ML20111B696

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Limerick Ecology Action Contentions Re Offsite Emergency Planning. Plan Currently Being Developed Would Be Implemented in Event of Incident.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20111B696
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	03/06/1985
From:	Ferkin Z PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
CON-#185-996 OL, NUDOCS 8503130196
Download: ML20111B696 (53)

Text

_ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

-% ~ .

w I L , ;-

.~. l m.-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

$$" EJ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMK!.SSION -

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'65 f.;;7 7 7 n,.,2:14 ,

In the Matter of ) gg ,,

) ccf: X ' C=c:. .. ,

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-3!i2 9 C Od;l_f*

)50-35f"d 6 c.

(Limerick Generating Station, ) j.

Units 1 and 2) ) g M

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PROPOSED FINDINGS -Lj ON LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION CONTENTIONS ON OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.754 and the Licensing Board's order (Tr. 20, 187), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby files its proposed findings with regard to contentions on offsite emergency planning.

INTRODUCTION Under Pennsylvania law, the Commonwealth and each political subdivision within the Commonwealth must prepare emergency response plans for all types of emergencies.

Radiological emergencies related to nuclear power plants are included in this requirement. Each political entity's plan must be consonant with the plan of the jurisdiction which encompasses it and must ultimately be consonant with the state plan. See generally Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Act, P.L. 1332, codified in 35 Pa.

C.S.A. Section 7101 et seq. ("P.L. 1332").

Pursuant to P.L. 1332, the Commonwealth by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), has l prepared what is commonly known as " Annex E", the Disaster 8503130196 850306 PDR O ADOCK 05000352' eo 3 .

Operations Plan for Fixed Nuclear Facility Incidents in Pennsylvania. See Commonwealth Ex. E-1. County and i municipal governments and school districts within the Limerick Generating Station plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (" plume EPZ") as defined by the Commonwealth in Annex E are currently in the process of preparing their own radiological emergency response plans (RERP). for incidents at the Limerick station. The Commonwealth reviewed drafts of these plans in late 1983 and will review further draft county, municipal and school 4

district plans for adequacy and implementability and

! consonance with Annex E. The Commonwealth will also review

] the plans when they are " final," that-is, accepted by their respective jurisdictions pursuant to P.L. 1332.

In conjunction with its role as an interested governmental participant in this proceeding under 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c), the Commonwealth participated in hearings on LEA's contentions. The Commonwealth presented the testimony of eight (8) state officials and two (2) risk county emergency management coordinators (Robert Reber, Timothy Campbell) on all contentions except LEA-24/F0E-1.

Based on the record and the current status of its review of Limerick offsite RERPs, the Commonwealth does not-choose to certify at this time that the plans are adequate i

and capable of being implemented. See Proposed Finding 17.-

1

[ It is clear from the record that certain unmet planning i needs exist, and the Commonwealth and the affected local

governments are working to fill those needs pursuant to and in accordance with P.L. 1332. These unmet needs notwithstanding, it is the Commonwealth's position that, should an emergency occur at Limerick, the plans currently under development would in fact be implemented.

The Commonwealth relies herein primarily on testimony and exhibits by Commonwealth and county officials. Where possible, and in the interests of developing a full record for the Board, the findings address specific proposed findings of the Applicant filed on February 19, 1985. The .

Commonwealth's findings address the issues on this record to the extent possible within the limits of the Commonwealth's resources. Failura to address each and every Applicant proposed finding herein does not necessarily signify acceptance of such finding on the Commonwealth's part. The Commonwealth expressly reserves the right to participate fully in fJrther proceedings on these matters in accordance with its rights under 10 C.F.R.

Section 2.715(c).

LEA-1

1. The Commonwealth, through the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and the risk counties in the Limerick EPZ (Berks, Montgomery, Chester) have been involved in emergency response planning for incidents at the Limerick Generating Station since 1981. Local officials have been included in planning efforts. See Campbell, Tr. 19,948-49. Under P.L. 1332, PEMA provides advice and assistance to county and local governments and reviews these entities' plans. See P.L. 1332, Section 7313(4). Compare Applicant Proposed Finding 402.

1.a. Between September and November 1983, PEMA reviewed draft RERPs submitted to it by the three risk counties (Berks, Chester, Montgomery) as well as draft municipal and school district plans provided through the respective risk counties. PEMA provided comments and recommendations to .

the risk counties regarding the draft plans. Hippert, fol.

Tr. 19,498 at 1.

2. Subsequently the counties, municipalities and school districts were requested to revise their draft plans in accordance with PEMA's comments. Id. at 2; Hippert, Tr.

19,504, 19,508.

3. In accordance wiht this Board's May 16, 1983 Order, in December 1983 PEMA transmitted the revised drafts to the intervenors, but did not have time to review the revisions before distribution. See LEA Ex. E-1; Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 2; Hippert, Tr. 19,504.

4. In view of this distribution, PEMA submitted the revised drafts to Region III of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for informal review under the provisions of 44 C.F.R. Part 350. PEMA since has not transmitted any further drafts of these plans to FEMA for review. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 2; Hippert, Tr.

L -

19,516, 19,518.

5. With certain exceptions, PEMA has not reviewed, and is not now in the process of reviewing, Applicant Exs. E-1 through E-61, the " latest" draft county, municipal and school district RERPs for Limerick. The exceptions to this are the Berks and Montgomery County risk county plans (Appl. Exs. E-1, E-3). These plans were officially submitted by the respective counties to PEMA for review and are currently being reviewed for adequacy, implementability and consonance with Annex E. Hippert, Tr. 19,507, 19,516, 19,595, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 2-3. Compare FEMA Ex. E-3. ,

PEMA is also reviewing the most recent draft of Chester County's plan, Draft 10. See Chester County / Commonwealth i

Ex. 1. PEMA has thus not made " numerous reviews" of these draft RERPs, as asserted in Applicant Proposed Finding 403.

6. PEMA will not review municipal or school district RERPs unless such plans are submitted to PEMA through the counties and with authority of the respective jurisdictions. Hippert, Tr. 19,507, 19,516, 19,956-97; Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 2-3.

7. Pursuant to its Memorandum of Understanding with the NRC, FEHA is reviewing Applicant Exs. E-1 through E-61 and Will provide the NRC with findings and determinations as to the adequacy and implementability of these plans by May 1, 1985. See LEA Ex. E-71. Accordingly, PEMA has asked the risk counties to forward the latest draft municipal and l l

school district plans to PEMA for review. See Commonwealth 1

1 }

Ex. E-13; Hippert, Tr. 19,509-10. PEMA is concerned that the respective jurisdictions be aware of the Commonwealth's role in review and distribution of these draft plans and of the federal review by FEMA and the NRC. Hippert, Tr.

19,510-12, 19,573, 19,597-98. See also Commonwealth Ex.

E-13.

8. With the exception of South Coventry Township in Chester County, PEMA believes the municipalities and school districts will submit their plans to the counties, and ultimately to PEMA for an informal review in conjunction -

withh the ongoing FEMA review. Hippert, Tr. 19,600.

9. South Coventry Township is the only municipality in the Limerick plume EPZ that did not participate in either the July 25 or November 20, 1984 exercises of the Limerick REFPs. The Township has not participated in emergency plan development for some time, subsequent to its involvement in a lawsuite with PECo over installation of the siren public notification system in the townnship. Whitlock, Tr.

18,386-87, 18,512. South Coventry has not reported to Chester County on the availability of its resources for

, emergency response activities, and did not contribute to the " current" draft of the township plan put forth by i

Applicant in this case. See Appl. Ex. E-35; Campbell, Tr.20,00G10; Whi tlock , Tr. 18,385, 18,388-89. Given that South Coventry has not participated inn the planning process for some time, it has not transmitted any unmet l needs for resources to Chester County. Campbell, Tr.

20,009.

