ML20099H381
| ML20099H381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1985 |
| From: | Rader T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#185-048, CON-#185-48 OL, NUDOCS 8503150268 | |
| Download: ML20099H381 (49) | |
Text
's.. g -
o4g h y<~
,a r
-'e MM
/g E.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' "ff,
J, '8 NUCLEAR REGUIA'IORY CCMiISSION tA.::x..
f?,['[.'
Before the Atmic Safety and Licensind Board
"U In the Matter of
)
x,'
)
's Philadelphia Electric Cmpany
) Docket Nos. 50--352 k C
)
50-353 0 L (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S REPLY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REIATING 'IO OFFSITE ENERGENCY PLAhWING CONTDTfIONS Philadelphia Electric Cmpany, Applicant in.the captioned proceed-ing, in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
S2.754 and the Atmic Safety and Licensing Board's Orders of January 28, 1985 and March 4, 1985, hereby sutmits reply findings on the offsite emergency planning contentions in response to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law subnit-ted by Robert L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth (collectively "ME"),
Limerick Ecology Action
(" LEA"),
the Conmonwealth of Pennsylvania
("Cmnonwealth"), and the Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Staff ("NRC Staff" or " Staff"). The reply findings are in the form of insertions to
" Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of a Partial Initial Decision," dated February 19, 1985 ("Appli-cant's Proposed Findings").
Many of the proposed findings filed by the other parties to this proceeding were anticipated in the Applicant's proposed findings and, as to those findings, no further reply is necessary. It is also noted that many of the proposed findings, especially those filed by ME and LEA, are innaterial to the issues before this Board or unsupported by the 850315026'8 850314 l
PDR ADOCK 050003 2 l
3 So 3
i L-record. Thus, the Board should adopt Applicant's proposed findings, as amended herein, and reject those of the other parties as unsupported by l
the record evidence or as inmaterial to its decision.
j 1.
On page 12 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add footnote 29A -
1 to the end of the first sentence of the first full paragraph on that 1
page:
29A/ The Ccunonwealth's statement at page three of its proposed findings that its "[f]ailure to address - each and every Applicant proposed l
finding herein does not necessarily signify acceptance of such j
finding on the Ccanonwealth's part" is legally inwu. et.
It is well settled that parties who fail to file proposed findings ~ of fact and conclusions of law on a matter have waived any right to pursue the issue.
10 C.F.R. $2.754 Metropolitan Edison Ccapany (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), AIAB-772,19 NBC 1193, 1213 n.18 (1984); Florida Power & Light Ccmpany (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2), AIAB-280, 2 NRC 3, 4 n.2 (1975). Thus, the failure of a party to contest the previously filed contentions i
of another party clearly constitutes acquiescence in those find-ings.
In his written testinony, Mr. Hippert preceded his response to each contention with a ntuber of questions on the subject. Although LEA attenpted to frame certain issues in terms of the questions, Mr.
i Hippert testified that those questions were formulated sinply as an aid to him in organizing his thoughts (Hippert, Tr. 19616).
As
{
such, they have no evidentiary value and have been disregarded by the Board.
l 2.
On page 14 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following text after the first full paragraph:
Time Constraints on Examination and Cross-Examination of Witnesses Before turning to the Board's findings, we address the claim by ME I
that time _ constraints inposed by the Board for the parties' examination i-and cross-examination of witnesses were unduly restrictive. Initially, the Board 4W no such restrictions.
It became increasingly appar-a ent, however, as the hearing progressed that scue limitation was neces-i sary.
For exanple, LEA's cross-examination of Applicant's witness 4
panel, the -first witnesses, consumed five hearing days (Tr. 12766-13536).3_0/
Frcs the examination of subsequent witnesses, it ham =
i:
j increasingly apparent that LEA was taking a disproportionately lengthy time.b On that basis, the Board suggested that LEA had not demonstrat-I ed an effective use of its time and that time restrictions for further l
examination might be iW (Tr. 14242-43).
As a result of those concerns, the Board later conducted an j
j off-the-record discussion with counsel and representatives of the j
parties as to the schedule for hearing future witnesses and the parties' estimate of the time needed to fairly examine and cross-examine the 1
i appwnimately 60 witnesses which LEA intended to call (Tr.14727). The 30/ ME's only admitted contention in the area of offsite energency planning covered the same allegations raised by LEA with respect to the Valley Forge National Park / King of Prussia locale. Under those circumstances, the Board admitted and consolidated both the LEA and
)
NE contentions (LEA-24/mE-1) and designated LEA as the lead
{
intervenor. EE was directed to coordinate its litigation of this contention with LEA. See Limerick, supra, IRP-84-18, 19 NBC 1020, i
1069 (1984).. Se Ccmmission has expressly endorsed this approach.
I See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 455 (1981).
See also Portland General j
Electric Ccmpany (Trojan Nuclear Plant), AIj3"I96, 8 NRC 308, 310 1
(1978); Cleveland Electric Illuninating Ccupany (Perry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), IRP-81-35, 14 NBC 682, 687-88 (1981).
{
Accordingly, the Board would have been justified in insisting that i
LEA conduct all examination of witnesses on behalf of the i
consolidated intervenors with regard to their joint contention.
j Nonetheless, the Board permitted the NE representative, Mr.
Anthony, to cross-examine separately those witnesses with testimony
~
i relevant to LEA-24/NE-1.
Se a@ortiersnent of cross-examination j
time permitted intervenors between POE and LEA was a matter for j
their representatives to decide between themselves.
l 4
+
31/ Sus, Applicant presented the direct testimony of Mr. A. Lindley Bigelow, the Montgcznery County Director of Emergency Preparedness, which took only 33 transcript pages, while LEA's cross-examination took approximately 165 pages.
~. _. _ -.. _ _..,.,
limitations thereafter inposed on the basis of the parties' representa-tions were clearly more lenient toward intervenors than any other par-ty.E Although IEA objected to the Board's characterization of these limitations as based upon the apearient of the parties (Tr. 14734-36),
the Board affirms its belief that the limitations were based upon a candid and good faith estimate by the parties as to the time actually needed to fully and fairly examine the witnesses (Tr.14736).
Moreover, intervenors needlessly wasted valuable hearing time through lack of preparation, repeated changes in their designated sequence of witnesses, and an inability or unwillingness to adhere to the evidentiary rulings of the Board. Most direct and cross-examination by IEA and all by EE was conducted by their lay representatives. Their questions inevitably prmpted many valid objections to the inpu.yer form of questions, repetitive questions, lack of evidentiary foundation and other objections which added to the length of the hearing.
The Board repeatedly sustained such objections and explained to the intervenors how the objections could be avoided, usually to no avail. For exanple, during Mr. Anthony's cross-examination of one township official, the Board found it necessary to sustain 19 of 21 evidentiary objections raised by counsel (Tr. 17406-56).
32/ With respect to subpoenaed witnesses, intervenor was accorded one
~~-
and one-half hours of direct examination, the Applicant was given one hour of cross-examination and the NPC, Ccunonwealth and FD%
were - given 30 minutes of cross-examination.
IEA was given 30 minutes for re-direct examination.
For witnesses with pre-filed testimony, Applicant was accorded only 30 minutes for cross-examination and the NBC, the Connonwealth and FDR were extended 20 minutes of cross-examination. IEA was given 20 minutes for re-direct (Tr. 14727-28).
~,
~ --
In any event, the Board is satisfied that the time limitations inposed were proper and reasonable.
Such authority has long been recognized.E Our time limitations were certainly no more stringent, l
considering the number of witnesses subpoenaed by intervenors, than those imposed by the Licensing Board in Catawba, which stated the basis of its actions as follows:
Such authority is recognized in the federal district courts.
See MCI Ccumunications Corp. v. AT&T, 85 F.R.D.
28 (N.D. Ill. 1979), aff'd, 708 F.2d 1081, 1170-73 (7th Cir.1983). We believe that time limit authority for Licensing Boards is fairly inferable frcan the federal cases, the NBC Rules of Practice (which include authority to " prevent... repeti-tious, or cumulative cross-examination" (10 C.F.R. 52.757(c)) and to "[rlegulate the course of the hearing" (10 C.F.R. S2.718 (e) ), and frcan the Ccun-mission's Statment of Policy on Conduct of Licens-ing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981).
The whole thrust of that Statesnent is toward fair but i
timely hearings, and Boards are explicitly directed to " set and adhere to reasonable schedules." Id. at 454.
A Licensing Board can hardly be expec6i"d to adhere to a " reasonable schedule" if the time for cross-examination, the most time-consuming part of the process, is beyond its control.34/
33/ Consumers Power Ccutpany (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-39, 2 NPC 29,113 (1975).
