ML20129H465
| ML20129H465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#385-934 OL, NUDOCS 8507190121 | |
| Download: ML20129H465 (72) | |
Text
ORIG pgl O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-352 (LIMERICK GENERATING STATI0tD 50-353 O
I.OCATION:
PHILADELPHIA, PA PAGES:
21 020-21,039 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1985
_.0 0 )
Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O Official Sporters 444 North Capitol Street I[0 )3d 3~00 8507190121 050717 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
NATIONWIDE COVERACE
21,020 SueWalsh 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA rs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
X 4
In the Matter of:
5 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 50-353-OL 6
(Limerick Generating Station, :
Units 1 & 2) 7
g 8
9 10 Old Customs Courtroom Room 300 11l 2nd & Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 12 Wednesday, July 17, 1985 13 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened, 15 pursuant to recess, at 1:10 p.m.
16' BEFORE:
17 HELEN F.
HOYT, Esq., Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 19 RICHARD F.
COLE, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D.
C.
20555 22 JERRY HARBOUR, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 24 A
erd Reporters, Inc.
25
Joe Walsh 21,021 1
APPEARANCES:
O 2
(As heretofore noted.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 l
11 s
t l
12 l
(
13 s.
i i
l 15 16 !
I l
17 i
18 l
19 l
20 l
1 21 l
i 22 23 24 Aneursi Reporters, Inc.
i
}
25 i
t
\\
l
I 21,022 I
eWalsh C_ O_ N,T E_ N,T S, 2
ORAL ARGUMENTS:
3 Mr. Conner Page 21,024 4
Ms. Ferkin Page 21,030 5
Mr. Otto Page 21,038 6
Mr. Love Page 21,047 l
7 Mr. Hassell Page 21,067 i
8 Mr. Conner Page 21,078 l
9 i
10 c
11 i
12
. E E H,,1 g 1 T, S,,
t Identified Received i
15 Graterford Exhibits 2, 16 j 3,.and 5.
21,085 I
I Graterford Exhibit No. 4 (Withdrawn)
Page 21,084 Commonwealth Exhibit G-1 (Withdrawn)
Page 21,086 18 l
19 l
20 l
i 21 i
l I
22 23 i
war.i n.mn... inc.
25
21,023
- Al-1-SueWall
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2
'(1:10 p.m.)
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Our hearing will come to order.
Let 4
the record reflect that all the parties to the hearing with 5
the exception of Mr. Michael Hirsch from the Federal Emergency 6
Management Agency are again present in the hearing room.
7 Have the parties decided which order they would 8
like to go in?
Or, do you have any preference?
We had 9
intended to take the Applicant first, since they are the only 10 ones that will have a rebuttal opportunity here.
Il MR. CONNER:
I understood we were to go first.
I l
12 JUDGE HOYT:
Exactly.
i I
13 MR. CONNER:
Yeah.
()
t
' fd l
JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Hassell.
l 1
I l
'15 MR. HASSELL:
I have one preliminary matter.
l 16 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
I I
17 MR. HASSELL:
The NRC staff has I guess in effect
\\
18 decided ts change its position with respect to filing written r
proposed findings of fact and conclusions'of law.
The staff j
19 20 will do so.
I I
g 21 The written proposed findings of fact and conclu-j i
22 sionslof law are in,the' process of being transmitted to c
23 Ph'iladelphia.a't hhis time.
l l
():
24 JUDGE HOYT:
Are they being thermofaxed in?
Amw.eral Beporters, Inc.,i 25
.MR.LHASSELL:
Yes.
That is where Nathene Wright is..
i I
.1%
t
21,024 As soon as that is complete, she will bring the requisite O.#1-2-SueWat 2
copies here.
As a consequence, I will just summarize my 3
oral argument as to the staff's position.
4 JUDGE HOYT:
All right, Mr. Hassell.
Then we 5
will, as we customarily do in these hearings, take the staff 6
last in which event you may have those ready to be filed.
7 We will not recess the hearing, however, until 8
such -- or, close the hearing in this case until such time 9
as you do have those here and they are presented to all of 10 the parties.
11 l Ms. Ferkin, would you like to go second?
i I
12 MS. FERKIN:
Yes, the Commonwealth will go second. j i
I
()
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Love, you will go third.
- And, l
14 of course, as we have indicated the staff will go last.
I i
15 i And I think the times have been agreed upon yesterday.
We 16 are not going to be very rigid in that time.
If you feel that l
i 17 you need more in order to summarize than the time that we i
18 have previously indicated to you that you may have, the 19 Board will liberally interpret that.
20 All right.
Mr. Conner, if you will, sir, begin.
21 MR. CONNER:
If the Board please, in accordance 22 with the Board's Order of June 18th, 1985, the Applicant 23 will present its brief oral argument on the contentions of 24 the Graterford inmates and written proposed findings of fact eral Reporters, Inc.
25 and conclusions of law, which Mr. Nichols will pass out to
21,025
- 1-3-SueWal; the people simultaneously with the beginning of my oral argu-1
~
2 ment, as the Board's Order suggested.
3 As is customary in these cases, we have nresented our findings in the form of a proposed Partial Initial Decisior 4
5 f r, in this case, the Fourth Partial Initial Decision.
These propos'ed findings consist of twenty-one pages and track the 6
format previously used in this proceeding.
7 Given the fact that we believe it covers all of 8
9 the pertinent points, I have no intention of repeating the 10 whole thing here and will only touch on what I consider to 11 be the highlights of this phase of the case as we see them.
I 12 I would first like to note the question of the l
13 training of drivers.
I think at the outset it is important l
f 14 to emphasize that the responsible official of PEMA', Mr.
i 1
15 Taylor, its Director of Training and Education, testifiedthatf 16 the training offered to these drivers was not necessary for 17 them to perform their function.
j 1-I 18 I think it is equally as important to focus on l
19 the testimony of James Asher, the responsible official of I
l 20 FEMA, Region 3, to the same vein.
When asked a question i
I l
21 on cross-examination, Mr. Asher testified that the drivers f
l 22 could function without such training.
I s
i f
23 Nevertheless, the Commonwealth has offered to 24 provide the comprehensive training for emergency personnel Irsl Reporters, Inc.
i 25 as set forth in its Plan of Instruction Number 7 for
21,026
,J1-4-SueWah dosimetry and decontamination for these drivers who, of
)
'~
2 course, are not emergency workers under NUREG 0654.
3 Finally, I think it's important to note that if 4
for some reason it were to provide the dosimetry training 5
to these drivers, Mr. Taylor testified that they could be 6
quickly instructed at the time of the emergency.
And this, 7
of course, is just like the case of, say, the farm workers 8
who might have to reenter the EPZ who would be given training 9
in the proper use of dosimetry and so forth in that event.
i 10 The only thing offered by the Intervenors was ll i Major Case's speculation that the drivers might not attend 12 training unless given sob.e incentive.
He expressed no basis l
13 for believing they would not accept training other than just
(
)
g
~-
14 li his generalized idea.
He had no concrete basis for that 11 ii 15 :l opinion.
h 16 P on the emergency time estimate, we believe that 11 il l'7 the evidence presented to the Commonwealth clearly establishes:
18 that it has met the FEMA /NRC requirements set forth in 19 NUREG 0654.
The testimony from FEMA experts confirm this 20 fact.
21 On travel time, Superintendent Zimmerman testified 22 that the travel time estimates that he had incorporated was 23 based on the actual times for which the vehicles routinely 24 travel from the other prison facilities to Graterford.
The
- rcl Reporters, Inc.
25 Graterford plan provides coordination with PEMA so that l
21,027 j
incoming vehicles will not be interfered with by.the traffic SueWal 2
exiting the EPZ in the event of an evacuation.
3 On that basis, there is no reason to believe that i
4 the Graterford plan is not reasonable in its time estimates.
t 5
The Intervenors offered the testimony of Robert L. Morris.
6 As pointed out in our findings in more detail, Mr. Morris
^
has never prepared an evacuation' time study estimate, is not 7
8 familiar with the NRC emergency planning regulations in Annex 9
E or with NUREG 0654.
10 He testified in the Indian Point case, where his 11 testimony was rejected.
The thrust of Mr. Morris' testimony,
}
i 12 rejected in Indian Point and presented here, is that evacua-j i
()
13 tion time estimates should include a combination of worst 14 case situations.