10. To the extent unmet needs do exist in South Coventry, PEMA will work with Chester County to meet them. Hippert, Tr. 19,610-11.

11. South Coventry Township has approximately 1,500 residents. It does not have its own fire company, but receives firefighting services under contract from the Ridge Fire Company in East Coventry Township. Whitlock, Tr. 18,378-80, 18,449, 18,452, 18,459, 18,512; Campbell, Tr. 19,973-74. ,

12. It is possible for Chester County to meet at least some of the needs South Coventry would have in a radiological emergency, either through assignment of county personnel, enlistment of personnel from other jurisdictions, or county assumption of functions such as communications. Such functions as route alterting and communications cc;1d be assumed and/or coordinated at the county level. Campbell, ,Tr. 19,791-79, 20,010-11.

13. Under P.L. 1332, PEMA and Chester County can take action to protect the citizens of South Coventry Township in a state of disaster emergency. Absent active township

., participation in the planning process, county resources could be committed to protect the township citizens.

Taylor, Tr. 19,613; Hippert, Tr. 19,582-83; Thompson, Tr.

18,857, 18,86f; Campbell, Tr. 19,971-79, 20,010,11.

14. None of the draft municipal or school district plans that have in fact been reviewed by PEMA were accepted,

. _ _ _ ._ .. . =:_:-...;.:_.-._..___ -

approved or adopted by their respective jurisdictions. Any updated report on the adoption status of these plans must come from the risk counties of the respective municipal and

! school district plans prior to transmittal.by the counties

to PEMA. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 3.

, 15. None of the three risk or two support (Bucks, Lehigh) county plans reviewed in December 1983 by PEMA has been accepted or approved by its respective Board of Commissioners. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 3. The same is true with regard to the current' Berks, Montgomery and .

Chester County draft plans now under review by PEMA. See Appl. Exs. E-1, E-3; Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1; i

Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (Deferred) at 1; Reber, Tr. 19,771.

16. In addition to and apart from this Board's review of 3

LEA's contentions and the NRC's determination of the

adequacy of offsite RERPs for Limerick is the process for formal plan review and approval imposed upon FEMA and the

] Commonwealth by 44 C.F.R. Part 350. In that connection the

{ Commonwealth is required by Section 350.7(d) to submit the l

plan to FEMA for formal review and approval and in so doing I

. to certify that the offsite plans are " adequate to protect

. the public health and safety of its citizens living within the emergency planning zone ( )..." Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 3.

16a. Political subdivisions within the Commonwealth must l also prepare, maintain and keep current emergency response plans in consonance with the state plan. P.L. 1332,

! _g_

i Sections 7501, 7503.

17. The Commonwealth, through PEMA, will not make a statement evaluating the adequacy and implementability of i the Limerick offsite RERps, or submit them to FEMA for formal. review and approval, until (1) a joint exercise acceptable to FEMA has been conducted, i.e. any " Category

, A" deficiencies identified by FEMA have been corrected

(Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 4; Tr. 19,522-23); (2) a

) public meeting is held pursuant to 44 C.F.P.. Section l

350.10; and (3) finalized risk municipal and school ,

district plans are reviewed by the respective counties to i

l ensure consonancy with those plans, and submitted by the 4

counties to PEMA together.withh the county plans, including a promulgation page indicating whether the plans have been accepted by the respective governing board of the various l entities. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 4.

i

18. No date is yet established for the public meeting on the Limerick RERPs. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 4; Tr.

i 19,524-25.

4 19. FEMA agrees that local plans should not be submitted for formal review under 44 C.F.R. Part 350 until the respective jurisdictions have actually adopted the plans, or agreed to their content and expressed a willingness to carry them out. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr. 20,150 i

j (Deferred) at 1-2.

20. Berks- County does not intend to prepare another

! complete draft RERP. Once appropriate revisions have been i

-9

4 l

i

-made, it will be submitted to the County Commissioners for i approval. Reber, Tr. 19,847. If an incident were to occur tomorrow at the Limerick station, Berks County would implement the current draft plan, supplemented with the County's overall disaster plan and resource manual. Reber,

Tr. 19,771, 19,792.

21. Chester County intends to approve an RERP prior to i Applicant's receipt of a full-power operating license for

] Limerick Unit 1. Thompson, Tr. 18,829-30. See also Campbell, Tr. 19,883, 19,960. The principal obstacle- to .

plan adoption at this point is the lack of written agreements for bus and ambulance services. Thorapson, Tr.

18,160; Campbell, Tr. 19,883. Further, Chairman Thompson i

i indicated that county plan adoption would await plan approval from the various municipalities. Thompson, Tr.

18,861. If an incident were to occur at Limerick tomorrow, Chester County would use Draft 10 to respond, supported by 4 the basic county plan. Campbell, Tr. 19,957-58; Thompson, Tr. 18,861.

LEA-2

22. Deficiencies in staffing levels of certain municipal and risk county emergency operation centers (E0C) were i

noted by FEMA in the July 25 and November 20, 1984 exercises. See FEMA Exs. E-4, E-5,

23. Berks County municipalities continue to recruit and train staff for their E0Cs. Deficiencies noted by FEMA in

_1g_

i a

the county E0C itself following the July 25 exercise have been filled. Reber, Tr. 19,799-800. Of the seven municipalities in Berks County, five have sufficient staff for a 24-hour response. Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (Deferred) at 2; Tr. 19,773. ,

24. In Boyertown, Berks County, only a Deputy Transportation Officer is needed. Mr. Reber sees no obstacle to filling th's slot. Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 l

(Deferred) at 2; Tr. 19,800.

25. Union Township in Berks County needs to fill 10-12 ,

positions for a full 24-hour shift, 5-6 persons per shift.

l While Union Township's Emergency Management Coordinator

! believes an extensive E0C staff is necessary, Mr. Reber is of the opinion that the E0C staff need only be minimal.

Reber, Tr. 19,776-77. Certain E0C staff functions could be combined to reduce staffing needs. Reber, Tr. 19,801-03.

Further, the Berks County E0C could perform notification, communications, traffic control and route-alerting coordination functions in support of Union Township.

Reber, Tr. 19,808-10. Mr. Reber has discussed these needs with the Union Township EMC and has provided her information on sources of additional staff. Reber, Tr.

19,776-77; LEA Ex. E-62. lie has alsu brought the Union Township staffing matter to the attention of the township Board of Supervisors. Reber, Tr. 19,782.

25a. Chester County has a full 24-hour staff for its E0C.

Campbell, Tr. 19,990-91. There are unmet E0C staff needs

I in some townships in the county. Campbell, Tr. 20,022.

Local coordinators are actively recruiting personnel to

. meet staffing requirements. If these efforts fail, these needs would be addressed through the established Commonwealth channels for meeting unmet emergency response resource needs. Campbell, Tr. 20,040-41, 20,080-81. South Coventry township is not included in the list of " actively recruiting" townships. Campbell, Tr. 20-091-92.

25b. Applicant preferred evidence regarding fulfimment of remaining municipal staffing deficiencies. See Bradshaw, ,

fol. Tr. 17,191; FEMA Ex. E-3. To the extent that information has not yet been transmitted to the Commonwealth through official channels, the Commonwealthh is not in a position to comment whether staffing neds are satisfied therein. See Bradshaw, Tr. 20,341, 20,345.

LEA-3

26. The Bucks County RERP provides support services, including facilities for reception and mass care of evacuees from Montgomery County. See Appl. Ex. E-4.

27. The Bucks County Commissioners were presented Draft 4 of the Bucks County RERP, dated October 1984 (Appl. Ex.

E-4). The Commissioners rejected it. McGill, Tr. 20,369, 20,373-74.

28. Bucks County participated in the supplemental exercise held November 20, 1984. FEMA evaluated its performance, a -.

l 1

and found the county did an adequate job of implementing its plan. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr. 20,150 (update) at 1.