34/ Duke Power Ccurpany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-84-24, 19 N C 1418, 1428 (1984).
Further, we heartily agree with that Board's conclusion that "our experience with time limits in this case indicated that a cross-examiner under scme time pressure to get his questions asked tended to present a more effective cross-examination than one whose questioning is limited only by his stamina and imagination." Id. We also note that the Licensing Board in Shoreham found it neceTsary to modify the normal procedure for cross-examination of witnesses by requiring the parties to conduct cross-examination, re-direct and re-cross by means of public prehearing depositions without the presence of the Board, which the Appeal Board found "both lawful and reasonable."
Innq Island Lighting Capany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-788, 20 NPC 1102,1178 (1984), aff'q, LBP-82-107, 16 NPC 1667 (1982).
As catawba states, the Board's intposition of time limitations is supported by the approval of similar restrictions by federal appellate courts.
In addition to the authority cited in Catawba, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in United States v.
Bnitzman, 731 F.2d 1449, 1452 (9th Cir. 1984), that limitation of cross-examination is smetimes necessary to " avoid time-wasting explora-tion of collateral matters." See also Austin v. Inftsgaarden, 675 F.2d 168,180 (8th Cir.1982).
3.
On page 16 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences at the end of Paragraph 5:
The ETE study was not intended to develop specific estimates for each evacuation route but rather time estimates for various segments of the Limerick EPZ as well as the entire EPZ.
The number of evacuating vehicles along each route could, however, be calculated on the basis of the data contained in the ETE study (Klim, Tr. 13836-37).
4.
On page 16 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 6:
As LEA acknowledges, the deficiencies it has alleged in the ErE study are "not exactly crystal clear" (LEA Proposed Finding 1).
5.
On page 16 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 6A,
j following Paragraph 6:
6A. Contrary to LEA's assertion, Dr. Urbanik did not testify that the ETE study "could have an error of 10-20%" (LEA Proposed Finding 38).
Rather, Dr. Urbanik testified that the ETE study would still be a valid and appropriate basis for protective action recw.widations even if the time estimates erred in the range of 10-20 percent (Urbanik, Tr.19212).
4 0 ;,
!:.a 6.
On page 16 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following
{
sentence following the second sentence of Paragraph 7:
1 j
Contrary to LEA's assertion, there is no evidence in the record
{
that' any information dested relevant by township or park officials to
)
j the preparation of the ETE study was excluded frcm consideration.
l 7.
On page 17 of Applicant's Figd Findings, add Paragraphs 9A, j
9B, 9C, 9D, 9E and 9F following Paragraph 9:
i-9A. LEA asserts that the ETE study does not follow the regulatory i
{
guidance set forth in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, as to format and content.
1 In essence, LEA asserts that certain tables and maps have been cuitted j
(LEA Proposed Findings 60-64).
The Board notes,
- however, that i
l NUREG-0654 states that the suggested format provides "only a few typical i
i i
l tables" of those which might be included in an acceptable study and that I
discussion of the contents of an evacuation time estimates study is
{
" intended to be illustrative of necessary considerations and provide for i
consistency in reporting" (NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, p. 4-1). The NRC has held that reasonable discretion exists in the precise content of evac-l 1
I uation time estimate studies.
Moreover, the NRC Staff's. expert has I
j categorically testified that the FrE study utilized methodologies consistent with NUREG-0654 (Proposed Finding 6).
3; t
l 9B. In any event, the ETE study contains the information which LEA 1
k:
alleges to be missing, i.e., an evacuation roadway network map (Appl.
t Exh. E-67, p. 4-3) and a table indicating evacuation route segments and I
characteristics, including capacity (Appl. Exh. E-67, Appendix 10).
Contrary to.IEA's assertion, the RIE study accurately sunmarizes all evacuation time estimates. in each of fourteen different sectors, and
}
j those estimates include' expected delays (Appl. Exh. E-67, Table 6.1).
i 4
L i
i
. ~,
._~
.. l' Anticipated queuing is shown on a series of maps which depict anticipat-I i
j ad traffic conditions at various intervals of interest throughout the j
sinullated evacuation (Appl. Exh. E-67, Appendix 11; NUREG-0654, Appendix k
j 4, p. 4-9).
9C.
LEA also asserts that the ETE study does not follow the j
guidance of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, p. 4-10, because it does not include specific recomendations for actions that could be taken to significant-4 ly improve evacuation time, including preliminary estimates, if signifi-1 j
cant, of the cost of inplementing those recomendations. This particu-lar allegation is well beyond the scope of the admitted contention and was not addressed at the hearing. Nonetheless, there is no evidence to i
suggest that there are any actions which could, in fact, significantly i
inprove evacuation times.
Moreover, the ETE study reflects that a number of reccanendations have already been inplanented to provide such inprovanents, including the designation of additional traffic access and control points within the EPZ (Appl. Exh. E-67, p. 7-7).
PennD0r Study k
j 9D.
In developing the EIE study,19M Associates also reviewed an earlier evacuation time estimate study for Limerick prepared by PennDor i
in 1983.
The results of that study were doctanented in an " Evacuation y
(
Plan Map" for Limerick.
'Ihe PennD0r study was primarily a manual calculat.lon of roadway capacities, which related expected vehicle demand to the roadway capacity. Although not inadequate for its purpose at the l
time it was developed, the study was not an attenyt to follow the 1
i guidance of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 (Kline, ff. Tr.13794 at p.1, Tr.
a
{
13828; LEA Exh. E-16).
For example, NUREG-0654 does not require a i
presentation of data in. the format utilized by the PennDOF study to l
I i
, _ ~.
-3
~
reflect the number of vehicles evacuating particular route j
s, but does require time estimates for evacuating various sectors of the 4
entire EPZ, which PennDOT did not calculate (Klimn, Tr.13834) 9E.
The data developed by 19N Associates was more com prehensive than that contained in the PennDor study and is th us more reliable. For example, leM Associates recalculated the nurnber of vehicl es for various segments of the population within the Limerick EPZ
, based upon more recent data than that used by PennDOT (Klimn, Tr
. 13832).
there is no validity to LEA's attempt Accordingly, to cmpare traffic flows and estimated evacuation times contained in the PennDO studies. No witness was offered to validate the data, nethodology or used in the PennDOF study, nor is there any other evid assunptiens ence of record which would make such a cmparison meaningful.
9F.
Further, the Board excluded frm evidence two t raffic studies prepared for Upper Uwchlan Township and Upper Merion T i
ownship because there was no sponsoring testimony to support th documents to the contentions (Tr.
e relevance of those 19067, 19190).
8.
On page 18 of Applicant's Proposed Findings sentence to the end of Paragraph 14:
, add the following Thus, contrary to LEA's assertion (LEA Proposed Fi di n
the mE study incorporates the gemetrics of all i ngs 19-20),
i ntersections in the evacuation roadway network and appropriately incorporates specific characteristics of intersections and roadways, includin g slope, curves and acute angles.
9.
On page 19 of Applicant's Proposed Findings
, add Paragraph 16A following Paragraph 16:
. 4
'16A.
In several instances (e.g., LEA Proposed Finding 151), LEA asserts that the ETE study does not' evaluate projected highway availability, business and residential developnent, or other anticipated changes in the roadway network and demography within the EPZ.
Under NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, p.
4-1,
" evacuation time estimates should be updated as local conditions change."
Anticipated changes have been i
considered to the extent possible (Appl. Exh. E-67, pp.
7-7, 7-17, 7-18).
The ErE study is an evolving, dynamic document, which will be periodically revised to account for changes in the evacuation roadway network, demography and other variables (FKt----3 Finding 78).
'Ihe Chester-Montgcznery link (LFA Proposed Finding 309) is an example of a highway which, when constructed, will be aMad to energency planning.
- 10. On page 19 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following subheading and Paragraphs 16B, 16C, 16D and 16E and the subsequent subheading and Paragraphs 16F, 16G and 16H following Paragraph 16A:
Vehicle Occupancy 16B. The vehicle e = mcy rate of three persons per vehicle used in the ETE study (Appl. Exh. E-67, p. 3-2) is the same factor utilized by PD4A in its assessment of permanent population vehicle demand at
)
other nuclear power plant sites in Pennsylvania.
It is therefore considered appropriate with respect to Limerick (Klimn, Tr. 13980, 14061).