He believes you must consider a panic l
1 i
15 situation, the increased probabilities of highway accidents, 16 the likelihood that roads would be closed, the worst case 17 meteorology such as a very severe snowstorm, and all of i
18 these assumptions.
19 As Dr. Urbanik explained, and as found by the 20 Board in the Third P.I.D.,
such " worst case" factors and i
21 analyses are not utilized under NUREG 0654 because they do t.
22 not yield reliable, realistic time estimates which responsible 23 officials can use in an actual emergency in recommending j
(~}
24 protective actions.
- Am ewerrJ Reporters, Inc.
25 Mr. Morris completely failed to understand this i
21,028 i
1-6-SueWdl
. basic point.
Instead, he assumed that the EpZ population 2
might be ordered to evacuate even though there was a risk 3
of an off-site release which would expose the evacuating i.
4 populace to radiation.
5 In effect, he sees an evacuation as a race.
He i..
6 does not understand sheltering as an alternative.
Mr. Morris 7
has no knowledge or expertise in preparing or critiquing an 8
evacuation time estimate.
And his layman's theories as i
9 to the consideration of a worst case scenario provides no 10 relevant probative evidence.
11 l Regarding inmate control, we submit that the f
l 12 State has fully shown that it has developed an excellent
()
13,
plan for evacuating the Graterford inmates if it were 14 necessary.
The basic questions raised by the Intervenors I
I i
15 l have primarily to do with the cooperation of prisoners, i
I 16 particularly in the initial lock-down time.
I 17 The only real meat, if there is any, in this i
18 proceeding was that sometimes it took a long time to lock 19 prisoners down in situations, particularly where there was 20 power failure.
j I
21 Now, as Superintendent Zimmerman testified 2
t 22 Graterford now has an auxiliary power system which has, 23 in fact, worked when there have been power outages at the
(~')
24 prison.
He added, by the way, that Graterford is getting
. w-Grti Reporters, Inc.
25 a new power plant, too, in addition.
l i
f 4
,---m-
21,029 l-7-SueWah The Intervenors' own witness, Major Case, 2
established what I think is the clear evidence for accepting 3
the validity of the ETE.
He stated that if the prisoners 4
were educated in the reasons for the evacuation they would 5
cooperate, as it would be in their interest.
He testified 6
that the time estimates for inmate control were reasonable 7
if the education were provided.
4 8
Superintendent Zimmerman established that such i
9 indoctrination would be provided to all prisoners and would 10 be provided in the future.
11 !
Specially, an addendum will be provided to the I
i i
l i
i 12 inmate handbook explaining the facts relating to an evacua-i
()
13 tion.
14 Major Case's testimony found this acceptable.
In l
t il our view it is clear, therefore, thattheGraterfordemergencyf 15 Fl l
I plan meets all the requirements of the Commission's regula-16 17 tions and NUREG 0654.
i 18 Finally, as the counsel for FEMA succinctly l
l i
19 stated yesterday, the Intervenors have not -shown that train-i __
20 ing will not be offered to the drivers, that drivers for
]
21 the companies are going to decline training, or that the i
i 22 evacuation time estimate is inadequate or deficient in any 23 way.
i
(~}
24 Thank you.
,! Aa,Jr:A Reporters. Inc.
25 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you, Mr. Conner.
Now, Ms.
j I
i
21,030
- 1-8-SueWa4 Ferkin and Mr. Otto, if he wishes may share your time.
O
_2 MS. FERKIN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
If the Board 3
please, the Commonwealth will divide its oral argument on 4
the Graterford contentions into two parts.
I will present 5
the commonwealth's argument on the training contention of 6
the inmates.
My co-counsel, Mr. Otto, will present argument 7
with respect to the evacuation time estimates contention.
8 The Commonwealth will not be presenting the Board 9
with written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 10 law.
This is due principally to the lack of physical re-l 11 i
sources here in Philadelphia to prepare such findings and i
i 12 the time constraints in this proceeding.
i 13 We attempt to cover thoroughly the record on f
()
i l'
14 both of these contentions with references to written testi-l l
15 mony and transcripts or cross-examination where appropriate.
L 16 l With that introduction, I will begin the oral l
17 argument on the training contention of the Graterford inmates.!
18 The Graterford inmates contend that there is no reasonable 19 assurance that emergency response training will be offered l
20 to civilian personnel who will be involved in the implementa-21 tion of the Graterford radiological emergency response plan.,
l 22 The Commonwealth submits that this record demon-23 strates this contention to be unfounded and that this Board,
("}
24 therefore, should find such reasonable assurance in fact Ambuct Reporters, Inc.
25 does exist.
i
~. _.. _. - -
21,031
-#1-9-SueWal; In response to the inmates' contention, the O
2 Commonwealth presented the testimony of Donald F.
- Taylor, 3
Director of Training and Education with the Pennsylvania 4
Emergency Management Agency, also known as PEMA.
5 The Board, in its Third Partial Initial Decision i
i 6
in this proceeding found Mr. Taylor, along with other Common-7 wealth witnesses, to be knowledgeable, competent and credible.
8 END #1 9
Simons flwg 11 i
i i
i j
12 j
i l
l C) 13 i
14 i
I i
15 16 t
17 i
18 i
19 1-20 21 I
I I
22 I
23 i
p 24
, Amdal Reporters, Inc.
25 4
1
.--,,..,,..___-.m..,-.__.._,.._.-_y_
21,032 Sim 2-1 1
As has been established in earlier proceedings, 2
PEMA is the agency responsible for coordination of emergency 3
response in Pennsylvania.
4 This responsibility includes helping State 5
institutions such as the State Correctional Institution at 6
Graterford prepare to respond in a radiological emergency.
7 The responsibility to provide emergency response training 8
to personnel who will help in such a response is set forth 9
in the Commonwealth's Disaster Emergency Response Plan For
.10 Fixed Nuclear Facility Incidents, also known as Annex E in 11 Appendix 19.
12 Appendix 19 of Annex E states that the Common-13 wealth has overall responsibility for providing radiological
{
emergency response training in Pennsylvania.
14 15 In fulfillment of that responsibility, Mr. Taylor 16 h testified that PEMA is of fering training in radiological II l
17 cmergency response to the employees of bus and ambulance l
18 companies with which the Pennsylvania Department of Ccrrec-19 tions has arrangements to provide vehicles and drivers in i
l
~~
20 an evacuation of Graterford.
1 21 These bus and amoulance drivers are the " civilian j
l 22 personnel" who could be called upon to implement the l
)
23 Graterford plan in the event of a radiological emergency i
1 24 at Limerick.
1 A srol Rt porters. Inc.
25 Mr. Taylor testified as transcript page 20,880 i
i l
l 8'
T
4-1-
21,033 that PEMA has adequate staff in terms of numbers and qualifi-Sim 2-2 1
f ()
cations to provide this training.
c With respect to the drivers of buses, Mr. Taylor 3
made an offer by a letter to the six bus companies with j
which the Department of Corrections has arrangemer.ts on 5
April 4th, 1985 with respect to training.
With no response having beer. received to J. ate, 7
i i
Mr. Taylor will in the next several weeks, i e.,
in late 8
i July or early August, visit each of these bus companies and 9
i pers nally urg ea h company to take advantage of the offer 10 of training.
,l q i
l
[
With respect to the ambualance companies with i
I which the Department of Corrections has arrangements to
()
y respond in a Graterford evacuation, again Mr. Taylor testified ll I
that be will write to each company and will pay the company 15 I
I a visit to offer the training program.
With respect to both the bus and de ambulance 1
companies, Mr. Taylor testified that he will make every a
18 i
offort to persuade these companies to accept the PEMA 19 training.
Any training sessions that are conducted will be 20 scheduled in a place and at a time convenient to the drivers.
1 21 Furthermore, the training will not be a "one-22 time only" offer.
Mr. Taylor testified that PEMA will make j
23 i
j the training course or refresher training as appropriate 24 i Ac:/~%
i vrol Reporters, Inc.
i 1
i I
f
--y_.
. - - ------ - -~~-,__mem.,_ w,m r __ ~ ww w.
- ~y-m%
.r.,-y--
-m,,_w_y-y._..,~,,-----,i,,.-.~,,.,%-,.-.---%
-7,.w,w,,y
Sim 2-3 j
company.
l 2
In sum, the record shows that PEMA in its role 3
as coo.rdinator the Commonwealth's response to an emergency 4
at Limerick is making available training for civilians who 5
will transport inmates from the State Correctional Institution 6
at Graterford in a radiological emergency at the Lhneric 7
Generating Station.
g Now the Commonwealth's position is supported 9
further by the testimony on this record of FEMA witnesses 10 James Asher and Richard Kinard.
