions l 22 for the day.
| |
| 23 Does everyone agree that that fairly represents 24 Ah,d n.porteri, Inc.
| |
| the conversation off the record?
| |
| 25 '
| |
| (No response. )
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| 20,972.
| |
| Sim'8-6 ~1 No objections having been heard, the description 2 will stand. The Board will recess until 1:15. ,
| |
| 3 (Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the hearing recessed, 4 to reconvene at_1:15 p.m., the same day.)
| |
| 5 6
| |
| 7
| |
| -8 9
| |
| 10 11 12 13 14 l t
| |
| 15 16 17 18 19 20
| |
| .21 22 23 24 4 rzi n. porters, Inc.
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| 20,973 ,
| |
| Sim 8-7 1 AFTERNOON SESSION s - 2 (1:20 p.m.)
| |
| 3 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order.
| |
| i 4 All the parties to the hearing who were present when the 5 hearing recessed are again present in the hearing room. ,
| |
| 6 I believe we had completed the testimony this 7 morning of Mr. Lieberman, and the next witness is yours I 8 believe Mr. Hassell.
| |
| 9 MR. HASSELL: Yes, it is, Judge Hoyt.
| |
| 10 The staff would now call Dr. Thomas Urbanik.
| |
| II JUDGE HOYT: Dr. Urbanik.
| |
| 12 Whorcupon, 13
| |
| (}. THOMAS URBANIK, II I4 was called as a witness on behalf of the NRC Staff and, 15 having been first duly sworn by Judge Hoyt, was examined and 16 testified as follows:
| |
| I7 JUDGE HOYT: Please be seated.
| |
| l 18 Your witness, Mr. Hassell.
| |
| l9 DIRECT EXAMINATION INDEXXXXX 20 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 21 0 Dr. Urbanik, would you please state your name
| |
| (
| |
| 22 and business address for the record?
| |
| 23 A Thomas Urbanik, II, Texas Transportation Institute ,
| |
| 24 Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 77843.
| |
| lA err.1 Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 g .What is the current position that you hold?
| |
| l r
| |
| l
| |
| . . - . _ . _ _ . . . - - . . . , . , _ . . _ . . _ . ~ . - _ __ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . , . _ _ _ . _ . , . - _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ ,
| |
| | |
| E 20,974 h-A I am a Program Manager and Associate Racarach L 'Shn 8-8 t I Engineer.
| |
| Q Have you prepared a statement of your professional 3
| |
| l qualifications?
| |
| 4 A Yes, I have, and I believe you will find it 5
| |
| following page 19,203 in the transcript.
| |
| 6 l MR. HASSELL: If there is any party that may not l 7 have copy, I have extras now.
| |
| ; 8 f
| |
| (Pause while the copies were distributed to 9
| |
| the parties.)
| |
| '10
| |
| -BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 11 Q Mr. Urbanik, have you reviewed the Licensing
| |
| ! 12 Board's order of June 12th, 198's which admitted and denied I
| |
| certain contentions with recpe ct to thic Gratcrford proceeding ?
| |
| 14 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 15 0 What is the purpose of your testimony here today?
| |
| 16 i.
| |
| A The purpose of my testimony is to address.the 17
| |
| ; issues in Basis E, estimated time of evacuations, as they 18 specifically relate to Appendix 4 of NUREG 0654.
| |
| 19
| |
| __ Q What was your involvement, if any, in the' 20 preparation'of NUREG 0654, Appendix 4?
| |
| 21 A I was the NRC's consultant on the development j 22 of Appendix 4 and provided substantial authorship of the l 23 l document.
| |
| 24 u r'Nmi n. port.ri. inc.
| |
| O What is the current NRC guidance for preparing 25
| |
| [ an evacuation time estimate for special facilities?
| |
| l I
| |
| I L
| |
| | |
| 20,975 Sim 8-9 1 A The current guidance is NUREG 0654, Appendix 4, 2 Revision 1.
| |
| 3 Q Do you have before you a copy of the Licensing 4 Board's June 12th, 1985 order?
| |
| 5 A Yes, I do.
| |
| 6 0 Would you turn to the appendix at pages 2 and 3.
| |
| 7 Have you found that reference?
| |
| 8 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 9 0 What is your view with respect to the applicability 10 of Section 2C and Section 4B of Appendix 4 to the development 11 ] of evacuation time estimates for special facilities?
| |
| 12 A It is my judgment that the only applicable section
| |
| ^ 13 per se is section 2C and that essentially the guidance was 14l that cach institution should be done on an institution-by-l 15' ad-institution basis. The reason for doing it that way 16 i was the feeling that the expertise of these very specialized 17 facilities had to come from within the facilities and could 18 not come from the outside.
| |
| 19 So essentially there was no guidance beyond that.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 Sociton 4B methodology is really just a general description 21 of the methodology to be used for doing the general population 22 evacuation time estimates.
| |
| 23 Now that is not to say that you don't consider 24 all those things, but what I am saying is the intent of the Ac@eril Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 guidance wasn't to specify that particular methodology for
| |
| | |
| 20,976 Sim 8-10 1 special facilities.
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: One moment, Mr. Hassell.
| |
| '3 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| 4 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 5 Q 'Do you have anything to add to that?
| |
| 6 A No . - I believe that sums up the guidance as I 7 understand'.it.
| |
| 8 Q Are the evacuation time estimates for special 9 facilities under NUREG 0654, Appendix 4 intended to include 10 worse case scenarios?
| |
| II A No, I don't believe that it is. In fact, the 12 intention of the guidarree - the intention of the guidance
| |
| , 13 is to provide a couple of data points from which decision-14 makers can in fact make decisions.
| |
| 15 The normal weather or conditions scenario is 16 i intended to reflect what would be the best estimate of how 17 quickly an evacuation'could be done under reasonable conditions .
| |
| 18 The second case that is generally referred to, v'
| |
| 19 the adverse scenario, really refers to adverse weather and 20 is intended to reflect the fact that ovacuation time estimates 21 are in fact increased due to the reduced capacity and reduced 22 operating speeds of a roadway network. And even then the i
| |
| 23 adverne conditions do not represent worse case.
| |
| l , ,
| |
| 24 If in fact the roads were covered with a foot Ahrd n.porem, inc.
| |
| 25 of snow, that is not factored into the evacuation time k._
| |
| | |
| 20,977 S m 8-11 estimate. That is factored in by the decision-maker at the 1
| |
| 2 time to reflect the fact that it may take a couple of hours r
| |
| 3 additional to clear the roads. So worse case is not intended j l
| |
| 4 to apply there. [
| |
| 5 I think in the case of a prison, if we were ;
| |
| .6 tal'k4ng about rioting, for example, I think that would have >
| |
| 7 to be a special case that would be factored in during an r
| |
| L 8 actual accident. So the estimate for a prison should not i 9 reflect a riot, but should reflect in fact what would be !
| |
| 10 a more likely scenario as opposed to a worse case scenario.
| |
| 11 0 Dr. Urbanik, do you have a copy of NUREG 0654, ;
| |
| 12 Revision 1, entitled " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation I 13 of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness !
| |
| L 14 lInSupportofNuclearPowcrPlants"infrontofyou? ,
| |
| i 15 A Yes, I have a borrowed copy.
| |
| 16 0 I would new like to shov a ecpy to the other l l 17 c,oun se l .
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT Very well.
| |
| l 19 MR. HASSELL: Would you olease turn to page 410. ;
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 (The document was shown by Mr. Hassell to the 21 other parties.)
| |
| 22 MR. HASSELL: I am sorry. Let me begin at the 23 bottom of page 409. I believe you will see there some l
| |
| L 24 discussion regarding estimates for special facilitics that ;
| |
| A$.rst n.porteri, Inc. j 25 continues over to the top of page 410. Do you see that j
| |
| | |
| 20,978 S m 8-12 1 discussion?
| |
| THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
| |
| BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 4 Q Okay. Now right at that end of that part of 5
| |
| a paragraph at the top of the page 410 of NUREEG 0654 it 6
| |
| says " Consideration shall be given to the impact of peak 7
| |
| populations, including behavioral aspects." Would you 8
| |
| explain what that sentence means as a drafter of Appendix 4?
| |
| 9 A It would be my interpretation that that doesn't 10 apply to -- or wasn't intended to apply to special facilities, 11 l but to peak populations, and it just happens to be in the 12 i same paragraph I guess unfortunately. But it refers to the
| |
| , fact that when we are doing evacuation timo estimates for 14 I peak populations, and things such as beach populations and ll I5 i!
| |
| lj other conditions that are different from what we would 16 ) c::perience on a day-to-day basis, that we not f actor them 17 I I
| |
| in in the same way that we would factor in permanent 18 residents. For instance, someone on the beach that was 19 in fact going to evacuate would in fact not have to be
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 concerned with packing, reuniting his family and doing other 21 things.
| |
| 22 And also those populations would move at different 23 auto occupancies and things of that nature out of the EPZ.
| |
| 24 A .er;l Reporters, Inc. So my interpretation of that paragraph relates to peak 25 cnd Sim populations and their unique characteristics.
| |
| Sue fols
| |
| | |
| 20,979
| |
| # ! S ueWa h MR. HASSELL: I have no further questions. The O 2 witness is now tendered for cross-examination.
| |
| 3 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Does the Applicant have 4 any questions?
| |
| 5 MR. RADAR: Just briefly, Your Honor.
| |
| 6 JUDGE HOYT: All right.
| |
| 7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. RADAR:
| |
| index 9 0 Dr. Urbanik, I'm going to show you a copy of the 10 Board's Third Partial Initial Decision after it has been 11 shown to other counsel. i i
| |
| l 12 (The parties are provided a copy of the document.) ;
| |
| 1 13 !! ave you had an opportunity to review that de-14 cision or the portions of it relevant to transportation 15 studies?
| |
| b i A Not really.
| |
| 16 l1 ,
| |
| J ,
| |
| 17 0 Would you please turn to Page 31 and review for !
| |
| i 18 yourself Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31? l l
| |
| 19 A (The witness is looking at the document. )
| |
| l 20 I guess since it is quoting me, I would have a j l
| |
| 21 hard time saying that I disagreed with it. l l
| |
| 22 0 In your professional judgment and as a knowledgable' 23 person regarding the purposes of NUREG 0654, would it be your i l
| |
| 24 opinion that the Board's statement of the purposes of NUREG Aa4e<et neporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 0654 as delineated in those paragraphs refer as well to i I
| |
| l
| |
| , i l
| |
| | |
| 20,980
| |
| *9-2-SueWah special institutions such as prisons?
| |
| O 2 A I think in an overall conceptual basis, yes, 3 that would pretty well sum up the purposes of evacuation time 4 estimates and would, of course, include special facilities.
| |
| 5 0 In particular, at the bottom of Paragraph 29, the 6 last sentence which states: An overly conservative estimate 7 could result in an inappropriate decision.
| |
| 8 Would that refer as well to an evacuation time 9 estimate for a prison?
| |
| 10 A Yes, it would. And that's a very important point.
| |
| 11 MR. RADAR: No further questions. !
| |
| 12 JUDGE HOYT: Would you like to go next, Mr. Love, 13 or the Commonwealth? 6 il 14 0 MR. LOVE: I will go next.
| |
| n ,
| |
| II I 15 l JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Proceed.
| |
| 16 I C20SS EXIJ:INATION O
| |
| d ind x 17 BY MR. LOVE:
| |
| 18 Q Mr. -- Dr. Urbanik, is it, just so I am clear on 19 this point you state that the fact that the special populations, 20 mentioned in 2.C of Appendix 4 exists separately. I believe l
| |
| 21 you stated was so that you could depend upon the expertise l 22 of the individual special populations in developing your 23 own ETE.
| |
| I I
| |
| 24 eermi neporters, ine. Is that accurate? j Am j
| |
| 25 A Yes, that is true. l i
| |
| | |
| 20,981
| |
| #9-3-SueWah Q Now --
| |
| @ A Let me just elaborate. And I think what you are 2
| |
| 3 seeing in the case here is the reason for it. It was 4 expected that special facilities would have unique characteris-5 tics in mobilization and resource deployment that, you know, 6 needed specific consideration.
| |
| 7 Q And would it also be true that there are certain 8 aspects that aren't any different than other evacuations?
| |
| 9 A I think it's fair to say that the overall concept 10 is very similar.
| |
| 11 Q Now, in particular you stated -- or, it has been i 12 written in Appendix 4 that the estimates for special j i
| |
| __' l 13 f acilities shall be made with consideration for the means l I :
| |
| 14 l of mobilization of equipment and manpower to aid in the !
| |
| I I i
| |
| evacuation.
| |
| 15 l 16 Is that correct?
| |
| i 17 MR. HASSELL: Mr. Love, please identify a page i 18 number or reference.
| |
| 19 MR. LOVE: Page 4.9 -- 4-9, the last sentence of f 20 the paragraph he was referring to earlier. l 21 JUDGE HOYT: Just a moment. That noise seems to I
| |
| l 22 be getting a little worse than it has been. Let us go l l.
| |
| 23 off the record for a moment here. l 24 (Off-the-record.) l Aa Ret: Reporters, Inc. '
| |
| 25 JUDGE HOYT: During the interval while we were
| |
| | |
| 20,982
| |
| #9-4-SueWaB off the record, a microphone change was made.
| |
| O 2 All right. Proceed, please now, Mr. Love. I'm 3 sorry for the interruption.
| |
| 4 MR. LOVE: Okay.
| |
| 5 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) 6 Q I was referring to NUREG 0654, Appendix 4, Page 7 4-9 which reads: Estimates for special facilities shall be 8 made with consideration for the means of mobilization of 9 equipment and the manpower to aid in the evacuation.
| |
| 10 Is it my understanding that this should be 11 f included in the methodology for the Graterford estimated f l
| |
| 12 time of evacuation? i s .
| |
| 13 A Yes. ,
| |
| i 14 l Q Now, if commercial telephone lines are to be I l
| |
| 15 ' utilized as a means of mobilizing the manpower, should ,
| |
| 16 their reliability be determined in this process? l l
| |
| 17 MR. IIASSELL: Objection. Beyond the scope of !
| |
| 18 his direct testimony. l l
| |
| 19 MR. RADAR: The Applicant concurs. ;
| |
| 20 JUDGE IlOYT: I believe it is beyond the scope, l 21 Mr. Love. The objection will be sustained.
| |
| 22 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) !
| |
| f 23 Q Now, with respect to the means of mobilizing the l 24 equipment -- and in this instance we are talking about l Ace4er:1 Reponers, Inc.
| |
| 25 fifty-eight buses, I believe eleven vans and three ambulancest i
| |
| | |
| l i
| |
| : 20,983 l
| |
| ; M S u e W a ll coming into the EPZ to the State Correctional Institute at O
| |
| 2 Graterford, my question is, should such factors be considered 3 in determining the time frame that it will take to mobilize 4 this equipment should such factors as accidents -- the 5 potential for accidents on the roadway, the potential for L 6 certain drivers to violate the road signals and use the 7 shoulder of the road and the incoming lancs in their effort ,
| |
| 8 to get out of the area, and should such potential problems 9 as a close down of a corridor due to a radioactive. release 10 and wind conditions be worked into the estimates for the II time frames necessary to mobilize equipment?
| |
| 12 A I don't think so.
| |
| 13 Q And why do you believe that? Does that go along Id with your worst case scenario, that those incidencos would 15 only occur in unusual circumstances and thus shouldn't be ;
| |
| 16 factored into the equation?
| |
| 17 A Partly. I think the reasons are that we have 18 looked at a number of these factors, accidents, and done [
| |
| 19 some analysis and come up with some numbers on the likeli-20 hood of accidents and the likelihood of accidents are very, 21 very small.
| |
| 22 So, we are not discounting them, but it's not 23 something that you would be able to make any definitive 24 plan on. So, you would have to treat it if it did occur, A.. .: n.pon ., Inc.
| |
| 25 which is highly unlikely, as a contingency measure.
| |
| | |
| 20,984
| |
| #9-6-SucWah As far as people not obeying either the plan or 9 2 the normal rules of the road, based on my reading of all the 3 literature that I know that is available on the subject, 4 there is no evidence of poopic acting in a way that would 5 preclude maintaining traffic in both directions unless they 6 were told to do that and, in fact, guided in doing that.
| |
| 7 Q And your answer would be the same with respect 8 to the potential for a corridor close-down due to a radio-9 activo rolcaso and wind conditions?
| |
| 10 A Suro. You are jumping down the road. The ETE 11 is a decisionmaking process, and at the point you are making i 12 a decision based on the fact that you don't expect the re-I
| |
| ; 13 ,
| |
| lease within a certain amount of time. If you o>:poeted a 14 l rolcaso quickor than you could evacuato, then you wouldn't i recommend evacuation.
| |
| 15 [d 16 l So, you wouldn't factor that into your decision I '
| |
| 17 because it would be illogical. Now, I'm not saying that it 18 couldn't happen, that if somebody mado a bad judgment.
| |
| 19 But at the time that you mado the decision to j 20 order an evacuation, you have an estimato of when you think i l
| |
| 21 thora may be a rolcase. And if you think it's shorter than l 22 your outimato, you wouldn't order it. ,
| |
| 23 0 So, you are saying it's oither shelter or ,
| |
| 24 ovacuato, depending on the alert situation? l u.e,,an.mn...inc.
| |
| 25 A well, I'm saying those are two alternativos, yeah.
| |
| | |
| 20,985 9-7-SucWall I don't know that they are the only alternativos. But they 2 are two that I know of.
| |
| 3 Q Do you think that thoro is any potential for 4 people evacuating prior to an official ovacuation order 5 givon?
| |
| 6 MR. IIASSELL: I object. This is really beyond 7 the scope of Dr. Urbanik's direct testimony.
| |
| 8 JUDGE !!OYT: We havo given you a lot of latitudo, 9 Mr. Lovo. But I think you havo gono beyond that now.
| |
| 10 The objection la cuctained. ,
| |
| II f DY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) '
| |
| I i 12 ' O With respect to the means of mobilization of l
| |
| -~
| |
| 13g l l equipment and manpower, is it your tcctimony that thoco are i i Id I issues that you have deferred to Superintendent Zimmerman's Il d
| |
| II g judgment on?
| |
| 4 I6 f A That's who the guidance would cuggoct. or imply d
| |
| 17 I would certainly in thono aspecto that chould do that. '
| |
| I8 relato specifically to the operation of the Stato Department I9 of Correctionn -- or whatever their correct titic is --
| |
| 20 that I would dafor to their judgment on how long it taken 21 them to do cortain activition. ,
| |
| 22 Now, outsido that framo, in torma of doing an 23 ovacuation timo octimato, I don't havo any problem with 24 A.9i.a nnem., Inc. making judgmento on how quickly t.hono vehiclon can or can't 25 movo up and down the roadwayn once they are backed on tho
| |
| | |
| 20,986 9-8-SuoWall roadway or coming in prior to the ovacuation.
| |
| 2 0 Superintendent Zimmerman has testified that ho 3 deferred to other unnamed persons with respect to the 4 mobilization of the equipment, in particular to the vehiclo 5 ontry phase of the ETE.
| |
| 6 Would that chango your answor?
| |
| 7 A No. That doosn't give me any problems.
| |
| 8 O Just as being a novico in this area of emorgoney 9 planning, could you explain for mo why you do not considor 10 the worot caso scenario?
| |
| 11 ! A Yosh, becauco the worst caso cconario is closo '
| |
| l 12 to, you know, soveral days or wooks, sixty inches of snow, 13 a blizzard followed by an carthquaka that knocked out all Id the bridgen no you couldn't get your anowplown. Worst --
| |
| g l 11 15 j you know, wo would havo troublo defining worat. caso, and 4
| |
| 16 it would bu auch a low probability and thoro would bo no 17 ' many of thom that it would make planning very cumborsoma.
| |
| 18 So wo plan on a couplo of renconablo numborn, !
| |
| 19 and then wo lot tho decir,1onmahorn factor in all thoso 20 things that wo could only quonn at and would bo wrong ninoty 21 porcent or ninoty-nino porcont of tho timo anyway.
| |
| 22 And how low a probability of occurronco munt an 0
| |
| 23 ovent bo in ordor to be clannified a wornt cano neonario?
| |
| 24 A Thoro is no nuch animal, no I guonn thoro in no 1 A..9.a mereet.... W 25 probability annociated with it.
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 20,987 9-9-Suo Wau O You stated earlier that you considorod the 2 pctential for a riot in the prison as the worst caso 3 scenario. I assume then that you have thrown that out as 4 a factor to be included in any sort of methodology involved 5 in the ETE?
| |
| 6 A Yeah. I deferred to the Departmont of Corrections..
| |
| 7 It says that, you know, given planning, training and an 8 ordor to evacusto that people know it is in their best 9 intorest that they will comply with it. I think that's the 10 mout probablo caso, and I dofor to them in their judgmont. j 11 f Q Uoll, if they toctified that thoro voro anywhero -
| |
| t 12 from throo to five power failuros in the pant couplo of 13 n years in the prison, would that bo occurring with enough Id frequency to go beyond the worst caco neonario and to bo i
| |
| 15 j includod in the ovento that should bo included in an LTE?
| |
| u 16l A I would defer to them and their judgment.
| |
| I 17 Q Co, even if a riot occurrod uvory oix monthn 18 you would still defor to their judgment?
| |
| 19 A If a riot occurred overy six months, yon, I 20 would utill dofor to their judgment becauno they are the 21 onon that aro going to havo to, you know, account for 22 their enLimato if it over han to bo dono.
| |
| 23 I alno don't bolinvo that wo havo riotn overy 2d nix monthn in the prinon.
| |
| A9i.,oneimiees,la<
| |
| l 25 0 In that baned on any knowledgo of Graturford Stato j i
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 20,988
| |
| #9-10-SucWal Correctional Instituto?
| |
| O 2 A It's based on the fact that in my experience as 3 a citizen that most riots make the national news.
| |
| 4 I do not claim any exportiso -- I will stato it 5 again -- in tho operation of prisons.
| |
| 6 0 Now you talked about advorno -- meaning cdvorne 7 weather conditions, when one would be utilizing a -- when 8 one would be computing an ETE under advorno weather conditions, 9 should ono utudy the matcorological data of the aron in which 10 they intend to evacuato?
| |
| 11 l A You would givo it a very general overview. At 12 thu tjmo that the guidance was writton, thoro was como l expectation that we could correlato, you know, X amount of 13 ,
| |
| l l
| |
| 14 l rain with Y amount of capacity. l h i 15l And that's junt not the cano. A, we can't J
| |
| 16 predict how much rain wo are going to got very wall. And 17 the capacition aro pretty narrowly definod for a wholo '
| |
| 18 varloty of woather conditions.
| |
| 19 And the way wo ronlly handlo that wido rango of ,
| |
| .-- l 20 motocrology in how I indicated earlior, that if the rondo 21 becomo impannablo then t.ho decir.ionmakor han to factor 22 that in at tho timo ho mnhun -- ho or nho -- a docinion. l 23 The advorno neonario in ronda oither wot, niick, l
| |
| 24 foggy or whatover but ntill pannablo. I moan, all tho A.,go.a newne,e, Inc l 25 ompirical data would auggoat that numborn that are annociated l
| |
| | |
| 20,989 49-ll-SuoWal with all those conditions are about the samo.
| |
| O 2 O I'm not sure that I understood that totally, then.
| |
| 3 Aro you saying that it is not necessary to check past 4 motocrolugical data, for examplo, to soo how much a heavy 5 anowfall might be or how much a heavy rainfall might bo?
| |
| 6 A I guono if you want a simplo answer you would 7 look at it to soo what your controlling case was, whether 8 it was threo, six and twolvo inchon of snow would bo 9 irrolovant.
| |
| 10 ' MR. LOVE: Nothing furthor?
| |
| l 11 f JUDGE IIOYT All right, the Commonwoalth?
| |
| l 12 i !!S . l'URKIN: The Commonwealth han no quantiono l 13 n for this witnceo.
| |
| I 14 i JUDGE IlOYT: Mr. Ilirnch, did you have any
| |
| !l n
| |
| 15 quantionn?
| |
| 16 [ !!R . IIIRCUll No, Your llanor, l'EftA han no ll 17 queotions.
| |
| 18 JUDGU llOYT: Any redirect, Mr. Itannoll? l 19 f1R. IIASUCLL: No, Judge lloyt. ,
| |
| 20 DOARD EXA!!INATION 21 11Y JUDG1; !!ARh0VR indexx 22 Q Dr. Urbanik, in following up on the courco of 23 information on tho woather for tho advorno weather 24 conditions to bo uued, would the annumptionn that woro A..9. i.a n,mei,,,, ia.
| |
| 25 mado for the gonoral populaco ovacuation timo cutimaton bo I
| |
| 'I
| |
| | |
| 20,990
| |
| #9-12-SuowI satisfactory for uso in the Gratorford ovacuation time 2 catimates?
| |
| 3 A Yes, sir.
| |
| 4 Q Aro you familiar at all with what the Gratorford 5 ovacuation timo estimatos, how that handled adverso weather 6 conditions?
| |
| 7 A 11ot stpocifically, no.
| |
| 1;tJD # 9 8 J.Wal flwa 9
| |
| 10 11 l i 12 i l
| |
| 13 ,
| |
| I i
| |
| 14 l l
| |
| lll ll o
| |
| 16 i
| |
| 17 18 l
| |
| 19 20 i
| |
| 21 22 '
| |
| 23 m.9.., ....... 2 4. l i
| |
| 25 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 20,991 10-1-Joe W21 1 JUDGE IIARBOUR: I have nothing else.
| |
| 2 JUDGE IlOYT: I have no questions, Doctor.
| |
| 3 Thank you for your participation. Is there any reason to 4 retain this witness?
| |
| 5 (No response.)
| |
| 6 JUDGE IlOYT: Very well, sir. You are excused. l 7 Thank you. !
| |
| 8 (The witness stood aside.)
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: I believo wo have a FEMA witness i 10 next. Aro you calling Mr. Ashor and his colleague as a 11 l panel, or are you calling them se paratoly, sir? '
| |
| i 12 i
| |
| MR. !!IRSC11: I had anticipated we would call
| |
| ~'
| |
| 13 Mr. Asher and Mr. Hinard together as a panol.
| |
| n 14 ll .TUDGE IlOYT: Very well. Will you gentlemon 0 '
| |
| !! , please como ferward?
| |
| d 16 Whorcupan, ,
| |
| d 17 ] JAMES AS!!ER, 18 - and -
| |
| l 19 ROBERT KINARD, 2u waro called as witnessos, and having boon first duly sworn, 21 testify as follows:
| |
| i i
| |
| 22 JUDGE !!OYT: All right, Mr. Ilirsch. They aro '
| |
| 23 your witnessos.
| |
| 'M INDEX 24 DIRECT EXAMINATION AWt.c nnorms. ine. ,
| |
| j 25 DY MR. !!IRScil s I
| |
| | |
| 10-2-Jo3 Wal 20,992
| |
| _ 1 .Q Thank you. Will you state your names for the iT a
| |
| 2 record, please? '
| |
| 3 A (Witness Asher) My name is James R. Asher.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 A. (Witness Kinard) ~ Richard Z. Kinard, Federal 5 Emergency Management Agency.
| |
| 6 Q Mr. Kinard and Mr. Asher, did you prepare any 7 prefiled testimony for use in this hearing?
| |
| 8 A (Simultaneously) Yes.
| |
| 9 Q I have before me a two page document entitled 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency's Testimony on Certain 11 Revised Contentions of the Graterford Inmates. !
| |
| 12 The next line reads: C. Training.
| |
| s . !
| |
| 13 That is a two page document with two attachments.'
| |
| lN l' I
| |
| 14 o I Is that the testimony that you prepared as prefiled testimony i t
| |
| 15 ' for use in this hearing?
| |
| (Witness Kinard) 16 A Yes, it is.
| |
| 17 Q Do either of you have any corrections to make i 18 in that testimony.
| |
| l
| |
| # 19 A (Witness Asher) No.
| |
| .i 20 , A (Witness Kinard) No. j 21 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, at this-time I would i l-22 like to move this testimony into evidence, and proffer the 23 ' witnesses-for cross examination. I i
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. I believe that has erel Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 been -- I am a little at a loss, Mr. Hirsch. Are you moving
| |
| | |
| 10-3-Jon Wal 20,993 o I into evidence the two typewritten pages and then the N)
| |
| -2 ~
| |
| additional, what appears to be xerox pages, with the word, 3 ' attachments' at the top?
| |
| 4 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, I believe it is 5 probably necessary to move the entire package into evidence 6 in light of the fact that the two pages of actual testimony 7 refer to both documents, so I would move into evidence the 8 entire -- the two pages of testimony and the entire package.