16C. The ErE study assunption of an average of three persons per vehicle for permanent residents is also consistent with NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 (Klimn, Tr. 17071-72). Inasmuch as three persons per vehicle
)
is only an average, it is realistic to assume that sczne vehicles will i
j carry nere or fewer than three passengers. Accordingly, tle Board does 1
i
- 11 _
not believe that the data cited by LEA fr a a prior draft of the Chester County plan, which shows a range above and below three passengers (LEA l
Exh. E-40; LEA FKp:::3 Finding 114), is in any way inconsistent with J
this. assunption.
j 16D.
As to LEA /ME's concerns regarding the assuned vehicle occupancy rate, spirical and historical data indicate the tendency of 4
families to unite prior to evacuation and to evacuate in the best available vehicle.
These data also. indicate that families will not utilize a second car to evacuate (Klim, Tr. 17041-42).
16E.
Inasmuch as the asstmption of three persons per vehicle is only an average, it is realistic to assune that vehicles with only one or two occupants would have excess capacity to transport friends or neighbors. Even if additional vehicles were loaded on to the evacuation network to au> - - -:-hte transportation-dependent individuals, that particular category comprises such a small percentage of total vehicle I
demand within the EPZ that slight variations would not affect evacuation
- )
i time estimates significantly (Klim, Tr. 13980-81, 17376-77).
Ntaber of Transportation-Dependent Individuals 16P.
LEA asserts that there is an inconsistency between the 1980 United States Census data reported in earlier draft plans and data reporting the results of general public surveys to determine the number of transportation-dependent individuals, ircluded in the most recent drafts.
In essence, LEA asserts that the difference between the two l
sets of data cannot be explained by a decision by those not owning a car to obtain rides from relatives, neighbors or friends (LEA Proposed Findings 139-140).
No valid ccuparison, however, is possible.
'Ihe l
census data cited by LEA is produced fra earlier plan drafts not in
evidence. There is no testimony to substantiate exactly what the census data represents or the purpcse for which it was collected. For exanple, the Board does not know how census information frcm " households" without personal transportation was translated into the number of transporta-tion-dependent individuals listed in the earlier draft plans (Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 17191 at p. 18-19).
16G. Additionally, numbers of transportation-dependent individuals contained in earlier plan drafts represent projections of only a sanple of the populace (Bradshaw, Tr.17349). Further, inclusion of all census data would result in double counting individuals who will be evacuated frcun other institutions for which planning exists, e.g.,
- schools, nursing hcznes and hospitals (Chester County /Ccenonwealth Exh. E-1, Annex I, Appendices I-2 and I-3; Appl. Exh.
E-3, Annex I, Appendix I-3).
IEA's assunptions are also flawed.
It assumes that all transporta-tion-dependent individuals within a particular municipality nest obtain a ride frcun residents of the same municipality.
LEA also assumes without any basis that the overall average of three persons per vehicle applies plus or minus zero to more populated, urban areas such as j
Phoenixville and Pottstown.
16H.
LEA's assertion that more buses would be r.eeded to evacuate transportation-dependent individuals (LEA Proposed Finding 141) exceeds the scope of the admitted contentions.
In any event, the Board rejects as unfounded any assumption that more buses would bc: needed for the reasons discussed above (Proposed Findings 16E-G).
The general public needs surveys taken by the risk counties were reasonably accurate and represent the most reliable information available (Canpbell, Tr.
1
19997-99, 20061-62; Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 17191 at p.
19, Tr. 17348, 17375-76).
- 11. On page 21 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 23:
In asserting that Tection 5 of the LTE study does not list a population category f r those returning to the EPZ, IEA apparently did not understand that the evacuation preparation and mobilization time assumptions for each population category provide a range of times, which includes those who will return to the EPZ before camencing their evac-uation.
- 12. On page 21 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 23:
Mobilization time for buses which evacuate transportation-dependent residents was included within the time frame for mobilizing the entire permanent resident category (Klim, Tr. 17261-62).
13.
On page 22 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 25A, 25B and 25C following Paragraph 25:
25A.
LEA attspted to infer a discrepancy between the one-hour mobilization period utilized in the LTE and the unit mobilization times stated by bus providers in the Montgcmery County plan (Appl. Exh. E-67,
- p. 5-3; Appl. Exh. E-3, Annex I, Appendix I-2). These two mobilization periods are not, as LEA assumes, identically defined. As noted, the ETE study's mobilization period of up to one hour includes travel time frcm a bus provider's garage to an assignment and loading time (Proposed Finding 25). Unit mobilization times under the Montgcmery County plan include the tim necessary to obtain drivers and have buses ready to depart frm a provider's garage.
The two time periods might overlap,
. t but are not congruent (Cunnington and Klimn, Tr. 17258-60, 12955).
'Ihus, unit mobilization information in the plan does not contradict the one-hour estimate in the ETE study for bus mobilization.
25B. Even if the ETE study had analyzed unit mobilization informa-tion in the Montgmery County plan, no different conclusion would have resulted.
Under the plans, the counties will notify bus providers at the alert stage (Chester County /Ccumenwealth Exh. E-1, Annex I, p. I-2; Appl. Exh. E-3, Annex I, p. I-2).
At the site energency and general emergency stages, the counties have the option to position buses at transportation staging areas (Chester County / Commonwealth Exh.
E-1, Annex I, pp. I-2, I-3; Appl. Exh. E-3, Annex I, pp. I-2, I-3). Accord-
]
ingly, the most likely scenario, which the ETE study accurately depicts, is that bus providers have been notified and buses are positioned at their assigned locations prior to an order to evacuate (Appl. Exh. E-67,
- p. 5-5).
25C.
Only a small minority (6 of 32) of bus providers for Montgmery County have stated that up to two hours will be necessary for unit mbilization.
Further, that tw> hour period represents a range to include up to the last bus provided and represents the highest estimated I
times during the day. Unit mobilization times for daytime requests do not exceed one hour (Cunnington, Tr. 12955-56; Appl. Exh. E-3, Annex I, Appendix I-2). The up to two-hour unit mobilization times stated by a minority of bus providers is therefore not inconsistent with the calcu-lation of a one-hour mobilization period cm mencing thirty minutes from notification of an evacuation (Cunnington, Tr. 17258-59; Klim, Tr.
17260-61). Even a 100 percent increase in the ETE study's mbilization i
i
time period for schools would not significantly increase evacuation time estimates (Klimn, Tr.17267).
- 14. On page 23 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 26A and 26B following Paragraph 26:
26A. The NRC Staff asserts that "[ilntervenor's concern about the asstaption in the mE study regarding assenbling transport vehicles and buses and loading students on the buses may in a ' worst case' situation have validity" (NBC Staff Proposed Finding 26b).
'Ihe only arguable support for this statement is that the Owen J. Roberts School District j
has experienced an isolated problen in obtaining four or five of its normal cmplement of 55 buses for unscheduled early dismissals.
'Ihe four or five buses generally do not arrive until an hour or so after the i
other buses have departed with students frcn school (Claypool, Tr.
15881).
26B.
The Board regards this as an insignificant incident against the strong weight of the evidence that buses have been prceptly fur-nished for unscheduled early school dismissals throughout the EPZ and 4
those non-EPZ school districts which have agreed to furnish buses (Proposed Finding 256). Also, the recent early dismissal at the Owen J.
Roberts School District did not involve the same notification and prepositioning procedures which would be utilized in a radiological i
emergency, and therefore does not provide a basis for an accurate ccuparison with bus driver mobilization in a radiological emergency.
Anple lead time by way of early notification is likely to exist in the event of a radiological emergency.
If any buses were to be late arriv-
'l ing, it would be known to county and/or school district staff.
Other i
buses could be dispatched (Cunnington, Tr. 16943-44).
In any event,
" worst case" scenarios simply do not constitute a valid planing ap-proach and, as recognized by the Staff (NPC Staff Proposed Finding 266),
would not affect evacuation time estimates in any event (Klim, Tr.
17260).
- 15. On page 23 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 27A following Paragraph 27:
27A.
LFA misinterprets Mr. Klinm's explanation of the asstrption in the ETE study of a zero base flow of traffic at the tim an evac-uation cmmences (LEA Proposed Findings 12-14). That assumption, which was intended to avoid counting the same vehicles twice, was not depen-dent upon any site-specific knwledge of traffic on evacuation corridors during an actual evacuation, including those in the Valley Forge Nation-al Park / King of Prussia area.
Normal traffic volume and dirtdion, though well understood, was not relevant to the zero base flow assump-tion (Klim, Tr. 13866-70).
- 16. On page 24 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the follwing sentence to the end of Paragraph 28:
Contrary to LFA's assertion that the Staff witness agreed that peak traffic flms should be included in the ETE study (LEA Proposed Finding 59), Dr. Urbanik simply stated generally that no information should be excluded. He cited no specific use or relevancy of peak-hour flows.