The record shows that FEMA 11 ; approves the State's plan for offering training in emergency 12 response to these bus and ambulance drivers.
As Messrs.
13 Asher and Kinard testified, and as Mr. Taylor noted on O
14 cross-examination at transcript 20,857, the training contem-15 plated has been given at other sites in Pennsylvania in the 16 vicinity of nuclear power plants.
17 The FEMA witnesses also reviewed the PEMA Plan 18 of Instruction and Mr. Taylor's plan to make this instruction 19 available to the bus and ambulance drivers.
~~
20 FEMA testified that PEMA's training program is 21
" sit.e specific" to Gratcrford and the Limerick facility.
Based 22 on the review of the materials involved in the training i
23 program and the fact that such training has been given 24 Previously, FEMA concluded "There is reasonable assurance that A
srol Repor+er, Inc.
25 emergency response training will be offered to civilian
21,035
'l Sim 2-4 personnel expected to be involved in the implementation of
)
1()
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections'. Radiological 2
3 Emergency Response Plan."
1
}
4 In summary, the record amply establishes that there 5
is reasonable assurance that emergency response training has 6
been, will be and will continue to be offered by PEMA to 7
civilian bus and ambulance drivers who may be involved in 4
j.
8 imp ementation of the Graterford emergency response plan.
l 9
Several additional matters with respect to this 10 contention bear mention.
- )
The first has to do with the nat'ure of the training i
12,being offered to these vehicle drivers, the question being 13l is this training comprehensive enough.
()
i 1
The inmates contend the training is not so, that j 4 l1 l
15 litissomehowlesserthanthetrainingofferedthroughthe ijauspicesoftheapplicanttoschoolbusdriversintheseveral 16 1
risk counties around Limerick.
That training ir discussed j7 18 in detail on this Board's third partial initial decision.
j9 Contrary to the inmates' opinion, the record shows 4
20 that the training PEMA is offering to the bus and ambulance 21 drivers adequately prepares these drivers to participate in 2
22 the Limerick plan.
a 23 The plan of instruction provided by Mr. Taylor i
1 24 indicates the course will provide these personnel with informa-A
- al Reporters, Inc.
25 tion about radiation principles, what are acceptable levels of l
v.,,,---,--._.--va.,-g.,
,.....,w,..a,._,, -.,,,,.,,,,,,,,, - -. _,, -,.,, - _ - -, _,,
,_,._m.-,,
,..., ~ _
,,,,+,.,-m._-
_,g,-,,--m.,-,.
.-~
21,036 S n
-5 radiation during an incident at a fixed nuclear facility, j
()
instruction in how to monitor personal exposure to radiation 2
using dosimetry, if such exposure should occur, and if there-3 f
4 fore the use of dosimetry were to become necessary and how to conduct decontamination monitoring procedures that would l
5 be undertaken in reception and mass care centers.
j 6
Such information will provide these personnel 7
with a thorough background in the nature of a radiological 8
incident and what they should do to protect themselves should-9 10 the unlikely occurrence of radiation exposure occur.
And as both Mr. Taylor and the FEMA witnesses 7;
testified, to the extent issues arise outside the precise 12:
13 l lesson plan during the training course, PEMA will be respon-(
0 j
jap sive to these issues.
I j
15 l
This is outlined in Mr. Taylor's testimony and I
16 !
acknowledged by PEMA in both its written direct testimony i
I 37 and by Mr. Kinard at transcript page 21,000.
18 In addition, Mr. Taylor tectified on cross-j9 examination at transcript pages 20,861 and 20,862 that the 20 course being offered by PEMA is in essence the "same course" 1
offered to school bus drivers in the Limerick risk counties.
21 f
I 22 Indeed, as Mr. Taylor testified, he approved the course offered in the risk counties and certified the 23 f
24 instructors of that course who were employed by applicant's lA eral Reporters, Inc, 25 consultant, Energy Consultants.
21,037 Sim 2-6 The inmates are also concerned that the bus and
)
^
/
ambulance companies will not accept the training.
- Indeed, V,
2 inmate witness case, who, incidentally, the record shows is not an expert in the area of radiolcgical emergency response training, intimates that some sort of financial inducement or incentive must be provided in order for this training to in fact ooccur.
The Board should reject the argument.
First, as FEMA witness Asher testified at 8
transcript 20,001, there is nothing in NRC regulation or the guidance of NUREG 0654 which directs that remuneration be I
11, provided to individuals who receive emergency response I!
i 12l training.
Second, it is likely that both the bus and the o
13 f ambulance companies, once approached in the manner Mr. Taylor 14l 1
I has outlined, will accept training.
Mr. Taylor testified l
15 i
I at transcript page 20,868 that based on his professional experience with other ambulance drivers, it is likely that the ambulance drivers in this case will accept training.
Mr. Taylor also testified that there was no reason to believe the bus comoanies in this case will not accept the 20 training absent some financial inducement, and that may be found at transcript page 20,869.
Most importantly, no party here has presented evidence that any one of these bus or ambulance companies 24 A
g erai keportm. ire will not accept PEMA's offer of radiological emergency 25
21,038 Sim 2-7 1
response training absent financial inducement.
(
2 Finally, as Mr. Taylor explained at. transcript 3
page 20,864, to the extent any bus or ambulance company raises i
4 the issue of financial reimbursement for its employees for the 4
5 time they spend in the trandng course, the matter would be 6
reviewed on an individuc1 case basis by PEMA in conjunction l
7 with the Department of Corrections.
1 i
8 Based on the evidence of record presented by 9
competent witnesses from responsible' State and Federal
~
10 agencies, the Commonwealth submits this Board should find.
4 11 reasonable assurance that amergency response training will l
12 be offered to civilian personnel who will be involved in
{}
implementation of the radiological emargency response plan 13 I4 for the Craterford Institution, il 15 h I will now turn the microphone over to Mr. Otto.
i i
10 ORAL ARGUMENT BY THEOCORE G.
OTTO, III i
17 ON BEHALF OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BURFAU OF CORRECTIONS 18 MR. OTTO:
Good afternoon.
i 19 May it please the Board, I will address the
~~
estimated time of evacuation methodology issue befcre the 20 j.
21 Boarc.
22 The contention was admitted by this Board in 23 its June 12th, 1985 order and was limited to the sufficiency 24 of the methodology used to arrive at the estimated time AO4rol Reporters, Inc.
25 of evacuation.
d 6
p--
e..-,,.-
-.,,,_-.,,,.,,,-,,,-y,_,-,-.,
-.,_,7
-.n,,
--m.
,-,_m,,
21,039 l
Sim~2-8:
1-In the testimony received by the Board, all the 2
witnesses testifying on this issue used the same " components 3
of evacuation" if you will.
By this I mean that none of the 4
witnesses disagreed that to evacuate Graterford one needs 5
to lock down the institution, taka a populatien count, summon 6
additional manpower, have buses arrive from support 7
institutions, restrain and load the inmates and then have 8
the loaded buses evacuate t?e EPZ.
9 There is real'.y no disagreement also as to what 10 events shculd and could take place at che samc *ime.
Buses
]
il should be called, the institution should be locked down and 12 the additional personnel should be s'imatoned all essentially 4
13 at the same time.
C:)
i 14 There are five loading areas, each loading
^
15 l inmates at the same time, cod buses could arriva, ce leaded i
16 and leave as soon as they were leaded and could depart.
17 The real disagreement in the adequacy o' the 18 eight to ten-hour time estimate is due to disagreemen'-
19 in how long each of these components should tal e.
Even 20 this disagreerent is not properly characteiized as a disagree-
~
i
~
21 ment between the experts in the field of corrections, but i
22 more accurately is characterized as a disagreement as to i
23 whether to include a 1:urphy's Law" factor, a " Jesus" f actor i
1
~
24 or evaluate the situction from a worse case scenario point iA arol Reporters, Inc.
U 25 of. view.
r A
~
21,040 Sim 2-9 Turning to the testimony of Superintendent 1
()
Charles Zimmerman, who provided a flow chart to better I
explain the methodology used to come up with the eight to i
3 ten-hour estimate, he testified that the method used was really the only method available.
It is the method used by Commissioner Jeffes when he developed an estimated time of. evacuation in January 1985 and it;is the methodology used essentially by Major Case when he was reviewing our plan and the estimated time of evacuation.
l The time allowed for the lock-down of population
)1 count is based on experience.