See also McGill, Tr. 20,368, 20,386-87.

29. The Bucks County Board of Commissioners has raised some legitimate questions regarding the impact of an evacuation of approximately 24,400 persons from Montgomery County on the safety and well-being of Bucks County residents. PEMA acknowledges the Commissioners' concerns.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 5; McGill, Tr. 20,369, 20,373.

Compare Applicant Proposed Finding 529. .

30. The Director of PEMA and the Chairman of the Bucks i County Board of Commissioners met on November 7, 1984 to discuss the Commissioners' concerns. Hippert, Tr. 19,527, 19,534. See LEA Ex. E-53. As a result of the meeting, PEMA prepared a memorandum of understanding which outlines PEMA's understanding of the concerns the county has i

regarding its plans. LEA Ex. E-61; Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 5, Hippert, Tr. 19,529. Specifically, PEMA believes the county is asking that provisions be made in i

the plans to ensure that the Bucks County populace is not adversely affected by the evacuation from Montgomery County, or a spontaneous evacuation from Philadelphia. See LEA Ex. E-61. The Commissioners have not yet acted on the Memorandum of Understanding. In the opinion of the Bucks County Emergency Management Coordinator, Charles McGill, the Commissioners may not take action pending resolution of the ASLB hearings as well as issues related to the

i supplemental cooling water supply for Limerick. See Comm. '

Ex. E-11; McGill, Tr. 20,379, 20,378, 20,396, 20,402.

32. The Commonwealth believes Bucks County would not refuse to cooperate in the event of an accident at Limerick. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 5. This belief is borne out by the subpoenaed testimony of the Bucks County Emergency Management Coordinator, Charles McGill, who stated his conviction that if an accident happened at Limerick, Bucks County would do all it could to fulfill its support county function. McGill, Tr. 20,382, 20,402. ,

33. Bucks County has indicated its desire to receive funds available under Pennsylvania state law ("Act 1984-147") to defray expenses incurred by risk and support counties in developing radiological emergency response plans and related preparedness. As such, Bucks County must continue to be a support county. Hippert, fol, Tr. 19,498 at 6.

34. PEMA intends to work with Bucks County to alleviate the county's present planning concerns before current draft i plans are finalized. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 6.

LEA-5

35. P.L. 1332 does not explicitly mandate letters of agreement with energency response organizations.

Consistent with 10 C.F.R. 50.47 (b)(3) and NUREG-0654, C.4, however, certain letters of agreement with support organizations will be included in Annex T of county plans.

14 -

A

f f

4 t

. Appropriate letters of agreement between municipalities and school districts and emergency- response organizations will be included in the respective plans. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr. 20,150 (Deferred) at 7; Campbell, Tr. 20,090.

36. In the view of'the county coordinators, letters of agreement are needed where an organization is not a

< government agency, or is not already obligated by law or contract to fulfill an emergency function. For example, ambulance services and other public service organizations do not require written agreements.. Neither do tow truck ,

operators, because counties routinely dispatch them, or service stations. Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (Deferred) at 2-3. Police, sheriffs, and volunteer fire departments have '

i either a law enforcement or contractual obligation to respond in emergencies, so letters of agreement would not be required. Campbell, Tr. 20,098. Letters of agreement i

would be required with such organizations as mass care centers (absent an existing Red Cross agreement), reception centers, emergency worker decontamination stations, and transportation staging areas. Campbell, Tr. 20,057, 20,090.

f 37. The Berks County plan contains letters of agreement with bus providers and the RACES organization. Host school agreements have been completed. Agreements for mass care and decontamination centers are also contained in the county plan. See Appl. Ex. 1; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729

, (Deferred) at 2-3.

i

38a. Chester County continues efforts to obtain written agreements with support agencies and organizations.

Agreements for reception centers at Stetson Middle School and Morgan Corporation have been signed. Although the County has a reception center agreement with Exton Mall, the County is changing the center to the West Whiteland Township Building in view of traffic and facility considerations. Use of the township building has been approved. Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (Deferred) at 3; Tr.

19,928-31; Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1, Annex T. ,

LEA-11

39. In the Commonwealth, should an evacution of schools in the plume EPZ become necessary, arrangements must be in place to ensure the action can be accomplished in a timely manner by using one lift, rather than multiple bus trips.

Hippert, fol, Tr. 19,498 at 9. This procedure provides 3

reasonable assurance that school children will be adequately protected. Asher, Tr. 20,325.

40. The initial step in determining transportation resources is for each risk school district to determine how many buses it will require and the number that are readily available, taking into account whether the buses are owned by the district or provided by an outside supplier. The i

risk county' is then informed of the school district's

resources and any shortag s or " unmet needs." Hippert, 1

1 fol. Tr. 19,498 at 9.

41. If the risk county cannot meet these shortages from within the county, the county reports its total school bus shortages as an " unmet need" to PEMA. Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 9.

42. In accordance with P.L. 1332, PEMA, on behalf of the Commonwealth and in coordination with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penndot), is responsible for making feasible and effective arrangements to ensure reported unmet needs for school evacuatior will be filled. .

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 10.

43. PEMA will seek to fill these unmet needs by arranging to utilize bus resources from counties outside the plume EPZ. Failing this, PEMA will solicit assistance from FEMA in securing transportation resources from adjoining states.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 9.

44. Unmet transportation needs for the Limerick plume EPZ have been reported by Chester County to PEMA. In September 1984, that need was reported to be 134 buses, and was reflected in the thon-current draft of the Chester Couunty RERP. See Appl. Ev. E-2; Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 10-11; Hippert, Tr. 19,545-46. Draft 10 of the Chester County plan, dated January 1984, reflects an unmet need of 132 buses. 80 of these are for school evacuation. See Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. E-1, Annex Q, Annex N, App.

3; Campbell, Tr. 19,980.

45. Montgomery County has not reported unmet J

l l

transportation needs for the evacuation of schools.

Montgomery County's current draft plan, which has been submitted to PEMA for review, ind'icates Montgomery County can meet its need for 387 buses from within the County.

See Appl. Ex. E-3. The Montgomery County plan does not contain copies of letters of agreement with bus providers; however, the evidence on this record shows that some form of written agreement exists with most of the listed bus providers, and the balance are under development. Hippert, fol, Tr. 19,498 at 11; Hippert, Tr. 19,545-48; Bigelow, Tr. .

14,416.

45a. Contrary to Applicant Proposed Findings 97,103 and 432, PEMA was not provided either the form or actual copies of the letter of agreement used by Montgomery County for bus providers, and therefore did not have an. opportunity to comment on its adequacy. Bigelow, Tr. 14,416; Bradshaw, Tr. 13,567. -

46. Chester County has four (4) written agreements for 70 school buses and drivers. See LEA Exs. E-63, 64, 65, 66; Campbell, Tr. 19,849-54, 19,861-63, 20,033. Chester has two (2) additional written agreements for 13 coach buses, 2 small buses and 10 vans. Campbell, Tr. 19,856; LEA Exs.

E-67, E-68.

47. Notwithstanding the agreements Chester County has executed, the reported unmet need for buses by the county still stands. Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (correction i sheet); 19,874-75. Applicant Proposed Finding 147 a

mischaracterizes Mr. Campbell's testimony in this regard.

48. Chester County continues to attempt to obtain '

agreements with the balance of bus providers in the county.

These include both private bus companies and school districts. Campbell, Tr. 19,866, 19,868-69, 19,872, 19,982-83, 20,023-24. Many bus providers, including SEPTA, have made verbal commitments of as many buses as available should they be called upon in an actual emergency. 545 buses in all have been identified in Chester County.

Campbell, Tr. 19,981-82.. .

49. The written agreements Chester County has executed with bus providers were based on the understanding that providers will supply the number of buses indicated. See

, Campbell, Tr. 20,033, 20,040.