- 17. On page 24 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the follwing sentences at the erxl of Paragraph 29:
The ETE study did, in fact, simulate the flow of vehicles inbound l
to the EPZ, which would be distributed over a significant period of time, depending on the time of day, day of week and season (Klim, Tr.
14060).
It was determined that any intermittent queuing that might
3 occur inbound on Route 363 would nct affect the movement of outbound vehicles along that evacuation corridor (Klim, Tr.14060).
- 18. On page 25 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences at the beginning of Paragraph 34:
he ETE study took into account each of the traffic control points listed in Table 7.2 and assumed that those points would be manned (Kline, Tr.14083). Inasnuch as traffic control points were established by local authorities in developing their plans frce which HMM Associates took these basic data, this information was reliable (Klim, Tr.
13975-77).
- 19. On page 26 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences at the beginning of Paragraph 36:
Exi' sting Ccumonwealth traffic regulations will be enforced during an evacuation. We documented history of disaster responses shows that evacuations are generally orderly (Bradshaw, Tr. 13369-70).
- 20. On page 26 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 37:
As indicated, the achanisms necessary to establish and man addi-tional traffic control points beyond the EPZ are already in place.
Given the far greater number of traffic access and control points within the EPZ for which adequate arrangeants have already been made (Appl.
Exh. E-67, Tables 7.1 and 7.2), the Board sees no difficulty in estab-lishing other points beyond the EPZ.
- 21. On page 26 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 37A following Paragraph 37:
37A. IEA asserts that there has been a general lack of integrated planning for traffic control outside the EPZ.
No evidence is cited,
however, to support its theories that traffic control points cannot be established in time to handle evacuation flows or prevent access by non-evacuating traffic.
Nor is there any evidence which demonstrates any potential problem with traffic control arrangements created by inbound vehicles fra transportation staging areas.
Nothing supports LFA's assertion that it will be necessary to "[ shut] down major inter-state routes" or that other delays will interfere with the movement of inbound vehicles (LFA Proposed Finding 158).
- 22. On page 27 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 39:
With respect to queuing depicted in Appendix A-11, the fact that vehicles might be stopped on any particular link does not mean that there are not also vehicles moving on that link inasmuch as the appendix
]r is merely meant to provide a graphical representation of one particular time frame (Klim, Tr.14025).
- 23. On page 27 of Applicant's Propo. sed Findings, add the following sentence after the first sentence of Paragraph 40:
Although the impact of an evacuation outside the EPZ was not assessed in each instance, the inpact was assessed where it was de-1 termined that site specific inpacts in areas located adjacent to the EPZ might significantly affect evacuation times or where concern was expressed by the Ccanonwealth or counties (Klim, Tr. 13811, 13825-26, 13883, 13885, 13970-71).
- 24. On page 28 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Faragraph 42A following Paragraph 42:
42A. LEA relies upon the prefiled testimony of the FDR witnesses that they were unable to determine whether the areas of concern in this
contention adjacent to the EPZ were included in the IEE study (Asher and Kinard, ff. Tr. 20150 at p.
32; LEA Proposed Findings 33-34).
The Board,. however, has heard anple evidence to confim that those areas were indeed considered (Proposed Findings 40-71). 'Ihere is no evidence that the NIEVAC nodel utilized to prepare the ETE study excluded any relevant variable, including roadway network data pertinent to the area adjacent to the EPZ (Proposed Findings 40-42).
- 25. On page 31 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 53A l
and 53B following Paragraph 53:
53A.
Use of any one or more of the alternative feeder routes to the main evacuation routes would have no effect upon the evacuation time estimates, which are based upon anticipated traffic congestion along the I
main evacuation corridors, such as Route 100 Scuth (Klim, Tr.17052).
l Therefore, the condition of secondary roadways such as Redbone Lane is inconsequential to the reliability of the time estimates.
53B. LEA posited that problens would arise during an evacuation as a result of a change in the location of a reception center frm Exton Square Mall to the West Whiteland Township Building (LEA Proposed l
Findings 109, 113).
IDN Associates determined that this change would not affect the evacuation time estimates contained in the ETE study (K11mn, Tr. 13809) because:
(1) only about 50 percent of evacuating vehicles using Route 100 would stop at the West Whiteland reception center (Klim, Tr. 13807-08, 13813, 14075); (2) the exit fra Route 100 to the West Whiteland reception center is a* free right turn (Klim, Tr.
13808);
(3) the West Whiteland reception center is a considerable
)
distance outside of the EPZ (Klim, Tr.13809); (4) a reception center is merely a check-in location where a driver would pick up a strip map
~.
directing him to a mass care facility and would not remain for very long (Klimn, Tr. 14075-76, 14085); (5) the parking area of the West Whiteland l
Township Building is irrelevant in terms of the flow of evacuating traffic because the ETE study provides a considerable time frame over which arrivals and departures would occur; actual turnover, not the number of spaces available, would therefore define traffic capacity in that area (Campbell, Tr. 19930-31; Klimn, Tr.13812);
- 26. On page 32 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 56A following Paragraph 56:
56A. LFA erroneously asserts that it would take one hour to estab-lish traffic control points within the Valley Forge National Park because rangers assigned that responsibility would first be involved in notifying park visitors.
LFA overlooks the fact, however, that park rangers would notify visitors at the alert stage (Proposed Finding 56),
and that traffic control points are not activated until a general evacuation has been ordered (Appl. Exh. E-3, pp. K-2, K-3). Moreover, only one or two officers are necessary to man a traffic access or control point (e.g., Appl. Exh. E-3, Appendices K-2, K-4). Trus, only one or two rangers would be needed to man access control points at the intersections of Route 252 and 23 and Routes 363 and 23 (Proposed Finding 61).
The Board is satisfied that park rangers responsible for manning those points would give appropriate priority to that respon-sibility.
- 27. On page 36 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences to the end of Paragraph 70:
LEA's assertion that the ETE study did not account for evacuating traffic on Route 202 which travels west instead of east to the w
Schuylkill Expressway (LFA Proposed Finding 155.1) lacks merit. The ErE study expressly recognizes that evacuating traffic might utilize route 202 West, either by choice or as directed by traffic controllers (Appl.
E-67, pp. 6-1, 6-3).
- 28. On page 38 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 76A following Paragraph 76:
76A. Mr. Vutz did not disagree with the designation of the traffic control points for Schuylkill Township or assert that they had been inaccurately assessed in the ETE study (Vutz, Tr. 14457-58).
He was unprepared to recmmend adding further traffic control points to the Schuylkill Township plan without first consulting the police chief (Vutz, Tr. 14510).
Even if additional traffic control points were necessary, Schuylkill Tcunship has the capability to man those points (Mitz, Tr.14517).
29.
On page 41 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 85A following Paragraph 85:
85A.
IEA acknowledges that roadway capacity remains constant whether the traffic involves peak-hour flows or an evacuation flow (LEA Proposed Finding 48), but nonetheless attempts to establish that roadway capacity correlates differently with those flows (LEA Proposed Finding 49). The purported analysis is meaningless because roadway capacity is not a function of actual flow. Although capacity defines maximum flow, it does not determine the origin and destination of vehicles on the roadway and therefore provides no basis for cmparing peak-hour cmmuter flows with evacuation flows (Klinm, Tr. 17063-64).
- 30. On page 44 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences to the end of Paragraph 94:
1 31.
Although a number of buses more than those currently under agreement are necessary to inplement the one-lift principle contained in the Montgcmery County plan (Bigelow, Tr. 14366), the Board is well satisfied that the historical record dernonstrates the availability of those buses in an actual emergency, even absent formal prior agreenent (Proposed Findings 105-07, 122, 165-67).
- 32. On page 45 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 97A following Paragraph 97:
97A.
PDIA asserts that it was not provided either the form or actual copies of the bus provider letters of understanding used by Montganery County and therefore did not have an oppcrtunity to cannent on the adequacy of the form of agreement.
The testimony it cites, however, states only that the actual letters of understanding with bus providers were not contained in the draft of the Montganery County plan subnitted to PD!A in Novenber 1983.
This does not contradict Mr.
Bigelow's testimony that PDR was afforded an opportunity to review the letters of agreement utilized by Montgcmery County.
Even so, Mr.
Hippert, the lead PDR witness, was present throughout the hearing and certainly had ample opportunity to review those letters (e.g., LEA Exh.
E-4).
He nonetheless did not testify that the agreenent format was in any way inadequate.
j
- 33. On page 50 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 113A 1
follow 2.ng Paragraph 113:
113A.