The Supcrintendent and his 11 q staff do this a few times a day.
Some mention has been made regarding emergenc;ies (h
where lock-downs took longer than 30 minutes.
The emergencies 14
(
referred to were situations where the inmates really had 151 5
no significant personal interest in complying with the 4
lock-down order.
i 17 In a nuclear emergency they will know what is r
l 18 in their best interest due to the annex to their Inmate 19 Handbook, and they will cooperate.
}
It is reasonable to assum6 that the inmates 21 l
are going to act in their best interest and that locking 22 down is in their best interest.
23 The time allowed for vehicles to arrive from 24 AO"*' P*"'
the support institutions is also reasonable.
The Department 20 l
}
il i
21,041 Sim 2-10 of Corrections regularly runs vans from the support
)
O inseitetions to oreterford end seck to the euegore 2
institutions.
3 The two to four-hour time estimate is really 4
not an estimate, but is based on actual experience.
The 3
concerns raised regarding outgoing traffic hampering the 6
inflow of the buses is not accurate since PEMA, the 7
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, has coordir.ated 8
the routes to protect and prevent this.
9 The adverse weather time frame is also based 33 jjn_
on an actual experience when we have run the vans in other 1
than ideal weather.
12 q"
The off-duty personnel response time is also O
I reasonable since it is based on exoerience.
We test the ja l
15 l call-ih~ procedure'twice a year.
It in the same procedure t
33 l we used to call in personnel when we have otner non-I radiological types of emergencies at tne institution.
j7 18 Although people begin to respond immediately, j9 due to the number cf peopla required for the loading teams and the other functions, a one to two-hour period is 20 3 realistic.
'21 22 The evacuation portion of the flow chart covers 23 the time estimtated to estrain +.ne ir. mace, move the inmate 3
off the cell b1cck to the loading area and loading him A
stol Reporters. Inc.
25 or. the bus.
i
,_,n--.,-,...,_-,_--.-.---_,-
v.
Shn 2-11 1
Our corrections officers are trained in the 2
use of security restraints and use them or a regular basis.
3 With teams of officers going to various cells and restraining b
4 the inmates and having tne inmates follow a line or j
5 corrections officer to the loading area, the evacuation 6
process can run in a smootn, ordariy way.
i 7
The evacuation bagia; portion of the flow 8
chart and the tetal ovacuation time estimate are a combina-i j
9 tion of the above factors allowing for the factors that
'10 can take place at the came time and adding '. period cJ time i
11 l to travel the approximately one-and-a-half miles from i
12 Graterford to the end of the EPZ.
i 13 Major John Case testified rogarding the estimated
{
l o
j 14 tima o,f evacuation and, as I stated earlier, did not so 1
15 much disagree with the analysis of the events inside tre 2
16 /
prison, but the evcats outside the prison.
t
}
17 Major Case acknowledged the professionalism t
18 of Superintendent Zimmerman and his staf f.
He further i
19 acknowledged tl.at the estinated time of evacuatica that i -~
20 wes developed by Superirtendent Zimmerman was the best I
21 es+ir. ate that was possible at the time, except that it was i~
22 bascd on, as he stated, " ideal conditionu."
1 j
23 Major Case testified at page 59 cf his deposition, 24 which is a pe.t of this record, that the timet in the flow j Ac\\ / rel Reporters, Inc.
i j
,5 chart were ceasonable and obtainable.
1 i
l' i
l i
21,043 i
Sim-.2-12 He testified that with the inmates' cooperation, 1
~ -[]
a 30-minute lock-down time could be acl.ieved.
He offered 4
a w rse casc. scenario time c f approximately four hours for 3
the lock-down.
iend Sim 4
4 Joe fcla-5
- ~
I r
6 7
J.
8 f
9 i
10 11 I
12 13 1
L 15 16 1
17 l
18 19 i
i 20 i
I 21 1
1 4
3 22 l-23 i
24 A,,
4rol Repo.ts.s. Inc.lj l
25 1
3-1-Joe Wal 21,044 l
1 1
As to the vehicle arriving portion of the
, O 2
chart, his concern was not with che fact that the two to 3
four hour time could be achieved in normal conditions, but 4
was concerned that during an evacuation, car accidents, 5
panic outside the institution and r.uch factors would slow i
6 the buses arrival.
7 He offered an estimated time of evacuation 8
of twelve to twenty hours as a worst case scenario, and L
9
s.is included the Jesus Factor and Murphy's Law factors 1
10 that were ' raised before.
11 We would propose that the testimony offered 12 by Mr. Case regarding the panic factors, the car accidents
()
13 slowing the buses arriving, and his twelve to twenty hour 14 worst case scenario ETE be given essentially no weight by I
15 this Board, since it directly conflicts with the Board's 16 1 third partial decision on the estimnted time of evacuation i
17 methodology, and also with NUREG 0654.
18 The advisability of a worst case scenario f
19 analysis was also the subject of testirony of Dr. Thomas
{
20 Urbanik.
He specifi cally rejected the vorst case I
-21 ccenario anu ysis in favor of a reasonable and realistic l
22 approach to tne decision -- to give decision makers at the 23 time of an evacuation the best possible ir_ formation with a
24 11 which to make their decision regarding protective actions.
% % e,' nep r m,inc.
l 25 The testimony of Edward Lieberman, a traffic l
g
3-2-Jon Wal-21,045
)
enginner, who is only expert as to the traffic issues.
O 2
As he readily admitted, he was not an expert 3
in prison matters, and only used figures that he thc aght 4;
were reasonable, for the other factors in his testimony.
5 He d.i.d confirm that two to four hour arrival 6
tiin used by Superintendent Zimmerman in the flow chart, and 7
we would prepose
.-f.t the Board give little weight to the j
8 testimony other tl.an the confirmation of the two to four 9
hour estimate, since the other matters he really was not 10 an expert upon.
11 The testimony of Robert Morris submitted by l
12 way of deposition, should be given no weight by the Board.
i l
()
13 It is clear he has no understanding of NUREG. 0654, and t4 rejects the NRC guidelines on evacuation time estimates, f
l i-15 l He would plan for the worst case scenario, I
16 and presumes people would violate traffic laws.
He 17 offered no probative testimony on the limited issue before i
1 18 this Board regarding the evacuation time estimate, and l
19 attempted to resurrect an issue resolved in the Board's i --
f 20 thi rd partial initi al decision regarding evacuation of the j
21 Populace in general.
l 22 We Propose that the Board adopt the testimony I
i 23 of Superintendent Zimmerman in its entirety, based upon 24 his experience in the field.
His testimony should be adopted
- Ace-rol Reporters, Inc.
25 in its entirety because it complies with the requirements I
i I
3-3-Joe Wal 21,046 1
of NUREG 0654, and is in compliance with this Board's i
(^)
2 third partial initial decision, especially the portion 3
' regarding metho,dology and validity of evacuation time 4
estimates.
5 For all the above reasons, we would ask this 4
1 6
Board to find as a matter of law the ETE ceveloped by the 7
Department of Corrections as an adequate basis for the 4
8 planning of appropriate protective actions for the 9
Graterford personnel and inmates, and that the Graterford j
10 inmates have not proven the insufficiency of the methodology 11 used in arriving at the ETE.
i 12 Thank you.
l ()
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Love?
i 14 g MR. LOVE:
Yes.
I would like to begin my 1
I 15 presentatien by passing out my proposed findings of fact and l
16 conclusions of law, i
17 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
I 18 (Mr. Love passes out documents.)
j 19 JUDGE HOYT:
Would the reporter hand one of
{
20 those up to the Board, please?
21 (Reporter hands document to Board. )
6 22 MR. LOVE:
If I might also, I do have that 23 additional copy of the Morris Deposition.
I will give it 24 to you at this time.
uurei Reporters, Inc.
25 (Reporter hands document to Board.)
i l
3-4-Joe Wal ll 21,047 1
MR. LOVE:
If the Board pleases, I would like O,
2 to review the testimony at these hearings, and summarize 3
our position with respect to the radiological emergency 4
response plan for the State Correctional Institute at 5
Graterford.
6 I would also like to briefly touch upon the 7
history of this issue, and certain procedural problems l
8 that have developed.
9 Although the parties arguing in favor of 10 adoption of the radiological emergency response plan for 11 the State Correctional Institute at Graterford appear to h
12 far outnumber those objecting to the plans, such numbers
()
13 should not be allowed to sway the panel as to the merits 14 of the case.