50. The logical source for the balance of bus resources needed by Chester County is the Southeastern Pennsylvania 1ransportation Authority (SEPTA). SEPTA maintains approximately 1500 buses to serve Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, Chester and Philadelphia counties. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 11-12; Tr. 19,553; Wert, Tr. 16,574-75.

According to SEPTA's deputy general manager, Robert Wert, SEPTA employs about 4000 persons in its transportation department who are drivers or licensed to drive buses.

Wert, Tr. 16,611.

51. SEPTA bus commitments are being sought from two directions. Hippert, Tr, 19,550, 19,552. The Chairman of 4 the Chester County Board of Commissioners, Robert Thompson, is Vice-Chairman of SEPTA. Thompson, Tr. 18,808, 18,810-11. Chester County is negotiating an agreement with SEPTA. Thompson, Tr. 18,810-11; Campbell, Tr. 19,875. On January 23, 1985 SEPTA's Board adopted a resolutic.

authorizing its general manager to enter into an agreement with Chester County for emergency bus services for the County. See Commonwealth Ex. E-12. Although there are no SEPTA depots specifically in Chester County, buses could be provided from other depots. Wert, Tr. 16,592, 16,633.

52. On the second front, PEMA and PennDot are developing a ,

proposed agreement which could provide for filling the unmet needs. See Hippert, Tr. 19,552, 19,555. When the proposed agreement is completed, PEMA and PennD0T, in conjunction with Chester County will meet with SEPTA, and aid in consummation of an agreement, based on the terms developed by the Commonwealth, between Chester County and SEPTA. Hippert, fol, Tr. 19,498, at 12; Tr. 19,552, 19,555.

53. The Governor is authorized under P.L. 1332 to commandeer any private property, including transportation resources, to cope with a disaster emergency. Hippert, Tr.

19,591; Thompson, Tr. 10,853. To the extent private property is in fact commandeered for this purpose, Section 7313(10) of P.L. 1332 indicates that arrangements are to be made for payment for its use. Hippert, Tr. 19,590-91, 19,602-03. The Governor's power to commandeer property includes a provision that compensation will be made when

- n ._ -. -

J

such a requirement is applicable. P.L. 1332, Section 7301(f)(4); Hippert, Tr. 19,589, 19,591.

54. An agreement between Chester County and SEPTA would ,

i obviate the need for the Goveror to commandeer buses to i meet the evacuation needs of Chester County. Nonetheless, the procedures being developed by PEMA and Penndot would be invoked in support of the Goveror's order to commandeer I

buses consistent with the provisions of P.L. 1332, including provision for reimbursement of expenses. These

! procedures could be used not only at Limerick, but for .

) transportation services for any other emergency in the

! Commonwealth. Hippert, foi, Tr. 19,498 at 12; Tr. 19,591, 19,601-04.

55. In the view of the Commonwealth, the need for buses to

{ evacuate schools in the Limerick EPZ can be resolved.

Hippert, Tr. 19,577, 19,617.

j 56. Based on its expectation that unmet needs have been

identified and will be fulfilled, and based on the bus resources identified in Draft 10, Chester County believes 1

l it could implement a one-lift evacuation. Campbell, Tr.

I 19,995-96.

57. Reimbursement for bus providers could come from insurance, the utility, the Price Anderson Act, or the Commonwealth under P.L. 1332. Hippert, Tr. 19,602-03; l Appl. Ex. E-102. Pennsylvania Act 1984-147 is not intended

to be a source of funds for reimbursement of emergency service providers. Hippert, Tr. 19,603. Compare Applicant s

, - 21 l

i

Proposed Findings 103, 171.

LEA-12

58. The availability of teachers and school staff is a

question that must be resolved at the school district level

in regard to any major disaster, man-made or natural.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 14. The position of the Pennsylvania Department of Education on this issue was repesented in the hearings by Deputy Secretary Dr. Michael ,

Worman, fol. Tr. 19,329; Worman, 19,374-74.

59. School districts in the Commonwealth have authority to adopt rules and regulations setting forth teacher responsibility during the period students are in school, as well as time spent coming to and from schools. This would include therefore the authority to set rules and regulations establishing teacher responsibility during an evacuation. Worman, fol. Tr. 19,329 at 2. Such rules should be in written form and made known to the employee.

Id. at 3.

60. Any school district evacuation plan must be consistent with the plan developed by the encompassing political subdivision under P.L. 1332. See Worman, fol. Tr. 19,329 at 2.3.

61. The provisions of a particular school district collective bargaining agreement may or may not address teacher responsibilities in an evacuation. A local district cannot however invoke its collective bargaining agreement to override or alter .the provisions of the duly authorized RERP of the encompassing political subdivision.

Worman, fol. Tr. 19,329 at 4.

62. During a radiological emergency, school teachers and staff in both public and non-public schools in Pennsylvania have a professional responsibility to provide for the safety of students being transported to or from school.

This would include safe conduct to and from a host facility. Worman, Tr. 19,531. While a survey of staff would be helpful regarding their availability and willingness to perform this function, it is not necessary.

Worman, Tr. 19,336-37. Teachers surveys have been undertaken at several school districts in the Limerick plume EPZ. See, e.g., Claypool, Tr. 15,882-84; Welliver, Tr. 15,525. School districts have also been encouraged to identify teacher volunteers as ,part of the planning process. Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted), at 4,

63. The same professional responsibility applies in the event sheltering i s directed. Worman, Tr. 19,340, 19,374.

64. In his experience in emergency response activities at Three Mile Island in 1979, Dr. Worman recalled that ,

i teachers showed up at schools and performed assigned duties a w- y, ec. e m- y m --,-s, ..e . - g - y- + -a 7-.- 9- .9-%

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

during the accident. Worman, Tr. 19,354.

65. The history of emergency response shows a willingness

, by individuals to perform their duties. Individuals who i

have a clear understanding of their roles in an emergency l l plan do~not abandon their roles in an emergency. Asher and l Kinard, fol. Tr. 20,150 (admitted), at 7-8. Thus teachers are expected to perform their assigned roles in a

radiological emergency. Campbell, Tr. 19,986-87; See i generally Worman. Training and information are important to ensure this cooperation. Campbell, Tr. 19-986-87; Asher f and Kinard.

j 66. Two school districts in Berks County have students who I

attend school in the plume EPZ. Dr. Mainello, Superintendent of the Daniel Boone School District made a

{ personal survey of his teachers and staff and has assured

Berks County that he will have more than adequate coverage 1

l of students at the Amity Elementary School, the only school

! in the district within the EPZ. Reber, fol. tr. 19,729 j (admited) at 1-2; Reber, Tr. 19,730. Mr. Reber expressed 1

confidence in Dr. Mainello's representation, based on the 4

j two men's close working relationship, f 67. In the event of a radiological emergency at Limerick, j if either sheltering or evacuation of school children I

becomes necessary, classes could be combined and normal i

, student / teacher ratios reduced. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498

at 2; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 2.

i i

24 J-

l l

l l

68. An unmet'need for supervisory adults has been passed to dhester County by the Owen J. Roberts School District.

Chester County and the Commonwealth are working to meet I

this need, with some reservations as explained below.

Hippert, Tr. 19,605.; Campbell, Tr.'20-034,036; Bradshaw,

') l

'fol. Tr. 12,761 at 13.

, , 7 69.- In reality, it is not feasible to expect an unmet need for supervisory personnel to be filled by persons from

- outside the EPZ. The time element and problems involved in mobilizing persons at least 10-15 miles away would hinder, and in all likelihood preclude, a prompt and safe evacuation of the school children. Not even the National Guard couid be mobilized that quickly. Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 14 ; Tr. 19,556-57; 19,605-07. See also Campbell, Tr. 19,986.