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: And the entire package includes 10 the two pages of typewritten testimony, a xerox copy ,
| |
| II entitled: Proposed Testimony, addressed to Zori Ferkin from 12 Donald F. Taylor; Attention:
| |
| , Jim Asher.
| |
| C,- 13 l I must confess this is a rittle confusing, .
| |
| I4 but I think it makes sense if you know where this came from, l I I5 and the Attachment 2 is a multi-page document of --
| |
| {
| |
| 16l MR. HIRSCH: Entitled: Plan of Instruction I i i 17 Number Seven, dated January 1985.
| |
| f 18 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, but I am trying to figure out I9 how many pages is in that document, and it appears to be 20 four, and then there is the one additional document which 2I is apparently an Attachment A to the Attachment 2, which is 22 entitled: Course Evaluation for Dosimetry and Decontamination 23 Seminar, prepared by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management l
| |
| 24 Agency, Office of Training and Education, and that is a two f Arm eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 page -- correction, three page document.
| |
| | |
| 10-4-Jo: Wal 20,994 1 MR. HIRSCH : That is right.
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: Gentlemen, is this y~our testimony 3 that I have described?
| |
| 4 WITNESS ASHER: Judge, this is our testimony 5 from the first two pages. The information referred to in 6 the testimony comes from the attached documents.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: I think you are right, Mr. Hirsch.
| |
| 8 We would probably be better served to have admitted the 9 entire package into evidence.
| |
| 10 Is there any objection?
| |
| 11 k i
| |
| (:No response.)
| |
| l .
| |
| 12 1 JUDGE HOYT: I am not sure what that means, 12 l, Ms. Ferkin?
| |
| ! i 14 l MS. FERKIN: !
| |
| The Commonwealth would note that 11 i il '
| |
| 15 jj the testimony, the two typed pages of testimony by Messrs.
| |
| 16 U Asher and Kinard, could stand on its own in our interpretation i
| |
| 17 without either Attachment 1 or Attachment 2.
| |
| 18 I would note that Attachment 2 is already a I 19 part of the record with respect to Mr. Taylor's testimony.
| |
| 20 Nevertheless, we will leave it to the good judgment of the 21 Board to decide what should be admitted and should not be. -
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: Well, just so nothing will get f 23 lost I think it would probably serve us better to have the 24 entire package.
| |
| erei neporters, im.
| |
| f l
| |
| 25 Any objection on that?
| |
| l l
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| 10-5-Joe Wal 20,995 1 (No response.)
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: Any thoughts that anyone seems to 3 be thinking. I am not quite sure whether you are indicating 4 you have nothing to say, or are you thinking you are going to 5 come with something in a minute.
| |
| 6 MR. CONNER: No objection.
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: No objection. .
| |
| 8 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Then I think -- I agree 9 it probably stands on its own elsewhere, but for clarity of l
| |
| 10 those who will have to use them. {
| |
| 11 MS. FERKIN : Your Honor, there is no objection '
| |
| 12 by the Commonwealth for the record. !
| |
| ) 13 ;
| |
| ! JUDGE HOYT: Thank you. All right. No objection l 14 to the documents as described by the Board will be -- having i Il li i 15 been heard, we will accept into evidence the testimony and 16 l attach it to the record of this hearing at this point in the l
| |
| 17 transcript.
| |
| 18 (Prefiled testimony of Witnesses l 19 Asher and Kinnard follows.)
| |
| 20 ;
| |
| i l
| |
| 21 ;
| |
| 22 l i
| |
| 23 24 erai neporters, ine.
| |
| l 25 l
| |
| | |
| 'P. .
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA tN- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
| |
| Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of:
| |
| )
| |
| )
| |
| Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352-OL
| |
| ) 50-353-0L (Limerick Generating Station, )
| |
| Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 81-465-07-OL
| |
| )
| |
| FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S TESTIMONY ON CERTAIN REVISED CONTENTIONS OF THE GRATERFORD INMATES C. Training The inmates allege there is no reasonable assurance that emergency response training will be offered to civilian personnel such as civilian bus and ambulance drivers, rescue squads, and any other such personnel expected
| |
| (~' to assist in the implementation of the Pennsylvania Depa'rtment of V) Corrections Radiological Emergency Response Plan in support of the State Correctional Institution, Graterford.
| |
| Planning Standard 0, of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. I and 50.47(b)(15) call for radiolog1 cal emergency response training to be "provided to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency." In addition, element 0.1 states that "each organization shall assure the training of appropriate individuals." As Appendix 19 (page E-19-1) to Annex E, Fixed Nuclear Facility Incidents, to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan, dated November 1981 states: "The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) has the overall responsibility for providing radiological response training programs in the Commonwealth."
| |
| Information supplied to FEMA by Donald F. Taylor, Director of the Office
| |
| . 7-(_/ of Trainin'g and Education at PEMA (Attachment 1), indicates that PEMA will be directly responsible for the training of bus drivers.
| |
| | |
| (~') Based upon the information supplied in Attachment 1, it is FEMA's Lj understanding that Mr. Taylor wrote to the six (6) bus companies that will transport inmates from Graterford in the event of a radiological emergency,
| |
| ~
| |
| offering training to bus drivers. Mr. Taylor has not received a response to his offer, to date. A document entitled " PLAN OF INSTRUCTION, NUMBER SEVEN, DOSIMETRY AND DECONTAMINATION SEMINAR FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL, Office of Training and Education, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, January 1985," (Attachment 2) has been forwarded to FEMA by Mr. Taylor. Besides the information provided in the above-referenced lesson plan, Mr. Taylor has stated (in a telephone conversation on July 2, 1985) that PEMA would also be responsive to address other interests raised by the bus companies or drivers as part of the training process.
| |
| Mr. Taylor plans to personally visit the aforementioned six (6) bus r'% companies to urge them to participate in a training session. The bus
| |
| .O companies will be informed that the training will be conducted at a location and at a time that is convenient to the bus drivers.
| |
| PEMA has also committed to providing the same training to ambulance drivers expected to be part of an emergency response that will be given to the bus drivers.
| |
| Based upon the fact that this training has been given at other sites in Pennsylvania in the vicinity of commercial nuclear power plants and based upon the information supplied by PEMA which is site-specific to the State Correctional Institution, Graterford and the Limerick Generating Station, FEMA feels that there is reasonable assurance that emergency response training will be offered to civilian personnel expected to be involved in the implementation of the Pennsylvania Department of Correction's
| |
| () Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
| |
| : l. . . AT T A c H M E M r 1
| |
| )
| |
| l
| |
| . COMMOMWEALTH OF PEMHtYLVAN A An w na:'sn Awex ~ m,W ~
| |
| ~
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| - tl ,y , .
| |
| Nori m '
| |
| w,
| |
| - - co.n.e1 amenor a imorgy ei e
| |
| I'noe
| |
| , TvmaTA F. 7ttylcze QPPfm of 82rmf ninre FArw=mme.f ewt ,
| |
| l the following itesns are topica en sAsi.ch I asa ge4 to testify et the rsg# hee.r*gs c::r carr.Lg the eecre'-Jef y. v_.rrr 2:=
| |
| the state C=.md.ional Institution at Grawfurd. -
| |
| Please ataet me et yoIr menie:re i.f ycn hree any W--.=
| |
| w- md.ng this tc#dr:::=y.
| |
| O 1. t+~v c===:: = *= is, ci= -- c=.
| |
| tril.1 treW pr.tsoners tren Grata:u.wa in t:ne event of an
| |
| - me evacuation canaad by an accident at the Limerick Generating Statirm tsere mailoa on April 4,1985 Tnese 1.Lw- oMamh oosir:etry trainin;r to tis bus drivers who win be emmicrfed in this enSeav::r. To 6 cts, to resp:cses f:tm these six bas W 4 - he. :: b =1 me--%rd.
| |
| : 2. TM doe!.r.etgy training (.bei vill be provfM to these' bus drivers is oc614=A in the attad,ed plan of instruction.
| |
| Deconta:nination annitoring ph9es win also be enz:ined as there is a resnyte possibility that, if ^<*imatry la u*f14=ad by these bus drivers, they wul ale be involved in scme nanner with decon+=mf =+ 4rvs nonitoring. This training will ensure their knowledge of that .e-w.
| |
| : 3. The dosinetry training will be MW by PEPGL. .
| |
| Any such training that will be required is for the direct benefit of another oarm:r1 wealth Agency. Thus, it im PD9L's respanarmiitty to do the trainivvg. The training that has been perfonned for local municipalities (cities, bonx*f2s, townships),
| |
| school bus drivers, fire fighters, etc. should have been pes.T..=. i by the Wupriato ccanty. P.L.1332 places that recpansibility cn the county. Bowever, due to their inabf.11ty an5/or tenwill.ing-ness to oorduct this training, Pb4141%ia Electric 0:mpany employed a cxansulting finn to fulfill the training responsibilities of the involved cnunties. .
| |
| | |
| ' I i .
| |
| 1 O - -
| |
| June 28, 1985 Page Two .
| |
| : 4. A W-.a designed to persuade the arm = ettw-six bus z g- nN to accept this dosimetry training will be <
| |
| : implemented in late July and early August, 1985. 'Ihis <=1- l l' tatim will involve personal visits by PRS pereennel. (me} to anch l of thaea bus --A no as to personally uripe them to acompt; l j -
| |
| this +=ini5 .
| |
| : 5. training sessions that are --- will. be
| |
| . Maan in a ani at a tima cEE&t to the bus drivers ,
| |
| } h--lves . It is peeramed that such traiM5 will be conducted '
| |
| at, or naar, the bus company W=_w. ,
| |
| 4
| |
| '6. No sty. will be unde by PER personnel (me) to -
| |
| * c:ntact individual bus drivers for such training in the event i
| |
| . the bus rm~mia reject it. Such an attenyt is set ethical and, -
| |
| ceWf niy, is n:6 vithin e.:r pm-!w. E: w nr, e m f ef52:t i will be mmaa by ma to persi* the bus conpanies to accept: such training. -
| |
| : 7. W.ic tr*W".;r er.d :cfrecher t=inin;r vill bc ==$a available yearly to the drivers of each bus ocmpany that accepts O .
| |
| Le- .
| |
| IFratjl CIbla 3-8150) '
| |
| c=: cd=1L. Fr M Fe4h EllPe't . .
| |
| 9
| |
| - e e
| |
| 1
| |
| . I D
| |
| 4 0 .
| |
| . - - - - -__ - , - - _ , , . - , - . -.w-,..~, -,------,..-,,,_,_w -,,-wm-... - - . --a .,-. ,--- . - - - , , , , ,,m-3.,
| |
| | |
| ATTA cH M E MT I w)
| |
| PLAN OF INSTRUCTION NUMBER SEVEN DOSIMETRY AND DECONTAMINATION SEMINAR FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
| |
| (~r) tv l
| |
| Office of Training and Education Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency January, 1985
| |
| | |
| (m i }
| |
| sg
| |
| ~
| |
| PLAN OF INSTRUCTION NUMBER SEVEN DOSIMETRY AND DEC'>NTAMINATION SEMINAR FOR EMERGENCY PERSONNEL Rationale Despite the extraordinary precautions and safeguards in effect, there remains the possibility of unplanned radiological releases from the nuclear-powered generating plants located within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In minimizing the risk to amergency response personnel who may be recuired to function in a potentially hazardous environment, there is a need for such personnel to know how to monitor their personal exposure to radiation, monitor exposure of other persons, and conduct proper -
| |
| decontamination monitoring procedures.
| |
| (T '
| |
| %L Purcose This seminar is designed to provide emergency personnel with the knowledge and skills that will permit them to =cnitor their personal exposure to radiation and to conduct decontamina-tion monitoring procedures that will be employed in appropriate locales in proximity to nuclear powered generating plants.
| |
| Objectives
| |
| __ Upon completion of this seminar, participants should be able-to do the following: .
| |
| : 1. Develop an understanding of the government response to disasters.
| |
| : 2. Demonstrate an ability to properly utilize the designated dosimetry.
| |
| : 3. Know the acceptable levels of radiation during an incident at a fixed nuclear lk_ facility.
| |
| 1
| |
| : 4. Demonstrate an understanding of maintaining appropriate records.
| |
| : 5. Understand reception centers, mass care centers, and where decontamination monitoring procedures are utilized.
| |
| : 6. Demonstrate the proper use of a survey meter.
| |
| Qualifications for Attendance All county emergency management coordinators, members of the county emergency management organizations, municipal emergency management coordinators as recommended by their county coordinators, and any other person approved by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency are eligible to attend this seminar.
| |
| Summary of Subject Areas Subjects Hours 3 1. Introduction and Overview 0.1 0 2. Government Response to Disasters 0.5
| |
| : 3. Dosimetry 0.9
| |
| : 4. Decontamination 0.9
| |
| : 5. Summary and Conclusion 0.1 Total 2.5 9
| |
| Units of Instruction
| |
| ~~
| |
| : 1. Introduction and Overview O.1 hours The instructor will introduce all those persons who should be made known to the students. Then, through a brief lecture, the instructor will explain the purpose of this seminar and briefly review the subjects that will be discussed.
| |
| nL U
| |
| 2
| |
| : 2. Government Response to Disasters 0.5 hours (v)
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| : a. Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, P.L. 81-920. .
| |
| : b. Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Act of 1978, P.L. 1332.
| |
| : c. "The Pennsylvania Emergency Manage-ment Agency," a brochure.
| |
| Presentation: The instructor will lecture on the development of. civil defense in the United States with an emphasis on Pennsylvania. The evolvement into emergency management will be explained and its present mission described. The involvement of emergency management in planning for incidents at fixed nuclear facilities will be described.
| |
| The PEMA brochure will be utilized as a hand-out.
| |
| : 3. Dosimetry 0.9 hours
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| Commonwealth of Pcnnsylvania; Disaster Ooerations Plan, Annex E (" Fixed Nuclear F acility Incidents") ; November, 1981; Appendix 16 (" Radiological Exposure Control").
| |
| Presentation: a. Through lecture and discussion, the instructor will demonstrate the proper use of the three dosimeters and the charger.
| |
| (1) CD N-730- (or DCA 622)
| |
| (2) CD V-742 (3) TLD (thermoluminescent dosimeter badge)
| |
| (4) CD V-750
| |
| : b. Through lecture and discussion, the instructo'r will explain the following acceptable levels of radiation concerning fixed nuclear facility incidents.
| |
| (1) 25 R (2) 15-20 R (3) 5R 3
| |
| | |
| f f
| |
| d W
| |
| : c. Through lecture and discussion, the instructor will explain the proper '
| |
| record forms and how they should be maintained. ,
| |
| : 4. Decontamination _0.9 hours
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Disaster Operations Plan, Annex E (" Fixed Nuclear Facility Incidents"); November, 1981; Appendix 16 (" Radiological Exposure Control"). ,
| |
| Presentation: The instructor, through lecture and discussion, will examine reception centers and mass care centers. Then, decontamination monitoring procedures will be identified and demonstrated.
| |
| The proper use of a CD V-700 will be explained and demonstrated. The following will then be discussed and explained:
| |
| : a. Background radiation (usually .03 mr) .
| |
| : b. Radiation above background of .05 mr or more will be referred to a physician,
| |
| : c. Thyroid must not exceed .1 mr.
| |
| : d. Appropriate record keeping.
| |
| : 5. Summary and Conclusion 0.1 hours The instructor will briefly summarize the content of this seminar and then bring it to a conclusion.
| |
| Evaluation All participants will be recuested to complete the evaluation form that is marked ", Attachment A."
| |
| Deplovment This seminar will be presented in each county within the Commonwealth that is involved with nuclear-powered generating plants.
| |
| ~
| |
| I 4 l 1
| |
| | |
| Attachment A PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OFFICE OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION Course Evaluation for Dosimetry and Decontamination Seminar I. General - Check space preceding most appropriate answer
| |
| : 1. My reaction to this seminar can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. The seminar met my needs far beyond my expectations.
| |
| ( ) b. The seminar met my needs in an adequate manner.
| |
| ( ) c. The seminar did not meet all my needs.
| |
| ( ) d. The seminar did not meet my needs at all.
| |
| : 2. My estimate of the instructor's capabilities can best be described as:
| |
| (~')s 1
| |
| ( ) a. The instructor was excellent.
| |
| ( ) b. The instructor was good.
| |
| ( ) c. The instructor met most of my needs, but some needs were not addressed.
| |
| ( ) d. The instructor failed to meet my needs.
| |
| : 3. The roem in which the instruction was conducted can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. The room was excellent.
| |
| ( ) b. The room was good.
| |
| ( ) c. The rodh was not quite adequate.
| |
| ( ) d. The room was. totally inadequate.
| |
| II. Meeting Obiectives
| |
| : 1. My understanding of the government response to disasters can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I fully understand the government response to disasters.
| |
| ( ) b. I understand generally the government response to disasters.
| |
| ( ) c. I do not understand the gove.rnment response to disasters.
| |
| 1
| |
| : 2. My knowledge of the proper use of dosimetry can be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I fully understand the proper use of dosimetry. -
| |
| ( ) b. I understand generally the proper use of dosimetry.
| |
| ( ) c. I do not understand the proper use of dosimetry.
| |
| : 3. My knowledge of the acceptable levels of radiation during an incident at a fixed nuclear facility can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I fully understand the acceptable levels of radiation.
| |
| ( ) b. I understand generally the acceptable levels of radiation.
| |
| ( ) c. I do not understand the acceptable levels of radiation.
| |
| : 4. My understanding of the proper maintenance of appropriate records can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I understand completely the appropriate eN records and how they are to be maintained.
| |
| x_2 ( ) . b. I understand generally the apprcpriate records and how they are to be maintained.
| |
| ( ) c. I do not understand the appropriate records or how they are to be maintained.
| |
| : 5. My knowledge of reception centers, mass care centers, and where decontamination monitoring procedures are to be utilized can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I fully understand reception centers, mass care centers, and where decontamination monitoring procedures are to be utilized.
| |
| ( ) b. I generally understand reception centers, mass care centers, and where decontamination monitoring procedures are to be utilized.
| |
| ( ) c. I do not understand reception centers, mass care centers, or where decontamination monitoring procedures are to be utilized.
| |
| : 6. My knowledge and understanding of the effective use of a survey meter can best be described as:
| |
| ( ) a. I understand completely the use of a survey meter.
| |
| ( ) b. I understand the proper use of a survey meter, but have some questions about such use.
| |
| ( ) c.. I do not understand how to use a survey meter.
| |
| 2
| |
| | |
| III. Recommendations In the space below, pleat'e submit any recommendations you may have regarding this semircr.
| |
| m.
| |
| 3
| |
| | |
| 10-6-Jo1 Wal 20,996 I JUDGE HOYT: All right. Mr. Hirsch, are the 2 witnesses tendered, or do you have --
| |
| 3 MR. HIRSCH: I have nothing further.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Let's start out again 5 with the Applicant.
| |
| 6 MR. CONNER: No questions.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: How about you, Mr. Love? Any 8 questions?
| |
| 9 MR. LOVE: Yes, I have a few.
| |
| 10 JUDGE HOYT: Please proceed. ,
| |
| II XXX INDEX CROSS EXAMINATION I
| |
| I2 ' BY MR. LOVE- i
| |
| [ 12 i O I don't really know who I should direct these I4
| |
| ; questions to, but I will leave it to your discretion as to ,
| |
| I i Ibl ; who would be better able to answer them.
| |
| 4 16 On page 2 of your testimony, at the last I7 paragraph, you state based upon the fact that this training 18 has been given at other sites in Pennsylvania in the vicinity I9 of commercial nuclear power plants, based upon information i 20 supplied by PEMA, which is site specific to the state 2I correctional institution, and you go on to state that you i
| |
| 22 believe there is a reasonable assurance -- my question is l i
| |
| 23 regarding the term, ' site specific.'
| |
| 24 eral Reporters, Inc.
| |
| If you could please amplify a little bit on what 5
| |
| that means.
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 10-7-Joa Wal 1 20,997 1 A (Witness Kinard) Basically, this paragraph 2
| |
| serves to summarize our entire testimony, and given the fact 3 that the training has not yet been given by PEMA to the 4
| |
| bus drivers or ambulance drivers, the additional explanation 5 .that has been afforded to us by Mr. Taylor in terms of the 6
| |
| procedures that he intends to follow to offer that training l
| |
| 7 to those drivers satisfies us that there is reasonable '
| |
| 8 assurance that that training will be given.
| |
| 9 Q Maybe I didn't frame my question properly. I 10 understand that aspect, and I intend to cover that in a minute 11 or two. i i
| |
| 12 I just wondered what you mean by, ' site l le l specific' information? 3 I i 14 A I am not sure how I can better explain it, except i
| |
| 15 to state that, as I just mentioned, the training has been ;
| |
| 16 given at other sites. It has not been given for the bus i
| |
| 17 drivers and ambulance drivers at Limerick, but Mr. Taylor has 18 offered specific -- excuse me, site specific information as 19 to how he intends to offer that training to the drivers that !
| |
| 20 will be supporting the Gratcrford State Correctional 21 Institution.
| |
| 22 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Taylor sent his responses out 23 I believe on April 4th, 1985, is that correct? i I
| |
| 9 24 .
| |
| A That is our understanding. I Am- wani neponm. ine.
| |
| {
| |
| 25 Q And he testified here yesterday that to date he [
| |
| l l
| |
| I
| |
| | |
| 10-8-Jon Wal 20,998 1 has received no responses to those requests.
| |
| 2 Does that bother you at all?
| |
| 3 A (Witness Asher) No, it doesn't bother us.
| |
| 4 It is our understanding that he did contact the six bus 5 Providers that are named to support institutions.
| |
| 6 At this point in time, he has not received 7 anything asking for the training. It could mean that they ,
| |
| 8 don't believe they need it.
| |
| 9 Q Do you believe they need it?
| |
| 10 A Are you asking me in my professional opinion 11 as whether or not the bus drivers need the training that :
| |
| 12 has been offered up here?
| |
| 13 , Q Yes.
| |
| ] .
| |
| 14 l A I believe that they could function without it. I 13 ; Q And that the evacuation would be carried out?
| |
| d A Yes.
| |
| 15 lI 17 Q Do you believe that the training might encourage 18 these people to participate in this evacuation?
| |
| 19 A It could, and it could deter, possibly. !
| |
| 20 Q How so? l t
| |
| 21 A They may only receive so much training and .
| |
| I 22 decide that they didn't want to participate. At this point !
| |
| l 23 in time, we don't know whether or not they do or don't, but f 24 the bus companys have said that they would provide so many j ederal Reporters, Inc. ;
| |
| 25 buses. l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 10-9-Jos Wal 20,999 1 We have to conclude that the bus companies 7-~)
| |
| V 2 will provide the drivers, too.
| |
| 3 Q Why?
| |
| 4 A That is just an assumption, that if the bus
| |
| -5 company is going to turn over a twenty-five thousand dollar 6 piece of equipment, they are going to have somebody operate 7 it.
| |
| 8 Q Isn't it an equally valid assumption that 9 that somebody may not want to drive into a potential nuclear 10 accident and pick up potentially dangerous inmates?
| |
| 11 A That could be an assumption.
| |
| l 12 Q Do you believe the fact that these people will i
| |
| .() 13 be transporting inmates will affect the training, or the ,
| |
| i 14 need for training?
| |
| 15 A No, I do not.
| |
| 16 Q Do you think that there is any need to train ,
| |
| I 17 the civilian personnel in custody and control of inmates? -
| |
| 18 A No, I do not.
| |
| 19 I Q Do you believe there is any need to inform 20 the bus drivers of the security precautions that will be taken j
| |
| : 21. to protect them during this evacuation?
| |
| 22 A Security precautions that will protect them?
| |
| 23 Q Yes. ,
| |
| 24
| |
| - (~) .
| |
| Am , oderal Repcrters, Inc.
| |
| A Yes, I believe so.
| |
| 25 Q And do you know if the training to be offered
| |
| | |
| F" 10-10-Joe Wnl 21,000 1 will include that?
| |
| 2 A (Witness Kinard) All we can state is that 3 Mr. Taylor has said that he would respond to any interest 4 or concerns that are raised by the bus drivers or bus 5 companies.
| |
| 6 If this was a concern, I assume 'that they would 7 raise it and Mr. Taylor would address it.
| |
| 8 Q Now, you say that there has been other training 9 in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Can you be more I i
| |
| 10 specific in that regard?
| |
| 11 A I just state that, obviously, the training at :
| |
| l l
| |
| 12 Limerick has included that offered by energy consultants at ,
| |
| j 13 3; other sites around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
| |
| 14 It is our understanding that FEMA has been l t i conducting training for emergency responders at those sites.
| |
| 15l 9l M Q You are referring to school bus driver training, i
| |
| 17 things of that nature?
| |
| 18 A I am talking about general emergency response !
| |
| 19 training, whoever it would be directed to, whether it is a j 20 bus driver, whether it is a decontamination worker, or i 21 whatever. !
| |
| i 22 Q Is it your opinion that all such individuals 23 should receive the same type of training? !
| |
| 24 A I think the training should be appropriate to the!
| |
| Aatemi neponm. ine. l 25 individual's expected duty in responding to an emergency. l l
| |
| l t
| |
| | |
| 10-ll-Jo1 Wal 21,001 1 Q Do you believe that financial incentives 2 should be offered to encourage the drivers to participate 3 in the training?
| |
| 4 A (Witness Asher) There is nothing that is in the 5 guidance, nothing within the perview of FEMA's application 6 in review of these plans, for the evaluation of the exercises 7 to implement the plans that instruct us to determine whether i 8 or not there should be renumeration financially or otherwise 9 to anyone receiving the training.
| |
| 10 0 What motivation would the drivers then have 11 I to undergo such training?
| |
| 12 A We are not concerned about the motivation. l 13 , Q You are not concerned with the motivation of 14 the drivers. I see.
| |
| I 15 MR. HIRSCH: Let me clarify for the record.
| |
| 16 I believe Mr. Asher's statement was that he was not concerned 17 with the motivation for participation in training as opposed '
| |
| 18 to what I understood Mr. Love's comment to relate to, which 1 19 is motivation in general. I l
| |
| 20 JUDGE HOYT: All right. !
| |
| l 21 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) 22 Q Isn't it not true that if one is trained they l
| |
| 23 are more likely to participate? '
| |
| 24 A Not necessarily so. People within the EPZ !
| |
| Aa ere neporteri. ine. j 25 don't receive the training. They will participate in the l l
| |
| | |
| 10-12-JZO W21 21,002 1 evacuation.