I t
15 Many of the parties in favor of the -- approval 4
16 of the plan as is have a vested interest in the outcome of f
l i
17 this case.
18 The Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, 19 has stated publicly that the expected cost of the Limerick f
1 --
l l
20 facility is 7.23 billion dollars.
Until they receive a full l
21 power license, this amount cannot be passed on to the rate-22 payers, so their interest are clear.
23 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
(~}
24 Department of Corrections, the Governor's Energy Council, j Amwerti Reporters, Inc.
25 and PEMA, all have helped in the. development of the plan,
)
-,----,,,,,,-a
-a,,
3-5-Jo2 Wal 21,048 1
so their bias is obvious.
2 The NRC Staff can't help but be i'nfluenced by 3
its prior mandate to promote nuclear power while it was 4
functioning under the title of the Atomic Energy Commission.
5 FEMA's role in this proceeding was very limited 6
by law to a mere assertion that training would be offered 7
to bus companies, an offer requiring the writing of one 8
form letter and sending it to six bus companies.
9 Against these formidable odds and resources, 10 stand the inmates of the State Correctional Institute at 11 Graterford.
12 Their only concern is their safety.
These l
()
13 are individuals who are most likely going to spend the rest 14 of their natural lives at the facility, and thus their 15 concerns are also obvious.
16 With the assistance of two exceptionally well 17 qualified experts who have donated their time and expertise, j 18 they have presented testimony that many inadequacies exist 19 in the current planning.
The two experts to which I refer i
20 to are Major John Case, a former major in the United States 21 Marine Corps, in which he served for 22 years.
I 22 After that, he was the Director of the Bucks l
23 County Correctional System, and Warden of the Bucks County l
24 Prison for 12 years, and is currently the field director
(-}
Amwarst Reporters. Inc.
25 of the Pennsylvania Prisons Society, an organization that was B
..,---w~
w
---r y
my,m.._.-mme
,e_,,,,,
_-,._,,.w___.-y,----.._---._-,w--..
.m--
.y,w---_-memr
<..y_.yy
21,049 3-6-Joe Wal 1
formed for the betterment of prison conditions in 1787 by 2
Dr. Benjamin' Rush.
3 Also donating their services to the inmate cause 4
was Robert L.
Morris, a traffic control expert, whose previous 5
experience includes planning for the District of Columbia 6
Metro Subway Syatem, and the routes of engress and egress 7
for the Baltimore Harbor Revitalization Project.
8 Among the deficiencies cited by these experts 9
are the confusion surrounding what the actual estimated time 10 of actuation is, and its overall reliability.
The failure 11 to include many potential hazards that incoming vehicles such l j
E 12 as buses, vans, ambulances and the automobiles of the
~
13 correctional officers will face.
The unreliability of 14 certain time frames mentioned in the flow chart.
15 The lack of a guarantee that civilian bus training 16 will be adequately -- that civilian bus drivers will be 17 adequately trained so as to carry out their respective I
18 tasks.
19 With respect to the history of this issue, the 20 inmates briefly point out that they entered the proceeding in !
21 September of 1981 with the filing of a petition to intervene. !
i 22 This petition was accepted in 1982 after an 23 additional filing of 18 affidavits from inmates serving 24 long term sentences at the State Correctional Institute
]
Am '%rsi Reporters, Inc.
I 25 at Graterford.
l i
I I
21,050 3-7-Jon Wal 1
No further movement occurred on this matter y O,s 2
until December 14, 1984, when the RERP foraGraterford 3
was received by inmates counsel.
l
[
4 Unfortunately, the document was heavily censored,
{
)
5 and curtailed in length.
The inmates, after consultation 6
with Major Case, moved for further disclosure.
However, their 7
request was rejected by this Board.
8 At the Appeal's Counsel suggestion, a compromise 9
was worked out.
The inmates attorney and expert reviewed a 10 second plan, which 3eas over three times in length of the i
11 first plan, and contained very little censorship.
l 12 Said plan was reviewed at the State Correctional !
()
13 Institute at Graterford in March of 1985.
14 When the inmates sought to revise their i
15 contentions based upon a review of the second plan, the 16 Board ruled against them and dismissed them as a party to i
I 17 this proceeding.
18 Once again, the Appeals Court intervened, reinstating the inmates and giving them until May 15, 1985 19 20 to file their contentions.
21 A footnote in that decision indicated that any 22 delays in this proceeding cannot be laid at the feet of the 23 Graterford inmates.
n 24 On May 9, 1985, a few days before the contentions Amberd Reporters, Inc.
25 were due, this Board granted the Applicant's motion for an i
i
l 1} _ - - _
3
's s
3"8-Jos'Wal i i
21,051 1
1 P
^
't 1
exemption from these proceedings.
b5 l
i p
2 Yet another eppeal followed by'the inmates, abd the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its ruling in early
,3 3
1 Jubofoundthatimportantquestionsregardingthehearing 4
rightcOof the inmates had not yet been resolved.
g 5
[ z ',.
!. E.
o
.i j
6.
In accorddnce with this ruling, the Appeal Board
'i 7
denied the exemption request, and the Licensing Board r
8 scheduled these hearings.
9 Although the hearing schedule proposed did not 10 give the inmates many of the procedural time frames suggested 11 by Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the inmates 12 reluctantly agreed to an expedited hearing schedule.
3 t
,i
{)
13 Several problems arose regarding discovery and 14 deposition schedules.
All but three procedural concerns l
)
15 were resolved.
t
a v
16 These matters include discovery request to the i
f ir L
17 State which resulted in a lack of information being brought 1
16 forth regarding seven prior emergencies at the State Correctional' i
19 Institute at Graterford, and the lock down times of each s
I
}
l 20 emergency.
l,i
~
21 Information received provided the lock down times 22 of only one of the seven incidents requested.
l 23 Further requests for log book entries went (7)f 24 unheeded.
A second letter, mailed to the Department of Ace +J'fd Reporters, Inc.
25 Corrections on July 8th, 1985, was not received until one day 3
\\
I
3-9-Jon Wal 21,052 1
after Superintendent Zimmerman's testimony began on July 15,
,_s i
\\
2 1985.
3 A second procedural concern involving the 4
proposed testimony of an inmate witness, Thomas Martin, 5
after an initial agreement to depose Martin fell through, 6
Martin submitted a statement mailed to the NRC on July 5, 7
1985, well before the July 8, 1985 deadline for pre-offered 8
testimony.
9 The Board has refused to accept his testimony, 10 g stating that his testimony was not received until July 10th.
11 Another unusual delay in the routine mailing of First Class I
12 {
Mail.
(()
13 Uhile inmate attorneys did not receive several l
I 14 pre-offered testimonies until well after this date, those t
t i
I I
15{
testimonies were allowed into evidence.
i 16 Therefore, the only voice of the clielt's in this 17 case will not be entered into the record.
p3 The final procedural concern involves the f
normal time frames allotted interveners in the licensing 19 20 process.
I 21 While the inmates did agree to the expedited j
22 schedule, they would like to point out that said schedule 23 has hindered their ability to put on the case.
Theynotethat)
(~}
24 Rule 10 CFR 7.443B calls for proposed written testimony to be AEh.eral Remrters, Inc.
25 submitted at least fifteen days in advance of the hearings.
t i
i
3-10-JonWal'{
21,053 1
In this case, the time frame was seven days.
7s
(
)
'~'
2 A motion to compel discovery norm ~ ally can be 3
filed within ten days of a refusal to produce evidence.
4 Inmates counsel did not know the extent of the Commonwealth's 5
lack of cooperation until July 15, 1985, the day the hearings 6
began.
7 The time frame normally allotted to interveners 8
under 10 CFR 2.754 for the submission of proposed findings 9
of fact and conclusions of law is forty days.
In this l
10 instance, we have been given less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to complete i.
11 l the task.
12 In order to receive a full power license, the
(~)
13 Applicant must comply with emergency planning requirements K/
of 10 CFR 50.47.
These regulations were promulgated by the ta i
15 'i United States Congress after the accident at Three Mile 16 l Island plant in Harrisburg, pennsylvania in order to l
17 heighten concerns as to safety issues.
18 The Applicant, with the approval of FEMA, must 19 give reasonable assurances that their plans exist and will 20 work.
21 The burden is on those parties to prove their 22 case, and not on the inmates.
It is our position that they 23 have failed to meet this burden.