70. PEMA and Chester County representatives have discussed the Owen J. Roberts unmet staff need with Dr. Claypool, the district superintendent. They advised Dr. Claypool that he should seek additional resources in his district. Hippert, Tr. 19,605-07; Campbell, Tr. 19,986. Dr. Clrypool recently notified Chester County, however, that his school district still has an unmet need for supervisory adults. Campbell, Tr. 19,886, 20,036.

71. Chester County continues its efforts to identify resources which might meet the Owen J. Roberts unmet staff need. It may be possible on a limited scale to recruit

,A

county employees such as child or youth services workers who have appropriate background in dealing with children.

Campbell, Tr. 20,034-35,

72. School district RERPs provide that risk school teachers accompany children to the host school and remain with them until they are picked up by parents or other authorized individuals. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 14-15; Bradshaw, fol. Tr. 12,764.

73. As a matter of policy PEMA believes risk school teachers should turn children over to host school staff upon arrival at the host facility. This permits the risk teachers to be released to care for or rejoin their own '

families, who may also be involved in an evacuation.

Hippert, foi. Tr. 19,498 at 15; Tr. 19,558. An agreement between host and risk school districts to implement this procedure might assist a risk school district to ensoure more of its teachers would be available, specifically during an evacuation, to supervise children. Hippert, fol.

Tr. 19,498 at 15. PEMA has advised the Owen J. Roberts and Phoenixville superintendents that this alternative is available to them in their planning. Hippert, Tr. 19,560.

74. The school district RERPs provide for risk teachers to remain with children. While PEMA does not prefer this procedure, it is permissible if acceptable to and desired by the school districts. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 15; Tr. 19,558.

li

4

75. Public school districts are generally obligated under Pennsylvania law to provide transportation to students who live within the district but attend private schools.

Worman, Tr. 19,342. Several school districts in Montgomery and Chester Counties have asked the counties to assume f

primary responsibility for coordination of transportation for nonpublic schools in a Limerick emergency. See, e.g.,

Murray, Tr. 15,039, 15,073-74; Bigelow, Tr. 14,346, 14,347, 14,349-50. The counties are planning to meet these requests. See generally Bigelow, Tr. 14,346-50; Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. E-1, Annex N.

76. The November 20, 1984 supplemental exercise was intended to demonstrate school district emergency response capability. The school participation in the exercise did not materialize to the amount anticipated, so FEMA did not observe the districts' response. FEMA has asked the Commonwealth to arrange an acceptable demonstration of school district evacuation capability. The Commonwealth is working toward that end. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr. 20, 150 (update) at 1; FEMA Ex. E-8; Taylor, Tr. 20, 164.

76a. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, any building j which is reasonably winter worthy will suffice for sheltering. With windows and doors tightly closed, a reasonably tight building is adequate for 2 hours H

protection from inhalation hazards. Commonwealth Ex. E-1, E-12-49; Reilly fol. Tr. 19,381 at 3. The Commonwealth's l l

l i _ _.

recommendation of sheltering as a protective action is based on dose projections'for the entire populace, not with regard te particular buildings. Reilly Tr. 13,398-99.

LEA-13

77. A model plan for use by day care, nursery and preschool facilities was developed in 1984 by PEMA in coordination with the Pennsylvania Departments of Education and Public Welfare. Appl. Ex. E-63; Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 17. The intent in developing the model plan was to respond to concerns expressed by the public and planning officials with regard to the scope of planning for this segment of the general public in the Limerick plume EPZ.

See Reber, Tr. 19, 835; Campbell, Tr. 19,904, 19,908-09.

78. In late summer and early fall 1984, DPW and the Department of Education sent copies of the model plan to facilities in the Limerick EPZ that are licensed by these agencies. The Departments advised the facilities of the necessity of preparing a plan for response to an accident at Limerick. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 17. Facility plans when completed are to be distributed to the county and municipality. Hippert, Tr. 19,564.

79. Unlicensed day care , nursery and preschool facilities were subsequently identified by Berks Montgomery and.

Chester Counties with the assistance of Energy Consultants (EC). In Berks County, a diligent effort to locate all

unlicensed day care facilities was made by the county with the help of EC through- review of the telephone book, telephone contact with churches, and word of mouth. Reber, Tr. 19,837-38. Chester County also made an extensive (and still ongoing) effort to identify unlicensed day care facilities. Chester County included in its survey review a list of facilities from the county children and youth services department and a windshield survey. Campbell, Tr. 19,900. The counties provided these facilities with a model plan and advised the facilities ~of the need for a plan and how to obtain help in developing one. Hippert, fol. Tr., 19,498 at 17; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 2, Tr. 19,738; Campbell, Tr. 19,900. Chester County has followed up with facilities receiving the model plan.

Campbell, Tr. 19,900-03.

80. The model plan provides policy guidelines, recommended procedures for notifying parents in the event of an accident and a detailed listing of actions to be taken under each emergency classification. The plan includes a sample letter to parents which outlines the actions that would be taken by the facility in a radiological emergency.

Appl. Ex. E-63; Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 17; Reber, fol.

Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 2,

81. According to the model plan, the facility director may arrange for parents to pick up their children at the emergency classification of " alert" rather than waiting for 1

the site or " general emergency." Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 17; Reber, Tr. 19,819-20, 19,844.

82. Under the model plan, the facility director is responsible for finding a host facility for an evacuation.

The sample letter to parents identifies the host facility and advises parents to pick up their children there in an evacuation. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 17-18.

83. If a facility is in need of transportation resources, the director should contact the respective municipal or county emergency management agency

~

for assistance.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 18.

84. All identified facilities should appear in municipal and county plans, and be included in the municipal notification plan. Hippert, fol. Tr-. 19,498 at 18; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 2; Tr. 19,742.

85. It is the responsibility of municipal emergency management coordinators to ensure day care plans are completed. Development of plans by these facilities will ensure protection of this segment of the general public.

See generally Hippert, fol. 'Tr. 19,498; Reber, Tr.

19,743-44; Campbell, Tr. 19,904, 19,908.

86. FEMA does not plan to review every day care facility plan, but will ensure their needs if identified are covered by municipal and county plans. PEMA may make a spot check of randomly selected facility plans. Hippert, Tr. 19,565.

87. The participation and commitment of the staff of day L

l 1

I care, nursery and preschool institutions to implement planning are essential to plan workability. The history of disaster response has consistently shown the individuals charged with omergency responsibilitios, including teachers, have fulfilled those responsibilities. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr. 20, 150 (admitted) at 17.

o 4

LEA-14(a)

88. Under Annex E, dosimetry and potassium iodide (KI) are issued only to emergency workers. See Comm. Ex. E-1.

88a. A unit of dosimetry /KI consists of two self-reading dosimeters, onc thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD), one dosimetry- KI report form and a 14-day supply of KI. See Appl. Exs. 1,3, Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1 Annex M, Apendix 3. A TLD is intended to measure the radiation dose only of the individual who is wearing it, and so could,not be used by someone like a bus driver to measure radiation exposure of other individuals. Bradshaw, Tr. 13,599-600.

• Compare Applicant Proposed Finding 85.

89. Plans for one-lift evacuation of school children will preclude the necessity for multiple trips into the EPZ.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498. The one-lift capability clearly exists in Berks County, and is being planned for in Chester and Montgomery couunties. Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 3; Campbell; fol. Tr. 19,582; at 9-10; Bigelow; Tr. 14,360.

90. Once the evacuation of the school children is effectively underway and buses are enroute to host schools,

. there is no requirement for teachers or staff to remain at the risk school district or within the EPZ. Hence they are not classified as emergency workers, as defined in state and county plans. See Comm. Ex. E-1, appl Exs. E-1, E-2, E-3; Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1; Hippert, fol, Tr.

19,498 at 19-20.

91. Because school teachers, staff and school bus drivers are not considered emergency workers, they will not be issued dosimetry and KI and need not be trained in its use.

Hippert, fol, Tr. 19,498 at 20.