| |
| 2 O Are you at all familiar with the population 3 of Graterford?
| |
| 4 A Somewhat.
| |
| 5 0 Isn't it true that these individuals will 6 encounter considerably greater risk than say, for example, 7 school bus drivers?
| |
| 8 A Who?
| |
| 9 Q Civilian personnel involved in the evacuation 10 of the prison.
| |
| 11 MR. HIRSCH: Objection. I doubt that there is l l I 12 6 any foundation for that proposition. ,
| |
| , . i 13 4 MR. CONNER: We join in the objection. I 14 don' t know what we are talking about. We are talking about f ll 15ll general dose to population, which has absolutely nothing H
| |
| le to do with Graterford.
| |
| 17 MS. FERKIN: The Commonwealth joins in the 18 objection as to lack of foundation. !i 19 JUDGE HOYT: Objection sustained. !
| |
| 20 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) j 21 Q Is there any guarantee that you can give us f
| |
| i 22 that just because a letter was sent to a bus company that l' 23 that will mean, in fact, that the drivers will hear about this !
| |
| 9 24 Acs- ederet Reporters, Inc.
| |
| and will, in fact, be offered the training?
| |
| 25 MR. CONNER: Objection. It is not FEMA's function, tl
| |
| .____ _______-__________ ~
| |
| | |
| 13-Jo3 W21 21,003
| |
| ,- 1 under 0654 of the Memorandum of Agreement to provide l
| |
| 2 guarantees one way or the other. The job is to evaluate 3 the program, in this case, of PEMA for Graterford, i
| |
| l' 4 JUDGE HOYT: Do you want to respond to that?
| |
| 5 Do you understand the memorandum that Mr. Conner is speaking <
| |
| ! 6 about, Mr. Love?
| |
| l-7 MR. LOVE: I understand, yes. I withdraw that 8 question.
| |
| 9 JUDGE HOYT: Proceed.
| |
| 10 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) l 11 O Isn't it true that beyond sending a letter to i 1 i' I
| |
| 12 the bus companies, that in fact nothing has been done?
| |
| (} 13 JUDGE HOYT: Would you give me the last part ,
| |
| 14 of that question?
| |
| i 15 MR. LOVE: Other than the letter that has been .t l
| |
| I 16 sent to the bus companies offering training, nothing further ,
| |
| l 17 has been done on this issue, is that correct?
| |
| 13 WITNESS ASHER: Mr. Love that is a question t
| |
| 19 I believe that can only be addressed by the Commonwealth, ;
| |
| l?
| |
| 20 not by us, t-21 BY MR. LOVE: (Continuing) 22 Q Well, isn't it your job to make a statement 23 as to the efforts of the Commonwealth, i 24 A (Witness Asher) We have been given assurances e m porwei, Inc.
| |
| 25 that there will be a personal visit -- I think Mr. Taylor e
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 10-14-Jo] Wal 21.,004 1 testified to that, too, that he will go face-to-face with 2 these bus companies, and again of fer his services and the 3 Commonwealth's services in order to provide the training.
| |
| 4 We have had conservation with PEMA and Mr. Taylor 5 prior to this hearing and we were made aware of that intent 6 and that was sufficient insurance to us that based on our 7 experience dealing with PEMA, the Pennsylvania Emergency 8 Management Agency, that was assurance sufficient for us to i'
| |
| 9 render the verdict of adequacy in this proceeding.
| |
| 10 0 So, in essence, you are seying that you are l s
| |
| 11 l reasonably sure the training will be offered, and you are l l 12 not going beyond that. You are not saying the training will,
| |
| , 12 n in fact, guarantee -- is guaranteed to occur, and you are li 14 Il not saying that if trained, these people will cooperate?
| |
| 't i li 15 Or won't cooperate, is that correct?
| |
| 16 A We have no way of saying that.
| |
| 17 MR. LOVE: I see. Thank you. Nothing further.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: Commonwealth? l 19 MS, FERKIN: May I have a moment, please.
| |
| 20 (Pause.)
| |
| 21 MS. FERKIN: Commonwealth has no questions.
| |
| i 22 JUDGE HOYT: And the NRC Staff. Mr. Hassell? 1 I
| |
| l 23 MR. HASSELL: Yes, thank you. I just have a ,
| |
| 24 couple of questions, Judge Hoyt.
| |
| Ac3 erj Reporters, Inc.
| |
| XX INDEX 25 CROSS EXAMINATION L
| |
| | |
| 10-15-JoD Wal 21,005 1 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 2 Q Mr. Kinard, I believe you testifi'ed in response 3 to cross examination by Mr. Love that training has not been 4 given to bus drivers and ambulance drivers at Limerick.
| |
| 5 Assuming for the moment that is correct, did 6 you mean to testify to that effect, or did you mean to limit 7 that statement with respect to Graterford?
| |
| 8 A (Witness Kinard) I should have limited that i
| |
| 9 to the bus drivers who will be supporting the evacuation of I i
| |
| 10 Graterford, f
| |
| 11 And this is either for Mr. Asher or Mr. Kinard. l Q
| |
| . i 12 Is it your understanding that the bus drivers role during evacuaticr.
| |
| I j 13 i at Graterford would include inmate custody and control? ;
| |
| I 14 l A No, that is not our understanding.
| |
| 15 l Q What is your understanding?
| |
| 16 A That they be asked to drive the bus of evacuating 17 inmates.
| |
| 18 MR. HASSELL: I have no further questions. !
| |
| End 10. 19 i
| |
| ~15 fols. !
| |
| 20 21 22 ;
| |
| i 3
| |
| l 24 l Aerd Reporters, inc. l 25 O
| |
| | |
| 21,006 Bim 11-1 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch, do you have any redirect',
| |
| 2 limited of course to the matters raised on cross?
| |
| 3 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.
| |
| 4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION INDEX 5 BY MR. HIRSCH:
| |
| 6 0 Mr. Asher or Mr. Kinard, have either of you 7 received any indications either directly or through Mr. Taylor 8 that the bus companies and drivers will not accept training 9 that has been offered to them by the Commonwealth?
| |
| 10 A (Witness Kinard) No, we have not.
| |
| MR. HIRSCH: I have no further questions.
| |
| 11 12 BOARD EXAMINATION DEX 13 BY JUDGE COLE:
| |
| ja ! O I have just one or two questions, gentlemen.
| |
| I l Are cither of you two familiar with any plans 15 li 16 ! for the evacuation of a prison other than Graterford?
| |
| Il i
| |
| j7 A (Witness Asher) No, Judge Cole, we are not. It 18 is our understanding that Graterford is the only maximum 19 security prison within a 10-mile EPA in the country.
| |
| 20 0 Do you have any knowledge of any plans to evacuate 21 a prison in the vicinity of TMI?
| |
| A No, we do not.
| |
| 22 JUDGE COLE: All right. Thank you.
| |
| 23 JUDGE HOYT: I have no questions.
| |
| 24 Ahler;l Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 Is there anything by virtue of Judge Cole's
| |
| | |
| 21,007 Sim 11-2 1 questions that may have raised something?
| |
| 2 Yes, Mr. Hassell.
| |
| 3 MR. HASSELL: There is just one line of 4 inquiry that I would like to pursue with respect to Judge 5 Cole's questions, and in a certain sense it may have been 6 asked or answered.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| 8 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 10 0 Do either of you know whether the State Correctional 11 Institution at Ossining, New York, whether that institution, 12 which as I understand it is a maximum security prison, whether 13 that is within the 10-mile EPZ for the Indian Point Nuclear 14l Power Generating Stations?
| |
| 15 A (Witness Asher) I don't have positive knowledge, 16 Mr. Hassell, but it is my belief it is not because it would 17 have become an issue at Indian Point.
| |
| 18 MR. HASSELL: I have nothing further.
| |
| 19 JUDGE HOYT: Anything by any other counsel?
| |
| 20, (No response. )
| |
| 21 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Is there any need to 22 retain these witnesses?
| |
| 23 (No response. )
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: Gentlemen, thank you for your AcGerzl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 testimony and you are excused.
| |
| | |
| .e 21,008 Sim~11-3 1 (Witnesses Asher and Kinard were g
| |
| (-_) 2 excused.)
| |
| 3 (Board conferring.)
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: That concludes the witness list 5 that we have been given.
| |
| -6 Are there any additional witnesses that will be
| |
| '7 . called?
| |
| g MR. CONNER: The applicant had once upon a time 9 . indicated the possibility of rebuttal witnesses. We have 10 no rebuttal evidence to offer. .
| |
| 3 11 JUDGE HOYT: 'Very well.
| |
| 12' Are there any other counsel that have any witnesss, rebuttal witnesses?
| |
| (% 13
| |
| 'w) 14 Mr. Love.
| |
| .15 MR. LOVE: No rebuttal, but I will, when I get 16 ,' the copies-of Mr. Morris' deposition, once again make ---
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Who?
| |
| 18 MR. LOVE: Mr. Morris' deposition, and I will 19 once again make a motion that his deposition either in whole
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 or in part is entered into the record.
| |
| 21 JUDGE HOYT: Did you make those copies available?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: I don't have them yet. I will do that 23 as soon as this hearing is over.
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: What are you waiting for, Mr. Love?
| |
| A ;rtl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| '25 MR. LOVE: I am waiting for the chance to do it.
| |
| | |
| -m 21,009 Sim 11-4 j JUDGE HOYT: Lunch hours are very long.
| |
| 7
| |
| () 2 MR. LOVE: My office is over 30 minutes away, and 3 .it didn't give me time to do that.
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Are we going to have any objections 5 .to the -- is it the entire deposition that you want to move 6 into evidence?
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: Not really. There are certain sections.
| |
| g JUDGE HOYT: Then let's take the time at this 9 point to go over those sections that you are talking about 10 with the one copy that we have available here.
| |
| 11 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, as a way of 12 trying to expedite the whole matter, if we sit here and go g s. 13 through paragraph by paragraph, we are likely to argue, for v
| |
| 14 example, that you can't consider just that paragraph, but you 15 have to consider the one before and the one in front of it, 16g and it might be better, to save time in the long run, to simply I
| |
| 37 consider the entire document.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: I agree, Mr. Conner. That might solve 19 a lot of problems. It will probably cost a little more in
| |
| ~-~
| |
| 20 duplicating it, but I think in the end it will be simpler.
| |
| 21 MR. LOVE: I have no problem with that.
| |
| 22 JUDGE HOYT: Any objection by any counsel?
| |
| 23 (No response.)
| |
| 24 Is there any objection to the admission of this
| |
| -A ertl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 entire documentiinto evidence here, and by that I am talking
| |
| | |
| 21,010 Sim ll-5 1 about the entire 90 pages that constitutes the deposition n
| |
| 2 of Robert L. Morris?
| |
| 3 MR. CONNER: We consider this deposition to be 4 of no real probative value to the issues given the limited 5 review made by Mr. Morris.
| |
| 6 On the other hand, given the fact that we have 7 made cross-examination on the proffer to the extent it goes, 8 we think that in order to avoid any possible error in the minds 9 of anybody that it would benefit us in the long run simply to 10 not object to it coming in as if it were offered here.
| |
| 11 Now we note that the Board did not have an
| |
| ! .. 12 opportunity to observe the demeanor of Mr. Morris and so forth
| |
| ! jeg. '13 and so on, and we can't get into that obviously. But the
| |
| : i. V 14 applicant will not object to.this document coming in for what 15 it is worth.
| |
| ! 16 MR. LOVE: Might I also add that Mr. Morris is i
| |
| 17 available for any answering of any written interrogatories that 18 the Board may have after a review of his deposition.
| |
| l 19 JUDGE HOYT: The Board doesn't engage in after <
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 the hearing of discovery -- it is a little problem called 21 exparte, Mr. Love, that would be involved.
| |
| 22 The Board is perfectly willing to waive its 23 observation of the witness, the demeanor of the witness during 24 the testimony. I think we can safely judge the weight that I
| |
| gg s A ,hal Repoden, Inc. I t
| |
| 25 will be given to it without any additional examination of the l
| |
| i j
| |
| | |
| 21,011 I " ***
| |
| ai 11-6 2 Mr. Hassell, you looked as if you wanted to 3 say something.
| |
| 4 MR. HASSELL: Well, I just wanted to add for the 5 record that in view of the fact that the applicant has not 6 objected, and that is the party who against I believ'e the 7 most prejudice could occur by the admission of this evidence, 8 simply on that basis the staff is not going to object, although 9 we would like to note the clearly hearsay character of this 10 document and that fact that no party was informed prior to the deposition that it was going to be used as an evidentiary 11;li 12 deposition, which perhaps may have changed the nature of the 13l cross-examination that took place at the time, and I just h
| |
| c 14 f wanted those particular things for the record.
| |
| I 15' But in view of the fact that the applicant has i
| |
| 16 l no objection and the fundamental right to cross-examination 17 by the applicant obviously has been obviated by their lack 18 of an objection, we have no objection.
| |
| 19 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, I forgot to
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 note that Mr. Radar made objections to some of the questions 21 and answers that were given, and I would ask simply that the 22 Board consider them, for.what the document'is worth, in.its 23 review.
| |
| ~
| |
| 24 MR. HASSELL: We also have an extra copy that AL Vnl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 Mr. Love might want to use for whatever purposes now for the
| |
| | |
| r-21,012 l
| |
| Sim 11-7 l 1 Court. ;
| |
| _. (~s
| |
| ~\ l 2 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. I think in..the interest 3 of the procedure, we will not be concerned about some of the 4 problems that are raised here. I am particularly concerned 5 that the parties, Mr. Love, were not advised prior to this-6 deposition that there was a possibility that it would be 7 introduced into evidence.
| |
| 8 However, I think the Board, understanding the 9 position that the applicant has taken, and as Mr. Hassell has 10 noted that the party most prejudiced by such would be the 11 applicant, and~they have no objection, then we will admit 12 the entire deposition of Robert L. Morris taken on Wednesday,
| |
| ('s 13 . July 3rd, 1985 in Washington D. C. The deposition on its b
| |
| 14 face at page 2 indicates that representatives of all the 15 parties here were in attendance and had an opportunity to 16 examine the witness on cross.
| |
| 17 MR. HASSELL: I don't believe that is the case 18 for the Commonwealth, is it?
| |
| 19 JUDGE HOYT: Let me see.
| |
| ~~
| |
| 20 MR. HASSELL: Okay, he was representing both.
| |
| 21 JUDGE HOYT: The Commonwealth I believe was-22 represented by Mr. Otto.
| |
| 23 MR. HASSELL: Fine.
| |
| 24 JUDGE HOYT: Or my copy indicates that at least.
| |
| A ers1 Reporters, Inc.
| |
| ~
| |
| 25 Were you there, Mr. Otto?
| |
| | |
| 21.013 uShn 11 MR. OTTO: Yes. I was there representing the l
| |
| 7
| |
| (/(f Commonwealth in its entirety.
| |
| MR. HASSELL: That is fine.
| |
| JUDGE HOYT: In view of all of the above, we will admit- this into evidence and attach it.
| |
| 5 MR. LOVE: May I give you a second copy, and I will provide a third one.
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Love, I think you are misunder-standing me. It is not me that wants these copies. It is the reporter who must have them for putting them in th.e record.
| |
| MR. LOVE: I understand that and apologize.
| |
| , JUDGE HOYT: It is not a policy, Mr. Love. This
| |
| '3 c:')
| |
| is the record that goes forward with the case, and there is 14 your other copy that you had given to the Board which we have examined.
| |
| 16
| |
| : (The Deposition of_ Robert L. Morris follows:)
| |
| 18 19 20 21 22 23 l
| |
| (- 24 AL,_,,ertl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| , 25
| |
| | |
| <, .s-
| |
| -a w
| |
| 4 O 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
| |
| ~~ "''
| |
| 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
| |
| 6 ----------.----x 7' In the Matter of: : ,
| |
| 8 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-352 OL
| |
| : 9. [ Limerick Generating Station : 50-353 OL 10 Units 1 and 2] :
| |
| 11 ---------------x*
| |
| '12 Wednesday, July 3, 1985 13 Conner & Wetterhahn 14 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 15 Washington, D.C. 20006 16 The Deposition of ROBERT L. MORRIS, called for
| |
| __. 17 examination by Counsel for the Applicant, taken on Wednesday, l
| |
| 18 July 3, 1985, at 10:05 a.m., at the Law Offices of Conner and ,
| |
| j 19 Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, 20 D.C. 20006,.taken down by Stenomask by Suzanne Young, a Notary 21 Public in and for the District of Columbia and transcribed i 22 -under her direction.
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| O 2 1 APPEARANCES:
| |
| 2 On behalf of the Applicant:
| |
| 3 ROBERT M. RADER, ESO.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 MARK J. WETTERHAHN, ESQ.
| |
| 5 Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.
| |
| 6 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20006 7 ,
| |
| 8 On behalf of Graterford Prison and the Witness:
| |
| 9 ANGUS R. LOVE, ESO.
| |
| 10 Montgomery County Legal Aid' Service O' 11 107 E. Main Street 12 Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401
| |
| -13 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 14 the Pennsylvania Department of Correction:
| |
| 15 THEODORE G. OTTO, III 16 Assistant Counsel
| |
| __ 17 Pennsylvania Department of Correction 18 P.O. Box 598 ,.
| |
| 19 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 20 21
| |
| ( 22
| |
| | |
| O 3
| |
| 1 APPEARANCES (Continued) :
| |
| 2 On behalf of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
| |
| 3 DONALD F. HASSELL, ESQ.
| |
| ' ~~
| |
| 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 7735 Old Georgetown Road 6 Bethesda, Maryland 20814
| |
| '' ~
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 on behalf of FEMA: ,
| |
| 8 MIKE HIRSCH, ESQ.
| |
| 9 Federal Emergency Management Agency 10 500 C Street, S.W.
| |
| O~ 11 Washington, D.C. 20472 .
| |
| 12 13 Al~so Present:
| |
| 14 ROBERT D. KLIMM 15 HMM Associates 16~ 336 Baker Avenue 17 Concord, Massachusetts 01742 18 ,
| |
| 19 ***
| |
| 20 21 22 J'
| |
| | |
| 1 I NDEX 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE NO.
| |
| 3 Robert-L. Morris 4 Mr. Rader 5
| |
| ~'""'~~
| |
| 5 Mr. Hassell 47
| |
| : 6. Mr. Love 48 7 Mr. Rader 53 8- ,
| |
| 9 EXHIBITS 10 -EXHIBIT NO. PAGE NO.
| |
| 11 Exhibit No, 4 Hand. written Notes of' 12 Mr. Morris, 1 page. 7
| |
| '- 13 Exhibit No. 5 8-page document re.
| |
| 14 Contention on-ETE. 9 15 Exhibit No. 6 Mr. Morris's Curriculum 16 Vitae. 12 17 Exhibit-No. 7 Letter' dated 6/21/85 to 18 Mr. Morris fr. David Stone. 75 19 ,
| |
| 20 ***
| |
| 21 22
| |
| ..O , ./
| |
| | |
| 4 fN Q) 5 1 PROCEED I NGS 2 Whereupon, 3 ROBERT L. MORRIS,
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 a w'itness called for examination by Counsel for Applicant, 5 after being first duly sworn by the Notary Public, was 6 examined and testified as follows:
| |
| ^
| |
| 7 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL 5'R O APPLICANT 8 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 9 0 Mr. Morris, you have testified at other hearings, 10 haven't you, regarding traffic matters?
| |
| ( 11 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 12 0 So you're familiar with depositions and the purpose 13 for which this deposition ~would be used.
| |
| 14 A Yes, I am.
| |
| 15 0 Did you bring with you any documents as we requested 16 to your counsel, which you would rely upon in giving your 17 testimony in this proceeding?
| |
| 18 A I brought everything I had in my file that pertains,
| |
| -19 to this case.
| |
| 20 0 Okay. May I see those? Have you shown them to your 21- counsel?
| |
| 22 A No.
| |
| | |
| s s) m 6
| |
| 1 Q Would you show them to your counsel so he can make a 2 decision as to whether there are any privileged matters there.
| |
| 3 A .Certainly.
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 4 [ Counsel reviewing documents.]
| |
| 5 MR. LOVE: I don't see the relevance of my letter to 16 him in this matter.
| |
| 7' MR. RADER: Well, let's' identify the letter. You're 8 showing me a {{letter dated|date=June 28, 1985|text=letter dated June 28, 1985}} to Mr. Morris.
| |
| 9 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 10 Q Mr.. Morris, is there anything in this letter upon
| |
| /^)
| |
| (- . 11 which you would rely in giving your testimony in this case?
| |
| 12 [ Witness reviewing document.]
| |
| 13 A No, there isn't.
| |
| 14 Q Mr. Morris, you have also shown me, through your 15 counsel, a {{letter dated|date=June 27, 1985|text=letter dated June 27, 1985}} to Mr. Love from 16 Mr. Otto with an attached flow chart, which were marked as
| |
| __ 17 Applicant's Exhibits 2 and 3 in the previous deposition in the 18 major case. ,
| |
| ' 19 You have also shown me a single page of yellow 20 notepad paper with some handwriting. Is this your 21 handwriting, sir?
| |
| 22 A Yes, it is.
| |
| (_f
| |
| | |
| 7 4
| |
| 1 Q All'right. May I write on this, sir, to mark it as 2 an. exhibit?
| |
| 3 A Certainly.
| |
| 4 - MR. RADER: I think we will just continue the 5 deposition numbers, if that's acceptable to counsel. We will 6 just continue and make this Applicant's Exhibit 4.
| |
| 7 THE WITNESS: If you're. going to keep that,,could 8 you Xerox a copy for me?
| |
| 9 MR. RADER: We will make copies for you, sir, and 10 all the other parties.
| |
| 11 (The document was marked
| |
| . (}
| |
| 12 Applicant's Exhibit No. 4 13 for identification.]
| |
| 14 MR. RADER: I wi,ll return the letter and flow sheet 15 to you.
| |
| 16 You have also shown me a' copy of portions of the 17 Licensing Board's Third Partial Initial Decision on Off-Site 18 Emergency Planning Contentions, it appears up to and including 19 the decision related to the Contention 23 of the Intervenor, 20 LEA, and a note on the top stating, " Findings on traffic in 21 the ETE. Not all of it is relevant but indicates the context
| |
| {} 22 of this additional litigation."
| |
| | |
| (O
| |
| \_/
| |
| 8 1 You've also shown me several sheets marked 2 " Estimated Time of Evacuation." Can you identify for me, sir, 3 the' source of this document and any writing on the document?
| |
| ~ ~"
| |
| 4 THE WITNESS: I cannot identify it beyond what's 5 already there. This was all sent to me as a package.
| |
| 6 MR. RADER: Okay. Can you identify it, Mr. Love?
| |
| 7 MR. LOVE: It's a documdst that was sent to him by 8 David Stone of LEA.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: There's cover letter that went with 10 all of that material. It's probably on,the bottom.
| |
| !s,_) 11 BY MR. RADER: ,
| |
| 12 Q Now, is there anything in this document, consisting 13 of approximately six pages marked " Estimated Time of 14 Evacuation," provided by Mr. Stone which you intend to rely 15 upon in your testimony, sir?
| |
| 16 A I'm not sure.
| |
| 17 Q Are there any parts you think you might rely upon?
| |
| 18 A There may be. I hate to say. I'm not sure. ,
| |
| 19 0 Have you reviewed this document?
| |
| 20 A I've reviewed all the material there rather 21 cursorily. I can't give you chapter and verse on any part.
| |
| fm q,) 22 MR. RADER: Okay. We will mark this six-page
| |
| | |
| 9 -
| |
| 1 document as Applicant's Exhibit No. 5.
| |
| 2 (The document was marked 3 Applicant's Exhibit No. 5 4 -
| |
| for identification.]
| |
| 5 MR. RADER: The'next thing I've been provided is a 6 copy of the synopsis page and two pages from a decision of the 7 Appeal Board in the Zimmer proceeding, ALAB.727.
| |
| 8 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 9 .Q Do you intend to rely upon any portion of this 10 document, sir?
| |
| () 11 A I have to give you the same answer,I gave on the 12 other one.
| |
| 13 0 Okay. Since this is a published decision there's no 14 need to mark this as an exhibit.
| |
| 15' You've also provided me with a map identified as 16 " Evacuation Plan Map, PEMA, June 1983, for Limerick." This 17 purports to be taken from Annex E of the Pennsylvania State 18 Disaster Operations Plan.
| |
| 4 19 Have you reviewe'd this document, sir?
| |
| 29 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 21 Q Do you intend to rely upon this document in your
| |
| (} 22 testimony?
| |
| t
| |
| | |
| /~m
| |
| 'U 10 1 [ Witness reviewing document.]
| |
| 2 A To a limited degree.
| |
| 3 Q All right. This is already in evidence so we won't mark this,'either.