Their testimony is i
(~l 24 incomplete, at times confusing, and inadequate.
AJ. _le i nnenm. ine.
I 25 With respect to the merits of these claimt, j
i
1 3-11-Jon Wal 21,054 1
the inmates point out that with respect to the overall O
~2 estimated time of evacuation, its methodology, its 3
reliability, the inmates contend that the Department of 4
Corrections has not provided us with a reasonable assurance 5
that the ETE can be achieved, thus rendering it reliable 6
for decision makers use.
7 In support of this proposition, they point 8
out the following.
Some four years ago an initial estimated 9
time of evacuation was presented.
This document suggested 10 a time frame of five hours and thirty minutes if the 11 Graterford prisoners would be evacuated in the daylight.
f 12 This document was later superseded by another c
(}
13 document which was attached to the Applicant's first i
14 request for an exemption as an exhibit.-
It was an affidavit i I
15 of a Mr. Schmidt and a Mr. Keyser, in which it contained 16 information.
l l
17 It stated that the estimated time of evacuation 18 for the State Correctional Facility at Graterford is six i
19 to ten hours.
j 20 During these hearings, we have heard testimony 21 from Superintendent Zimmerman that his estimated time of 22 evacuation, which was derived without input by Jeffries, 23 states eight to ten hours.
24 Ace (v}rst Reporters, Inc.
I further point out that it appears that these
~
25 two estimates were derived completely independent of each l
1
[ 3-12-Jon Wal 21,055 4
1 other.
i O i
2 The plan itself containes no ETE and the Board i
l 3
has stated that it must contain such an ETE, and the inmates 4
question which ETE will be used.
I I
5 If it is Superintendent Zimmerman's ETE, then 6
we point out the following problems with his independent i
l 7
analysis.
]
8 Initially he estimates that the vehicle entry 9
for the buses, vans, and other vehicles necessary to conduct i
10 the evacuation will take approximately two to four hours.
l 11 The buses will be coming from 190 miles or less, using major i
r 12 and secondary roads.
! O is
"=- =t==erman stated that he based his assumptions 4
14 upon assurances from the Department of Corrections that the I
i 15 +
buses would be there in that time frame, and his reliance i
l 16 upon PEbm.
i 17 Neither of these parties testified as to their l
1 l
[
18 roles in the development of this aspect of the ETE.
j i
i a
l f
End 3.
19
-Sue Wal fols.
4 20 l
i I
21 f
j l
22 l
23 l
i 3 p 24
{ Ace +wati Reporters, Inc.
i 25 f.
N
21,056
- 4-1-SueWall Robert Morris, a traffic control expert, seriously 2
questions their ability to perform the task within the four 3
hours due to their failure to include accidents on the road-4 ways, panic factor, wind conditions which may blow radioactive 5
releases over a certain area, thereby closing certain evacua-6 tion routes and corridors, and other meteorological data.
7 With respect to the panic factor issue, Mr. Morris 8
states that it is his belief that the outgoing general public 9
evacuations may result in certain persons using the shoulders !
l 10 of the roads, as is often done in the normal traffic jam 11 J situations, and perhaps even crossing onto the incoming lanes, i
12 f thereby reducing or even closing those lanes.
13 l Mr. Morris states that the factors -- if these
/^x x) 14 ll factors were worked into the time frame, it would be a n
15 j considerably longer period of time due to the disruption d
16 l:
caused by the outgoing vehicles to the vehicles entering the n
il 17 l area.
18 Superintendent Zimmerman states that his time 19 frames are based upon normal conditions and do not take 20 into account any possible disruptions caused by outgoing 21 traffic.
22 The inmates point out the problems the vehicles, 23 buses, et cetera will face upon entry will also be encounter 24 ed by the incoming manpower mobilized to conduct the evacua-A4no n.nonm, Inc.
25 tion.
Unreliability of the commercial telephone lines may i
6 l
21,057 6 4-2-SueWall render the call-up system inadequate, according to the O
2 testimony of Robert Morris.
Superintendent Zimmerman states 3
that the call-up system has never been tested during an 4
emergency that effects both the prison and the surrounding 5
communities.
6 Prior testimony before this Board by a Rick Brown, 7
an AT&T technician, stated that dial tone delays were up to 8
thirty minutes during the floods of Hurricane Agnes in 1972.
9 Major Case has suggested that the overall estimated time 10 of evacuation could just as easily be twelve to twenty hours.,
I Il f This estimate was made during his deposition and i
i i
12 i was based upon all information available to him upon -- at I_ ])
13,,
that date.
He expressed concern that 'eithout the inmates i
14 being orientated there was little chance of Zimmerman's 15 estimates being met.
16 l Surprisingly, Superintendent Zimmerman stated 11 17 '
during his testimony that an addendum would be added to the 18 inmate handbook as a possible solution to Cace's concerns.
39
!!c admitted that this was something that had just recently 20 come up and hadn't been given any prior thought.
21 If the orientation is given and it includes a 22 drill and periodic retraining, Major Case believes that the 23 lock-down portion of the flow chart can be achieved within l
24 the thirty minute time fra.ae suggested by Superintendent ek er;l Reporters, Inc.
25 Zimmerman.
d
21,058 4-3-S ueWall Prior lock-downs at SCIG do create another impres-2 sion.
The power failure of September 12th, 1983 took between 3
two and eight hours before all of the cell blocks at Grater-4 ford were locked down.
Superintendent Zimmerman testified 5
that a subsequent power failure in February of '84 took 6
approximately two hours tu lock the institution down.
7 He cited the problems that resulted from these 8
incidents could be avoided if there had been backup lighting 9
situations which have currently been installed.
An Inmate l
exhibit covering the hostage seige in October of 1981 indicated 10 g 11 that the lock-down time during that incident was over two l
l 12 !
hours, and that the reason for such was that there was no l
(_f 13 l, loudspeaker system in the prison to communicate to the in-q
'd mates who were at far locations.
4 So I assume that Superintendent Zimmerman would 16 blame that one on the lack of u loudspeaker system.
Il 17 l
Major Case states that Zimmerman's overall ETE 18 is based upon ideal conditions.
Mr. Otto has just suggested l
19 that Case's ETE is based upon inclusion of the Murphy's Law 20 and a " Jesus" factor.
21 We will leave it to the Board's opinion whether 22 the ETE should be based upon ideal conditions such as what 23 routes -- what time it takes buses to come from one cor-f I
y, rectional facility to another, say, for example today; or eks s,;r:I Reporters, Inc.
25 whether the corresponding public evacuation and other such L
21,059
- 4-4-SueWalj considerationc should b2 worked into the formula.
O 2
We also note the fact that Major Case is experienced 3
in moving large numbers of persons as he did plan and direct 4
a troop mobilization during the Korean conflict of three 5
thousand individuals from the front lines to the rear, 6
and that his estimates were in fact accurate when the evacua-7 tion took place.
Case has also stated that even with inmate orienta-!
g tion an estimated time of evacuation of twelve to eighteen 9
I 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> can be expected.
11 l The purpose of the estimated time of evacuation l
12 l is so it can be used as a tool by emergency planners in
~
l
( ])
13,,
decision making.
As evidence of its unreliability, the in-l mates point to the fact that Skippack Township, the town-ta a
15 y ship in which the prison is located, has failed to approve Il 16 a plan due to their unanswered concerns about the Graterford H
evacuation plan.
17 18 Superintendent Zimmerman's plan may also be 19 mooted by the expected continued population increases in his 20 and other prisons.
Already more than one hundred persons 21 are -- already the official estimates utilized in planning 22 are exceeded by one hundred inmates.
Population increases 23 of thirty-eight percent from 1979 to 1983 have swelled
(~]
24 Pennsylvania prisons and counties to their uppermost limits.
A= s m ara nepon.,. ine.
i 25 This population increase is not expected to level I
b
21,060
,#4-5-SueWall off for some ti~.e now.
We are just now seeing the effects 2
of r.andatory sentencing and sentencing guidelines in the continued growtn of the population, the prison population.
4 SCIG already has plans which are underway to build an addi-5 ticnal five hundred persons cell block, which will be 6
completed by 198'.
7 No mention has been made of any considerations 8
for these additional persons.
I 9
Finally, there is no assurance that the civilians l
10 involved in this evacuation, i.e.
the bus and ambulance i
Il i drivers, will be adecuately trained.
To date, all that has 12 l been done in this area is to send out one form letter to
(~')
13 lg six bus companies.