Understandably, a number of school superintendents within the EPZ wished to know the source of buses that would be used to evacu-ate their schools in an actual emergency (e.g., Murray, Tr. 15083-84).
Anple credible testimony has been heard, nonetheless, that successful
school evacuation does not depend upon pre-assignment of buses to particular schools (Proposed Findings 110-113).
Thus, if there are a minimum number of buses available to evacuate all schools within the EPZ, the concerns of individual school officials as to the minimum number available for each school (e.g.,
Feich, Tr. 14949-52) will be met. Based upon the evident desire of each school district to adopt a workable plan (Proposed Firding 421), the Board is satisfied that the explanation of planning procedures for bus assignments by the Montgcmery County OEP will sufficiently inform and assure school officials that an adequate number of buses will be available. Further, contrary to LFA's assertion that school bus providers were initially uninformed that buses and drivers would be assigned for an evacuation related to Limerick (LEA Proposed Findings 350, 467), the record clearly shows that all providers were advised that a Limerick assignment would be made at the time of an actual radiological emergency (Proposed Findings 86, 111).
Providers were specifically informed that their buses would be assigned to a transportation staging area at which a school or other assignment would be made at the time of an actual emergency (Bigelow, Tr. 14186-90).
- 34. On page 57 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences after the first sentence of Paragraph 140:
A basic consensus between then exists as to the form of the agree-ment (Wert, Tr. 16582-83).
Mr. Wert further expressed his expection that the remaining details for an agreement to provide buses will be settled (Wert, Tr. 16612).
- 35. On page 57 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 141A following Paragraph 141:
l l
141A. As Vice Chairman of SEPTA and Chairman of the Chester County 4
Board of Ccunissioners -Mr.. Thcupson intends to utilize his dual po-sitions to assist Chester County and SEPTA in reaching an agreement as 1
to' the provision of buses in an anergency (hyson, Tr.18843).
The execution of such an agreeimuit by SEPIA management to provide buses in an energency would be sufficient assurance to Chester County that drivers would be available (hyson, Tr. 18814-15, 18820-21, 18824).
- 36. On page 58 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following j
sentence to the end of Paragraph 142:
SEPTA has stated its willingness to provide buses as they becane available (Wert, Tr.16578).
- 37. On page 58 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following I
j sentence to the end of Paragraph 143:
SEPTA expects that in an actual emergency, Chester County would request about 100 buses under the agreement (Wert, Tr.16584).
- 38. On page 59 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following l
sentences to the end of Paragraph 146:
While a union representative testified that only union enployees could drive SEPTA buses under the collective bargaining agreement (Tauss, Tr. 16752-53), he overlooked the authority of the Governor to ccmnandeer those buses and man them with any available drivers (Proposed Findings 145, 149; Ccanonwealth Proposed Findings 53-54).
In such a situation, anyone who could drive a 2h ton truck could drive a bus i
(Hippert, Tr.-19589).
l
- 39. On page 59 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 147A following Paragraph 147:
147A. PDR's asserts, however, that notwithstanding the agreements Chester County has executed with transportation providers its reported unmet need for buses still stands.
This constitutes an overly formalistic and unrealistic interpretation of the evidence. As clearly stated by Mr. Campbell, any unmet need reported by Chester County still exists only to the extent agrements have not been reached for that portion of the reported need.
Otherwise, the reported unmet need now constitutes a request for a reserve (Campbell, ff. Tr.19852 (correction sheet), Tr. 19874-75; Hippert, ff. Tr. 19498 at p. 11).
- 40. On page 59 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following citation to the end of Paragraph 148:
See generally Paragraph 395A, infra.
- 41. On page 60 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 150A following Paragraph 150:
150A.
IEA relied substantially upon the testimony of Mr. Fetters regarding availability of his bus service in an emergency (IEA Proposed Finding 257). The Fetters Bus Cmpany will not be utilized to evacuate school children. The Downingtown School District las only one school building within the EPZ, which will utilize sheltering even if an evacuation for the remainder of the EPZ is ordered.
Moreover, the Fetters Bus Cmpany is not among the assigned bus providers in the Chester County plan (Bradshaw, Tr. 12768-69, 16906-07; Petters, Tr.
14713-14).
- 42. On page 63 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences to the end of Paragraph 159:
Because school buses within the district would be stationed at the main campus at the alert stage (Appl. Exh. E-53, p. 6114.4 (L)), buses
would not have to travel through traffic frm parents picking up chil-
'l dren, as anticipated by Dr. Claypool. Additionally, the County Sheriff l
oculd deploy personnel to facilitate traffic control at schools within 1
i the district (Canpbell, Tr. 20036).
- 43. On page 63 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 159A following Paragraph 159:
159A.
As to the transportation needs for private schools within the EPZ, LEA presented evidence only as to a single school, the Kimberton Farms School, which has approximately 260 students.
The reported needs of this school, given available vehicles at the school, i
is correctly stated as three 72-passenger school buses in the Chester County plan (Dill, Tr. 16324; Appl. Exh. E-2, p. N-3-2).
Those unmet needs will be met on the same basis as other regt.ed needs in Chester County (Proposed Findings 136-139).
- 44. On page 64 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 163A following Paragraph 163:
163A.
Under the letters of understanding, the buses. and drivers which have been conservatively estimated by providers as available in an emergency would not necessarily correspond to other information con-tained in the bus provider surveys.
Differences between the survey information and the tentative Limerick assignments. in the Montgmery County plan, Annex I, necessarily exist where.there is already a con-tractual obligation on the part of a particular provider to transport students of a given school district, thereby conmitting all or part of the provider's fleet to that school district on a routine basis. Also, i
differences would exist given the. availability of buses at different i
i
times of the day, during the week and on weekends, and other factors affecting bus and driver availability (Bigelow, Tr. 14204-14215).
- 45. On page 67 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 171A following Paragraph 171:
171A. In this regard, LEA cited correspondence fran various school districts who were asked to execute letters of understanding for buses and drivers, noting the statements by various school officials that an
" absolute guarantee" of drivers could not be made because drivers, as volunteers, could refuse to participate (LEA Proposed Findings 469-473).
Absolute certainty, however, is not required; only " reasonable assur-ance" is necessary. Based upon the historic record, the small percent-age of total driver force needed to accomplish an evacuation, and the evidence of driver availability for early dismissals and other emer-gencies, the Board is satisfied that such reasonable assurance exists.
- 46. On page 69 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 178A following Paragraph 178:
178A.
Contrary to LEA's assertion (IEA Proposed Finding 395),
Applicant's consultant panel did not testify that the willingness of teachers to perfonn their duties in a radiological emergency is depen-dent upon the adequacy of the corresponding municipal plan.
Rather, it stated that those who participate in an energency have greater was confidence in the performance of their tasks when they are properly trained and informed as to the contents of the plan they are implenent-ing (Bradshaw, ff. Tr.12761 at pp.11-12, Tr.13061-62).
47.
On page 70 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 180A and 180B following Paragraph 180:
. 0 180A.
With respect to teacher participation at private schools, LEA presented the testimony of only one private school representative, Andrew Dill, faculty chairman of the Kimberton Farms School (Dill, ff.
Tr. 16356 at p. 3). While he expressed concern regarding the availabil-ity of teachers who drive the family's only car, there was no evidence that this is a pervasive problem (Dill, Tr. 16327-28).
Moreover, it does not appear to the Board that this is in any way a problem unique to this institution.
Like other transportation-dependent persons, those teachers could request publicly available transportation frm Chester County to evacuate their families or make prior arrangements for trans-portation by obtaining rides frm friends, neighbors and relatives (Dill, Tr. 16328-30; Proposed Findings 173, 177).
180B.
Further, none of the 28 teachers at the Kimberton Farms School has stated that he or she would not perform assigned functions at the school in the event of a radiological emergency (Dill, Tr.16331).
In the Board's view, the dozen or so faculty members whose children attend that school are especially likely to be available in an actual emergency (Dill, Tr. 16333). The Board believes that any other concerns expressed by Mr. Dill will be resolved as the school focuses more sharply upon the specific details of its plan (Appl. Exh. E-82).
- 48. On page 78 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 204A following Paragraph 204:
204A.
Dr. Worman knew of no other school district within the Cmmonwealth of Pennsylvania in which the terms of emergency plans for radiological accidents have been the subject of collective bargaining (Worman, Tr.
19353).
He was also unaware of any ruling by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board or any advisory opinion by the i
Pennsylvania Attorney General or any other Ccrmonwealth officer which has determined that a failure to negotiate the terms of radiological emergency response plans is a violation of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act (Worman, Tr.19356).