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 4 5 You have also shown me a map of Skippack Township, 6 which I believe was taken from the Skippack Township Plan.
| |
| 7 It's in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit.E-20. Do you' intend 8 to rely upon that document, sir?
| |
| 9 A Again, to a limited degree.
| |
| 10 Q You have also shown me a multi-page document
| |
| (_)\ 11 entitled, " LEA's Proposed Findings," excerpts for Contentions 12 LEA-23, LEA-24/ FOE-1. Have you reviewed this document, sir?
| |
| 13 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 14 Q Do you intend to rely upon it in giving testimony?
| |
| 15 A Probably. I can't be specific.
| |
| 16 Q All right. This, again, is already in the record.
| |
| ._ 17 I see no reason to mark that as an exhibit.
| |
| 18 Next, you have provided me with transcript pages ,
| |
| 19 beginning at 13,845 and ending at 14,102, apparently from the 20 Limerick Off-Site Emergency Planning hearings. Have you 21 reviewed these, sir?
| |
| ) 22 A Yes, I have.
| |
| | |
| I
| |
| .p J
| |
| 11 1- Q Do you intend to rely upon those?
| |
| 2 A Same answer.
| |
| 3 Q Again, this is part of the record.
| |
| 4 And last, you have provided me with what appears to 5 be a copy of the Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Limerick, 6 which has been marked in evidence as Applicant's Exhibit
| |
| ^
| |
| 7 E-67. Have you reviewed this docu'ent,,
| |
| m sir?
| |
| 8 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 9 Q And do you intend to rely upon it?
| |
| 19 A Yes,'I do.
| |
| )
| |
| (
| |
| '' 11 Q And last, you have provided me with a letter from 12 David Stone, dated June 21, 1985, listing the documents that I 13 have stated for the record. Since this simply lists the 14 documents I don't intend to mark this as an exhibit since we 15 have already identified the documents, but the record will 16 reflect that we did receive that.
| |
| 17 Did you bring with you, sir, a current copy of your 18 curriculum vitae? ,
| |
| 19 A No, I did not.
| |
| 29 Q Has your curriculum vitae changed in substance since 21 your testimony in the Indiana Point proceeding?
| |
| O Could I take a quick look at
| |
| (/ 22 A I don't believe so.
| |
| | |
| 1 it?
| |
| 2 0 Sure.
| |
| 3 [ Witness reviewing document.)
| |
| 4 -
| |
| .A .That is essentially correct. No significant 5 changes.
| |
| -6 Q Okay. You say that's essentially correct with no 7 significant changes? ,,
| |
| 8 A Right.
| |
| 9 Q And you are referring to your curriculum vitae which 10 you submitted in the Indian Point proceeding and which was
| |
| () 11 received in evidence as a result of your testimony on March 12 15, 1983 in that proceeding. Is that correct, sir?
| |
| 13 A Yes, that's correct.
| |
| 14 MR. RADER: We will mark this as Applicant's Exhibit 15 No. 6.
| |
| 16 [The document was marked 17 Applicant's Exhibit No. 6 18 for identification.]
| |
| 19 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 20 Q Now, sir, you attended the University of Maryland 21 and received a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering 22 in 1949. Is that correct?
| |
| (
| |
| | |
| * '~
| |
| I
| |
| )
| |
| 13
| |
| -1 A Yes, that's right.
| |
| 2 Q Did that include any traffic engineering and 3 transportation studies?
| |
| 4 ~ ' "~ ' A' No. In those days, they didn't'have courses in 5 traffic engineering and transportation studies at major 6 universities.
| |
| 7 Q Could you keep your voids up just a bit? I'~m not 8 sure if everyone at the end of the table can hear you.
| |
| 9 And th'en you received a. Master's in civil
| |
| -10 engineering in 1950 from the University of Maryland; is that 11 correct?
| |
| 12 A That's correct.
| |
| 13' Q And were there any traffic engineering and 14 transportation studies involved in that degree?
| |
| 15 A No. The only traffic engineering studies at the 16 University of Maryland were the ones that I instituted when I
| |
| :-- 17 was president of the local chapter. I started a course at the 18 University of Maryland which I believe is still extant. ,
| |
| 19 Q And you received a law degree from the University of 20 Baltimore in 1957?
| |
| 21 A Yes, I did.
| |
| 22 0 And did you at anytime take the bar exam?
| |
| 8
| |
| | |
| .%)
| |
| tO 14 1 A Yes, I did.
| |
| 2 Q And are you a member of the Maryland Bar?
| |
| 3 A Yes, I am.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 ~ '" " Q Was the University of Baltimore an accredited law 5 school at the time you graduated, sir?
| |
| 6 A The University of Baltimore was. I should note that 7 the school I went to was called the Eas, tern College of 8 Commerce and Law. The specific branch of that was the 9 Mt. Vernon School of Law, which subsequently was merged with 10 the University of Baltimore.
| |
| ( 11 Nhen you say accredited, I'm not sure I can tell 12 you. I took the bar exam. University of Baltimore, as far as 13 I know, has always been accredited.
| |
| 14 0 Have you attempted to become a member of the bar of '
| |
| i; 15 any other state?
| |
| 16 A No, just the Supreme Court.
| |
| -- 17 Q And does your law degree or any of jour legal t
| |
| 18 training bear upon your testimony in this proceeding? ,
| |
| 19 A No, it does not. I do not hold myself out as a 20 qualified lawyer. I have never practiced law.
| |
| 21 0 Now, you list as an honorary organization the Cosmos
| |
| () 22 Club. Could you explain in what respect that is an honorary I
| |
| L. -
| |
| | |
| g__,__ _.
| |
| s
| |
| - e
| |
| . q,s .
| |
| 15 1 organization?
| |
| 2 A It's a club that was formed a little over 196 years 3 ago for the purpose of joining men of distinction in the 4
| |
| 5"ib5dsofarts-andsciencesforsocialrelationsandfor 5 exchange of. ideas, and for promotion of art and science' l l
| |
| 6 interests.
| |
| 7 Q Does that have anything in particular to do'with !
| |
| 8 your knowledge in the area of traffic engineering or. r 9 transpo,rtation? i
| |
| ^
| |
| 10 A. Yes. To qualify for membership in the ' Cosmos Club I 11 had to demonstrate that I had made significant contributions ;
| |
| 12 in my field, specifically, in the field of traffic engineering 13 and transportation planni'ng.
| |
| I 14 Q Now, you state in your resume that you were Head, 15 Master Plan'Section, Department of Planning for Baltimore.
| |
| 16 Was that the City of Baltimore?
| |
| 17 A Yes, it was.
| |
| 18 Q And when did you assume that position? .
| |
| 19 'A 1955.
| |
| 29' Q And what did you do between the years 1959 when you i
| |
| 21 received your Master's until 19557
| |
| ) 22 A When I got my Master's I went to work for a company
| |
| | |
| A Li: 16 1 that was known as Merritt, Chapman and Scott, a construction 2 company which no longer exists, working on bridge construction l
| |
| l 3 in Annapolis, and then in Jacksonville, Florida.
| |
| l -. . .
| |
| ! 4 Q Did that involve any traffic engineering or 5 transportation analysis?
| |
| l 6 A No. I'm sorry, did you want me to go on from there?
| |
| 7 0 Yes. Well, my next ques' tion ist in your po'sition, 8 what were your responsibilities as Head, Master Plan Section l
| |
| i 9 in the Baltimore Department of Planning?
| |
| 19 -
| |
| A To develop plans for the long-term development of C:) 11 the city, specifically the highway system. The Jones Falls 12 Expressway was under consideration at that point, and I made 13 some studies and that was included in the Master Plan. And 14 there were a number of other master plans that my involvement 15 in was just tangential.
| |
| 16 Q Now, as Vice President of Alan H. Voorhees --
| |
| ~~
| |
| 17 A That's Alan M. Voorhees.
| |
| 18 Q I'm sorry. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, did you 19 have any connection with the Seabrook Station?
| |
| 29 A No.
| |
| 21 Q Do you know where the Seabrook Station is?
| |
| O
| |
| ^ 22 A No, I do not.
| |
| L_
| |
| | |
| O 17 l
| |
| 1 Q Do you know that it's a nuclear power plant in New !
| |
| 2 Hampshire?
| |
| 3 A If you tell me, I believe you.
| |
| "' I 4 "Q Did you know that Alan M. Voorhees and Associates 5 prepared an evacuation time estimate study for the Seabrook 6 plant?
| |
| 7 A That's certainly possible. ,
| |
| 8 0 But you didn't have any connection with that?
| |
| 9 A No, sir. j 19 Q What were your responsibilities as Acting Assistant.
| |
| ( 'll Commissioner of Traffic in Baltimore?
| |
| 12 A My responsibilities were mainly operational with 13 some planning involved; planning for one-way streets, planning 14 for a comprehensive parking program for the city, working with i i
| |
| 15 major developers, particularly at that time, the Charles Center project which started the revitalization of downtown 16
| |
| -- 17 Baltimore. That was a principal concern. Working out the 18 problems of access, parking, how the metro system; that is, ,
| |
| 19 the Rapid Transit System, might relate to it, which at that 20 time was just under consideration. These kinds of things on a .
| |
| 21 day-to-day basis.
| |
| l t
| |
| () 22 Q And when did you assume that position? l I
| |
| | |
| i O '
| |
| 18 i
| |
| 1 A Well, the Acting Assistant Commissioner was 1959. I l
| |
| 2 went with the Department in 1957.
| |
| 3 Q And did you hold that position until you became l
| |
| ^
| |
| 4 " Senior Planner, Transportation, Downtown Progress, for 5 Washington, D.C.?
| |
| l l 6 A Yes, I did.
| |
| 7 0 And what were your resp 6nsibilities in that'latter 8 position?
| |
| ! 9 A I was the Transportation Planner for a group that le was popularly known as Downtown Progress, more formally, the l
| |
| () 11 !!stional Capitol Downtown Committee, Incorporated, that was l 12 responsible for planning for the revitalization of downtown 13 Washington, basically between the Capitol and the White House, l 14 and from Pennsylvania Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue. And I l
| |
| 15 was the only transportation person on the staff and I l 16 developed plans for the operation of the street system. l
| |
| __ 17 I determined where the subway lines would go, which 18 are now in place, of course. I worked with the staff of what, 19 was then the D.C. Department of Highways and Traffic. I i- worked with staff of what is now Metro, previously was 28 l
| |
| l l 21 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, before that,
| |
| ()
| |
| 22 National capitol Transit Agency. I worked with the staff of l
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| 19 1 1 the National Capitol Planning Commission.
| |
| 2 So I was something of a coordinator among the ;
| |
| 3 various public agencies, and I developed plans on my own, 4 'evN5uated them and got the support of the public agencies for 5 their implementation.
| |
| 6 Q And during what period did you hold that position? ,
| |
| 7 A 1968 to 1967. .
| |
| 8 Q And at that time, did you become associated with 9 Alan M. Voorhees and Associates?
| |
| 19 A Yes, I did.
| |
| 11 Q And when did you becemo Vice Prosident?
| |
| 12 A When I joined the firm, or immediately after I 13 joined it. ,
| |
| 14 Q And how long were you with the Voorhees firm?
| |
| 15 A Until 1973. ,
| |
| 16 0 And what did you do with Alan M. Voorhees and
| |
| -- 17 Associates as Vice President?
| |
| 18 A I was originally the head of the Traffic Engineering 19 Department, and then when the company was reorganized along 29 geographical lines I was put in charge of the Eastern i
| |
| ; 21 Division, which was essentially that part of the United States l
| |
| l
| |
| () 22 from the Mississippi River, east.
| |
| l i
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| (O a
| |
| 29 1 Q Could you describe what kind of work you did for the 2 firm?
| |
| 3 A It was principally of a supervisory nature.
| |
| ' ~
| |
| 4 Ohdiously, when I was head of the Traffic Engineering t
| |
| 5 Department, we did traffic engineering studies. When I became 6 head of the Eastern Division, then we had a broad range of 7 studies including various aspects"of transportation planning 8 for highways for transit systems, plus the more traditional 9 traffic engineering studies.
| |
| 13 Q And what did you do after 19737
| |
| () 11 A I went into business for myself.
| |
| 12 Q And you have been self-employed since that time?
| |
| 13 A Yes, I have.
| |
| 14 0 And why did you decide to leave the voorhees firm as 15 Vice President?
| |
| 16 A It's a long story. Are you sure you want to know?
| |
| _. 17 Q Well, give me a short answer.
| |
| 18 A Well, a major part of it relates to why I am here.,
| |
| 19 When I was Vice President of Voorhees, people would come to us 29 occasionally for assistance, who had concerns with various
| |
| ! 21 governmental agencies, and typically, Voorhees, as with all
| |
| () 22 large consulting firms I believe in the transportation
| |
| | |
| 1 21 1 planning field, their major clients are these public 2 agencies. And voorhees was never in a position to assist 3 people who had conflicts with the public agencies.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 And I decided when I was going into business for 5 myself that I would make whatever contribution I could to 6 people who were faced with these kinds of problems, and not_be 7 concerned about the implications ih terms.of business 8 generation from the governmental agencies.
| |
| 9 So since-I've been in business in 1973, I have made 10 it a practice to do this kind of work on a pro bono basis, 11 Q Could you explain exactly what kind of formal 12 training or education you have had in the area of traffic 13 engineering and traffic flow analysis?
| |
| 14 A Sure. The principal training I got was with the 15 City of Baltimore when I worked for Henry Barnes, who was the 16 pre-eminent traffic engineer in the United States. If you
| |
| __ 17 talk to anybody who is in the field they immediately know who 18 Henry Barnes is. ,
| |
| 19 And I learned traffic engineering by getting my 20 hands dirty, so to speak. I have been doing it since 1957, 21 and I have published a good bit on the basis of my findings.
| |
| h' 22 I like to do research and find better ways of doing things.
| |
| | |
| A)
| |
| ( 22 1 Q Well, we will get to that. My question principally
| |
| '2 focused upon your formal education and training. I think you 3 mentioned that you worked under Mr.'Barnes. Would you 4 ' describe that as the extent of your training in the area, 5 hands-on training?
| |
| 6 A No. I have been training myself ever since I 7 started work in this field. ,
| |
| 8 You should understand that back in those days, the 9 only education for a traffic engineer was in civil 10 engineering. Since those day,s there have been divisions of
| |
| () 11 engineering colleges that do offer courses that specialize in 12 transportation and traffic, but back in those days there were 13 none. And it was strictly a civil engineering background 14 which I had.
| |
| 15 0 Your lectures at the various universities identified 16 in your curriculum vitae -- could you give us a general 17 description of what those lectures pertained to?
| |
| ;o A Yes. They pertained to the basics of traffic ,
| |
| 19 engineering in some instances, and in transportation planning, 20 how it is carried out, how reliable it is, what its strengths 21 and weaknesses are. But typically, in the areas of traffic
| |
| -( ) 22 engineering and transportation planning.
| |
| f
| |
| | |
| .. I O '
| |
| 23 1 Q With regard to your professional experience in all 2 of the variou;. positions you have discussed, did you at any 3 time prepare an evacuation time estimate study?
| |
| l ~4 A An evacuation time estimate study? No.
| |
| 5 0 And with regard to the states for which you have 6 identified yourself as an expert witness in traffic and 7 transportation, did any of those instances pertain to 8 evacuation time estimate studies?
| |
| 9 A No.
| |
| 10 0 Now, with regard to the responsible studies listed
| |
| () 11 in your resume, do any of those pertain to evacuat' ion time 12 estimate studies?
| |
| 13 A No.
| |
| 4 14 0 With regard to your publications, do any of those 15 matters pertain to evacuation time estimate studies?
| |
| 16 A No.
| |
| 17 Q So you do not claim to be an expert qualified in the 18 area of evacuation time estimate studies; is that correct? ,
| |
| 19 A I am an expert in the inputs to those studies.
| |
| 20 0 Are you an expert in the analysis and critique of 21 such studies?
| |
| () 22 A Yes. To the degree that they pertain to those 1 1 .. . -i. .
| |
| .. --_I-_ _
| |
| | |
| (-
| |
| U 24 1 inputs that I referred to.
| |
| 2 0 And which inputs are those, specifically?
| |
| 3 A The aspects of traffic engineering, travel time, 4 system operation of a highway network.
| |
| 5 0 Well, let's break that down. What do you mean by 6 traffic engineering? What would that include in terms of an 7 evacuation time estimate study? ,
| |
| 8 A Traffic engineering has to do with the operation of 9 a road system, the roads themselves, the inter, sections and how 10 efficiently they operate under various conditions.
| |
| s
| |
| \- 11 Q On page 5 of your curriculum vitae, you refer to 12 environmental impact studies. Could you explain what they 13 are?
| |
| 14 A When a highway or a major development of any kind 15 that involves federal funds is proposed, it is necessary to 16 prepare an environmental impact statement to show how that 17 development or construction or whatever it may be will affect 18 the environment. That is federal legislation. ,
| |
| 19 And an important part of that is the determination 20 'of what the traffic conditions will be operating on the road 21 system -- tr$ vel speeds under various conditions and so (D
| |
| s/ - 2. 2 forth. So I have been involved in the transportation planning
| |
| | |
| .f n U
| |
| 25 1 and-traffic engineering aspects of those studies. I haven't 2 done the entire studies, of course.
| |
| 3 0 I note from your publications that most of these 4 pusiications seem to be in the year approximately 1962 and 5 then a rage of years from 1966 to 1969. Is there_any reason 6 why you seem to have written more prolifically in those years?
| |
| '~ '
| |
| 7 A I had more time then. ,
| |
| 8 Q I see. Your last publication listed here in 1979.
| |
| 9 -Is that the last time you published, sir?
| |
| 10 A No. I have had a couple of articles si'nce then. I O)
| |
| \- 11 don't believe more than about two in traffic engineering.
| |
| 12 O And what sre those related to?
| |
| 13 A one is, "Are Levels of Service on the Level?" Is 14 that in listed t'here? Is that listed there? It would be 15 right at the end.
| |
| 16 0 It's here, also.
| |
| __ 17 A Oh, yes, it is. I published one in Traffic 18 Engineering Magazine specifically on the level of Service F,,
| |
| 19 and I published one on communications. I can recall those
| |
| ; 20 two. I don't recall any other subsequent to this.
| |
| 21 Q And what is meant by "the level of Service F?"
| |
| O tj 22 A Well, Service F is generally considered to be a s
| |
| T y +wy9 - .n. - y ,, - ,.A. < , , - . -. .- n .m . ,,
| |
| | |
| O ,
| |
| 26 1 failure of a system. As the Highway Capacity Manual described
| |
| '2 it, it represents jammed conditions and delays can be quite 3 extensive.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 Q And would you define what you mean by " level of i
| |
| 5 service"?
| |
| 6 A Yes. There are six levels of service. We just 7 talked quite briefly about Level $[. The levels are given in 8 categories A through F, indicating the quality of traffic 9 flow. And,the letters are somewhat similar to grades in 10 school, A be,ing the best and F, as I have just indicated,
| |
| (~\
| |
| \ 11 representing a failure. -
| |
| 12 The significance of those letters is in the travel 13 time that would be involved in analy=ing a road. For example, 14 .what the average travel speed would be and the degree of 15 congestion and delays getting through an intersection, how 16 many signal changes might be required to get through an 17 intersection.
| |
| 18 Q Is it your und,erstanding that if an evacuation plan, 19 for a nuclear power plan area, for example, contained a number 20 of service Level F roads, that the plan would therefore be a 21 failure? ,
| |
| , - 22 A That in itself doesn't mean the plan is a failure.
| |
| f f 't
| |
| | |
| ,m
| |
| \w]
| |
| 27 1 It has implications, of course. It depends on what you ,mean 2 by a failure of the plan. Level of Service F is a reflection 3 of how much delay there is in getting through the particular 4 part of the road network that has that Level F, and that's 5 obviously an important consideration.
| |
| 6 I don't know what you mean by failure. If it takes
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 a week to evacuate something, that might be considered a 8 failure and it might not.
| |
| 9 Q Well, would the level of service in particular 10 areas, for exsmple, if enough were Level F would that render q#
| |
| '- 11 the plan unacceptable from an operational viewpoint?
| |
| 12 A Well, level of Service F is never acceptable from an 13 operational viewpoint. The important thing is if you have 14 Levels F, it's extremely i'mportant to consider the 15 implications and look beyond the location where the Level F, 16 as to how that affects the operation of the entire network.
| |
| 17 0 Would it mean that the plan would have to be 18 revised, or that the plan was unacceptable as drafted? ,
| |
| 19 A It depends on what you are looking for in terms of 20 your plan. If the purpose of the plan is to determine how 21 long it would take to evacuate an area and the levels of T
| |
| 22 Service F were properly considered in this plan, then it would
| |
| {.'/
| |
| | |
| O 28 1 give you a certain number. And whoever makes the decision as 2 to whether that amount of time is acceptable or not is the one 3 who determines whether the plan is a success or a failure.
| |
| "''~~
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 'The critical matter is to give proper consideration 5 to those Levels F.
| |
| 6 Q Do you know whether there is an acceptable period of 7 time, under NRC regulations or an 'other regulations that you 8 are familiar with, for the evacuation of an area surrounding a 9 nuclear power plan in the event of a nuclear emergency?
| |
| 10 A I'm not familiar with NRC regulations.
| |
| 11 Q Now, in general, Mr. Morris, is it your intention to 12 submit the same kind of testimony for this proceeding that you
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 submitted in Indian Point?
| |
| 14 A I would assume it would be similar, but I must tell 15 you I cannot recall very'well what my testimony was at Indian 16 Point. That is, what it included. I'm not sure. ,
| |
| 0bviously,
| |
| ~ - -' 17 there would be some relationship but whether it would be the 18 same specific kind of testimony or not, I can't say. ,
| |
| 19 0 Well, do you recall that you testified regarding 20 service Level F as that' service level impacted the evacuation 21 plans for the Indian Point area?
| |
| L 22 A I'm sure I did. I don't recall it in detail,
| |
| | |
| I L
| |
| ~ 'i
| |
| . (J 29 1 though.
| |
| 2 Q Do you recall that the Licensing Board had some 3 difficulty in that case in understanding your testimony?
| |
| 4 A No, I don't recall. It's certainly possible.
| |
| 5 MR. LOVE: Excuse me. Could you give me the cite 6 that you are referring to?
| |
| 7 MR. RADER: Well, the I6dian. Point Licensing Board 8 decision. It may be found in Volume 18, NRC Reports, and it 9 begins at page 811. The part pertinent to Mr. Morris's 10 testimony relating to t'he evacuation time estimates begins at 11 page 960 and continues for about 20 pages after that.
| |
| 12 Mr. Morris testified beginning at page 9726 on the 13 Indian Point transcript to approximately page 9804.
| |
| 14 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 15 Q Now with regard to that testimony, Mr. Morris, do 16 you recall Judge Shon. examining you with regard to your 17 testimony on Service Level F roads?
| |
| 18 A I don't recall-that at all. ,
| |
| 19 'O Do;.you recall at the end of the colloquy he had with 20 you saying, "I'm afraid I didn't get very far," in discussing 21 your testimony?
| |
| 22 A I don't remember it.
| |
| | |
| /M U
| |
| 30 1 I don't doubt that he said it.
| |
| 2 MR. LOVE: Could you give us the date of that 3 testimony?
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 4 MR. RADER: I am referring to testimony given by 5 Mr. Morris on March 15, 1983 and, Mr. Morris, I will show you 6 the testimony and the page in particular where Judge Shon made 7 that statement and ask you if thaf refreshes your 8 recollection.
| |
| 9 THE WITNESS: Well, I can certainly read what the 10 transcript says.
| |
| ~ ~ "
| |
| ~ 11 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 12 0 Well, you can look a few pages forward or back and 13 see whether that refreshes your recollection as to your 14 testimony, and the colloquy that you had with Judge Shon.
| |
| 15 A I have probably testified 's couple hundred times 16 since this occurred and I can assure you I can't recall all of 17 my testimony.
| |
| 18 Q Well, that's why I'm showing you.the document, sir.,
| |
| 19 A Well, I can read what it says here and if that's 20 what it says, obviously that's what I said.
| |
| 21 Q Okay. Do you recall the statement by the Licensing
| |
| ) 22 Board in its decision at page 966, Volume 18, NRC Reports,
| |
| | |
| C 31 m 9 1 'that your criticism of the Parsons Brinkerhof analysis was, 2 " entirely semantic," and that the Board found that the 4
| |
| 3 criticism with respect to the Parsons Brinkerhof capacity
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 and'l'ys'is,'as stated at page 969 of 18 NRC is " unwarranted."
| |
| 5 Do you recall that, sir?
| |
| 6 A No, I don't.
| |
| Did you read the Board's~ decision afterward?
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 Q 8 A No, I did not. I don't believe I have ever seen it.
| |
| 9 Q Weren't you interested to learn whether or not the 10 Board accepted your analysis of the situation, or how they
| |
| (
| |
| 11 dealt with your testimony?
| |
| 12 A I am almost never furnished the results of testimony 13 that I give. I give objective testimony, I do the best I can, 14 and the outcome of the case is a different matter. Obviously, 15 I'm interested in how someone receives my testimony, but it 16 doesn't change the way I testify.
| |
| a 17 0 on page 970 of the same volume, the words state that 18 "The Board finds Morris's assertions with respect to ,
| |
| 19 methodology refuted by the Parsons Brinkerhof testimony, and 20 the discussion contained in the Parsons Brinkerhof study 21 itself." Do you still disagree with that?
| |
| ) 22 A Do I disagree with what? That the Board found that?
| |
| | |
| ( D, .
| |
| 32 1 0 Do you disagree with the Board's conclusion that 2 your assertions with respect to the methodology are refuted by 3 the Parsons Brinkerhof study itself?
| |
| 4 ''''~A I stand behind my testimony, if that's the question 5 you're asking.
| |
| 6 Q But you didn't review this Board's decision to 7 determine whether or not the Board accepted your analysis of 8 the situation,_or that of the Applicant?
| |
| 9 A Well, it's quite clear they accepted that of the 10 Applicant, from what you have read to me, but that has nothing.
| |
| c
| |
| (~3 / 11 to do with my testimony.
| |
| 12 Q But you didn't review it to determine how they dealt 13 with your testimony?
| |
| 14 A I've never seen-it.
| |
| 15 Q You don't do that in general with regard to your 16 testimony in cases in which you testify as an expert witness?
| |
| --- 17 You don't see how the Board --
| |
| 18 MR. LOVE: I object. I don't see the relevance of '
| |
| 19 this to the issue.
| |
| 20 MR. RADER: I think it goes to the witness's
| |
| '21 professional qualifications. I think most experts would
| |
| ( () 22 certainly be interested in obtaining feedback to see whether L
| |
| | |
| r~
| |
| .f 33 1 or not the appropriate tribunal has agreed or disagreed with 2 their findings. I think that would certainly affect a 3 professional's evaluation of his own performance and how he
| |
| 'wouYd testify in future cases.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 5 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 6 0 Would you please answer the question, sir?
| |
| 7 A I'd be very happy to answer the question. Whether 8 this specific tribunal accepts my testimony or somebody else's 9 testimony is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I 10 give' professional testimony, I do thorough studies, I am
| |
| () 11 satisfied with the kind of work that I do. And if it's my 12 testimony against somebody else's testimony and a hearing 13 officer or a judge or whoever may be involved chooses to 14 accept somebody.else's testimony rather than mine, that's up 15 to him.
| |
| 16 That doesn't affect the quality of my testimony in 17 the slightest, and I intend to keep on giving objective, 18 quality testimony. ,
| |
| 19 Q Are you familiar with a document which I will show 20 you, sir, entitled, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation
| |
| .~
| |
| J21 of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
| |
| () 22 Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0654?
| |
| | |
| 34 1 A No,-I am not familiar with it.
| |
| 2 0 In fact, you weren't familiar with that when you 3 testified in the Indian Point proceeding, which we have just 4 'idehtified, on March 15, 1983. Is that correct?
| |
| 5 A If I had been familiar with it then I would be 6 familiar with it now.
| |
| 7 Q And you haven't seen fit, since that time, to become 8 familiar with the document?
| |
| 9 A It's not a question of seeing fit. I have not seen 10 the document. It has never been referred to me. There are
| |
| ~
| |
| ) 11 millions of documents that I"have not seen fit, as you put it, 12 to review.
| |
| 13 0 Well, it was referred to you at the time of the 14 Indian Point hearing, wasn't it?
| |
| 15 A Not that I'm aware of. If it says there in the 16 testimony, then perhaps it was. I don't recall ever seeing
| |
| __ 17 that document.
| |
| 18 0 Well again, I refer to the same. transcript and I ,
| |
| 19 will show it to you. At page 9757 where were you asked the 20 same question I just asked you as to your familiarity with 21 NUREG-0654, and you stated, "I have heard of it, sir; I 22 haven't read it."
| |
| | |
| N
| |
| (~/
| |
| 's -
| |
| 35 1 A Okay.
| |
| 2 Q So it was referred to you in the Indian Point 3 proceeding, was it not?
| |
| - ~~
| |
| 4 A I said that I had heard of it; I hadn't read it, 5 and I still haven't read it. And this is the first time, to 6 my knowledge, that I have ever seem it.
| |
| 7 0 Was it your' understanding on .the basis of th'e 8 testimony which you gave and the questions which were asked of 9 you and any other testimony you may have heard in the Indian 10 Point case, that NUREG-0654 is the planning basis for
| |
| ' 11 emergency planning under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 regulations?
| |
| 13 A -It may be.
| |
| 14 -Q But again, you didn't see fit to pursue that?
| |
| 15 A It's not a question of seeing fit.
| |
| 16 0 You didn't have any reason to pursue it?
| |
| __ 17 A There are a lot of things I haven't pursued.
| |
| 18 Q Well, you didn't have any interest in pursuing it. ,
| |
| 19 A I did not pursue it.
| |
| 20 0 It laid outside your professional concerns?
| |
| Well, okay. That's a fair statement. It laid 21 A
| |
| () 22 outside my professional concerns. My professional concerns
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| .' l l
| |
| l i
| |
| (/
| |
| 36 1 are based on my experience and my knowledge of the traffic l 2 engineering profession, how traffic engineering operates, and 3 a proper approach to traffic engineering and transportation
| |
| ~ '
| |
| 4 planning.