92. Maintenance of a supply of dosimetry of KI at transportation staging areas is not necessary in view of the one-lift evacuation concept. As a contingency, however, a limited supply may be kept available for potential use in meeting an unforeseen development.

4 i Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 20. In Berks County, a reserve of 100 units of' dosimetry /KI is kept in the county E0C stock and would be distributed at transportation staging areas to drivers for whom it became necessary to reenter the EPZ to perform emergency services. In this unlikely circumstance, drivers could get on-the-spot instruction in the use of dosimetry. Reber, fol. Tr.

19,729 (admitted) at 3; Reber, Tr. 19,821-22, 19,835 19,836. Chester and Mongtomery Counties will retain a supply of dosimetry and KI at each transportation staging area. Appl. Ex. 2, Annex M; Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1, Annex M; Bigelow, Tr. 14,360-61. It should be i noted, contrary to Applicant Proposed Finding 219, that in Chester County it is not intended that buses used for l i

school _ evacuation pass through a transportation staging l area. See Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted), at 9-10; l l

1 l

l

19,916. Accordingly, Applicant Proposed Finding 224 is correct only as to Montgomery County.

93. Sufficient dosimetry is being purchased for the Limerick EPZ by agreement between PECo and PEMA. See Appl.

Ex. E-104. Sufficient KI is being purchased by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, and should be available shortly for distribution in the plume EPZ. Hippert, Tr.

19,578-80, 20,421-23,

94. Dosimetry is not issued to the general populace as precondition to the onset of termination of a protective action, including sheltering. The determination to shelter '

will be upon recommendation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP) utilizing monitoring data from its own sources, federal agencies and the plant itself. Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 20-21.

LEA-14(b)

95. Training specific to the needs of school bus drivers,  !

l teachers and school staffs for response to an accident at Limerick has been and continues to be offered through the risk counties. Hippert and Taylor, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 22; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 3; Reber, Tr. 19,845.

In the two school districts in Berks County, 15 school i

administrators, 495 faculty and staff and 48 bus drivers have received training. Reber, fol, Tr. 19,729 (admitted) l l

L

at 4; Tr. 19,744-45. Mr. Reber recently recontacted the districts reiterating the offer of training. Reber, Tr.

19,845.

96. Based on his attendance at EC training sessions for school staff and faculty, Mr. Reber is of the opinion that the information provided is sufficient for staff to understand their role in evacuation and sheltering of school children in a radiological emergency. Reber, Tr.

19,745-47, 19,796, 19,797, 19,833.

97. In Chester County, training has been received by the J.

Owen Roberts, Downingtown and Phoenixville school districts. Campbell, Tr. 19,890.

98. Chester County Department of Emergency Services staff surveyed groups trained pre and post training to assess the degree of learning achieved. The statistical results of this assessment demonstrated that while there was an increase in learning among session attendees, the level of growth did not meet the standards set by Chester DES, which indicated a need for re-evaluation and improvement of the training program. Campbell, Tr. 19,891.

99 Applicant Proposed Finding 231 asserts that EC lesson plans had been reviewed and approved by Commonwealth officials. There was no testimony by state officials to the effect that they had approved the content of lesson plans, nor whether any comments provided to EC had in fact been incorporated. See generally Hippert and Taylor, fol.

I l

l i

Tr. 19,498.

100. Because school staff, teachers and school bus drivers will not be issued dosimetry and KI, there is no need for them to be trained in the use of this equipment. The intent is for these groups to be evacuated prior to a radioactive release. Taylor, fol, Tr. 19,498 at 22.

101. Bus drivers must be provided strip maps to the extent they are not familiar with their emergency routes.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 23; Hippert, Tr. 19,621.

102. The risk county plans provide for ongoing refresher training. See Appl. Exs. 1,3, Chester County / Commonwealth '

Ex. 1, Annex R; Campbell, Tr. 19,956-57.

LEA-15 103. In arranging to fill unmet bus needs, PEMA will ensure that a driver will be available for each bus.

Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 24; Hippert, Tr. 19,566, 19,608-09, 104. Agreements now executed between Chester County with bus providers .were reached with the understanding that providers will make reasonable efforts to provide both buses and drivers. See LEA Exs. 63-66; Campbell, Tr.

20,033, 20,040. Letters of agreement between Montgomery County and bus providers state that buses and driverrs will be provided to the maximum extent possible. See LEA Ex. 4.

t a _ --.

F' 105. In the opinion of FEMA, once a bus company has agreed to provide its bus resources for the evacuation of school children from the plume EPZ, such company has committed itself to ensuring that bus drivers are available to drive the buses, absent evidence to _the contrary. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr.20,150 (admitted) at 25. It makes no sense for a bus provider to enter into a commitment for buses with out a concomitant assurance of providing drivers.

Hippert, Tr. 19,566-67; Thompson, Tr. 18,813-15, 18,821.

Negotiations with SEPTA as a potential bus provider are being conducted with that understanding. Hippert, Tr.19,565-66; Thompson, Tr. 18,813, 18,20-21, 18,825.

j 106. A comprehensive training program for bus drivers, combined with a good public information program, will give drivers an understanding of their role in response to a radiological emergency. As such, the history of emergency response provides reasonable assurance that drivers will fulfill their assigned roles. Asher and Kinard, fol. Tr.

20,150 (admitted) at 26, 107. In the remote possibility t'2t more drivers were needed, sources include bus companies outside the EPZ, the National Guard and school district staff who are authorized to drive buses. Hippert, Tr. 19,567. See also Hippert, Tr. 19,589.

. .. .. - - . . . . . . - .  :.--.~.- ~. . . ..

LEA-22 108. Emergency planning for farmers is principally a county-level responsibility. Counties maintain, supply and train farmers in use of dosimetry. Counties maintain lists of farmers living within their jurisdiction. Furrer, fol. Tr.19,409 at 2; Tr. 19,420; 19.421, 19,426-27 See Appl. Exs. 1,3, Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1, Annex 0.

4 109. In according recognition.to farmers with livestock in the EPZ as emergency workers, the Commonwealth does not limit the definition of livestock to any particular type.

See Comm. Ex. E-1, pp.E-6-12, E-16-B-8 and 9, E-16-B-6-1, E-17-8; Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 25, 26; Furrer, Tr.

19,428. The risk counties are likewise flexible, and include horses and poultry in their definition. Reber, Tr.

19,752-54. See Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted) at 12.

110. Each farmer who is allowed to reenter the EPZ to care for livestock will be issued two self-reading dosimeters and a permanent record dosimeter, as well as KI and a 1 .

dosimetry-KI report form. Berks County assigned 100 units of dosimetry /KI for use by farmers, based on one farmer per farm as listed by the .USDA County Agent. See Appl. Ex.

E-1, Annex M, Appendix M-4; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 4; Reber, Tr. 19,757. Chester County l

l

assigned 200 units for farmers. Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted) at 12. This is based on information from the USDA County Agent. Campbell, Tr. 20,053. The self-reading dosimeters may be used over again by rezeroing them at issuing points. Permanent record dosimeters are to be used only by the individual to whom originally issued and are to be retained by that person until no further reentries are to be made into the EPZ. Therefore it is not necessary to have dosimetry available for multiple re-entry, or replenishment of supply, but only enough to be available for the number of farmers identified through the efforts of county U.S.D.A. agents, the risk county emergency management agencies and municipalities. Hippert, fol. Tr.

19,498 at 25-26. There is no need for farmers to register before an emergency. Furrer, Tr.19,419.

111. The risk counties are flexible regarding farmer re-entry in the EPZ. If a farmer is not on the list, generally the county will take him at his word if he can demonstrate a need to reenter the EPZ to feed or care for livestock. Reber, Tr. 19,752-53.