- 49. On page 79 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 207A following Paragraph 207:
207A.
Contrary to LFA's assertion that scune uncertainty in host school arrangenents exists (LFA Proposed Finding 381), the host school agreements between risk and host school districts clearly provide that risk school staff will remain with students until they are picked up by their parents (Proposed Finding 236).
The record is undisputed that this provides a satisfactory arrangenent (Comnonwealth Proposed Finding 74). Contrary to LFA's assertion (LFA Proposed Finding 381), there is no disagreement among school superintendents on this point. Only three host school agreements are yet to be obtained (Bradshaw, Tr. 17243-44).
- 50. On page 81 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 210A following Paragraph 210:
210A. Contrary to LFA's assertion, the radioactive plume would not be "inside" any building used for sheltering within a two-hour period (LEA Proposed Finding 643). Rather, based upon air exchange rates, the representative of the Division of Environmental Radiation, Bureau of Radiation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, stated that the inhalation pathway inside and outside the building would be essentially equivalent after two hours (Reilly, Tr.19396).
- 51. On page 81 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 210B following Paragraph 210A:
210B. Also, contrary to LEA's assertion that sheltering could not be utilized in an area of a building containing windows or doors, or in a building without a basenent (LFA Proposed Finding 670), the record anply demonstrates that any area of a building may be used for shelter-ing (Proposed Finding 210-214).
- 52. On page 82 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following subheading and Paragraphs 214A, 214B, 214C and 214D following Paragraph 214:
Necessity of School Evacuation Exercises 214A.
'Ihe NRC Staff asserts that "given the importance that FDR attaches [to school district capabilities to conduct an evacuation]
there should be a demonstration of school district capability to evacu-ate their students..." (NRC Staff Proposed Finding 214A). Initially, as the Staff correctly notes, the Ccunission's emergency planning requirements expressly exclude mandatory public participation in emer-gency planning exercises.
See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1.
These provisions preclude a licensing board frcm requiring public evacuation during an exercise.
Duquesne Light Cmpany (Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2), LBP-84-6, 19 NRC 393, 422-23 (1984);
Iouisiana Power and Light Cmpany (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), LBP-82-100,16 NBC 1550,1565,1582, (1982), aff'd, ALAB-732, j
17 NRC 1076,1108 (1983).
214B.
The Board is unaware of any other licensing case for a nuclear power plant in which a demonstration of a school' district's capability to evacuate students has been required as a condition of a license.
=
214C.
Moreover, the FDR witness who advanced this position testified that it was only his personal opinion that such an exercise should be conducted.
He knew of no provision, federal or otherwise, requiring mandatory public participation in drills and, in fact, agreed that the NBC's regulations provide that public participation is unneces-sary to the conduct of a full-scale exercise (Asher, Tr. 20291-93).
214D. More importantly, having fully reviewed the evidence as to how school evacuations would be conducted in an actual energency, the Board fails to see what an evacuation drill could accmplish.
The emergency evacuation of students frm schools is practiced or actually conducted routinely in fire drills, bus drills and bmb scares (Proposed Findings 235-39).
Unscheduled early dismissals, which require drivers to report with buses absent prior notice, are also routine (Proposed Findings 168, 256-257).
53.
On page 83 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 215A and 215B following Paragraph 215:
215A. The FDR witnesses testified that the "one-lift" standard is unique to Pennsylvania.
Contrary to the inplication of LEA that the standard detracts frm planning reliability (IEA Proposed Finding 322),
i the one-lift standard enhances planning and provides added assurance that a prcmpt end safe evacuation can be conducted because no bus is relied upon for more than one trip out of the EPZ.
215B.
IEA erroneously asserts that Applicant's witnesses agreed that bus drivers and school staff would have to re-enter the EPZ follow-l ing the evacuation of schools (LEA Proposed Finding 658).
To the contrary, Applicant's witness panel rejected such an assumption and considered that scenario only hypothetically to explain how dosimetry
. = _ = = - -. - -
- - + - - - _ --- - -. ~ -.
4..
issued to bus drivers under the postulated scenario would be utilized to estimate the dose of school-staff on the same bus (Bradshaw, Tr.
13699-700).
- 54. On page 84 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 219A 4
following Paragraph 219:
219A.
PDR erroneously asserts that in Chester County buses used i
for school evacuation will not pass through a transportation staging area.
Pecause sufficient buses have been identified to inplement a one-lift evacuation, it will be unnecessary for any bus to re-enter the j
EPZ, thus obviating the need to pass through a transportation staging area to receive a secondary assignment and dosimetry /KI.
If a second 4
assignment were necessary or a driver were unfamiliar with his initial assignment, however, the transportation staging area would be used (Campbell (Admitted Contentions), ff. Tr. 19852 at pp. 9-10; Chester i
j County /Ccumonwealth Exh. E-1, Annex I, pp. I-2, I-3).
- 55. On page 85 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following l
sentences after the first sentence cf Paragraph 225:
{
A thermoluminescent dosimeter measures the acctmulated radiation i
dose of the individual wearing it.
'Ihe self-reading dosimeters can be used to estimate the dose received by any other individual in close proximity to the wearer.
l
- 56. On page 87 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 231A following Paragraph 231:
I 231A.
PDE asserts that State officials did not " approve" the content of the lesson plans.
h Connonwealth acknowledges, however, that PDE reviewed and ccamented on those plans (Proposed Finding 231; Camonwealth Pig Finding 99). hre is no evidence that PDE found l
l
- =
any lisson plan inadequate.
tion with the approach or content of thIts represen a sfac-sive examination concerning those pla e lesson plans dur therefore finds that, in substance ns during the hearing.
The Board On page 88 of Applicant's Propos d, PD% ha 57 232A, 232B and 232C following Paragra h 2 Findings, add Paragraphs e
p 32:
232A.
Chester County conducted pre and assist in the evaluation and improvement post-training testing to of lesson plans (Canpbell, Tr.
19891-92).
It concluded that resulted in measurable educational gaitraining utilizin plans ns in all groups tested, though below the arbitrary standard selected by the (Campbell, Tr. 19891-92).
Chester County DES 232B.
The Board believes that inasmuch a ble for the testing and develognent s the individual responsi-offered for cross-examination to explaiof the " arbitrary stan and standards involved in those con l n the methodologies, assun personally lacked such knowledge c usions, and because Mr. Canpbell inference can be drawn frcm the t (Canpbell, Tr. 19892),
no particular est results.
232C.
In any event, tants have been revised to meet sthe lesson plans utilize ergy Consul-I Energy Consultants has agreed touggestions by Chester County D by Chester County, school districtscooperate in any retraining requ I
19987-88).
or individual schools (Canpbell, Tr 58 On page 89 of Applicant's Proposed Fi sentence to the end of Paragraph 235:
ndings, add the following This would meet the desire expre
" guided practice," or a de ssed by scme superintendents for monstration, which would involve a drill i n
addition to the training provided by Energy Consultants (Persing, Tr.
14857-60).
- 59. On page 94 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 252A following Paragraph 252:
252A.
The reference to available " units" in the bus provider survey forms underlying the Montgcznery County letters of understanding demonstrates the intent to provide a driver for each vehicle (Cunnington, Tr. 12959-60).
In one instance in which an agreenent provides that the bus provider does not suploy drivers, the provider has requested that the agreenent be modified to state that drivers will not be furnished (Cunnington, Tr.12973).
60.
On page 103 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 276A and 276B following Paragraph 276:
276A. Contrary to LEA's assertion (LFA Proposed Finding 531), the Berks County coordinator did not state that he was unaware of a purport-ed " responsibility" for reviewing day care facility plans.
Rather, he testified that municipal coordinators should provide that assistance as part of their overall responsibility to protect citizens within the municipality (Feber, Tr.19743).
276B.
PENA argues that it is a " necessity" that day care.facil-ities prepare an emergency response plan and that it is the "respon-sibility" of municipal emergency management coordinators to ensure that day care plans are ccmpleted (Ccunonwealth Proposed Findings 78, 85).
The testimony frcm county planning officials it cites for support, however, sinply states that it is Ccanonwealth policy that day care facilities develop the specifics necessary to formulate and inplement a plan.
No requirement that day care centers adopt such plans or that i
municipal coordinators ensure that such plans are ccanplete has been shown to exist. The official letter by the Ccmnonwealth Department of Public Welfare transmitting the model plaa to day care facilities states only that "[a] plan is needed to ensure the safety of children" and that the plan "should be sent to your municipal emergency managenent coordi-nator for review" (Appl. Exh. E-91).
The Board believes this is what PDiA means in referring to the " necessity" that day care facilities prepare a plan.