| |
| 5 And if that document or any other documents says, 6 this is the procedure that somebody may go through, that's all 7 well and good. It has nothing to"do with my professional 8 evaluation of an evacuation plan or anything else. I evaluate l
| |
| 9 on the basis of proper technical procedure, whether somebody 10 else, whoever that may be, has said this is the way you do it, 11 or not.
| |
| 12 If they say in that book that you follow a certain
| |
| ( 13 procedure and somebody follows that procedure and it is L 14 flawed, I'm going to point out that it's flawed. And I don't 15 care who prepared the publication. When I see i flaw, I'm 16 going to point out the flaw.
| |
| ' -- 17 Q But it wouldn't be relevant to your analysis as to 18 what the described procedure would be? ,
| |
| ~19 A I couldn't care less if they follow a procedure in a 20 particular document. I want to know if they made a proper 21 technical evaluation. It has nothing to do with some g
| |
| \/ 22 procedure that somebody set up.
| |
| | |
| 1 U 37 1 Q And this document wouldn't help you analyze that 2 situation?
| |
| 3 A It would not help me analyze'the technical aspects 4 - of~ traffic engineering that I am concerned with.
| |
| 5 Q. Are all traffic and transportation analyses prepared 6 for the same purpose?
| |
| 7 A Of course not. ,
| |
| 8 Q And so, the basis of your analysis would depend upon 9 the purpose for which the study was performed; is that 10 ' correct? -
| |
| ) 11 A Well, the basis for the analysis obviously depends, 12 but there are certain givens in a traffic engineering study 13 'that would apply anywhere. If you are computing level of 14 service, for example, at a particular intersection, if you are 15 concerned with the construction of a road, if you're concerned 16 with a shopping center, if you're concerned with a residential
| |
| _ _ , 17 development, there are all different considerations. But you 18 have the same kind of technical evaluation for all of them. '
| |
| 19 0 would level of service-concerns be the same in 20 judging whether or not to put in a traffic light, as it would 21 be in determining how long it would take to evacuate a given 22 area?
| |
| | |
| V 38 1 A Well, you would come up with the same kinds of 2 calculations, but you would have different uses of that 3 information, depending on what you're studying.
| |
| .X11 right, then.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 ' ' Q' In general, your analysis of the 5 information which you have here is basically of a technical 6 nature to determine highway capacity and level of service. Is 7 that correct? ,
| |
| 8 A Well, that's part of it; it's not the whole thing.
| |
| . 9 Q Are there any other parts?
| |
| 10 'A Sure. Safety is an important part that you haven't
| |
| (
| |
| 11 mentioned.
| |
| 12 Q Do you know whether safety is addressed in 13 NUREG-0654?
| |
| 14 A I don't know whether it is or not. I address 15 safety. I think it's critical.
| |
| 16 Q Are you talking about radiological safety or highway
| |
| -- 17 safety when you say safety?
| |
| 18 A Highway safety. ,
| |
| 19' Q Well, when Mr. Love stated to you that he was l
| |
| 20 requesting your services for this proceeding, did it occur to 21 you then that you should consult NUREG-0654, inasmuch as it is
| |
| ( 22 the cornerstone document for regulatory planning for pcwer l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| . i tn 39.
| |
| 1 plants?
| |
| 2 A No, I did not. Nor do I think so now.
| |
| 3 Q. Could you explain how you were called upon to
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 "tes"tify in'this proceeding?
| |
| 5 A I was called and asked if I would be willing to 6 help.
| |
| 7 Q By Mr. Love? ,
| |
| 8 A Yes. Nor this specific hearing, yes, I believe it 9 was by Mr. Love.
| |
| 10 0 Were you contacted by anybody else?
| |
| () 11 A Yes. Mr. Stone, is that his name, who sent me this
| |
| '12 material. I believe it was him or somebody in his firm. I'm 13 not sure. But a couple of people have called me.
| |
| 14 0 Did you speak with Mr. Stone personally? ,
| |
| 15 A I'm not sure.
| |
| 16 Q Did Mr. Stone send you anything other than that 17 packet of information?
| |
| 18 A I brought you everything I had. ,
| |
| 19 Q Now, in the Indian Point testimony, do you recall 20 that particular testimony where you stated the importance"of' 21 examining the worst case situation?
| |
| () 22 A I don't recall it, but I'm sure that that would be a
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| .B .
| |
| g I
| |
| 40 1 focal point of my. testimony. I 2 Q I am going to refer you back to your testimony at-3 page 9764 and the pages that follow, and ask if that refreshes 4 your recollection as to your ' testimony regarding the worst i
| |
| 5 case situation.
| |
| 6 A How far do you want me to read?
| |
| ~
| |
| 7 0 Well, as far as you fee 1 comfortable reading" in 8 order to determine the extent to which you testified as to the 9 .need for considering worst case analysis.
| |
| : 10. [ Witness reviewing document.] ,
| |
| -11 A Okay. What is your question?
| |
| 12 O The question is was it your principal criticism'of 13 the Indian Point evacuati'on time estimate study that it did 14 not contain a worst case analysis?
| |
| 15 A I'm not sure that's the principal one.
| |
| 16 'O Was it a principal one? !
| |
| -- 17 A It-was a principal one, yes. ,
| |
| 18 Q And is it your understanding that emergency planning ,
| |
| t 19 for nuclear power plants, in terms of obtaining evacuation 12 0 - time estimates, should be based upon a worst case analysis?
| |
| 21 A I told you I'm not familiar with the regulations. I 22 based my testimony on good traffic engineering procedures.
| |
| | |
| O 41 1 O Well, if you were called upon to provide testimony 2 as to what evacuation time estimates for the Limerick area 3 should include, would you testify that those estimates should 4 inil'ude a worst case analysis?
| |
| 5 A I would testify that it should include a combination 6 of worst case situations.
| |
| And what do you mean by'that?,
| |
| 7 0 8 A Well, there's a whole series of situations. You 9 have to bear in mind we are not dealing with normal, 10 day-to-day situations such as evacuating a shopping center
| |
| () 11 parking lot when it closes at 11:00 o' clock at night. We're 12 talking about a matter of life and death, and there are a 13 whole series of occurrences that can affect the evacuation 14 with those conditions.
| |
| 15 If you have a major accident on a roadway that would 16 close down the roadway, obviously that has an effect on 17 evacuation. If you have certain wind conditions, 18 meteorological conditions, that could result in closing of a ,
| |
| 19 corridor or a series of roadways to the availability of people 20 to evacuate the areas. That is clearly a consideration that 21 has to be given in a situation of this kind.
| |
| 22 There is a whole series of combinations of things
| |
| (])
| |
| | |
| \_) 42 1 that may occur, and it seems to me it's critical to know how 2 long it's going to take to evacuate in a life and death 3 situation, with these various possibilities.
| |
| 4 ,
| |
| Q Now, how would planners take into account the range 5- of combinations or circumstances that you just described in 6 reaching reasonable time estimates for evacuating a population 7 within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant?
| |
| 8 A Well, you would start with accident records on all 9 the roads that you are going to rely on to evacuate the area, 10
| |
| * and determine what the probability of an accident on any of
| |
| .f3 11 -these roads would be in normal circumstances.
| |
| O "
| |
| And unto that you would have to apply what I would 12 13 call a panic factor, recogniring that people do not use normal 14 gap acceptance times in a panic situation. They do not give 15 the customary yielding to rights of way in that kind of 16 situation. People woul'd act differently, and you have to 17 recognize that the probability of an accident would be 18 substantially increased.
| |
| 19 So if you start with given probabilities based on 20 history and add a factor to that, you can find out what 21 the likelihood is of any road or combination of roads being
| |
| , 22 closed down.
| |
| Nq. J
| |
| | |
| h 43 1 on top of that, you have meteorological data that 2 will give you.an indication of weather conditions, what the
| |
| .3 wind direction and volume and so forth would be at various 4 ~ Elm ~es, and you make a determination as to how that might 5' affect your evacuation. And go through various combinations 6 of these conditions to find out what the implications are.
| |
| 7c Q Have you ever done any Eraffi,c flow simulation 8 modeling?
| |
| 9- A Sure.
| |
| 19 Q For an evacuation?
| |
| 11 ^ no-
| |
| _O 12 Q So all the things that you have just described to me 13 you have never done that in practice yourself?
| |
| 14 A I told you right in the beginning, I have never done 15 an evacuation plan for a nuclear plant.
| |
| 16 Q Mr. Morris, the factors which you have just 17 mentioned to me, traffic accident analysis, wind condition 18 analysis, differences in gap acceptance time as a panic facto,r 19 and w'eather conditions, as those matters relate to evacuation 29 of a 19-mile radius around a nuclear power plant in the event 21 of a radiological hazard, you have never done that kind of
| |
| )* 22 analysis yourself, have you?
| |
| | |
| O 44 A I have done parts of that. I have certainly done 1
| |
| 2 the probabil'ity of accident evaluations --
| |
| ~
| |
| 3 Q But I'm talking about --
| |
| 4
| |
| ~~~~~
| |
| A' -No. I don't know how many times you're going to hit the same question again and again. I have never done a study 5
| |
| for an evacuation for a power plant failure. No, I have never 6
| |
| 7 ~done that. ,
| |
| 8 Q okay. What I'm asking, sir, is specifically with 9 regard to those factors, you have never considered the factors which you just stated to me: traffic accidents, wind le 11 conditions, gap acceptance time as.a panic factor and weather 12 conditions as they relate to an evacuation.- Is that correct?
| |
| 13 A I have never studied anything as it relates to an 14 evacuation in terms of preparing an evacuation plan.
| |
| .15 Excuse me. I have made studies on many of those 16 things but not for a panic condition.
| |
| -- 17 Q Okay. Now, with regard again to your testimony in 18 Indian Point, do I understand that your concern there with th,e 19 level of service -- service Level F -- was that you believed l
| |
| 29 that the analysis was improper for the worst case weather l
| |
| 21 condition? I would refer you to page 9800 and 9802 of your I .22 testimony if that would help refresh your recollection.
| |
| 9 1
| |
| | |
| -O .
| |
| ^45
| |
| [ Witness -reviewing document. ]
| |
| 1 ,
| |
| A I don't see any reference to Service Level F here on 2
| |
| 3 these..pages.
| |
| Q Well, as I recall your testimony there it states 4
| |
| 5 that your concern was that the study did not consider worst like a very In other words, f;or example, 6 case weather. .. ,
| |
| severe snowstorm. Is that correct?
| |
| 7 I believe you testified that you had no concern with 8
| |
| 9 the time estimates as they related to normal weather dit 19 conditions, but you were concerned that the time estimates
| |
| )
| |
| 11 not take into account very severe weather conditions.
| |
| A Well, the only reference I see in the pages you have 12 is bad 13 cited, on page 9802 I say the worst case they have here 14 weather, and the bad weather just means that people drive 15 slower. I don' t think that's realistic.
| |
| I don't see anything further about a heavy snowstorm 16 or anything like you're referring to.
| |
| 17 is that what you Well, I'm asking you to explain: .
| |
| 18 Q 19 meant?
| |
| A Well, I will let my testimony speak for itself.
| |
| 29 Q
| |
| Well, I'm asking you to explain, sir, what did you 21 What was your criticism aimed at?
| |
| 22 .mean by that point?
| |
| | |
| 46 MR. LOVE: He just answered the question.
| |
| 1 THE WITNESS:
| |
| I'm sorry. I can't recall what was in 2
| |
| I don' t have
| |
| -3 my, mind at the time this testimony was given.
| |
| I really can't tell you 4
| |
| the Indian Point study before me.
| |
| 5 what was in my mind at the time I made this statement.
| |
| 6 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| Q Well, with regard to evacu'a' tion. planning, is it your o 7
| |
| 8 position that planners should consider worst case meteorology 9
| |
| such as a very severe snowstorm?
| |
| Well, of course, in a life and death situation you 10 A O 11 obviously have to consider that.
| |
| with regard to Q
| |
| And what is your basis for that, 12 13 evacuation time estimates that are prepared for nuclear power 14 plant areas?
| |
| 15 A I'm sorry, I didn't follow.
| |
| What is the basis for your statement with regard to 16 0 17 emergency plans and evacuation time estimates that are 18 prepared with regard to the area surrounding nuclear power .
| |
| plants?
| |
| Is it your basic understanding as a traffic engineer 19 20 or is there some other understanding?
| |
| A All my opinion is based on my professional opinion 21 I think I O 22 as a traffic engineer and transportation planner.
| |
| | |
| (~)
| |
| (> ;
| |
| 47 1 am missing the thrust of your question.
| |
| 2 Q I'm trying to understand what is the basis for your i
| |
| 3 opinion that severe snowstorms, for example, should be 4 considered in preparing evacuation time estimates for nuclear 5 power plants?
| |
| 6 A Because you can have a severe snowstorm and there is 7 noassurancethatyou'renotgoinktohaveanemergency 8 when the snowstorm occurs.
| |
| 9 Q And how is it your understanding that time estimates 10 would be used by the responsible planners and governmental
| |
| (). 11 authorities in an actual radiological emergency?
| |
| 12 A What is my understanding as to how they would be 13 used?
| |
| 14 0 Right.
| |
| 15 A I don't know how they would be used.
| |
| 16 Q You have three times now, Mr. Morris, referred to a
| |
| __ 17 life and death situation. Could you explain what you mean by 18- that and the basis for your statement that evacuation time ,
| |
| estimates involve a life and death situation?
| |
| 19 2g A If there is the possibility of a meltdown situation
| |
| : 21 where a great many lives could be lost as a result, to me that
| |
| ()-
| |
| 22 constitutes a life and death situation.
| |
| . - . _ , . ____ . = , z _ , - .; - , , - _ - , _ , - _ - . . , - . . - . . , _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ -
| |
| | |
| fs
| |
| .Q 48 1 Q And is it your understanding that individuals would 2 be required or ordered to evacuate an area if there were a 3 possibility of a meltdown which would result in off-site 4 "ridiol'ogical releases which would expose the populace to that 5 radiation?
| |
| 6 A Yes, I would assume that would be a situation that 7 would occur in those circumstances. ,
| |
| 8 Q So as you envision it, there is a situation where 9 there is an accident at a nuclear power plant involving 10- off-site radiological releases and the populace is trying to
| |
| ( 11 evacuate at the same time those releases are overhead in the 12 plume. Is that your understanding?
| |
| 13 A With luck, you will evacuate the area before that 14 happens. But there is certainly no assurance that you are 15 going to have that time. It seems to me that you have to be 16 prepared to evacuate the area in case the situation gets out
| |
| , - - 17 of control, before the opportunity to evacuate is fully 18 implemented. All kinds of things can happen and you have to ,
| |
| 19 be prepared for them.
| |
| l 29 Q So as you see it, it's basically a race against
| |
| ) 21 time. The populace is trying to evacuate before the plume
| |
| ( 22 reaches them. Is that how you see it?
| |
| 1:
| |
| | |
| Y 49 1 A V;d l , that can be one situation. I just say that if 2 you have Lhose conditions, that's obviously a situation. If 3 it's not a matter of life and death I don't know why you 4 evIcuate an area. You don't tell people to leave their homes 5 if there's no threat to their lives.
| |
| t 6 Q Do you understand whether or not Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission regulations or any othe'r regulations relate'd to 8 emergency planning for nuclear power-plants' require a standard 9 time or an acceptable time limit for evacuating?
| |
| 10 A I told you I am not familiar with the regulations.
| |
| : - () 11 . O Have you read any portions of.the Third Partial 12 Initial Decision, a copy of which you have shown me, with 13 respect to the purpose for which evacuation time estimates are 14 prepared, and the manner in which they would be utilized?
| |
| . 15 A I may have. I don't recall.
| |
| 16 0 would you turn to page 31, sir, of the document
| |
| __ . l'7 which you have here, as the Third Partial Initial Decision.
| |
| 18 Would you read at pages 31 and 32, just read ,
| |
| ~ 19 to yourself paragraphs 29, 30 and 31.
| |
| 29 (Witness reviewing document.]
| |
| , 21 A I have read them.
| |
| () 22 Q- Do those statements conform to your understanding as 9
| |
| ---.,s p. ., . _ _ . , , _ _ _ _ _ ,,,m__.,r, ,,,-p-,. .,n,-r,-_mm-,, . ..-- , __
| |
| | |
| f 50 1 to the purpose and methodology for time estimate studies for 2 nuclear power plants?
| |
| 3- A I have never stated what the purpose and procedure 4 " is!" I' hav'e given you an evaluation of my critique based on 5 good traffic engineering standards as to the validity of the 6 evaluation. And I'say it again and again: I don't know what 7 the standards call for, and as far'as L'm concerned it's 4
| |
| 8 immaterial.
| |
| 9 Q In terms of your professional engineering
| |
| . 10 background, do you regard those statements as consistent or
| |
| () 11 inconsistent with what you normally" practice in your 12 profession?
| |
| 13 A Well, an evacuation from a nuclear plant is not a 14 normal situation. Normally, a traffic engineer is involved in 15 day-to-day kinds of things such as building construction in 16 downtown Washington or residential development in Montgomery i
| |
| __ 17 C;unty or whatever. We don't normally develop plans for I 18 evacuation of nuclear plants. ,
| |
| 19 Q Uell, let me ask you again: are these statements 20 consistent or inconsistent with what you normally practice --
| |
| 21 with the principles which you would normally employ?
| |
| A)
| |
| (_ 22 A Well, you're asking me if one should apply normal,
| |
| [
| |
| l.
| |
| L l
| |
| | |
| l O'
| |
| v 51 1 day-to-day standards to an emergency situation, and --
| |
| '2 Q No, sir. I am asking whether or not the methodology 3 and principles which you utilize in your studies are l
| |
| ~~ ~
| |
| 4 cons'is' tent ~ or inconsistent with the standards as stated in 5 this opinion.
| |
| 6 A Well, this doesn't have any standards, except it
| |
| ~
| |
| 7- says you don't use a worst case c6hditi,on. ~ I don't see any
| |
| -8 standards that you're referring to.
| |
| 9 Q Well, let's take, for example, on page 32 where the l
| |
| 10 Board states that, "An evacuation time estimate study does not
| |
| ()
| |
| (> 11 attempt to predict exact conditions during an evacuation; 12 rather, it attempts to indicate the sensitivity of the 13 analysis to a limited number of commonly occurring events."
| |
| 14 Now, do you consider, for example, a severe 15 anowstorm a commonly occurring event?
| |
| 16 A Yes, that happens every winter.
| |
| -- 17 Q And with Se : a rd -- if you further down, paragraphs 18 32 through 34, y te agard to the possibility of a snowstorm,,
| |
| 19 do you regard the 30 percent reduction in highway capacity for 20 adverse weather conditions to be a fair representation of the 21 range of adverse weather events which could affect an
| |
| () .
| |
| 22 evacuation?
| |
| t
| |
| ---~ . - - _ - _ - - _
| |
| | |
| ^
| |
| ,G L) 52-1 A No. I think it is silly to use a standard of 30 2 percent irrespective of what the conditions are. There are 3 certain roads that I would assume would have less than a 30
| |
| , 4 hS[c'ent reduction as a result of adverse weather, and other 5 locations where it would be a substantially greater reduction.
| |
| 6 Q Well, let me see if I understand. Are you saying 7 that an evacuation time estimate s'tudy should be perfo'rmed at 8 the time of an actual emergency?
| |
| 9 A of course not.
| |
| 10 Q .Or are you saying that surveys should be taken of b'-- 11 particular roads at the time of an emergency to determine 12 whether or not they are passable?
| |
| 13 A No, I'm not saying that at all.
| |
| 14 Q or are you saying that a time estimate should'be 15 made at the time of an emergency as to how passable particular 16 roads are and how long it would take?
| |
| 17 A What did I say that brings you to this line of i 18 questioning, that everything should be done at the time of the 19 emergency? I haven't said that.
| |
| 20 0 I'm trying.to find out what you are saying.
| |
| 21 A I'm talking about planning. I'm talking about i I~
| |
| \ J-)/ 22 looking to the future and being prepared for an emergency
| |
| - - - , , - - _ . . . - . . , , - - , - - - , , - . . . . - . ., -- -_- ~-
| |
| | |
| h G
| |
| 53 1 situation, and you don't do that at the time the emergency 2 occurs. I hope I didn't say anything to indicate to you that 3 that's what I thought should be done.
| |
| ' ~
| |
| 4 Q Well that's what I thought I heard. You were 5 talking about severe snowstorms. Now, you have an emergency.
| |
| 6 Are you saying that you should have one set of plans or one 7 set of estimates for a one-inch snow or,a five-inch sn'ow or a 8 one-foot snow?
| |
| 9 A 100 . What I said was that to use a uniform 30 10 percent reduction to an entire road network -- I believe the A
| |
| (_) 11 word I used was " silly" because there are some parts of the 12 road network that would have a 30 percent reduction and some 13 parts of the road network ~would have less than 30 percent and 14 some would have more than 30 percent with the same heavy 15 snowfall.
| |
| 16 Q And for each snowfall should there be a different
| |
| -- 17 analysis?
| |
| 18 A For each snowfall? What do you mean by "for each ,
| |
| 19 snowfall"?
| |
| 20 Q Well, should you plan in advance for a one-inch 21 snow, a six-inch snow, a 12-inch snow?
| |
| () 22 A No. You plan for a heavy snow that is a reasonably
| |
| | |
| I l
| |
| l l
| |
| i
| |
| ' 54 1 normal occurrence in the environment that you are making the 2- study for. You don't plan for a 12-inch snow in Miami Beach, 3 Florida.
| |
| 4 ~~ Q Now, Mr. Morris, you know that we are here to 5 discuss the plan for the Limerick facility in Montgomery 6 County, which is southeastern Pennsylvania. Now, what kind of 7 planning is appropriate for that area?,
| |
| 8 A I refer to my testimony previously, and that is, you 9 have to look to your meteorological data --
| |
| 10 0 I'm asking you, sir, what kind of snowstorm would N 11 you plan for?
| |
| 12 A Whatever is an appropriate snowstorm to plan for in 13 Limerick County, Pennsylvania. You plan a sewer system on the 14 basis of a 100-year storm because you don't want your sewers 15 to overflow more than once in 100 years. Now, what isa 16 reasonable snowstorm in Limerick? I don't know. Do you get
| |
| - - - 17 three 12-inch snowstorms every year? Do you get one 24-inch 18 snowstorm every year? I don't know. ,
| |
| 19 But it's the meteorological data that you have to
| |
| . 20 look to to evaluate what's the appropriate condition to plan 21 for. And I can't tell you how frequently you have a one-inch
| |
| ) 22 snowstorm or a 17-inch snowstorm in Limerick County. I don't
| |
| * v w- -
| |
| r .v,,p , wy. - - . - . __-.---y,-.---,-_y ___.,,w-- e--f +,-.wc -- ,
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| /*
| |
| b 55 l 1 know. But whoever did the study sure as hell ought to know.
| |
| 2 Q But you haven't examined that?
| |
| 3 A No, sir.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 Q Well, let's assume that you have three six-inch 5 snowstorms in the average year, and one 12-inch snowstorm in 6 the average year. What would you use as a planning basis?
| |
| 7 A I'm sure I would use at'least a 12-inch snowstorm 8 and maybe something heavier than that.
| |
| 9 0 Would roads be passable? Would you expect roads to 10 be passable in an area such as that with a 12-inch snowstorm?
| |
| O s_/ 11
| |
| ~
| |
| A Tell me what kind of snow removal equipment and how ,
| |
| 12 fast they can mobilize it and what kind of salting program 13 they have, and tell me all the other inputs that go into that 14 on a link by link basis, and I'll give you the answer.
| |
| 15 0 In other words, the roads would not be passable El'6 without that kind of road clearing. Is that your testimony?
| |
| __ 17 A It depends on the amount of snow and.the conditions.
| |
| 18 Q I think I just said a 12-inch snowstorm, Mr. Morris,.
| |
| 19 A And a 12-inch snowstorm with no removal of the snow?
| |
| 20 Q Exactly.
| |
| 21 A It certainly would reduce the capacity of the road.
| |
| 22 res.
| |
| O.
| |
| g --M - - ---,kv- - r e -*t- -- --
| |
| ym - -.--- , w--yp.9q- sp--y - eg yry -+
| |
| c--
| |
| | |
| i 56 1 Q Would you analyze that from a planning basis? Is 2 that something you would want to look at in terms of preparing 3 evacuation time estimates?
| |
| 4 A Of course I would want to know what the conditions 5 of the road might be in adverse conditions.
| |
| 6 Q Would you expect to find any valuable information 7 with regard to the passability of" roads in a 12-inch 8 snowstorm?
| |
| '9 A If that's what the standard is in Limerick County, 10 Pennsylvania. I don't know. This is your hypothesis, the
| |
| ( 11 12-inch snowstorm. I don't know how often it occurs or what a 12 typical worst case condition would be.
| |
| 13 0 Do you know whether there are any other protective 14 actions for area residents around a nuclear power plan other 15 than to evacuate them in the event of off-site radiological 16 releases from the plant?
| |
| - - . 17 A No, I do not.
| |
| 18 0 Do you know what is meant by sheltering? ,
| |
| 19 A No more than the commonly accepted meaning of that 20 term.
| |
| 21 Q Do you know what protection is afforded to persons
| |
| ) 22 in the event of an overhead plume of radioactive releases if
| |
| | |
| 1 ,
| |
| U-57 1 they were sheltered in their buildings, offices and homes?
| |
| 2 A 'No, I have no knowledge of that.
| |
| 3 0 Do you have any expertise in the area of 4 'radfol'ogical hazards or epidemiology?
| |
| e
| |
| ;- 5 A- None whatsoever.
| |
| 6 Q So then, you don't really know what would constitute 7 a life and death crisis, as you put it,,with regard to' j 8 off-site radiological releases, do you?
| |
| 9 A I certainly know what would be perceived as a life 10- and death situation, and that is the critical point.
| |
| . () 11 Q And would those perceptions be. shared by planners 12 who had available to them the necessary expertise to deal with 13 the matter?
| |
| ! 14 A I don't know what the planners share in terms of i 15 perceptions.
| |
| ) 16 Q You don't know whether they would be guided by 17 public_ perceptions of radiological hazards or whether they i 18 would be guided by expert advice in the area of radiological ,
| |
| 19 emergencies and emergency planning?
| |
| 26 A You have lost me.
| |
| 21 Q You wouldn't expect public planners and responsible l
| |
| l I) 22 government officials to have any better view of the matter i
| |
| f
| |
| | |
| 4.
| |
| t O '
| |
| 58
| |
| ; 1 than,fsay,-the average Joe Q. Public?
| |
| 2 A I would certainly expect them to have a more l
| |
| ; 3 responsible attitude than the average Joe Q. Public. I would cerEainly expect them to recognize the conditions, the
| |
| [
| |
| 4 S
| |
| 5 _- attitude of people faced with an emergency evacuation 6 situation. I certainly would expect them to anticipate those 7 kinds of reactions. ,
| |
| 8 _Q And what is your experience, sir, in that regard? I l 9 believe you referred to a panic reaction. What is your 10 experience with regard to emergency planning in situations i 11 which result in a panic factor?
| |
| 12 A 'I'have never applied a panic factor. I have never 13 been involved in a plan for a panic situation.
| |
| 14 Q _So you have no basis then to state that the releases 15 from or potential for release of off-site radiation.from a 16' nuclear reactor would involve a panic situation, as that would
| |
| '17 have an impact on traffic analysis?
| |
| i 18 A Oh, of course I do. Of course I do. Who in the ,
| |
| i 19 world didn't read about Three Mile Island, for goodness' 29 sakes, and the reaction of people at that time?
| |
| 21 Q And did you do any traffic study for Three Mile
| |
| < 22 Island?