112. The risk counties are responsible for training farmers in the use- of dosimetry. Such training is currently available and has been offered to farmers within the Limerick plume EPZ. Hippert and Taylor, fol. Tr. 19498 at 26-27, Comm. Ex. E-1, Appendix 19, Reber, fol. Tr. 19729 (admitted) at 4; Reber, Tr. 19,754, 19,755-56; Bigelow, Tr.

s

14,361-A; Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted) at 13; Tr.

20,054-55. In Berks County 100 farmers are listed by the

. U.S.D.A. County agent as living in the EPZ. The U.S.D.A.

keeps this list up-to-date. All farmers on the list in Berks County were contacted regarding the availability of training. A total of 25 farmers in Berks County have received training thus far. Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 4; Reber, Tr. 19,752, 19,822. A course is also available and advertised through Penn State University for farmers which addresses farmers' roles in a radiological mergency. Furrer, Tr. 19,435-36.

113. An informational brochure was prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the experts in the area of farmer planning, for distribution to farmers within the TMI plume EPZ. That brochure will be adapted to the Limerick plume EPZ and distributed by Applicant. Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 at 27; Hippert, Tr. 19,609-10; Furrer, Tr.

19,416-17, 19,429-31.

L E A 'c 6 114. It is not necessary for county and municipal emergency operations centers (E0C) to be fully mobilized and emergency workers in place before the public can be alerted by activation of the siren system. See genera'ly Hippert, fol. Tr. 19,498 (insert discussion from Hippert, 1

fol. Tr. 19,498.

115. The Berks County RERP describes procedures for notification and mobilization of emergency personnel.

Appl. Ex. E-1, Annex C. Municipal plans also cover these procedures. A computerized RECALL system has been installed in Berks County and is being programmed to notify all_ county responsible individuals / organizations on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis using four (4) telephone lines simultaneously.

The RECALL system dials pre-programmed numbers and deliv'ers continuous pre-recorded message. Some individuals / organizations, such as the County Commissioners, police and fire departments will not be notified using RECALL because of the need for situation-specific or more detailed messages. Reber, fol, Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 4-5; Tr. 19,759-62.

116. Berks County foresees no problem in notifying the public by route alerting, in the event of a siren failure.

Reber, Tr. 19,823.

ll6a. -RECALL system equipment is being installed in Chester County as well. Up to ten lines have been

! requested. Campbell, Tr. 20,055-56. See. Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. 1, Annex C.

4 ll6b. As of December 1984, a RECALL system was being installed in the Montgomery County E0C. The system has a ten-second message transmittal capability. Bigelow, Tr.

14,406.

117. In Chester County, not all equipment for route-alerting has been purchased yet by Applicant.

Campbell, Tr. 19,922. Route alerting capability was demonstrated however during the July 25 exercise.

Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted) at 14.

LEA-27 118. The Camp Hill Village Kimberton Hills, Inc. and Camp Hill Special Schools, Inc. (" Camp- Hill facilities") are residential facilities for the mentally retarded. They are located in West Vincent and East Nantmeal Townships in Chester County. Zipperlen, Tr. 16,016, 16,022, 16,028; Wolf, fol. Tr. 16,310.

119. Both townships have had discussions with facility

directors regarding radiological emergency response. If either facility reports unmet needs for transportation, such needs should be listed in the Chester County plan regarding township needs for transportation. As of now, that information does not appear in the Chester county plan because unmet needs have not been passed through. See Chester County / Commonwealth Ex. E-1, Annex I; Campbell, Tr.

i 19,926, 20,005.

120. An agreement has been reached between Chester ' County and the Devereaux school by which the school will serve as a host facility for the Camp Hill facilities. The

- 42'-

Devereaux school is adequate to meet these facilities' needs should hosting be requiaed. Campbell, Tr. 20,005-06.

LEA-28(a) 121. The Commonwealth presented the testimony o'f Colonel Eugene P. Klynoot, Chief of Staff, Pennsylvania Army National Guard. See fol. Tr. 19,642. -

122. As the organized, federally-recognized and equipped state militia of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania National .

Guard is ready to respond to the orders of the Governor placing it on state active duty in the event of emergencies, actual or potential, within the Commonwealth.

Klynoot, fol. Tr. 19,642, at 2. The Pennsylvania Army National Guard (Guard) is comprised of over 17,000 officers i

and enlisted personnel. Id.; Klynoot, Tr. 19,673. The Guard has effectively responded to- a wide variety of state emergencies, including the Johnstown flood, the Agnes flood, other floods, trucker strikes, major snow emergencies and other emergencles, Klynoot, fol. Tr.

19,642 at 2-3.

123. The Guard has developed plans to support county _and municipal governments within the Limerick plume EPZ, as well as other nuclear plants in Pennsylvania. In addition, in coordination with PEMA, the Guard prepared Appendix 14 to Annex E. See Comm. Ex. E-1.

l _ --- , -

124. As detailed in the Guard's plans in Annex E, the Guard has planned for employment of Guard units to support risk counties with security, traffic control, evacuation

, and logistical assistance. The Guard, in coordination with PEMA, will commence operations at an E0C at Fort Indiantown Gap and send representatives to Commonwealth and risk county E0Cs. The Guard is prepared to provide air and ground transportation assets to supplement county and municipal resources to assist inn evacuation. In coordination with Penndot, the Guard is prepared to establish emergency fuel dist'ribution points and provide equipment and manpower for road clearance on main evacuation routes. Klynoot, fol. Tr. 19,642, at 4-5, 6-7; Tr. 19,671-72.

125. Three Guard units have been designated primary response units for the three risk counties in the Limerick plume EPZ. For Montgomery County, this is the 1st Battalion, llith Infantry in Norristown. The 2d Battalion, lllth Infantry in Phoenixville serves the same function for Chester County, while the 1st Battalion, 109th Field Artillery in Wilkes-Barre is the primary . response unit for Berks County. Backup units for each of these primary units have also been designated. Backup units can fill in- for the primary units or augment the primary units as ,

necessary. Klynoot, fol. Tr. 19,642 at 6.

126. The main body of a unit will - be prepared to deploy

i when about 75% of the unit has assembled. Klynoot, fol.

Tr. 19,642 at 7; Tr. 19,666-67.

127. The Montgomery County-designated unit estimates in a worst case it will take 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to deploy. If necessary, i

though, the unit could mobflize and be ready to deploy in only six hours. Klynoot, fol. Tr. 19,642 at 7-8.

128. The Chester-County assigned unit will be ready to deploy within six (6) hours after notification. Id. at 8.

129. The Berks County unit would be ready to deploy from designated sites in Berks County in eight (8) hours. Six (6) of these hours would be for assembly, and two (2) hours '

for motor march from Wilkes-Barre. Id. at 8-9; Klynoot, ,

Tr. 19,665-66.

130. Advance parties would be dispatched from units to the forward areas where they would deploy as soon as they were mobilized. For example, any of the units could dispatch its gasoline tanker truck to a point designated by state and local planning officials within an hour to an hour and a half after notification. Similarly, a wrecker truck, if needed could be dispatched with appropriate manpower support shortly after notification. Klynoot, fol. Tr.

19,642 at 9.

131. The National Guard has dosimeters and KI. Troops ae trained in the use of dosimetry. Klynoot, Tr. 19,645-47,

^

19,661; fol. Tr. 19,642 at 10. See also Tr. 19,667.

132. The Guard has both fixed wing and helicopter aricraft 2-

l available at Indiantown Gap. This is 60-70 miles from the Limerick vicinity, less than an hour by air. Aircraft could be used to fly equipment or personnel to emergencies.

Klynoot, Tr. 19,647, 19,664-65, 19,676.

133. The Guard has wrecker trucks assigned to battalions as well as vehicles equipped with winches for towing e assistance. Klynoot, Tr. 19,658. The Guard also has heavy vehicles capable of pushing vehicles blocking the road out of the way. Klynoot, Tr. 19,663.