As noted, Mr. Hippert testified that neither the municipalities nor PD1A would routinely review such plans (Proposed Finding 276).
61.
On page 104 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraphs 279A, 279B and 279C following Paragraph 279:
279A.
Energy Consultants has not received any requests to train day care facility staff (Bradshaw, Tr. 13207).
There is nonetheless sufficient publicly available information, including the nodel day care plan, to prepare and implement plans to protect children at day care facilities (Bradshaw, Tr.13215).
279B.
In this regard, the Board is unclear as to what further information LEA asserts that planners should provide to day care facili-ty personnel (LEA Proposed Finding 503). It is undisputed that a public informational brochure is being developed and will be sent to all EPZ residents (Proposed Finding 178). Any other information specific to the needs of day care facilities can be obtained frcan Camonwealth agencies and municipal and county emergency coordinators (Proposed Findings 283-285).
279C.
Nor is the Board clear what " formal review training or ccumunication ccamand or accountability at the municipal, county, state
1 or federal level" (LFA Proposed Finding 505) IEA asserts to be missing.
Review of individual day care facility plans will be conducted upon request (Proposed Finding 276).
Notification procedures are in place (Proposed Finding 289).
Municipal and county emergency planners are jointly accountable for the implementation of plans necessary to protect the health and safety of day care facility children in the event of an actual emergency (Proposed Findings 271, 282-83, 285).
62.
On page 105 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 281A following Paragraph 281:
281A. Although the Board is satisfied that the general population public needs survey conducted in 1983 was sufficiently expansive to have prmpted a response from operators, directors or staff of day care facilities, or frm the parents of children attending those facilities, l
the evidence is undisputed that day care facilities within the EPZ have
]
been notified by forwarding them a copy of the model day care plan J
(Proposed Finding 280, 282).
IEA did not produce a single day care facility cwner or director who was unaware of the model day care plan.
Accordingly, the Board is amply satisfied that each identifiable facili-ty within the EPZ has been provided planning information and assistance to the extent deemed necessary by that facility (P1.@ sed Findings 281-85, 288).
4
- 63. On page 106 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences after the first sentence in Paragraph 284:
Nor is there any other evidence that day care facilities are having problems identifying and making arrangements with host facilities.
In any event, instructions provided facility directors clearly state that i
i l
.37 -
assistance frm local and county coordinators can be obtained (Proposed Findings 283, 285).
4 64.
On page 107 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 285A and.285B following Paragraph 285:
285A.
LEA incorrectly asserts that there is no way to determine i
whether day care facility transportation needs are reflected in the nunicipal plans (LFA Proposed Finding 497).
The record is clear that each day care facility has been included in nunicipal inplementing i
procedures for notification and transportation planning purposes (Proposed Findings 285-287).
I 285B.
Although the Pottstown Borough transportation officer erroneously believed that the borough would not have any responsibility for unmet transportation needs reported by day care facilities
]
(Mattingly, Tr. 17822-23), those needs would be reported to and dis-cussed with the borough's emergency coordinator, not its transportation i
officer (Proposed Finding 285).
Hence, the transportation officer's j
lack of knowledge does not indicate any shortcming in Pottstown in planning for day care facilities.
l 65.
On page 109 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 292A following Paragraph 292:
292A. Contrary to IEA's allegations of staffing deficiencies for day care facilities in the event of a radiological emergency (IEA Proposed Findings 512-514), representatives of only two day care facil-ities testified as to alleged staffing needs.
The testimony of those i
representatives as to the reasons or likelihood that other staff would be unavailable are entirely speculative and lack credibility- (Pivpvoeu l
Findings 306, 311).
Moreover, even those representatives acknowledged l
i
-- a
that a number of staff would be available (Proposed Findings 297, 306, 307).
The Board finds no basis to assume that staffing needs exist elsewhere.
- 66. On page 111 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence after the second sentence in Paragraph 297:
Although expressing sane reservations regarding staff availability, Mrs. Troisi ultimately agreed that if her facility had an approved plan, she felt sure that she would be able to work out any staff arrangenents necessary to provide for the safety of the children (Troisi, Tr.15822).
67.
On page 117 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 317A following Paragraph 317:
1 317A. The Camonwealth asserts that any unmet transportation needs for the Camphill Village Kimberton Hills, Inc. and Camphill Special Schools, Inc. "have not been passed through" to the county (Comonwealth Proposed Finding 119).
To the contrary, Mr. Campbell inferred fran recent plan changes that the transportation needs of those facilities are reflected in the current Chester County plan (Chester Coun-ty/Camenwealth Exh. E-1, pp. N-3-2, I-2-1, Campbell, Tr. 20005).
l
- 68. On page 118 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 319:
As a practical matter, however, the fact that the staffs of these facilities have not yet received trai ting is of no consequence because, as noted previously, those persons already know how to perform the basic tasks that would be required of then in an energency (Proposed Finding 319).
69.
On page 122 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 329A following Paragraph 329:
l l
i
329A.
While the existing plan for Camphill Special Schools, Inc.
refers to relocation sites within the EPZ (Appl. Exh. E-81,Section III), arrangements have been made to utilize the Devereaux School as a host facility in a radiological emergency (Canpbell, Tr. 20005-06; Bradshaw, Tr. 13470-71).
70.
On page 122 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 331A following Paragraph 331:
331A. No special evaluation is required or anticipated as to the adequacy of the Canphill Village facilities for sheltering. Under Annex E, such individuals would be treated as members of the general public and the decision to shelter would be made on the same basis as for the remainder of the general populace within the EPZ (Bradshaw, ff. Tr.
12761 at pp. 31-32; Proposed Findings 208-214).
71.
On page 123 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 334A following Paragraph 334:
334A.
LFA's argument relating to the location of dairy herds i
within the ingestion exposure pathway (LEA Proposed Finding 570) is clearly beyond the scope of any admitted contention.
72.
On page 130 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 353A following Paragraph 353:
353A. Contrary to LEA's assertion (ff. LEA Proposed Finding 593),
the evidence shows that fire cmpanies do maintain a roster of personnel for all assignments, including route alerting in a radiological energen-cy.
Periodic updating of personnel rosters is a standard operating procedure for fire cmpanies.
This ensures the availability of route alerting personnel frm fire cmpanies in the event of an actual ener-gency (Bradshaw, Tr.13655).
I f
i
73.
On page 141 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 383A following Paragraph 383:
383A. The Staff asserts that according "to information supplied by Energy Consultants, dated August 27, 1984, the staffing needs of most municipal EOC's had been dealt with through the assistance of Philadelphia Electric Cmpany personnel" (NBC Staff Proposed Finding 378D). That information does not reflect current staffing assignments.
The most accurate and current information as to municipal EOC staffing was provided by Applicant's consultant during the hearing.
As noted above, only about 50 of approximately 400 positions are filled by Appli-cant's employees (Proposed Finding 383).
74.
On page 141 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 384A following Paragraph 384:
384A. Despite the attspt by LFA to distinguish between " municipal and PECO volunteers" (LFA Proposed Finding 596), the record does not support any such distinction.
To the contrary, it demonstrates that volunteers employed by the Applicant are just as reliable and responsi-ble as any other volunteer (Proposed Findings 459-60).
75.
On page 144 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 394A following Paragraph 394:
394A.
LEA asserts that there are certain " mutual aid agreenents under develognent by local municipal coordinators," which still require municipal approval (LEA Proposed Finding 165).
To the contrary, the evidence establishes that arrangements are already in place, for exam-ple, for ambulance and fire department response across municipal and county lines (Proposed Findings 447, 455, 516).
76.
On page 145 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 395A following Paragraph 395:
395A.
While agrements are required for emergency planning, executed agreements are not necessary for a plan to work.
There are a number of emergency plans throughout Chester County for which there are no written ape.ccents or assurances frca support organizations.
Such emergency responses are based upon verbal ccumitments and the ccrmunity spirit of support organization members. During Ccmmissioner Thcapson's tenure in office, there have been a number of disasters or potential disasters, including one incident requiring the evacuation of about 500 people. In each instance, county and volunteer agencies demonstrated an exemplary ability to sustain emergency preparedness efforts over a period of time and had absolutely minimal problems without any prior written agreements. Accordingly, the absence of written agreements does not preclude the workability of the plan (Thcarpson, Tr. 18832-33).
77.
On page 146 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 397A following Paragraph 397:
397A. Contrary to IEA's assertion, local authorities do not retain
" ultimate authority" to declare emergencies, such as a serious nuclear power plant accident, which would affect several counties (IEA Proposed Finding 163).