| |
| | |
| 59 1 A No, sir.
| |
| 2 Q So you don't know how it affected traffic, do you?
| |
| 3 A I certainly do not. I know how people reacted to 4 'the'ne'ws that they got.
| |
| 5 Q Sir, in simple terms, you are forming a layman's 6 opinion as to how people react to a nuclear hazard or 7 perceived nuclear hazard. You have no professional experience 8 in the area of analyzing that perception as.it affects traffic 9 conditions, do you?
| |
| 10 A Let me make my position clear if I may.
| |
| O ks 11 Q _ Answer my question --
| |
| 12 MR. LOVE: I object to the question -- it suggests 13 an answer -- to the form of the question.
| |
| 14 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 15 Q Go ahead and answer the question, sir.
| |
| 16 A Please repeat it.
| |
| -- 17 Q You have no professional experience in which you 18 have analyzed what you have referred to as the panic factor as ,
| |
| 19 it impacts upon traffic conditions in the event of an 20 evacuation of an area around a nuclear facility, or for that 21 matter, a non-nuclear. facility.
| |
| p)-
| |
| (_ 22 A I have already testified I have not made a traffic
| |
| | |
| (v^T 60 1 analysis of a panic situation.
| |
| 2 Q Now, with regard to weather conditions, I think you 3 mentioned wind conditions would have to be analyzed with 4 ' regard to time estimates. Could you explain that, sir?
| |
| 5 A Because of the possibility of fallout closing a 6 particular corridor or a series of roads that might not 7 otherwise -- or, might otherwise be ava,ilable but would not be 8 available because of the danger of fallout with the prevailing 9 wind conditions.
| |
| I 10 0 What do you mean by fallout, sir?
| |
| () 11 A What anybody else mea,ns. I've testified I am not an 12 expert in this field. I know what I have read as any other 13 lay person has read, and that is that when you have emission 14 of radioactive material into the air and the wind moves in a 15 certain direction, the radioactive material goes with the 16 wind.
| |
| __ 17 Q Do you have any understanding of how airborne 18 radioactive particulates would be deposited in the event of a
| |
| * 19 radiological accident?
| |
| 20 A No, I do not.
| |
| 21 Q So you don't know how that would affect traffic or
| |
| () 22 traffic patterns, do you?
| |
| l
| |
| . - . r. . - - 4 - ~ , ,-r .. . - - - -.- .m --
| |
| ---c. --_-,,,,.~..,--,,.-.-.----,--.---r- --
| |
| | |
| r b
| |
| 61
| |
| ,1 A I am only saying that if there were roads or 2 corridors that were closed because of the meteorological 3 conditions, those roads and corridors would not be available-4 for'' evacuation.
| |
| 5 0 And that assumes, does it not, that traffic is 6 evacuating at the time there is a plume released over those 7 particular areas, under your theory. ,
| |
| 8 Q No, no, of course not. I would hope you would not 9 wait until you actually have fallout to eliminate a corridor.
| |
| 10 If there'-s a danger that you could have fallout, if there is
| |
| (^)
| |
| 's./ 11 going to be a plume released or a pocsibility o'f a plume being 12 released, then you obviously don't want people in that 13 corridor.
| |
| 14 Q Well, your hypothesis assumes, nonetheless, does it 15 not, that particular corridors will be closed and an 16 evacuation at some point will be in progress while there is a
| |
| -- 17 radioactive release in progress. Is that correct?
| |
| 18 A Not necessarily in progress. There may be the ,
| |
| 19 possibility or there may be the threat of such. All I'm 20 saying is that somebody has to look at what the implications 21 would be if there were certain corridors cloced down.
| |
| /~T If there were certain corridors closed down because
| |
| , \_) 22 l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| i O 62 to 1
| |
| of these meteorological conditions which posed a threat 2 people who would be in that corridor, you don't have to 3
| |
| ac,tually have a plume, but you can anticipate that a plume 4
| |
| might develop, in which case you don't want people sitting in 5 that corridor.
| |
| Where is 6 0 I'm trying to understand your analysis.
| |
| 7 the plume that you are concerned about in relationship t'o the evacuating populace?
| |
| Is it preceding, is it going before them 8
| |
| 9 'or after them? Is it before the individuals have been told to 10 evacuate? Is that your hypothesis?
| |
| (} into 11 A My hypothesis is when you are planning to put 12 effect an evacuation plan, there may be a corridor or 13 corridors or certain roads that you don't want people on 14 because of the possibility that you are going to have this or plume.
| |
| And with the wind coming out of the northwest, 15 16 whatever it might be, you don't want people in the southeast corridor.
| |
| I think this-is a proper consideration.
| |
| 17 Q
| |
| Well is it your understanding that people would be ,
| |
| 18 if there was a 19 ordered into those corridors or any corridor, 20 possibility of a plume being overhead at the time they're evacuating?
| |
| ( 21 A No.
| |
| I'm not suggesting that people are going to be 22 i a
| |
| | |
| (
| |
| b) 63 1 ordered into corridors. I'm suggesting that corridors might 2 very well be closed because of the danger of a plume 3 developing or a plume may actually be in existence.
| |
| 4
| |
| ~
| |
| The point is that the danger might exist with the 5 wind cut of the northwest so that you don't want people in the 6 southeast corridor, in the event that a plume develops or if 7 there actually is a plume there. ' And t,heref ore, that corridor 8 would be closed. You don't tell people where to go; you just 9 say, stay out of this crea.
| |
| 10 Q Is it your understanding.with regard to'the Limerick 11 plant, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has made the 12 decision that any evacuation will involve a 360 degree area 13 around the plant?
| |
| 14 A Yes, I have seen that.
| |
| 15 Q Do you understand that as a basic planning principle 16 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
| |
| -- 17 A Yes, I understand that.
| |
| 18 Q So is it your understanding that any particular ,
| |
| 19 areas or sectors of that 360 degree area would be closed off?
| |
| 20 A No. Obviously, the people who live there, who are 21 there, have to get out and those are the people who ought to
| |
| ( 22 get out the fastest, it would seem to me.
| |
| | |
| /h O
| |
| 64 1 All I'm saying is that if you have the wind out of 2 the northwest and you don't want people in the southeast 3 corridor because of existing danger or a possibility of danger
| |
| ~ ~
| |
| 4- 'df fallout in that corridor, you don't want people from 5 outside or anyplace else coming into that particular corridor; 6 you want to evacuate that corridor, get people out of there as 7 fast as possible and close those roads so nobody uses'them.
| |
| 8 O So again, it is your understanding that people will 9 be evacuating in the same timeframe as a possible release of 10 radiation from the plant in that area? -
| |
| O 11 A Everybody is going to be evacuated in the same 12 timeframe. The point I think you are missing is that if 13 somebody is in this hypothetical southeast corridor you don't 14 want them to keep going southeast; you want them to get out of 15 that corridor, go southwest, northwest, wherever, get out of 16 that corridor and close the corridor down so nobody else comes 17 into that corridor, in that kind of an emergency. So you 18 don't have your 360 degrees of roads available in that ,
| |
| 19 particular situation.
| |
| 20 Q Have you read the HMM Associates evacuation time 21 estimate study? I believe that's one of the documents you 22 showed me.
| |
| | |
| i 65 1 A Is that one of mine?
| |
| 2 Q Yes. Well, your copy is here I think. Have you 3 read that document?
| |
| 4 ~~-A Read it? No. I have looked through it.
| |
| 5 0 Have you had an opportunity to form any conclusion 6 as to the validity of this study?
| |
| 7 A I have criticisms of the study. I'm not sure what 8 you mean by the validity. If you're asking me if it has 9 followed a particular procedure, I'm not in a position to 10 evaluate that.
| |
| ) 11 . -Q Well, are you in a position to criticize or evaluate 12 the time estimates as contained in Table 6.l? Have you looked 13 at that?
| |
| 14 A Yes. I have looked at that. But as to whether 15 those represent valid times, given the assumptions that went 16 into them, I have no reason to question that.
| |
| 17 0 Okay.
| |
| 18 Did you review Dr. Urbanik's testimony in the e
| |
| 19 Limerick proceeding regarding the areas in which the Board 20 made findings in the third PID, which you brought with you?
| |
| 21 A Do I have that here?
| |
| () 22 0 I didn't see it.
| |
| | |
| 66 1 A Then I haven't reviewed it.
| |
| 2 Q Do you know Dr. Thomas Urbanik?
| |
| 3 A No, I don't.
| |
| 4 Q University of Texas.
| |
| 5 A To the best of my knowledge, I do not know him.
| |
| 6 Q Did Dr. Urbanik testify in the Indian Point case, do 7 you recall? ,
| |
| 8 A I don't know.
| |
| 9 0 I am going to refer you to page 9761 again of the 10 , Indian Point transcript and ask you if that refreshes your
| |
| () 11 recollection as to whether or not you formed an opinion as to 12 Dr. Urbanik's testimony in that case.
| |
| 13 [ Witness reviewing document.)
| |
| 14 A It would appear that I said he was wrong. Is that 15 what you're asking me?
| |
| 16 Q Yes, sir. Is that still your opinion?
| |
| __. 17 A I don't even remember what it was all about.
| |
| 18 Q Have you ever witnessed, sir, or reviewed any data ,
| |
| 19 related to a large-scale evacuation?
| |
| 20 A Any data that were developed from an actual 21 evacuation?
| |
| 22 Q Yes, sir.
| |
| | |
| d 67 1 A No.
| |
| 2 Q Have you ever witnessed a large-scale evacuation?
| |
| 3 A No.
| |
| 4
| |
| ~'#~~
| |
| Q' ' ave you ever witnessed or reviewed data related to H
| |
| 5 the evacuation of a mejor incarceration facility?
| |
| 6 A No.
| |
| 7 Q Have you ever prepared evacua. tion time estimates for 8 any purpose?
| |
| 9 A No 10 Q Do you have a license to drive a bus or a truck?
| |
| 11 A Well, I got a licence to drive various sires of 12 trucks in Alaska in 1949, and I doubt that it is still valid.
| |
| 13 I wouldn't concider myself as a competent truck driver. As a 14' truck driver, I have the same competence as I have as a 15 lawyer.
| |
| 16 Q Have you ever prepared any kind of a travel time
| |
| -- 17 study for a public or commercial bus operation in Montgomery 18 County; that is, the area around the Graterford Prison? ,
| |
| 19 A Around the what prison?
| |
| 29 Q The Graterford Prison.
| |
| 21 A ch, I'm sorry. You're saying Montgomery County and
| |
| () 22 I'm thinking of Maryland. You mean Montgomery County, Am_ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| rm -
| |
| ( )
| |
| v 68 1 Pennsylvania. No.
| |
| 2 0 Do you have any plannirg experience or traffic 3 engineering experience with regard to Montgomery County, 4 " pen'nsylvania?
| |
| 5 A Yes. I have done traffic studies in Montgomery 6 county.
| |
| 7 Q And what studies were th'ey? ,
| |
| 8 A For some shopping centers.
| |
| 9 0 And where were they, sir.
| |
| 10 A Willow Grove. That's in Montgomery County, is it 11 not?
| |
| I) w.
| |
| 12 0 I believe so.
| |
| 13 A And to the south of Willow Grove, Jankintown, 14 immediately south of Jankintown, the old Boy Scout property.
| |
| 15 If you're familiar with that. There was going to be a large 16 regional shopping center on an old Boy Scout site right across 17 the street from Jankintown. Is that still in Montgomery 18 County? ,
| |
| 19 0 I think so.
| |
| 20 A I think it is, too. I did a study for Doylestown, 21 which I think is in -- oh, no, I'm sorry.
| |
| 22 0 And did any of those relate to time estimates, or
| |
| (})
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| p"A
| |
| '(
| |
| 69 l
| |
| 1 were they basically parking plans?
| |
| I~
| |
| 2 A There were time estimates in terms of determining L 3 where the market area was; travel time to get to the shopping 4 'cenEer, how far out the market area would be and how you would 5 distribute traffic on the basis of travel time for various 6 sectors.
| |
| 7 Q Have you done any studies with regard to the areas 8 within the Limerick Emergency Planning Zone, which is 9 approximately a 10-mile radius from the plant? .
| |
| 10 A To the best of my knowledge, no.
| |
| ~
| |
| A .
| |
| (_) 11 Q Are ycu familiar with those roadways?
| |
| 12 A No.
| |
| 13 0 Are you familiar with the road network in 14 coutheastern Pennsylvania, other than what you previously have 15 described?
| |
| 16 A Well, the Philadelphia area; that is southeastern
| |
| -- 17 Pennsylvania, Chester and in through there, in a general way.
| |
| 18 Q Are you familiar with the road network, the ,
| |
| 19 Pennsylvania Turnpike and northeast extension and the ramps in 20 the southeastern Pennsylvania area?
| |
| 21 A To a degree. I drove from Wilkesbarre to
| |
| () 22 Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago and came down the northeast l
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| I O 70 1 - extension.
| |
| 2 Q No, I mean from a traffic engineering point of view, 3 are you familiar with the capacities -- ,
| |
| 4 A No, no, I have never studied those.
| |
| 5 Q Have you ever conducted a study involving a time 6 motion sequence for the movement of prisoners?
| |
| 7 A No. ,
| |
| 8 Q Would you consider yourself an expert in.the area of 9 prison operations?
| |
| 10 A No. . .
| |
| t N- 11 Q Would you consider yourself an expert in t.ie area of 12 managing an evacuation of a prison?
| |
| 13 A No.
| |
| 14 Q Do you have any* familiarity with what I think I 15 previously identified as Annex E, the Commonwealth of 16 Pennsylvania Disaster Operations Plan?
| |
| 17 A Do I have familiarity with it? No, I don't believe 18 I do. ,.
| |
| 19 Q Would it be fair to say, then, that you do not have 20 any particular understanding of the operational responses and 21 planning concepts that are contained in Annex E7 A)
| |
| (- 22 A Well, if I'm not familiar with it, obviously I'm not
| |
| | |
| L
| |
| /~
| |
| p}-
| |
| 71 1 familiar with what's contained in it.
| |
| 2 Q I'm not sure that necessarily follows, but is your 3 answer no?
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 A To the best of my knowledge, no.
| |
| 5 Q Have you ever reviewed, or are you otherwise 6 familiar with, the Montgomery County Radiological Emergency 7 Response Plan? .
| |
| 8 A No.
| |
| 9 Q Are you familiar with or have you reviewed the 10 Skippack Township Radiological Emergency Response Plan?
| |
| (O V 11 A No.
| |
| 12 Q Are you familiar with or have you reviewed the 13 Graterford Prison Emergency Response Plan?
| |
| 14 A No.
| |
| 15 Q I understand, then, that you have reviewed no other 16 materials specifically related to Graterford other than the 17 materials which you were sent by Mr. Love or Mr. Stone -- I'm 18 not sure which. ,
| |
| 19 A Mr. Stone.
| |
| 29 Q Mr. Stone, in the letter accompanying -- or rather, 21 the flow chart accompanying the {{letter dated|date=June 27, 1985|text=June 27, 1985 letter}} from
| |
| ). 22 Mr. Otto to Mr. Love? Is that the extent of your familiarity
| |
| | |
| I i
| |
| .s 72 1 with the Graterford, as such?
| |
| 2 A I think pretty much, yes.
| |
| ;3 Q Is there anything else?
| |
| ~~
| |
| 4 A No. I don't know of anything else.
| |
| 5 Q Have you reviewed the order of the Licensing Board 6 admitting the contention related to the Graterford Prison 7 involving the adequacy of the evacuatio,n time estimates for 8 Graterford?
| |
| 9 A Not unless it's in the material that I showed you.
| |
| 10 I haven't seen anything beyond that.
| |
| G b 11 Q What is your underst:nding -- strike that. Let me 12 back up.
| |
| 13 Is it your intention to give testimony in this case, 14 to provide written testimony, and to offer yourself on cross 15 examination in the Limerick proceeding related to the 16 Graterford contentions?
| |
| '- 17 A That is up to Mr. Love.
| |
| 18 Q Well, wha't are your intentions, sir? Is it your ,
| |
| 19 intention to make yourself available for that?
| |
| I
| |
| ! 29 A If I can be of assistance to Mr. Love, I'll be glad 21 to do so, if I'm available, obviously.
| |
| u Q *ay. vou say u you're ava uah1e. a d you know lO
| |
| | |
| k' l
| |
| .('')%
| |
| %- L 73
| |
| ( i i that the hearing was scheduled for June 15th and thereafter -- l 2 I'm sorry, July 15th and thereafter?
| |
| 3 A I'm not available the week of July 15th.
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 Q Well, as a practical-matter does that mean that you 5 would not be testifying in the hearing if it took place during l E 6 those --
| |
| l I would assume that's c6 tract.
| |
| 7' A' 8 MR. RADER: Mr. Love, does this affect your plans to l 9 obtain testimony from this witness?
| |
| ! 19 MR. LOVE: It was my intention to offer'his I
| |
| O 11 deposition as pre-offered testimony in lieu of a live l 12 appearance, and then call him possibly as a rebuttal witness
| |
| ! t 13 if necessary.
| |
| 14 MR. RADER: I think July the 15th is a Monday. I, l
| |
| 15 certainly can't imagine these hearings are going to take more t
| |
| : l. 16 than five days. If the witness is unavailable for that week, 1
| |
| 17 I don't think there's much chance to call him as a rebuttal
| |
| ; 18 witness. ,
| |
| l 19 Is it your intention to present him as a witness?
| |
| ! 29 MR. LOVE: As I said, I was going to offer -- which I
| |
| ~
| |
| 21 I believe we discussed at the end of the major case deposition
| |
| () -22 -- the possibility of submitting his deposition as his I
| |
| | |
| f 74 1 testimony in lieu of live testimony, and he would be happy to 2 submit, if the Board wishes, written interrogatories regarding 3 his testimony which he would be happy to respond to.
| |
| ' '" ~
| |
| 4 MR. RADER: Well, I think under the NRC rules a 5 witness is not deemed unavailable, and therefore, the 6 depositions submitted in lieu of testimony -- unless the 7 witness is legally unavailable. I* don',t understand Mr. Morris 8 to,be saying that he is legally unavailable; simply that he 9 has other commitments or arrangements. So that would not be 13 acceptable to the Applicant.
| |
| n ss 11 But new knowing what will happen, we will continue 12 with th,e deposition on the theory that he might be used for 13 whatever purpose.
| |
| 14 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 15 0 Have you had an opportunity to review the flow chart 16 which is attached to the June 27th letter?
| |
| -- 17 A You are referring to this (indicating]?
| |
| 18 Q By referring to this, I am referring to the flow ,
| |
| 19 chart which has been previously marked as Applicant's 29 Deposition Exhibit No. 2. Yes, that's correct.
| |
| 21' A Yes, I have reviewed it.
| |
| 22 Q Based upon your experience and background, do you
| |
| | |
| 75 A
| |
| !)
| |
| s_
| |
| 1 have any comments with regard to any of the statements on the 2 flow chart and their validity?
| |
| 3 A No, I have no comments on them.
| |
| 4 .. .[ Pause.)
| |
| 5 MR. RADER: We have no further questions. Thank 6 you, Mr. Morris.
| |
| 7 Should we take a very short recess, perhaps.give the 8 reporter a break as well.
| |
| 9 [Short recess.)
| |
| 19 MR. RADER: Let's go back on the record.
| |
| () 11 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| Mr. Morris, there is one further matter.
| |
| In order 12 O 13 that the record is complete, I am going to mark the letter 14- to you from Mr. David Ston,e, dated June 21, 1985, as 15 Applicant's Exhibit 7.
| |
| 16 (The document was marked 17 Applicant's Exhibit No. 7 18 for identification.]
| |
| 19 This is marked at the top, LEA. Do you know who or 29 what LEA is7
| |
| ! 21 A Yes. I wrote that. LEA and the address I copied I{}
| |
| l 22 from the package that the material came in. So since there l
| |
| I l
| |
| | |
| p 76 1 was no return address on this letter, I just put that up in 2 the corner. That's the way the package is marked.
| |
| 3 Q Do you know what LEA is?
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 " A' Yes. I saw it somewhere. I'm sure you know.
| |
| 5 [ Laughter.)
| |
| 6 Limerick Ecology Action.
| |
| 7 ,
| |
| Q Do you understand that 61merick Ecology Acti'on was 8 the organization which was the principal intervenor at the 9 off-site emergency preparedness hearings for Limerick?,
| |
| 10 A That's my understanding, yes.
| |
| O 11 MR. RADER: No further questions.
| |
| 12 MR. HIRSCH: FEMA has no questions.
| |
| 13 MR. HASSELL: I have just a couple clarifying 14 questions.
| |
| 15 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR NRC STAFF 16 BY MR. HASSELL:
| |
| 17 Q Did I understand you to indicate in response to a 18 question of Mr. Rader that you are not familiar with the ,
| |
| 19 Licensing Board's June 12, 1985 order admitting and denying
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 certain contentions related to the Graterford matter?
| |
| 21 A That's correct. I am not familiar with it.
| |
| 22 0 Okay. Does that mean that you are also not familiar t
| |
| | |
| n U
| |
| 77 1 with~neither of the admitted contentions in this proceeding?
| |
| 2 A That's correct.
| |
| 3 MR. HASSELL: I have no further questions.
| |
| 4 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR GRATERFORD PRISON 5 BY MR. LOVE:
| |
| 6 Q Are you, Mr. Morris, familiar with the fact that the 7 methodology utilized in achieving *the estimated time "
| |
| 8 evacuation for the Graterford Prison is in issue in this case?
| |
| 9 A Yes, I am aware of that.
| |
| 10 Q And I refer you to a letter to myself on June 27, 11 1985 from Theodore Otto, which indicates at the bottom of page 12 1 and going on to page 2, "The buses will be coming from 13 within a 190-mile distance from the state correctional 14 institute at Graterford. It would also be appropriate for-15 your expert to base his estimated time on the premise that the 16 Department will use major roads whenever possible."
| |
| -- 17 And I also refer you to the flow chart that 18 indicates that the vehicles will be arriving within 2 to 4 ,
| |
| 19 hours, and 4 to 6 hours under adverse conditions. And that 20 the vehicles arriving would include 58 buses, 3 ambulances and 21 10 vans.
| |
| () 22 Could you offer any comments with regard to your 1
| |
| | |
| r'N V, 78 1_ opinion of their ability to reach that time estimate?
| |
| 2 A Well, it's very difficult to evaluate the statement 3 because you don't know the roads that are being used, but 190 4 ' miles obviously cannot be covered by a bus in 2 hours, even 4 5 . hours I would question. It says within a 190-mile distance, 6 so presumably the 2-hour range is something less than 190 7 miles. But even 4 hours for buses that,come a 190-mile 8 distance is an average of almost 50 miles an hour. And I 9 seriously question that they could do that in normal 10 circumstances. .
| |
| ;(]) 11. The problem is if these buses are coming in on roads that 12 your evacuation is taking place in the opposite direction, 13 you're going to have a very serious problem getting them in at 14 all. But there's no way you can tell because they don't give 15 you the information to evaluate how quick they get there.
| |
| 16 0 Well, for the purposes of this hypothetical, we 17 would be assuming that the general public would be evacuating 18 the 10-mile EPZ at the same time. Does that change your 19 opinion or give you any additional --
| |
| 20 A No, that is my concern. There's a question as to 21 the capacity of the road with the evacuation, as to whether the buses -- if they were coming in the opposite direction
| |
| (} 22
| |
| | |
| U,c8 79 1 they might have no capacity. If they're coming in the same 2 direction as people are evacuating then they obviously would 3 have to go with the flow of traffic, and it would certainly be l
| |
| 4 'sub'stantially less than a 50-mile an hour average.
| |
| 5 0 What potential traffic problems could you envision 6 if there are any specifics that you have in mind, that the buses would encounter?
| |
| 7 ,
| |
| 8 A Well, the buses would encounter the same traffic 9 problems that the rest of the traffic encounters, and that is 10 that you have an emergency situation where people don't behave r
| |
| (_)3 11 norma,lly, that you are going to find that people are not going
| |
| :12 to be' staying on the right side of the road, for example; 13- they're going to be in a hurry to get out of the area. And 14 particularly with people all going basically in the same 15 direction. If someone wants to go in the opposite direction 16 you're going to have a very serious problem. .
| |
| 17 It's going to be an abnormal condition. It's not 18 going to be a normal situation such as you would have this .
| |
| 19 afternoon in the same area.
| |
| 20 0 Would 'tnis relate to your earlier remarks about the l 21 panic factor? Would this be relevant to this situation?
| |
| It certainly would.
| |
| ( 22 A
| |
| | |
| 80 1 Q Now, with respect 'to the overall estimated time of 2 evacuation, as a traffic engineering expert, do you have any 3 comments regarding any shortcomings of that study?
| |
| 4 A Well, I have made a few notes that I believe 5 everybody has a copy of, as I was reading through this 6 material and I noted some concerns I had. For example, I 7 noted on page 3-2, they said there woul,d be 3 persons per 8 vehicle. That to me implies that you're going to have 9 families evacuating as a unit, and I didn't see any indication 10 that' consideration was given to how ntch time it takes for a mother and father to get together and then to get their
| |
| {} 11 12 children out of school or whatever.
| |
| 13 Obviously, three per vehicle is an average of two 14 parents and one child; how do they get all these people 15 together? And I didn't see any indication of how much time 16 was allocated for that, which is a micro-analysis that is very 17 difficult in itself but critical.
| |
| 18 And at the bottom of that page I raise the 4 19 question: did anybody cons'ider whether the telephone systems 20 are adequate to get all these people together? Everybody is 21 going to be getting on the phone as soon as an emergency is 22 declared and people are told to evacuate. Can the parents
| |
| | |
| ,Q
| |
| (_)
| |
| 81 1 even get a hold of the school and say hey, I'm going to pick
| |
| ~2 up.my child?
| |
| 3 Again, this is part of your panic factor. The
| |
| ~
| |
| 4 mothers are going to go to the school to try and get their 5 kids so they can get the three persons per car and go out as a 6 family, and everybody'is going to converge on the school.
| |
| 7 You've got all kinds of problems that j.ust aren't even looked 8 at in this analysis.
| |
| 9 Page 3-5, 40 persons per bus. That is a nice figure 10 to use, but I don't think that you can get an average of 40 1
| |
| 11 persons per bus without the buses circulating around and 12 picking up peopic, and that brings up another whole series of 13 problems.
| |
| 14 These are basically the concerns, plus the ones I 15 expressed in the direct testimony.
| |
| 16 MR. RADER: I didn't object to the question in order
| |
| , _. 17 to save time, but now given the response, if the witness were 18 to testify the same matters in the hearing, obviously we'd ,
| |
| 19 object on grounds of relevancy because the witness is 20 attempting to re-evaluate the ETE, which was, of course, the 21 subject of two contentions at the time of the hearing.
| |
| 22 But since you have indicated that you may wish to
| |
| (
| |
| = _ . ._. . __
| |
| | |
| 82 1 attempt to offer this in evidence, I will have to object and 2 ask that the question and answer be stricken on the grounds of 3 relevance because none of this pertains to Graterford and is 4 'really just an attempt to adjudicate again the issues related 5 to the validity of the emergency evacuation time estimates for 6 the Limerick area.
| |
| 7 MR. HASSELL: The NRC Staff would' join in that 8 objection.
| |
| 9 MR. LOVE: Well, I have nothing further.
| |
| 10 MR. RADER: I just have a 10 ' questions on redirect
| |
| () 11 based upon your answers, Mr. Morris. It should be very quick.