Despite the fact that this was done on n
la h April 4th, 1985 no responses have been received to date, a
15 not even a phone call.
16 ]
Given the twin dangers of nuclear radiation and il 17 the transportation of dangerous individuals, the inmates 18 believe additional steps must be taken to insure that the 19 training will, in fact, be offered.
The possibility of 20 l financial incentives could help, according to Major Case.
21 Training on inmate custody and control will not 22 be given to drivers, according to !!r. Taylor.
Taylor also 23 states that there is no need for any additional training, 24 as the movement of inmates is no different than the movement Ageral Reporters, Inc.
25 of school children.
We bog to differ and rely upon common b
l i
21,061
,Me-6-SueWaB sense en that issue.
No training has been offered to ar.bult.nce drivers to date.
1l FEMA has expressed little concern as to the motiva-4 tion of civilian personnel to participate in this activity.
5 FENA also believes that training could be counterproductive 6
and discourage participation of some civilians.
I 7
All in all, Major Case states there is no 8
information available that indicates the bus companies will 9
cooperate.
Once again, we point out that the burden is not f
i
~
10 upon the inmates to prove that they won't cooperate but upon l
11 the Applicant and developers of the plans to prove that they I
12 i will in fact be trained.
l( )
13,,
Ms. Forkin, in her closing remarks, stated that i
f 14 no evidence has been given that the bus companies will in i
i e
15 fact cooperato.
I would like to point out that this is 16 [
impessible to provo, as the bus companica' identitics have 17 remained confidential and are not available to myself or 18 anyone else.
So, it would be impossible to gauge their 19 level of concern on this issue.
l 20 '
Those facts lead us to conclude that the Depart-21 mont of Correctionc, FEMA and PEMA have not carried their i
22 burden to provido a reasonable assuranco that the ETE is 23 reliable, that the methodology utilized will work, and that
(~]
24 the civilians will be trained.
Ace ~2,ct Reporters, Inc.
25 Thus, we request that you rule in our favor and l
3
21,062 f*4-7-SueWdl' make sure that whatever offers have been made are in fact t
)
2 carried out, waatever orientation plans have been discussed 3
will in fact occur, and that the training to be offered 4
will in fact be given.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Hassell, have you received your 7
papers yet?
8 MR. HASSELL:
No, I haven't, Judge Hoyt.
All I i
I 9
can do at this point is ask leave from the Board to --
10 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
y 11 f MR. HASSELL:
-- file it as soon as it arrives.
i 12 ;
JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
We will --
l' l" "1R.
HASSELL:
The best information I have is
<~x (l
n id that it will arrivo shortly.
That's ab;ut all I can tell l
15 you.
16 0 JUDGE HOYT:
We will provide the time necessary, il 17 'l Mr. Hassell.
18 I believe, however, there are two matters, Mr.
I9j Love, that the Board cannot permit to stand and they are i
20 '
on this record that you have raised in your oral argumeat.
21 One is the testimony of a Thomas Martin, an 22 inmate at Graterford.
The testimony of Mr. Martin was 23 attached as submitted, will be attached to the docket of 9,,,,s nenoet,,i, inc 24 this record.
It is not before the Board 2 ovidence.
,e 25 MR. LOVE:
I apologize.
I do undarstand that.
It n,
21,063 64-8-SueWa3 is not part cf the record.
HowcVer, it will be submitted --
0 2
marked and submitted as a document that was not accepted.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
Tne second thing, Mr. Love, 4
that I would like to remind you of is the procedure that is being ut.lized here; that is, that the oral arguments 4
5 6
were to be made at the conclusion of the testimony rather 7
than the submission of a written brief were agreed to at 8
the conference call of June 17th, 1985 and as memorialized 9
on Page 3 of the Order following on June 18th, and I quote I
10 as follows:
i 11 f "Further decision reached in this conference was I
I 12 the Board's notice to the parties that it would not order i
()
13 l briefs at the conclusion of the hearings on the Graterford U
14 h contention.
Rather the Board advised the parties that oral H
i 15 arguments would be pert.itted and that any party wishing to j
a 16 do so could file simultaneously uith their oral arguments il 17 written outlines of their findings of fact and conclusiona 16 of law.
This procedure by the parties, the Board !>elieves, 19 l is in keeping with the Commission's diractions for expeditious p
20 i handling in this case.
The Board now announces that it will 21 grant an appropriate of time not to exceed twenty-four hourn 22 from the conclusior,of the testimony to t're beginning of the 23 !
oral arguments by the partica for review ard/or p reparation."
(')
24 All right.
We will recess for approximately ten w _m nneemi. inc.
i I
25 l minutes, Mr. !!as s ell.
Pernnpa that will give you a chance
'.o ll ll a
i
l l
21,064
,J4-9-SueWah check on the arrival of it.
If additional time is needed we G
2 will, of course, provide it.
3 MR. HASSELL:
Okay.
I will check on it.
If it's 4
not here, I'm still prepared to go forward.
5 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
You can go forward with 6
the argument and we will keep the record open then until 7
such time as they do arrive.
6 The hearing is in recess.
9 (Whereupon, the hearing is recessed at 2:10 p.m.,
l 10 to reconvene at 2:35 p.m.,
this same day.)
l END #4 11 l Sinions flws j 12 1 i
()
13 n o
14 l l
d 15 ll 16 n
17 1
1 18 19 20 21 22 23 m. u,,, a..,,,......
25
l 21,065 JUDGE HOYT:
The hearing will come to order.
- Sim 5-1 1
V)
Let the record reflect that all the parties to the t'
2 hearing who were present when the hearing recessed are again 3
present.
4 At the conclusion of the previous session Mr. Love 5
had completed his oral argume.-ts and we are now resdy for that 6
of the NRC Staff.
7 It is the understarding of the Board that the
.a I
~
simultaneous filing of facts and conclusions of law will 9
be forthcoming as soon as Mr. IIassell receives them from 10 his office by electronic means.
);
12l Pri r to your beginning or the argument, Mr. IIassol L, i
1 t me inquire of you, your arguments, your findings of fact i
13 O
)4 4 and conclusions of law, do you ha\\e those on the ibm disc h
in Washit.gton?
15 16lll l
MP. 11 ASS :LL:
T be frank, I really do not know.
l l
I I just don't know.
I can check, but I just don't 1:now.
j7 JUDGE !!OYT:
Does the applicant have his written 18 l
submissions en IBM disc?
j j9 MR. CONNER:
No.
I am informed that they are 20 l
l un Wang discs.
21 JUDGE !!OYT:
Is that compatible with IDM7
,22 I
l MR. CONNER:
I haven't the foggiost idea.
1 23 JUDGE !!OYT:
I haven' t eithor.
24 O
At"stol R porters, Inc.
25 Woll, let r.e c.xplain why the Board mentioned that.
h
1 21,066 Sim 5-2 The Board with its word processing machine, if the disc is available from tne parties, we take the disc j
2 and we an use that in setting up our decisions a little 3
bit quicker.
It is simply instead of the old cut and paste 4
method, with the electronic systems of today and office machinery you can do it that way.
That is the only inquiry, if you understood what I meant, Mr. Love.
7 MR. LOVE:
Yes, I understand, and I would also he happy to provide you with our disc if need be.
9 JUDGE HOYT:
Do you have your arguments on disc?
g Il
!!R. LOVE:
It is on a disc.
It is Compu Corp. I
,l i
{
bolicyc disc.
l l
JUDGE liOYT:
Again, you will have to toll mo I
whether or not it is ccit.patibio with IBM becausu that is tho l
pl g ]
word proce:: sing machinery that the Board has available.
,,1!
nn. tOvt:
I u111 inquire as to that.
JUDGE HOYT:
If you will, and I didn't realizo l
your arguments were on word processing.
If it is, wo would be happy to have them as well.
g us. rerkin, I don't want to icava you out.
von don't have any proposed findings.
All right.
21 V ry w 11.
I w
angt them all in and food 22 them into our word processing, it expeditos the preparing 23 of the Board's decision.
24
%g ' P""-
1 rogrot taking up so much timo in that sort fl
21,067 Sim 5-3 1
of a discussicn, but, Mr. Hassell, would you begin your 2
nrgument now, please, your oral argument, 3
ORAL ARGUMENT OF DONALD F.
HASSELL 4
ON BEHALF OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INDEX 5
MR. HASSELL:
Yes, Judge Hoyt.