Such authority resides in the Governor under Section 7301(c) and 7504(a) of P.L.1332.
78.
On page 149 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph
'e 403A following Paragraph 403.
403A. The Ccmmonwealth has officially reviewed each draft plan in full at least once in Der 1983 and provided written ecuments on those plans to the respective jurisdictions.
Previously, PDE had i
l
reviewed the protctype nunicipal and school district plans in 1982.
In addition, concern related to these plans have been discussed at plan-ning and coordination meetings involving PENA, the risk counties and Energy Consultants (Bigelow, Tr. 14150; Bradshaw, ff. Tr. 12761 at p.
- 4).
- 79. On page 155 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 420:
420A. Likewise, contrary to LEA's assertion (LEA Proposed Finding 167), nothing in P.L. 1332 mandates that a county delay forwarding its own plan to PENA for review until it receives all municipal plans.
- 80. On page 162 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences after the first sentence in Paragraph 443:
Mr. Skarbeck testified that he is President of the Council or Area Governments, a group of area nonicipalities which coordinates municipal efforts (Skarbeck, Tr. 17770).
While Mr. Skarbeck testified as to certain discussions among fellow municipal officers at meetings of the Council of Area Goverments (Skarbeck, Tr. 17770-74), that Council is not a " political subdivision" within the meaning of Section 7102 of P.L.
1332 and therefore has no responsibilities with regard to plan adoption or implementation under Section 7501 e_t _seg.
ti 81.
On page 170 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 466A and 466B following Paragraph 466:
466A. Other special facilities such as the Eagleville Hospital and St. Gabriel's Hall have their own separate plans (Appl. Exh. E-3, pp.
U-2, U-3).
Accordingly, there is no need for the Iower Providence
'Ibwnship plan to incorporate planning details for those facilities.
_m
. =
_ =
=-
o
- 466B. The use of the King of Prussia Plaza as a designated trans-portation staging area is not information significant to the adoption of the Imer Providence Township plan, contrary to IEA's assertion (LFA Proposed Finding 242).
- 82. On page 170 of Applicant's F45ad Findings, add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph 467:
l
'Iherefore, contrary to IEA's assertion (IEA Proposed Finding 224),
the postulated unavailability of ccanercial telephone lines in an actual emergency would not delay activation of necessary EOC personnel.'
i
- 83. On page 172 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following i
sentence to the end of Paragraph 470.
'Ihe South Coventry Board of Supervisors recognizes its responsibil-ity to pass unmet needs on to the county if the township itself cannot meet them (Whitlock, Tr.18491).
84.
On page 172 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 472A and 472B following Paragraph 472:
i 472A. The Board has given little weight to the concerns expressed l
by certain governmental officers, including Mr. Whitlock, as to the reliability of the general public needs survey. None of those persons demonstrated any particular expertise in energency planning or sanpling 1
techniques (Banning, Tr. 17637-39; Whitlock, Tr. 18383-84; Lowery, Tr.
18694-95).
Other goverrmental officials and the consultants who developed the survey testified that they have no reason to doubt the validity of the nunber of transportation-dependent individuals listed in i
I municipal plans (e.g., Brown, Tr. 18208; Proposed Finding 16H).
i
~
472B.
'Ihe Board also notes that estimates of transporta-tion-dependent individuals residing in the vicinity of other nuclear
- power plants in the. United States have been made without such surveys (Psf # Finding 286).
In any event, another survey of the Limerick EPZ will be taken within each of the risk counties (Proposed Finding 497). Given this and the undisputed testimony that in an actual emer-l gency the vast majority of persons obtain transportation frm private f
sources (Fivrised Finding 108), the Board is satisfied that there has been adequate planning to provide more than enough buses for transporta-tion-dependent individuals.
j
- 85. On page 173 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following i
j sentences to the end of Paragraph 476:
i j
476A. Contrary to LEA's assertion, there is no evidence that South f
Coventry Township would have to hire tow trucks to clear roadways in a f
I radiological emergency (Whitlock, Tr.18400). Chester County resources
- are anple (Proposed Finding 376).
j 86.
On page 176 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph l
483A following Paragraph 483:
j 483A.
Based on this record, it has been demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that the residents of South Coventry Township will I
be adequately protected by Chester County in the event of a radiological i
emergency at Limerick even if South Coventry does not participate in emergency planning as required by P.L. 1332. Accordingly, it is irrele-vant to our independent determination that Chester County and PENA i
further satisfy FENA to the same effect.
Any contrarir assertion (NBC 1
Staff Proposed Finding 483) is rejected.
j 87.
On page 185 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Par &yiaph i
j 506A following Paragraph 506:
1 1
i n---,,
-,n,,-
,e
~, - -.., -
---~~~-, -
506A.
There are nore than enough towing services available in Phoenixville. The only problem described by Mrs. August was a claim by i
see services that they were not getting enough business referrals frm l
the police department (August, Tr. 18953-54).
- 88. On page 186 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences to the end of Paragraph 508:
The Board also sees no basis in Mrs. August's suggestion that EOC volunteers execute an agreement.
Such a requirement does not exist under NUREG-0654, Criterion A.3, and, as Mrs. August concedes, the Phoenixville coordinator is in the best position to determine the qualifications of volunteers (August, Tr.18961). No other jurisdiction has required volunteers to sign agreements.
89.
On page 193 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add Paragraph 529A and 529B following Paragraph 529:
529A. Although the Board regards the Msorandum of Understanding between PDG and Bucks County (LEA Exh. E-61) as a useful frame of reference, execution of the Memorandum by the Bucks County Cmmissioners is not a prerequisite to adopting its plan.
Nor must it precede a finding by this Board that reasonable assurar.
exists that a workable plan can be inplemented in the event of a radiological mergency.
529B.
PDR asserts that the Bucks County Board of Camissioners has raised sme " legitimate" questions regarding the impact of an evacuation of approximately 24,000 persons fra Montgmery County on the safety and well-being of Bucks County residents and indicates that it
" acknowledges" those concerns (Hippert, ff. Tr.19498 at p. 5; Camon-wealth Proposed Findings 29-30).
There is no evidence, however, to establish that the Board of Cmmissioner's concerns require further
._ O planning or analysis under 10 C.F.R. 550.47, NUREG-0654 or Annex E.
The current Bucks County plan does ensure that its populace would not be l
adversely affected by the evacuation frcm Montgcmery County. A hypoth-esized spontaneous evacuation frcm Philadelphia is beyond any planning objective contained in the NRC's regulations or Annex E and therefore requires no further energency planning.
- 90. On page 195 of Applicant's Proposed Findings, add the following sentences after the first sentence of the unnurbered paragraph preceding Paragraph 535:
We have also considered all proposed findings of fact and con-clusions of law filed by the parties.
Those findings and conclusions not incorporated directly or inferentially in this decision are rejected as unsupported by fact or law or as unnecessary to this decision.
Respectfully subnitted, CONNER & ht;nMHAHN, P.C.
f
^
I Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols Counsel for the Applicant March 14, 1985 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of
" Applicant's Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Relating to Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions," dated March 14, 1985 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 14th day of March, 1985:
- Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section
- Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive
- Dr. Jerry Harbour Legal Director Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Hand Delivery
Atomic Safety and Licensing Angus Love, Esq.
Board Panel 107 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Norristown, PA 19401 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert J.
Sugarman, Esq.
Sugarman, Denworth &
Philadelphia Electric Company Hellegers ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
16th Floor, Center Plaza Vice President &
101 North Broad Street General Counsel Philadelphia, PA 19107 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 John L. Patten, Director Pennsylvania Emergency Mr. Frank R. Romano Management Agency 61 Forest Avenue Room B-151 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Transportation and Safety Building Mr. Robert L'.
Anthony Harrisburg, PA 17120 Friends of the-Earth in the Delaware Valley Martha W. Bush, Esq.
106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
Moylan, PA 19065 City of Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg.
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
15th and JFK Blvd.
325 N.
10th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Easton, PA 18064 Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Miss Phyllis Zitzer Associate General Counsel Limerick Ecology Action Federal Emergency P.O. Box 761 Management Agency 762 Queen Street 500 C Street, S.W.
Pottstown, PA 19464 Room 840 Washington, DC 20472 Zori G.
Ferkin, Esq.
Assistant Counsel Thomas Gerusky, Director Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Governor's Energy Council Protection 1625 N.
Front Street Department of Environmental Harrisburg, PA 17102 Resources 5th Floor Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Fulton Bank Bldg.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Third and Locust Streets Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 I
1 l
~
i James Wiggins Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-P.O.
Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 Mr. Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency B151 - Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17011 NI Ni'.s N.
Nichols
.