134. If needed, the Guard's plans provide for it to begin the early steps of mobilization on advance notification from PEMA of a possible need to deploy troops. This would reduce mobilization time. Klynoot, Tr. 19,668-69.

LEA-28(b) 135. PennDot is respolsible under Annex E for cleacance of disabled vehicles and snow from main evacuation routes.

Comm. Ex. E-1, Basic Plan, E-29. Compare Applicant Proposed Finding 364. As in any emergency, PennDot would respond to a radiological emergency within its means.

Farrell, Tr. 20,119.

136. Penndot has .about 2,200 pieces of snow removal equipment statewide. Farrell, Tr. 20,106.

137. Depending on the severity of the situation, several procedures are available to remove snow from non-state roads. PennDot equipment based in Districts 6-0 and 5-0 serving the three Limerick EPZ risk counties could be activated immediately. Equipment from other districts l

b

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

could also be activated and respond within a few hours.

Farrell, fol. Tr. 20,009 at 2; Farrell, Tr. 20,124, 20,106.

138. There are no PennDot union contract or insurance problems with assigning equipment operators or support personnel to work on non-state highways. Farrell, fol. Tr.

20,099 at 2; Tr. 20,112, 20,116-17.

139. Privately owned snow clearance equipment is also available under- contract. Agreements with private equipment owners may be on a regular or standby emergency basis. The latter is activated on declaration of a snow emergency. PennDot may also, on declaration of a snow emergency execute emergency agreements for specialty type equipment not under standby agreement. Farrell, fol. Tr.

, 20,099, at 3; Tr. 20,102-03.

140. Designated mobile emergency teams (" MET") in each district are also available and may be assigned to other districts in Pennsylvania in emergencies. MET teams can be deployed at most within two hours. Farrell, Tr. 20,014.

And, once the Governor declares a disaster emergency, PennDot has blanket authority to secure needed manpower and equipment from any practical source to keep the road system-open. Sources include the National Guard, local municipalities, contractors, equipment suppliers, and other state agencies. Farrell, fol. Tr. 20,099 at 3-4; Tr.

20,102-03. PennDot in general has the operational

{

flexibility to switch rapidly priority assignment of resources. Farrell, Tr. 20,107.

141. PennDot has on file over 700 agreements with municipalities with snow removal equipment to maintain sections of state road with municipal equipment for a fee.

Limerick Township has such an agreement and could therefore provide snow removal assistance. Farrell, fol. Tr. 20,099 at 4.

142. As provided in Annex E, Penndot will aid in clearing roads of stalled and abandoned vehicles in the event of an emergency at Limerick. A representative of PennDot will coordinate this effort from the PEMA E0C in Harrisburg.

Should a call come in for road service, the PEMA Eastern Area EOC will be notified. The respective county will be called first, and if it is unable to provide the needed manpower and equipment, the PennDot district will dispatch needed equipment and resources to ensure roads are cleared. ,

l MET teams are available to district engineers and provide personnel and equipment for efficient response to an emergency. Staransinic, fol. Tr. 20,099 at 5; Tr.

20,101-02.

143. The risk counties also maintain lists of tow operators. Chester County has over 100 trucks listed, with at least one truck per operator. In Berks County, the s county routinely dispatches towing vehicles. There has never been a shortage of resources. Appl. Ex. E-1, Annex a

l l

K; appl Ex. E-2, Annex X; Campbell, Tr. 20-006-07; Reber, fol. Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 5, Reber, Tr. 19,825. If additional services were needed, the counties could call upon PEMA for assistance. Adjacent counties, the National Guard and PennDot are all possible sources. Reber,.Tr.

19-838-39.

144. The Berks County plan lists service stations that have agreed to stay open in emergencies. Each station has furnished 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> telephone contact numbers. Reber, fol.

Tr. 19,729 (admitted) at 5. Chester County expects sufficient gas stations to be available outside the EPZ.

Chester County does not reouire specific letters of agreement with gas stations in order to assure adequate supply in an emergency. Campbell, fol. Tr. 19,852 (admitted) at 15; Tr. 20,007.

LEA-24/F0E-1 This contention deals principally with the adequacy of Applicant's Evacuation Time Estimate study prepared pursuant to NUREG--654, Appendix C. See Appl. Ex. E-67.

The Commonwealth therefore did not present direct testimony on this contention. In the hearings, the 1ssue was raised related to this contention regarding the inclusion of Valley Forge Park in the Limerick EPZ. For purposes of clarifying the record on this point, the Commonwealth l

l i o

1 offers the following findings:

145. The Limerick plume EPZ has always included a small portion of Valley Forge Park north and east of the Schuylkill River. That area is contained within Lower Providence Township, which is entirely included in the plume EPZ.- Hippert, Tr. 19,497. See Commonwealth Exs.

E-1, E-9; LEA Ex. E-16.

146. T5e ten mile radius around the Limerick station was redrawn on the Commonwealth Limerick evacuation plan map in February 1984 to addrress the map scale. In that process, e

part of the portion of Valley Forge Park which heretofore '

had been within the EPZ now also fell within the precise ten mile circle. This area consists of a parking lot.

Hippert, Tr. 19,496-47; Fewlass, Tr. 14,563-64, 14,649, 14,657.

CONCLUSION The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2.715(c), submits the foregoing proposed findings to this Board for its consideration. The Commc.1 wealth does not choose to certify at this time whether there is reasonable assurance that Limerick Generating Station offsite RERPs are adequate and capable of being implemented. Plans currently being developed would be implemented in the event of an incident at Limerick.

U-

'~ l M \

4 Respectively submitted, f

I A i

W Zori G. Ferkin Assistant Counsel j - Commonwealth of-

! Pennsylvania Dated: March 6, 1985 4

i-t 4

4 O

' A .

t e

s N

-5i- ,

l p

.. ._ m _

l o ww3, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 the " Commonwealth of P7nnsylvania Proposed Findings on Limerick Ecology Action

' ntentions On Offsite Emergency Planning" were served on e following by United States first class mail on the 6th

-y of March 1985:

s ** Helen F. Hoyt ** Troy B. Conner, sq.

Administrative Judge Conner and Wetterhahn, P.C.

Atomic Safety and Licensing 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Board Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Dr. Richard F. Cole Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing ** Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.

Appeal Panel Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the' Executive Legal Washington, D . r, . 20555 Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Federal Express for delivery March 7, 1985 i

s l 1

.s - .y Robert L. Anthony Philadelphia Electric Company Friends of the Earth of the ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Delaware Valley Vice President & General Counsel P.O. Box ISS 2301 Market Street ,

103 Vernon f.ane Philadelphia, PA 19101

.Moylan, PA 19065 Joseph H. White, III Angus Love, Esq.

15 Ardmore Avenue 101 East Main Street Ardmore, PA 19003 Norristown, PA 19104 Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

• David Wersan, Esq.

Brose and Postwistilo Assistant Consumer Advocate 325 N. 10th Street Office of Consumer Advocate Easton, PA 18042 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120

• Thomas Gerusky, Director Martha W. Bush, Esq.

Bureau of Radiation Protection Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

Dept. of Environmental Resources City of Philadelphia 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building Municipal Services Building Third and Locust Streets 15th and JFK Boulevard

, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107

• • Phyllis Zitzer

• Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Limerick Ecology Action Management Agency P.O. Box 761 B-151, Transportation & Safety Bldg Pottstown, PA 19464 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven P. Hershey, Esq. Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Community Legal Services, Inc. Associate General Counsel Law Center West Federal Emergency Mgmt. Agency 5219 Chestnut Street 500 C. Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Philadelphia, PA 19139 Washington, D.C. 20472 Timothy R.S. Campbell Jay Gutierrez, Esq.

Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dept. of Emergency Services Commission 14 East Biddle Street Region I West Chester, PA 19380 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 r r G. Ferkin L Assistant Counsel Governor's Energy Council Date: March 6, 1985 3 J