| |
| 12 BY MR. RADER:
| |
| 13 0 Is it your understanding, or do you have any 14 understanding, with regard to whether there would be two-way 15 lane utilization of the road network in evacuation of the 16 Limerick area?
| |
| 17 A Two-way lane utilization?
| |
| 18 0 Yes, sir. ,
| |
| 19 A You mean one lane being used two ways?
| |
| 20 Q No, I mean normal two-way traffic, the way you have 21 every day.
| |
| 22 A I would not expect people to operate their vehicles
| |
| (])
| |
| | |
| ~ .
| |
| k_)s 83 1 the way they do in a normal situation, no. If people are 2 going to be in a panic to get out of an area and you have a 3 two-lane road and one lane is jammed, people are going to 4 [tirt using the second lane.
| |
| 5 Q Okay. Is it your understanding -- so your premise 6 is that people would disobey traffic laws?
| |
| 7 A Yes, sir. .
| |
| 8 Q Is it your understanding that there will be traffic 9 officers from the state police and local sheriff's and police 10 departments to control traffic in the evacuation?
| |
| (O/- 11 A I would certainly expect.
| |
| 12 0 Do you know whether traffic control points have been 13 established within the Limerick Emergency Planning Zone and in 14 particular, in the Skippack Township area, to control traffic?
| |
| 15 A I believe I have read something to that effect.
| |
| 16 0 If you were given to understand that traffic control 17 points were established at major intersections within the EPZ, 18 would that alleviate your concern regarding the panic factor, 19 and the improper use of traffic lanes by evacuating traffic?
| |
| 20 A Not at all.
| |
| 21 Q And with regard to the areas outside and immediately
| |
| () 22 adjacent to the Limerick Emergency Planning Zone, would it
| |
| | |
| .C) 84 1 alleviate your concerns regarding incoming traffic if you were 2 - aware that access control points had been set up at critical 3 corridors to prevent other than authorized incoming vehicles 4 to enter the EPZ, and that they would be assisted by state 5 police in the case of the buses for the Graterford prisoners?
| |
| 6 A Wherever you can station a police officer to control 7 the direction of traffic flow, you'will.have some degree of 8 control over that movement. You can't have policemen 9 everywhere.
| |
| 10 0 Would it alleviate your concerns if you knew, with 11 regard to the incoming buses for the evacuation of prisoners, 12 that they would be accompanied by state police?
| |
| 13 A - Would it relieve my concern? Is that your question?
| |
| 14 Q Would it alleviate your concerns regarding their 15 availability to enter the EPZ?
| |
| 16 A No, it wouldn't alleviate them at all.
| |
| 17 If I may just give you an example, an everyday 18 occurrence. You get a serious accident on the Beltway around, .
| |
| =
| |
| 19 Washington, and you have the same kind of roads, certainly, in 20 Pennsylvania. And there is a serious blockage and you have a 21 shoulder. You're not allowed to drive on the shoulder but
| |
| () 22 .that shoulder is jammed. Everybody fills up trying somehow to i
| |
| | |
| 85 1 get off the road, and you can't get emergency equipment in j 2 there, you can't get ambulances in there which otherwise would 3 use that shoulder.
| |
| 4' You think people are going to behave differently 5 when they perceive a matter of life and death? Of course 6 they're not.
| |
| 7 0 okay. So your premise is basically that there will 8 be accidents which will clog traffic.
| |
| 9 A You bet your life there will.
| |
| 10 0 And with regard to the availability of buses from o
| |
| d 11 the distances up to 190 miles, would your concerns be 12 alleviated if you knew that the information represented in the ,
| |
| 13- flow chart was based upon operating experience with regard to 14- those buses from the facilities from which they would be 15 obtained?
| |
| 16 A In evacuation conditions?
| |
| __ _ 17 0 In conditions involving normal, everyday traffic.
| |
| 18 A Well, we're talking about something that's not ,
| |
| 19 normal, everyday traffic. No, that wouldn't alleviate my 20 concern at all.
| |
| 21 Q Okay. And what kind of traffic would you expect at
| |
| () 22 the time those buses were -- the last buses within the 2 to 4
| |
| | |
| O LJ
| |
| ,86 1 hour sequence were reporting to the prison? What level of 2 traffic would you expect in the Limerick Emergency Planning 3 Zone around the Graterford area?
| |
| ~' "
| |
| 4 A I have no idea without an evaluation as to what the 5 conditions would be under various circumstances.
| |
| 6 Q And is that evaluation contained in the evacuation 7 time estimate study which I believe you said you had l'ooked at 8 but not completely reviewed?
| |
| . 9 A There is something in there but it's certainly not 10 to my satisfaction. I don't think that gives you the answers 11 you need.
| |
| 12 0 I see. I think you testified, Mr. Morris, that you
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 had no particular reason to disagree with the validity of the
| |
| -14 estimates contained in Table 6.1; is that correct?
| |
| 15 A Based on the assumptions that went into them, I 16 said. I said I assumed'that they had the proper arithmetical 17 calculations.
| |
| 18 Q Okay. Assuming that a proper and valid study were ,
| |
| 19 performed, do you have any reason to disagree, for example, 20 with the representation in Table 6.1 that evacuation of the 21 Limerick to 10-mile out area involving Skippack Township and O- 22 adjacent areas of Montgomery County would take approximately
| |
| | |
| A v
| |
| 87 1 four hours and 50 minutes for fair weather conditions during a 2 weekday?
| |
| 3 Would you like to look at this?
| |
| 4 A No, I don't need to look at it, but you're asking me 5 in normal circumstances, would I accept that? Or are you 6 asking me if I accept that for an evacuation situation?
| |
| 7 Q For an evacuation situat' ion..
| |
| 8 A No, of course I don't accept it. I said that I 9 accept those numbers on the basis of the assumptions that went 10 into them. I don't accept the assumptions.
| |
| (~1 s_s 11 Q You understand that this was prepared for an 12 evacuation scenario.
| |
| 13 A That's right. 'And I've been giving you my criticism 14 of the assumptions all morning.
| |
| 15 Q All right. Assuming that a tribunal properly 16 constituted to make such findings found this to be a valid
| |
| __ 17 study, would you therefore have any reason to question the 18 time estimates contained therein with regard to Skippack ,
| |
| 19 - Township, which I just referred to?
| |
| 20 A I.have no quarrel with the numbers that are there on 21 the basis of the assumptions that went into it. And if your p)
| |
| (. 22 tribunal said, we accept these assumptions, that is their
| |
| | |
| w' 88 1 finding. I don't accept them.
| |
| 2 Q Okay. Assuming that the numbers here were correct 3 and that an evacuation of the sector which I just designated 4 as' represented in number 8, Sector No. 8 of Table 6.1 were in 5 fact valid and that it did, in fact, take an estimated 4 hours 6 and 50 minutes to evacuate that sector -- and I will show this 7 document to you -- do you have an' opinion as to how th'at would 8 affect the availability of buses within the same area at the 9 times estimated in the. flow chart?
| |
| 10 [ Witness reviewing document.)-
| |
| 11 A Well, as I understand your question you are saying 12 that if you can evacuate this area in four hours and 50 13 minutes, and it takes a bus 2 to 4 hours to get into the area 14 -- is that your question?
| |
| 15 O Right. ,
| |
| 16 A Now what follows after that? What's the rest of 17 your question?
| |
| 18 Q The question is do you have any opinion as to how ,
| |
| 19 those considerations would affect your analysis as to the 20 availability of those buses and how long it would take to get 21 to Graterford?
| |
| b
| |
| ''i 22 A Well, I'm afraid you've got an apple and an orange
| |
| | |
| h,',
| |
| .. []
| |
| U .
| |
| 89 1 here.
| |
| 2 Q Let me start over then. Under that analysis,
| |
| '3 assuming that those numbers are correct, the last car to leave 4 bhe sector under consideration, assuming normal weather 5 conditions, would be out in four hours and 50 minutes; 6 correct?
| |
| : 7. A Okay. ,
| |
| 8 Q Now would that affect your analysis with regard to 9 whether there would be any opposing traffic for incoming 10 business which were arriving, say, from a 4-hour distance?
| |
| 11 Would you expect the same level of traffic, for erample, at 12 hour number 2 of an evacuation scenario,.or would you expect 13 some lesser traffic?
| |
| 14 A I would expect then -- than 4 hours and 50 minutes?
| |
| 15' Q Yes, sir.
| |
| 16 A I would expect more traffic going out at 2 hours 17 than at 4 hours and 50 minutes.
| |
| -18 Q Okay. ,
| |
| 19 MR. RADER: We have nothing else.
| |
| 20 Does anyone else want to follow?
| |
| - 21. MR. HASSELL: Nothing further.
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: I have nothing further.
| |
| | |
| 1 e
| |
| 5 90 j 1 MR. RADER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Morris.
| |
| 2 [Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the deposition of i 3 Mr. Morris was completed, signature having been waived.] .
| |
| 4 1 5 i
| |
| i, 6 l .. . .
| |
| [ 7 >
| |
| 8 2
| |
| 9
| |
| # 10 11 12 f
| |
| 13 ,
| |
| 14 .
| |
| 15 i
| |
| 16 4 17 l-
| |
| [ 18 . ,
| |
| i -19
| |
| ! . 20 21 22 4
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| 91 r i .
| |
| v I
| |
| I CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 2
| |
| 3 I, Suzanne B. Young, the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, pages 1 through 90 ,
| |
| 5 do hereby certify that the witness whose testimony appears 6
| |
| in the foregoing deposition was du1y sworn by me; that the 7
| |
| testimony of said witness was taken by me and thereafter 8
| |
| reduced to typewriting by me or under my direction;. that 9
| |
| said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel for, related te nor
| |
| (~')t m.
| |
| 11 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 12 deposition was taken; and further, that I am not a relative 13 or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 14 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in 15 the outcome of the actipn.
| |
| 16
| |
| ~
| |
| 17 f1 18 -
| |
| Loderw' 'W-
| |
| . 'D /''W WVV 6IUZANNE'B. YOUNG 19 Notary Public in and for the 20 District of Columbia 21 22 My Commission expires: (/r u NE /f /9//
| |
| | |
| Qtpl. Eb 4
| |
| (
| |
| ,/
| |
| sxadzw& As. s,,1+ztsuonM ?)
| |
| : f. 3 r 19pw//*
| |
| f/wwax/fogaMib/4rJA Arm pu ,du?
| |
| a scii , a s ,a w m . ,
| |
| lfl,aflfj "Y Y'N o aa t+4-ys- era y + < < -
| |
| 4
| |
| [ g x/
| |
| j, y gg ]/D'-IYS%$
| |
| | |
| + Ai. . Dr)T4Tsoo Qb SJN ~I TW b n)U.S bo ett' l(
| |
| k !'
| |
| kr w 6 raw G4 no~am., \ py Q 3 ,i 45 "~
| |
| (o uTed T'o" .[/o[0:>ed
| |
| .A.
| |
| 'W E.'.N. Estimated Time of Evacuation'- There is no reasonable assurance that the estibEted time of evacuation of six to ten hours can be achieved.
| |
| Neither of the two Radiological Emergency Response Plans for i
| |
| j the State Correctional Institute at Graterford mention anything about an.I estirated time of evacuation. The plan, however, does state that "Due to safety i
| |
| i and security consideratiens associated with moving a large inmate population, ithe time allocated for clearing the institution of all inmates will probably d
| |
| ;k take a significantly longer pericd of time than it is expected for the gen The,
| |
| ]public to evacuate " (See Plan 2, page E-1-D-1 chclosed, in Attachment D.)
| |
| n i 1
| |
| F only mentien cf an estimated time of evacuation to the inmates' knowledge '-
| |
| is:
| |
| I
| |
| 'I
| |
| / enclosed in the applicant's recuest for an exemption from the blanning' g~-
| |
| requirements regarfing the State Correctional Institute at Graterfofd?. This
| |
| : p. .,
| |
| O ',ccmes in the form of an affidavit attached as an exhibit to the applicant's J j rcs:est which is authored by E. Robert Schmidt and Jeffrey D. Kaiser. Section.
| |
| l
| |
| .13 of said af fidavit states, "Once notification to evacuate the priscners hasj i
| |
| .; teen given, it is expected that it will take six to ten hours before the lasti a
| |
| 'l priconer is reacy to leave. (Private co: runicatien between Theodore G. Otto,,I f III, Co:mo. wealth of Pen:uylvania assiscant counsel, Department of Cctrections,l d
| |
| and C. D. Kaiser, NUS Corporation, 1/31/85)." The inmates contend that the; !
| |
| .: i j, plan's failure to include an estimated time of evacuation renders said plan; j
| |
| .i p deficient.
| |
| They further contend that the mention of the six to ten hour time
| |
| * l' Thei
| |
| [, frame in the affidavit of Mr. Kaiser does not remedy this deficiency.
| |
| [ reasons for this are as follcws:
| |
| l i,
| |
| 'l O i J
| |
| p
| |
| . .h..
| |
| 3 1..-
| |
| ' Qf *.
| |
| ... .gs, .i.
| |
| i N.yMN)M w.-
| |
| '. 4 u
| |
| | |
| ..p _
| |
| ,, n A l
| |
| ,m,
| |
| * l l
| |
| G)
| |
| : i As authority for this contention, the inmates draw the Board'd I
| |
| attention to Nureg 0654 criterion J, entitled Protective Response. Sectionld of criterion J indicates "The organization's plans to implement protective measures for the plume exposure pathway shall include: subsection Dr Means fod I
| |
| - protecting those persons whose mobility may be igaired due to such factors as, institutional or other confinement." l.
| |
| Thus, the inm.'tes at Graterford are!
| |
| t l entitled to a protective response.
| |
| Subsection L of Scction 10 further states,L 11" Time estimates for evacuation of various sector!
| |
| 3 i
| |
| n a; l
| |
| l
| |
| ' ' dynamic analysis (time-motion study under various conditiens) for exposure oathway emergency planning zone." ,*W . l I
| |
| The inmates contend Q 5E this!
| |
| ..wn' hh subsection requires the Department of Corrections to' indicate an
| |
| ,dlI of evacuation. %T* !
| |
| Appendix 4 of Nureg 0654 provides further details regardingl p
| |
| U
| |
| } evaustion time estimates within the plume exposure parhway.
| |
| i d i
| |
| {g II. C. Soecial!
| |
| . Facility Poculations states, .,
| |
| j
| |
| !! "An estimate for this special populaticn group.
| |
| il! shall usually 52 dcne on an institution by institution basis.
| |
| ' The means off
| |
| ;l transportation are also highly individualized ard I
| |
| ;l
| |
| ^" be described.' IV. of I (Appendix D, B. ent:,tled Methodology states, "The method for ccmputing total
| |
| : 0. evacuation time shall be specified.
| |
| i Two approaches are acceptable. The simplest approach is to assume that events are sequential. That is to say, for I
| |
| example, that no one begins to move until all persons are warned and prepared to !
| |
| leave before anyone starts moving. The time is estimated by simply adding the
| |
| .,maximu. t time for each component.
| |
| I This approach tends to overestitrate the :
| |
| fvacuation time. The second approach, which is more complex and will be J
| |
| y *.
| |
| l
| |
| ,.g
| |
| .+
| |
| eop.*
| |
| e
| |
| ..r l
| |
| | |
| i ;
| |
| A '' ,
| |
| +
| |
| ~i,*.. ' , .
| |
| * r s
| |
| ( '
| |
| 'df - '
| |
| * further, is to combine the distribution functions for the various, L':
| |
| evaculaon time components. This second approach may result in reduced time estimates due to a more realistic assumption." The inmates contend that the failure to specifically address this estimated time of evacuation in the plan and the mere mention in a footnote of the appli~ cant's request for an exemption; fails to meet the criteria as suggested by Appendix 4. In particular, the inmates are concerned that the six to ten hour estimate does not include a breakdown of the various sequential events necessary to accomplish the task.
| |
| The inmates contend that such a breakdown is necessary prior to their ability te ascertain whether the plan can be accomplished in the estimated ti M ane. The inmates request the oppo~rtunity. to present evidence
| |
| ~
| |
| N.ofon ,th incidents at the SCIG facility where si=ilar measures had to' !L. h.
| |
| n.
| |
| Such
| |
| 'n y,
| |
| incidents include the hostage siege of October 28, 1981- and the p2. car failure w
| |
| and resulting riot on C-Block in 1983. The inmates contend that through the discovery process they will be able to ascertain exactly hcw 1cng it took the.
| |
| institution to lock down in similar emergencies. This information could then te l measured against the methodology used by the Bureau of Corrections in!
| |
| I determining their six to ten hour estimated time of evacuation. f J
| |
| ,,es*.e*
| |
| ' ..a m.r- 's O
| |
| e
| |
| .( 4
| |
| . . (.% . s
| |
| .m
| |
| , ,, P ., ., -j ^
| |
| -13 .~ _
| |
| ,* .v ..s.*.* 8 f"
| |
| y , _ , _
| |
| M9 er
| |
| | |
| (OA>Tf97(oM Q.5 Ocda/TTerA l 8 l l
| |
| tv . f The claim t at the Depart. ment di Correctiers has not provided Montg:nery H0 spital is also without merit. The back-up facility Department of Corre tions his entered into agreements with ,everal hospitals that orovi m.edica' services that comoly wi' the Joint Commission on Accredit t'en o' Hospitals (JCI.H) st .dard for treating radioactively cen amina ed injured individua's 'he 2:ard in its Second a
| |
| The Partia' Initial Decisi et "ound this accredi aticr ccccov.51e.'
| |
| inmates have w: ::t ';r;h a reasennbiv soecific basi", that provides sufficient fcunc.. .;: 5. r r: c. in; fu .her ine.0'.ry into this acct *Odi!Ot 0T .
| |
| 'he rs * *; e ceg . 2.t c e',
| |
| eq irrent for 1 or.i.m:ry cr6 gack-uo .
| |
| . .g .: ,.
| |
| ;ced ;nds'y4 guy \e v. n., coyeca:5on
| |
| () . . ;. - e, , r...f 4
| |
| ..r-.- u.;
| |
| c . - ^ ? ? c ' '. c 'td t q 2
| |
| :i e'ed rj :a 0.u; .- e.d alar.nir.g.
| |
| .. e e c - - = <.r : of
| |
| 'n -:acrt, ."c -
| |
| ,... ;...- ..-. :. , . . , .; ; 1, .n ; enci rt:d rt :'aiy a rot .w
| |
| ,,...,,.r,,. . : ., ...:,,.. . . . .
| |
| OPML AS! S)
| |
| M MWU6 CE R'I*hiW REVL' v.
| |
| c-3
| |
| .- +q-
| |
| ., .. c. . .; . g g p. g
| |
| .3 7......u.
| |
| : c. , c .. .~ t . .. v . .,_.. #_.- v. .
| |
| :. .c.u.. : ..m R
| |
| - G dedord tva% + bex Wc OT~l't ER S ,la- 8 s Th.? ' n.10 . 'c. cer. ::rd t' : : .: - is no re?.c?r d.e u.ac.acc tha' W
| |
| --h # r-Ved.
| |
| est4r3ted t t'~c C" .;;c t ' a. ' cf "i.-t0-Ten ? h Curs ca'' '.'O A'' pd.r*iOS ". *.e *' O ' *"is
| |
| .' C T Itt f' ti O*' . 4 6
| |
| = . _ . . _ - .
| |
| 1W C O . '' Fits 6 --
| |
| C..o. .. I '_ '. . ? r/ ' C ' . ,,i'.k' n '. ra t i ' ' '
| |
| i "i.. . ._:. . __.._.!-.,.
| |
| o
| |
| /~3; y__ -. h.6. .
| |
| *; , . . . - Ls ,. 3 7
| |
| .~...>..
| |
| q V ; , _; - .. . . , . :. s.
| |
| | |
| S n 9
| |
| .O .
| |
| .r The Board, however, admits only that portion of these intervenor's allegations that deals with the sufficiency of the met'1odolcgy used to arrive at the six-to-ten hour evacuation time. Whether the six-to-ten hour estimate is in the p!'n, or not, does not require litigation.
| |
| ?.cading of the plan will revea' its presence or absence. If ab:ent, it will be inserted.
| |
| The evidentiary record is not sufficient to determine this specific issue, '.e., adecuacy of the me:bedo'.ogy used to, arrive at the evacuation time estirate. 'S! ie:ue is not whether evacuation of the State Correctional :nst' tuts n Oraterford wi!! take more, or less, ti.me -
| |
| . than e:tinatoc, b.:- .Actn.ir' the ti~ e estimate is an adequate basis for r " annin.: eppropr4sto protective actices for Graterferd per':ennel .
| |
| 6 s .
| |
| The A;)plicant. . . . r i " i "':
| |
| * t**. t tive wordir"e cf h".'?Jr-065a Acpendix 4, t'.t e n
| |
| * r.tp! !!.C. (9 4-:', *v ' *s e vn te.res does net reqaire pro 9 oration or 'ep..r.e a -ict . ; '. i 'u ". e . c * . : 3 .i 1 facility popu l ation; i '.
| |
| ;n t en. ' ' . tr p .
| |
| . ;v;"; .. . " . 'n,n. ' ' ' . We rNi! the op er.it ive word "y;.y i_-l.y" N ph..s i s : ens ice ''y w App' i cant) in *: p.waqra ;b as I 9.iragra 5 !! .:. in i r.: en. ire *.y reads:
| |
| C. 2 n" b ' ." ' ' ' ' y " "i ! .! '. W n j\n e , in, r i r :. ; , ,pi e i,il poj)Ul.!! inh !!nt"p S ca ? ! .".. a ' ' y '.'e C Jr .* u'l en I:'S ti tU '. t u" 'JJ -
| |
| int-' t.:5." .)as ;. The -eans of trar.sportation are s' n ';t:y -div'e;al ed and sh2P be cesce'Nd. k:.ce: s52'' be :ncluded to -his
| |
| ) se yent.
| |
| V' mee
| |
| | |
| 10 \,
| |
| meaning "in most cases, and depending reasonably upon the~needs and i
| |
| facts surrounding the specific facility population." Because of the many special conditions required to evacuate a maximum security prison, including a longer evacuation time than for the general public, we believe it is clearly rea onable to require preparation of a separate evacuation time estimata,..Sich the Pennsylvania authorities have done and will rely upon for taking appropriate protective actions.
| |
| F. Mcgitorino -
| |
| The inma es allege .';t there is n reaso'nable ssurance that adequate monito ing w''l be conducted at the i rick Generating Station in the even; of a adio'.gic21 e.T.ergency. .
| |
| This is a 'one . ce tire" cort of ba is which the ir. mates have rm .ne Board and the carties, I,J raised in these revisec ccatent'cr.s.
| |
| i includ'ng the A:plicant, c ~icials,Af the COT:ncr*.ealth of Pennsylvania
| |
| / to tnis and the F. ta" spant cons . yable time and ef fort to resocc.:
| |
| aUcgation in the Conferer.cy! particular the '/ arch 22, '_985
| |
| /a Conference. Aga'n, th s coritorins 's the res7ensibility of the i
| |
| Te?artment of Energy /) team who w.11 conitor the radioacti CE
| |
| 'n the event shelt- irg is ime'emerted a a protec::ve action for Graterford. Th e are in the ?!an 'dentif; d field cenitoring activities o' the Ccmmonwea'th.
| |
| Thera is no particularized deficiency ident Tied in existing plume .
| |
| moniter' g capabilitiet fcr Graterford. There 's n li igab'.e t issue.
| |
| Disr' sed, in L.
| |
| | |
| 1 2
| |
| o O receive any notice c. tae opportu.:ity to eve tnemsa".ves of th's training program. .urt.ermore, tne trai- .g : visicncd oy the i.. mates was a broader, more compr ensive prog':., such as the training offered to the school bus drivers. . e tnc Th'rc Partial Initial Decision on Offsite Emergency Planning by t.
| |
| * L' en:,ing Board, Section 333, page 155, which reads, "Tre training e gra: 'or bus drivers offers a general orientation and overview of r diatio. princif e:,, e.mercancy management principics , susceptibi',it- of chilc cn to radiation ano additional background infor.atfor..' The inma es co.'and'that the two hcur course offered by PEMA is n as comprenensive as 'he one offered to the bus drivers of scncoi cni".crer, anc is trercfore 1 acequate in this respect. ,
| |
| h~ i- istimated~T'ee of Evecm."'e-]
| |
| p There is no reasonable assurance that t.e ca. ated time of -
| |
| d evacuation cf six-to-tan hours can~ce achieved.
| |
| Appencix 4 cf NUREG-0654 provides detsiis regcrdirg evacuation tice estimatas witt.'n tha plume exposure pct.wa;<. : : . 0. " - --i a ' C r:". ' '. i ty SopuMt'.v.sstates,"AnestimatefcrE.'i.accci:'pooulatior,cru., snail usually be done on an institutfor by inst;tution basis. The means of transportation are also n:ghly individu :f.:ed ar.d snail se described. '
| |
| Section IV.S. of Appendix 4 entitled Mct.ndo'ogy states, "The method fo*
| |
| computing total evacuation time sha:1 be soecified. Two approaches are acceptable. The simplest approach is to assume that events are sequential. That is to say, for example, that no one begins to move until all persons are warned and prepared to leave before anyone starts moving. The time is esticated by simply adding the maximum time for n ' ^
| |
| = --- . : _. - ... .s
| |
| | |
| i a
| |
| 3 i
| |
| 4 eacn componer.t. This apprcaca tencs to avaresti. ate the evacuation time. Tne second approach, whica is ac~c . comp'.ex ced will be ciscussed further, is to cccoine the distributio.. functions for the various ,
| |
| evacuation time components. Tais secor.c a;prasch ray result in reduced time estimates due to a more realistic assumpticn." The inmates contend that the failure to specifically address this estincted time of evacuation in the p'.an and the cere =cr. tion in c fcotnote of the Applicant's request for an exemption fai".s to eet t.e criteria as suggestec 'cy Appendix 4 The in=atcs are concerned that the six-to-ten hcur estimate does not include a breakdewn of the various sequential
| |
| ,. . events as prescri ced in NUREG-0634, A;;c-dix 4.:V.5. necessar) to accompTish the task. The. inmates centend f.it s;ch a breakdown is
| |
| ' (v) necessary.
| |
| 4 s
| |
| '\_;
| |
| | |
| I 1 r f hA :
| |
| rf - 9J f &
| |
| (-.
| |
| bM.
| |
| s L,
| |
| W f[
| |
| B&
| |
| Aw ROBERT L. MORRIS g' Consultant in Transportation Planning h{g y
| |
| & Traffic Engineering Er ty
| |
| . p,;;w P.O. Box 34230 f[.
| |
| Bethhsda, Maryland 20817 ' 3p,d, (301) 299-6632 f ~ti EDt%:ATION University of Maryland, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1949 University of Maryland, M.S. , Civil Engineerie:g,1950 h University of Baltimore, LL.B. ,1957 %
| |
| aff EXPERIENCE Head, Master Plan Section, Deparcnent of Planniqq, Baltiacre Q
| |
| gj Acting Assistant 8 issioner of Traffic, Baltimore Qd Senior Planner - Transportation, Downtown Progress, . h.D
| |
| ' Wr:hington, D.C. . ".,
| |
| I ,
| |
| . E l Vice President, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates i.h
| |
| , n-
| |
| *g
| |
| ' (('~]P.0FESSICNAL
| |
| / J s ILV" 0.;S rustitute of Transportation Engineers - Fellov Fr.ct Pracident, Wr.chingten Ocetien "f'
| |
| :.-+ -
| |
| Past m m4 m n, Delegation to National Cct=nittee on Unifor:a Traffic Laws, and Crdinanccc ,
| |
| p . 4.. ,
| |
| Ar.arican Society of Civil Engineers - Fellev ' 3,,j Rsd American Planning Asscciation - Menher 6. ~
| |
| American Institute of Certified Planners N*
| |
| re.n Transportation Rasaarch Board i.4
| |
| $,y i: Urban Land Institute
| |
| * o.y~
| |
| , M.
| |
| HONOPJUT Cos=cs Club te -
| |
| CRGANIZATICNS S
| |
| Faculty of Building of Great Britain - Fellow ..tp;n
| |
| ?,' y
| |
| - Lambda Alpha (Land Econcaica.s '3p .4 Tau Beta Pi (Engineering) lir Phi Eappa Phi (Scholarship)
| |
| . ?i?N LECTURED AT American University , j'.[.0 CatSolic University ,h7;.[.y 4 -
| |
| George Washington University .g University of Maryland [
| |
| * University of Texas at Arlington ?g
| |
| !p University of West Virginia h University of Waterloo, Ontario h{
| |
| Northern Virginia Co==runity College
| |
| . 1, .p k.-
| |
| .a
| |
| . y 9::
| |
| | |
| . t> '.
| |
| ,. i ihj I j 4
| |
| . . :i J
| |
| . na 1 d g
| |
| Robert L. Morris li i 4
| |
| ?
| |
| b PROFESSIONAL QUALITICATIONS p
| |
| =
| |
| Registered Professional Engineer ,
| |
| Connecticut Delaware Florida Kentucky
| |
| * Maryland ..
| |
| I New Jersey '
| |
| New York Ohio Pennsylvania ,f
| |
| , Tennesste i q virginia- .
| |
| Y~~%cr c! thc S;r 1 -
| |
| g Maryland l[ U.S. Supre:ne Court
| |
| 't 3
| |
| Qualified a. C.xpert witne==, Traffic and Wansportation c
| |
| .. Connecticut
| |
| }
| |
| l Delawars .
| |
| l District of-colu:nbia j
| |
| ', Iouisiana P
| |
| ! Maine .
| |
| , __. ; Marylar.d Michigan New Hampshire l
| |
| New Jersey j
| |
| j l
| |
| New York )
| |
| i North Carolina .
| |
| l Chio i r
| |
| Pennsylvania
| |
| * Ve r:nont f* -
| |
| Virginia i Texas f
| |
| Utah 3
| |
| d b t
| |
| Ic
| |
| . t I
| |
| ( l !
| |
| 1 m
| |
| : a. . .. \
| |
| n .
| |
| s k
| |
| -b il V. j
| |
| \
| |
| 't .
| |
| "3 '.
| |
| Robert L. Morris hj L,M
| |
| ' i,q RESPONSIBLE STUDIES ik (y
| |
| Downtown Transportation, circulation and Accessibility i,.#'A Buffalo, New York .h Chicago, Illinois
| |
| - - Clearwater, Florida -
| |
| . h.
| |
| Fort Lauderdale, Florida
| |
| ((
| |
| (.3 '
| |
| Kansas City, Missouri h
| |
| Icuisville, Kantacky x Salem, Virginia e, Salt Lake City, Utah Washington, D.C. ..:j New Town Transportation Planning
| |
| . h Columbia, Maryland b.
| |
| l Fort Lincoln, D.C.
| |
| (fi
| |
| ( Gerr.antown, Maryland ,
| |
| *y li Lyssadar, New York .
| |
| .] -
| |
| -Maumelle,- Arkansas
| |
| [} Panther valley, Pennrylvania f')?
| |
| Reston, Virginia g
| |
| : i. } (, Soul City, North Carot'a* M M' k**C.Vdiey, Illinois i l
| |
| E) , Parking Studies .
| |
| b 'i H Annapolis
| |
| * h ij Charles Centar, saltimore ' i.M '
| |
| *C.T ova Cn1'*~~ra
| |
| ? (-? ~
| |
| IracE E::bor, Balti=. ors { \d f]i r(
| |
| Chicage Johns Hopkins Hospital j P.jqj j Louisville d 'y Vanderbilt University ' Vi Washington, D.C. f Williamsport, Pennsylvania
| |
| 'p 04 +
| |
| .5
| |
| ?-. Shopping Cantar Traffic Planning i .3i j various Locations in .
| |
| %/a l Delaware .
| |
| g Maryland
| |
| ..${
| |
| Pennsylvania
| |
| : p. New Jersey
| |
| ]. f, .
| |
| , Nttw York 9 virginia [
| |
| f., ., y
| |
| * t-l L Pedestrian Studies ??
| |
| ~ Cklahon:a City d 5O '' ' ''* c'*r Q Washington, D.C. j .g 1
| |
| m -
| |
| | |
| r; I', ,
| |
| ; p 1 f
| |
| i
| |
| . .. } ,
| |
| ~I (3 '
| |
| Ik 3 Robert L. Morris :
| |
| .,,},, .
| |
| Y J. ,
| |
| Responsible Studies (Continued) .,
| |
| 3- ,1 Traffic Planning Studies Falls Church, Virginia ,
| |
| ,h:s j
| |
| Ger:nantown, Maryland '
| |
| Harristown, Pennsylvania ; k;,
| |
| ^~-
| |
| Judiciary Square, D.C. ,
| |
| Mattawoman, Maryland t y$;
| |
| Montgomery village, Maryland k'h
| |
| _j Traffic impact Studies 'O District of Columbia [f Delaware 1 Maryland
| |
| ' 4
| |
| +
| |
| Baltimore City ]
| |
| Baltimore county y i Calvert County h'l
| |
| ,, Carroll County *y-Charles Cou=ty i4.
| |
| 7 Howard County -
| |
| : d. * * ,
| |
| [j <
| |
| Montgomery County Y.
| |
| Princa George's County ?
| |
| Masatchusetts d
| |
| N d
| |
| Q New Jersey d d.)
| |
| No: th Carolina El Pennsylvania plj M
| |
| ga virginia si a y M, W M*
| |
| * Site Access Stud.ies!
| |
| g Philadelphia 31centannial ; *bQ as Waithingt.on visitors' center - ,p
| |
| ;-k f Battery Park City I. jr.
| |
| f lm Southwest Washington Dnployment Area
| |
| ,y Suitland, Maryland
| |
| , yi5 f ;
| |
| 'll
| |
| ' Restaurant Access Studies ,
| |
| Burger King lIj Gino's ,h t
| |
| Hamburger Hamlet (S. I 2 .
| |
| .La Potagerie I l
| |
| I ,M Le Steak ''
| |
| Marriott {EI*
| |
| Roy Rogers i O y
| |
| Chancery Studies
| |
| * W Bangladesh $y
| |
| ~.
| |
| France i Italy '
| |
| M J
| |
| Japan 3 'g
| |
| * ,/
| |
| Philippines ,
| |
| Saudi Arabia M* ,, )
| |
| b) 3
| |
| (, .
| |
| vi,'e 'j a
| |
| i L'i I!-
| |
| | |
| D W -1 Ph io (x-J,1
| |
| :e y
| |
| -'f
| |
| ' t., s .! .
| |
| , . p:1 i ~.; m
| |
| ,/-m o
| |
| d .?g R
| |
| Robert L. Morris p
| |
| .. Responsible Studies (Continued)
| |
| .s '
| |
| 3(
| |
| um Hospital Access Studies 4 Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions l }@
| |
| .E, vanderbilt University -
| |
| {6 D
| |
| * Vatarans Administration, Little Rock i k O Doctors Hospital, Washington, D.C. -
| |
| [.L Charleston, W. Va., Medical center Si I
| |
| ir r
| |
| (-
| |
| ; Accident and safety Studies n
| |
| -l connecticut 1*d h District of Columbia r Mar 71 nd h 4 Pennsylvania 1;
| |
| gd New York Virginia h N f]j transit Planning P' '5:s in Downtown' Edshington L-
| |
| [ "
| |
| y* Columbia, Maryland i ,
| |
| i Bas Circulation Plan, Wazhington
| |
| : .~y ,
| |
| Sabway Alignment, W=ah4"gton ,
| |
| 1 Ccznentewn Transitt -
| |
| ky
| |
| %' ( _,
| |
| Td.rfz.::: IMur. \
| |
| I-270 Corridor '{
| |
| : d. l'!}
| |
| q an .
| |
| Eighwa.y Planning !)
| |
| li>
| |
| p Traffic Assign =ent, Jonas Fr.lls Exprescway ' ig O, Major Arterial Plen, B & ' rc tj
| |
| ?: Crevity Model 7salysis, E & d- re b 88 Prince Ga rge's Freew.ty Analysis ikh d M=ntgocary County Arterials " }7 M-
| |
| ~k 9 m.y'
| |
| .U E::virtnumental Impacts (
| |
| r Conn.cticue
| |
| ; Iowa ;
| |
| [!
| |
| i' Maryland ii I i Massachusetts Michigan f.I M$
| |
| New Hampshire '
| |
| .IIj North Carolina kj Pennsylvania ,
| |
| $;[
| |
| SoupsCarolina Utah 3':,
| |
| .j Vermont u Virginia ,j Wisconsin y
| |
| ,. g
| |
| ) .
| |
| kh -
| |
| c; d( j
| |
| ~
| |
| - ! i
| |
| -M
| |
| | |
| , !i i .
| |
| i .
| |
| l h
| |
| Pebert L. Morris Responsible Studies (Continued) .
| |
| Model Cities Transportation Planning R'Jchester, New York Norfolk, Virginia Demonstration Project Design Minibus T Street Plaza Mass Transit Information .. -
| |
| Traffic Laws and Ordinances Rcview and Analysis Buffalo, New York Macon, Georgia Augusta, Georgia Tallahassee, Florida
| |
| * Middlesex, New Jersey Jersey City, New Jersey Right Turn on Red O' .
| |
| D 9
| |
| I 1
| |
| l 0 -
| |
| 3 I
| |
| \ .L 1:
| |
| ; \ %
| |
| l
| |
| - L.
| |
| l_ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| | |
| i' 1
| |
| . 3
| |
| / ?n V] .
| |
| Robert L. Morris '
| |
| l l
| |
| (
| |
| i PUBLICATIONS '
| |
| kw McVoy, Arthur D. , Walter Thabit and Robert L. Morris, " Pedestrian ,s Way Business Districts," The American City, March 1957 . (;
| |
| Voorhees, Alan M. , and Robert L. Morris, "haluating and Forecasting Travel for Baltimore by Use of a Mathematical Model," ,
| |
| Richway Research Board Bulletin 224, 1959 M h
| |
| ) aooth, James, and Robert L. Morris, " Transit versus Auto Travel in &y the Future," Journal ,o_f,the American Institute of Planners, May 1959 f*g
| |
| ::O Morris, Robert L. ,
| |
| * Evaluating the Require.nents for a Downtown :m Circulation system," Highway Research Board Bulletin 347, 3 1
| |
| 1962 [
| |
| h Morris, Robert L. and S. D. Zi- % ""'ho Pcdestrian, Downtown, and dYl the P1m" w ,"
| |
| Journal of the American Institute of Planner =,'
| |
| ~
| |
| .M Angust 1962 ~ -
| |
| * Mi g- .
| |
| EN!
| |
| 4 W1 Horrie, R bcrt L. , "Luto= chiles, Rapid Tr:r.=it and the Future," . _ _ ,
| |
| American Motorist, September 1962
| |
| . %@j
| |
| .j v'arris, Icbart L. , " Traffic Considerations in Plcr.ning Central
| |
| . M Business Districts," Traffic Eneineerine, June,1964. (Lc bi/,
| |
| cy .
| |
| r54 w of ITE Comittee 6D-62) . nc4 W4 A.
| |
| j 5 Horris, Ecbert L. , "The Motor Vehicle and Megul=,~.,..lis U.S.A. ," ,
| |
| :a Lme G crder, June 1965 ;H j )'
| |
| : r. orris, Robert L., i @SN "The National t* - 4ttee on Unifo:r. Traffic Laws :n
| |
| [ and Crdinances," Traffic Eneineerine, March 1966 < ,
| |
| ld .
| |
| I ; $7,1 l' Horris, Robert L., "The MmaA ~ Semaphore of Icudon," Traffic kb Eneineering, August 1966 gm Morris, Robert L., " Pioneer Profile, William L. Potts," Traffic hh. v Y.
| |
| Eneineering, September 1966 p'w' ' ' '
| |
| M rris, Robert L., . 162 eerine, March 1967 "The Signals of San Francisco," traffic Encin-
| |
| %og p ' {
| |
| t krris, Robert L., "J. .
| |
| - ~W l
| |
| -e ,
| |
| June 1967
| |
| * W. Arch Bollong," Traffic Encineering, :rt:I 1
| |
| M1 i %.
| |
| Merris, Robart L. , "Why Malls?" Traffic Encineerine, August 1967 ..c
| |
| , Morris, Robert'L., " Downtown: Part 1. The Pulse," Nation's Cities ,
| |
| iO October 1967 ,
| |
| 'V I
| |
| , i 2
| |
| I
| |
| \ J _
| |
| | |
| ' ,1 ,1-i -
| |
| 1
| |
| . s t''
| |
| . ;d
| |
| ,3t; G
| |
| O . : .a V -
| |
| LS 1
| |
| Robert L. Morris .. .pl,i.1 Publications (Continued) I d.2 Morris, Robert L., " Downtown: Part 2. Downtown's Nervous System," i)
| |
| Nation's Cities, November 1967 [
| |
| Morris, Robert L., "The History of the Center Line," Traffic
| |
| *p f
| |
| Engineering, November 1967 ;j k
| |
| Morris, Robert L., " Downtown: Part 3. The Pedestrian," Nation's r cities, December 1967 j l
| |
| Morris, Robert L., " Transportation Planning for New Towns," Highway )
| |
| Research Board Record 293, 1969 . j Morris, Robert L., " Traffic Control," Nation's Cities, January 1969 3
| |
| 1 Morrir, Robert L., "New Towns and Old Cities: Part 1. The I= pact , ;
| |
| of New Towns," Nation's Cities, April 1969 !
| |
| l
| |
| . I Morris, Robert'L., "New Tor:.: and Old Cities: Part 2. What Can the !
| |
| l Citics Lcc n from New Town Erperience?" Nation's Cities, May 1969 J
| |
| q horris, Robert L., "New Towns and Old Cities: Part 3. Prospects for Coexistence," Nation's Cities, June 1969 Morris , Robert L. , " Transportation Planning for a New Cc== unity,"
| |
| * Public Works October 1969 Morris, Robert L., " Social Consid uations of Urban Transportatics h Syste=s," Transportation Encineerina Journal, ASCE, Volume 96, Number TE 3, August 1970 Morris, Robert L. , " Sidewalks Are the City," Nation's Cities, April 1971 Morris, Robert L. , " Traffic Planning Considerations in Location of C.B.D. Parking Facilities," Traffic Encineering, June 1971 j (As Chairman of ITE C d ttee 60) i i
| |
| Morris, Robert L. , " Changing Transportation Planning Concepts," '
| |
| 'j Nation's Cities, April 1972 '.
| |
| d Morris, Robert L., "A Measure of Shopping Center Trip Distribution,"
| |
| Traffic Endineering, October 1974 Morris, Robert L., " Transportation Proble=s of Urban America,"
| |
| Hearings before the Subec=mittee on Transportation of the Co=nittee on Public Works, United States Senate, page 976, S.
| |
| July 18, 1975 -
| |
| 4 .
| |
| l?
| |
| l I
| |
| /
| |
| /
| |
| | |
| 1 ;g j
| |
| . f.
| |
| n.
| |
| F5
| |
| ;n.4 p::
| |
| '34 b Ri L
| |
| Robert L. Morris s) y Publications (Continued) t Morris, Robert L., "Do Freeways Help Downtown?" Nrtion's Cities, .
| |
| 1 November 1975 McGee, H. W., W. A. Stimpson, J. Cohen, G. P. King, and R. L. Morris,
| |
| * l "Right-Turn-on-Red, Volume I: Final Technical Report,"
| |
| Federal Highway Administration, May 1976 Morris, Robert L., " Traffic as a Function of Supply and Demand,"
| |
| Traffic Quarteriv, October 1977 Morris, h *. L., "Are Levels of Service on the I4ve17" Technical Notes, Institute of Transportation Engineers; March 1978 Morris, Robert L. , "C-m4 ty Planning as a Tool in the Conservation of Transportation Energy," paper delivered before the A=.c.rict.n Association for the 14vancement of Science, Houston, I Texc.s, 7 January 1979
| |
| * t g .
| |
| 9 4
| |
| e i
| |
| . h j
| |
| | |
| F 1 f A.
| |
| }ll '
| |
| bb#4 O June 21, 1985 O
| |
| | |
| ==Dear Robert Morris,==
| |
| | |
| As per our telephone conversation today, enclosed find the following information on the time estimate for Limerick Cenerating Station as it applies to the Graterford State Penitentiary within the ten mile emergency planning zone:
| |
| : 1. Applicant's Consultants "ETE", already an exhibit in this case. (Appl. Exh. E-67)
| |
| : 2. Sections of transcripts clarifying abbreviations e,tc. used in this ETE.
| |
| : 3. Selections from Limerick Ecology Action's Findings on issues relevent to the ETE.
| |
| : 4. flap from Skippack Township,. Montgomery County plan showing locatiori o'f prison as~ drawn by the Applicant's. Consultants.
| |
| S
| |
| '.) Numbers used by H'Oi ETE
| |
| ~
| |
| : 5. June 1983 PEMA/PENNDOT map admitted in this case.
| |
| ~
| |
| were recalculated by them, but are close to these, if not identical'. This map served as basis for HPM ETE routes.
| |
| : 6. Contentions as proposed by Mr. Angus Love.
| |
| : 7. Contention as admitted. (May be expanded through a motion to reconsider)
| |
| : 8. Passage in case law Zimmer, Ohio.
| |
| : 9. Board's Findings on traffic etc.
| |
| Thanks for your help. We will be in touch with more specifics on the suggested focus of your possible testimony. Thanks again for your time and please feel free to contact us at any time. (David Stone 215-326-9122/326-8687 (work) 215-469-9451 (home) or Angus Love Esq. 215-275-5400) 4 Sincerely,
| |
| -,.i __
| |
| SN &
| |
| David Stone
| |
| | |
| f 21,014 Sim 11-9 I (Board conferring.)
| |
| r k- 2 JUDGE HOYT: -I think we can get rid of a few 3 of those pages on the back of it, and I will go over those 4 with the reporter after we close the record. You may be 5 in attendance if you wish and all other parties' counsel. We 6 can do this off the record, however.
| |
| 7 All right. That concludes all the witnesses and 8 all the other matters that were before us.
| |
| 9
| |
| ~
| |
| Now we are at the point where we can set the times-10 for the oral arguments.
| |
| 11 I will lead off by telling you that the desire ofi 12 the Board would.be to start tomorrow morning.
| |
| 13 MR. LOVE: If I.might, Your-Honor, I do intend
| |
| . r'3
| |
| 'NJ l 14 to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, and I would, 15 in order to give me enough time to get that task accomplished i
| |
| 16 hnd typed suggest.that perhaps tomorrow at 1 o' clock in the i
| |
| i 17 afternoon.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: You may make your arguments at that 19 time, Mr. Love, but, as you recall, the Board indicated that 20 hose would be filed simultaneously with the oral argument. In 21 other words,-if you want to wait and go last, or nearly last, 22 hen you may have your pages done up in that interval of time 23 ahile the other parties are making-their arguments.
| |
| 24 Does anyone want to volunteer to begin these
| |
| ~A ;rcl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 itrguments tomorrow?
| |
| | |
| 21,015 Sim 11-10 3 Ms. Ferkin?
| |
| 17.
| |
| D 2 (Laughter.)
| |
| 3 MS. FERKIN: Your Honor, can we go off the 4 record for this?
| |
| 5 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, we will go off the record.
| |
| ~6 (Discussion of f the record.)
| |
| 7 JUDGE HOYT: We will go back.on the record.
| |
| 8 Let.the record reflect that during the off-the-9 record time there was a discussion among the Board and the 10 counsel for all parties concerning the oral argument schedule jj and the schedule of the findings of when they would be filed 12 r if they would be filed and that the following determinations -
| |
| .< 13 have been made.
| |
| (%
| |
| ")
| |
| 34 The applicant will desire approximately 10 minutes 15 .
| |
| for ral argument, direct oral argument. They will file with i !
| |
| 16 ' the Board findings of fact and conclusions of law. ~
| |
| _j7 In addition to the oral argument and the findings,.
| |
| 18 the applicant has asked for and been granted 15 minutes of 39 rebuttal time.
| |
| "~
| |
| 20 The Commonwealth has indicated that it wishes 25 21 minutes, the-time to be split between counsel for the 22 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Counsel for the Department r
| |
| f 123 of Corrections.
| |
| 24 (Board conferring.)
| |
| %rti Reporters Inc.
| |
| ;# 25 JUDGE HOYT: I got that right, Ms. Ferkin.
| |
| | |
| F 21,015-A Sim 11-11 1 And Mr. Otto, who is Counsel for the Deaprtment 2 of Corrections for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the 3 Commonwealth has indicated they will file no findings of fact 4 and conclusions of law.
| |
| 5 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has asked 6 for and been granted 40 minutes of oral argument with no 7 findings of fact and conclusions of law to be filed.
| |
| 8 Mr. Love, Counsel for the Graterford Inmates has 9 been granted 30 minutes of argument, oral argument time and 10 he has indicated that there will.be findings of fact and Illl conclusions of law.
| |
| i 12l Counsel for FEMA has asked for and been granted
| |
| - 13 an opportuity to make a very brief argument here this after-14 noon and FEMA's counsel has indicated that they will file 0
| |
| 15 !no findinas of f act and conclusions of law, and indeed counsel i
| |
| 16Il [ wishes to be excused from tne hearings at the completion of 17 I his arguments this afternoon.
| |
| 18 Mr. Hirsch, will you proceed.
| |
| 19 Or let me first determine, if that a reasonably 20 accurate description of those events which occurred in the 21 off-the-record conversations?
| |
| 22 MR. LOVE: Yes.
| |
| 23 MR. HASSELL: Yes, except for my penchant for
| |
| , 24 detail I guess. Each time you have indicated that a party A E ril Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25 was not going to be bound to propose findings of fact and
| |
| | |
| [
| |
| 21,016 Sim 11-12 1 conclusions of law, it could very well be that the oral argument 2 w.ill constitute some facts for submission. So are you' talking 3 about written or oral?
| |
| 4 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Let me clarify that, and you are 5 quite right, Mr. Hassell. You are correct. In indicating 6 either that applicant and the counsel for the inmates would 7 file findings and that the Commonwealth and the Nuclear 8 Regulatory Commission Staff and the Federal Emergency Manage-9 ment Agency counsel would file no findings of fact and 10 conclusions of law, it was the intent of the Board that that l
| |
| 11 would indicate that no additional written findings of fact 12 and conclusions of law, which would be filed simultaneously
| |
| ~
| |
| 13 with the oral argument would either be or not be tendered.
| |
| 11 14 ll Had is that, Mr. Hassell? Did I get it right 15 this time?
| |
| 11 16 jj MR. HASSELL: You got it right before, and it 17 is more than satisfactory.
| |
| 18 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, good.
| |
| 19 JUDGE HOYT: Let's have your argument begin then, 20 Mr. Hirsch, and I have no requirement that you either rise 21 or not rise, whichever way you are more comfortable in making 22 your argument.
| |
| as 23 ORAL ARGUMENT
| |
| ,f' 24 ~
| |
| ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY AL cril Reporters, Inc.
| |
| INDEX 25 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you.
| |
| | |
| f 21,017 Sim 11-13 1 Very briefly, it is FEMA's position that Mr. Love 2 and the Grater ford Inmates have not provided any affirmative 3 indication that there are no reasonable assurances that response 4 training will be offered to civilian personnel involved in 5 evacuating the Graterford Prison if the need arises, nor have 6 the petitioners provided any affirmative indication that bus 7 companies, which have been offered training by Mr. Taylor and 8 PEMA and ambulance companies, which Mr. Taylor has testified 9 that he will be offering training to, are going to decline 10 any training.
| |
| 11 In addition, it is the FEMA position that there 12 has been no affirmative indication provided by Mr. Love that p x, 13 the evacuation time estimate methodology developed by the i i 14 Deaprtment of Correc'tions with respect to Graterford evacuation 15 , is inadequate or deficient in any respect.
| |
| 16 That is the extent of FEMA's closing statement.
| |
| 17 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.
| |
| 18 Mr. Hirsch, if you wish to be excused, you may 19 be excused, sir, and thank you for your participation.
| |
| -~
| |
| 20 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you.
| |
| 21 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. If we have no additional 22 matters to come before the Board this afternoon, we will recess 23 to meet tomorrow afternoon at 1 o' clock.
| |
| 24 Ms. Ferkin?
| |
| Af ' tr;l Reporters, Inc.
| |
| <- 25 MS. FERKIN: Yes, Your Honor. May I inquire when
| |
| | |
| f 21,018 Sim 11-14 i and where transcripts of today's proceedings will be available?
| |
| 2 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Let me go off the record.
| |
| v 3 (Discussion off the record.)
| |
| end Sim a Sua fols 5
| |
| 6 7
| |
| 8 9
| |
| 10 11 12
| |
| ,s 13 (t__- ) 11 15 l
| |
| 16 l
| |
| 17 18 19
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 21 22 23 24 A hrtl Reporters, Inc.
| |
| 25
| |
| | |
| /' 21,019
| |
| #12-1-SueWdl JUDGE HOYT: We will go back on the record. At 2 this time, the Board wishes to indicate to counsel for the 3 Graterford Inmates that in view of the fact that he does not 4 have a copy of this transcript a copy will be loaned to him 5 for his use and perusal in the preparation of his argument 6 and findings.
| |
| 7 And that includes the copy of the transcript of 8 today's proceedings and yesterday's proceeding.
| |
| 9 All right. Any other matters?
| |
| 10 (No response.)
| |
| II I In one of these off-the-record discussions -- f
| |
| ' r 12 , and I think it was the last one -- we determined also that !
| |
| l 13 ; the counsel for the parties, all parties, would be provided l I4 copies of this transcript this evening at 7 o' clock and :
| |
| i I 15 that private arrangements between the reporting service and 16 the counsel would be made for the delivery of those transcripts.
| |
| I 17 Very well. If there are no additional matters 18 then we will recess to meet tomorrow at one o' clock in this !
| |
| I9 courtroom. .
| |
| l 20 The hearing is recessed. ,
| |
| i 21 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 2:43 p.m. l l
| |
| 22 on Tuesday, July 16, 1985, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.,
| |
| 23 Wednesday, July 17, 1985.)
| |
| 24 , , , ,,,,,**
| |
| '!Ddddddd ral Reporters, tric.
| |
| 25 i
| |
| | |
| NO PAGE NUMBER !
| |
| CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
| |
| ,, 1
| |
| %g This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STNTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
| |
| NAME OF PROCEEDING: PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (LIMERICK GENERATING STATION)
| |
| DOCKET NO.: 50-352 50-353 PLACE: PHILADELPHIA, PA r '
| |
| DATE: ,
| |
| TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -
| |
| (sigt)
| |
| _M (TYPED) GARRETT [WALSH, JR.
| |
| WhxO , N-l4,)0 $dlL)
| |
| "MYRTIS}H.WALSH Official Reporter Official Reporter Ace Federal Reporters ,
| |
| Ace Federal Reporters
| |
| // fWA [ LJ&f Y
| |
| ( /
| |
| ,n. MARY C//SIMONS Official Reporter Ace Federal Reporters}}
| |