6 If it pleases the Board, the Staff's principle l
7 argument will be set forth in the Staff's written filing in 8l the NRC Staff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 9
law on the Gratorford issues.
10 Here today I will just summarize the principle 11 points raised in that argement anc emphacizo some of the 12 evidence I beJieve that the Board should be directed to.
13 At the outset, however, I find that I really can't 14 go without commenting on something that was mentioned in the 15 Graterford Inmates' argurent, and I holieve it was the 16j proposition that the :;RC Lcaf f has a vcated intercs; in the 1/
outcomo of thic proceeding.
18 First of all, I believo this record is void of 19 any evidenco or information whatsoever that would support
~~
20 such a proposition.
21 The second part of my responso would be that 22 the U.d.
Congress took it upon itsolt to decide the quantion 23 of the promotional aspects of the Atomic Enorgy Commission 24 and abol.4shed tho Atomic Enorgy Commission and catablished 7y te tru ReporterL te t.
25 the Nuclear Regulatory Coumission which han cloorly a 4
21,068 Sim 5-4 1
ma nd at.e.
2 I don't believe there is anything on this record 3
that supports that the staff has discharged its responsi-4 bilitics inconsistent with the legislative mandato that has 5
been granted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
6 I believe it is helpful at the outset to set in 7
context precisely the elements of the admitted contentions 8
which the Staff submits should govern the evaluation of the 9
evidence in this record.
10 In the Board July 12th order it admitted two II bases for the general contention that there is no reasonablo y
12f assurance that the radiological omorgency reponso plans for
,q 13 l the State Correctional Institution at Greatorford will protoc' V
14f the inmates of said institution in the event of a nuclear n
15 '!
c~crgency at the Limeric}: Generating Station.
i 10 l With respect to the basis admitted for training, i
l there woro several alemente of that basis that woro admitted 17 18 by the Board.
19 The first was that thoro is no reasonable assuranco
~
20 that omorgency responao training will be offored, and I 21 un,lorscore offored, to civilian bus and ambulanco drivors 22 who will assist in evacuating the Stato Correctional Institutirn 23 at Gratorford.
1 24 With respect to that particular clomont, I bellovo A.
,,ai n perte,i, lac.
25 the Grayterford Inmatos have misconstrued the admitted l
l
21,069 Sim 5-contention by arguing that there has been no assurance that
)
O ene ariver witt de eaeeueee1r tre1=ea-a
- de11 eve 2
there is anything in the contention itself or the basis for 3
the training contention that offers that up as the subject 4
matter for this particular hearing.
Nonetheless, the Graterford Inmates have essentiall3 6
offered two concerns with regard to whether there is 7
reas na assurance dac emergency response training wHl be 8
provided.
These concerns are principally reflected in the 9
t stimony of Major Jora Case.
10 The first concern that he rained was whether there 11.d w u,ld be a guarantee that there would bo participatica of 12 I
O
" l tihe civilian bus drivers and ambulance drivers in the training, tnat they woulu be notified.
ja, and a guarantee I
15 ll I cubmit to the Board that that is not the Doard's charuu.
The st.andard to be applied in thr* contoxt of the y
p f Commission's emcrgoney planning proceedings is reasonable assuranco, and the cito for that of courso would be at jg 39 10 CFR Soction 50.47 and Appendix E to CFR Part 50 and NUREG 20 0654, FEMP Rep. 1, Revision 1 dated November 1980.
~
21 With recpoct to his second concern, which was whether the civilian bus drivors and ambulanco drivors would' 22 23 acc pt training abnont financial incentivos, I bollove tho 24 r c rd in ossentially devoid of any bania for Mr. Cano's A
rol Reportert, lat.
concorno.
25
l 21,070 Sim 5-6 I believe that the testiinor.; of Mr. Taylor, the Director of Training and Education for the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency anc the testimony of Mr. Asher 3
and Mr. Kinard establish that, No.
1, financial incent2.ves 4
are nat required to be offered under the Commission's guidance in the emergency planning area and that, secondly, that the absence of such financial incentives, based on the testimony 7
of Mr. Taylor, would not precluda the drivers from accepting the training.
9 l
With respect to the second clcmont that has boon l
10 1
I in the Bonrd's June 12th, 1994 order ad-itting the II[ raised contention, it dealt with the method by which the commonwealth il seoks to offer such training, i.c.,
by letter to such civilian 13 bus crivers anc amoulance cirivers is inadequato because (a) ythereisnoguaranteethattheemployeeswilloverreceive eOinnynoticeoftheopportunityto8" ail themselvec of the 16 p I
1 training program and (b) the training envisioned by tho 17 i
'imatos was a broader and coro comprohonsive training program 3
g such as the training program offorod to school bus drivers, and j9 1 r was a i
was 11rd pa M al in M al decision 20 describing the nature of that particular training, g
I submit that thoro is amplo evidenco in this record g
that establinhos, first of all, that thoro is reasonablo g
i annurance that tho bus companios and ambulanco companion will i
O A Q u al h po'* "'
notify the potontial drivers involved and that training will t
1
21,071 Sim 5-7' 1
be offered.
O
(_/
2 This I beld vee is established by the. testimony 3
of Mr. Taylor and by the testimony of FEMA.
In fact, FEMA 4
explicitly testified that they had been given assurances 5
by PEMA that Mr. Taylor would make a direct personal visit 6
and I believe it is entirely reasonable for FEMA to rely on 7
such an assurance from a Government official.
I don't think 8
there is anything in the record that establishes therefore 9
that there would not be reasonable assurance that the drivers 10 in question would be notified of the availability of the l
11 q training.
If 12 ll And again, I would like to make clear that the 13l issue here is not whether the drivers will be adequately
)
i 14 l trained.
Il 15 1i The third principle element related to the basis 16 j for the training aspect of this contention concerned the i
17 inmates' contention that the two-hour couse to be offered 18 by PEMA is not as comprohonsivo as the one offered to the 19 bus drivers of the school childron and is thoroforo inadequato.
~
20 With roupect to this issue, if you review Major 21 Cane's testimony thoro is vary little, if anything, that 22 suggests that the courso that will bo offered by PEMA as not 23 forth in Mr. Taylor's profiled tontimony and the Plan of 24 Instruction No. 7 attached to that testimony is not tho A
yet Reporteri. Im.
25 appropriato training that should bo offorod to thoso
21,072 Sim 5-8
)
carticular bus drivers.
()
2 I submit that it is important for the. Board to 3 keep in mind FEMA's testimony that the training, if any, that 4
is needed should be appropriate to the individual's. expected 5
duty during that evacuation, and I submit that the record 6 demonstrates that the expected role of these drivers is an 7 extremely limited one and that the testimony indicates and the 8 evidence of records indicates that l'. does not include inmate 9 custody and control, and that the evidence of record supports 10 the proposition that therefore training in that particular as raised by t'e intervenors is definitely unnecessary,
))parea r
n 12 P So the staf f would subuit in su:=ary that with i
13 respect to the elements of tho basis for the training aspect 14 of the contention that there is ample support in the record 11 1
15 1 for this Board to find that there is renconabic arsurance h
16!, that emergency response training will be of fered to civilian d
{ bus and ambulance drivers who will assist in evacuating tho 17 18 Stato Correctional Institution at Gratorford, and that thore 19 la amplo evidonce in this record for this Board to find that 20 the method by which the commonwealth necks to offor such l
21
- training, i.o.,
by lottor fullowod up with personal visits i
22 by the Director of Training and Education for PEMA to urgo 23 the companion involved and to hnvo the employcon avail 24 themsolvon of tho training in sufficient for tho Doard to
, A<g-)
g2,.i e,p,,,,i, W.
25 find that the method that they aro using to notify thn i
21,073 i
Sim 5-9 1
drivers of the training meets the reasonable assurance 2
standard called for by the Commission's emergency planning 3
regulations and guidance.
With respect to the second basis of the contention S
that is of concern, the estimated time of evacuation of the 0
l State Correctional Institution at Graterford, there were 7
essentially three concerns as set forth by the Board'in its 0
order admitting the contention.
The first was that there is no reasonable assurance l
that the estimated time of evacuation of six to ton hours 11 ll can be achieved.
Beforo I movo on to the other two, I will address 1
13 that argument now very briefly.
y
" Il The Staff essentially believes that any question l
15 ll now about whether what I will call the original or Comnissioner 16 Jeffca' catimate of six to cight hours, qucctions concerning I7 the adequacy of the basis or methodclogy for that particular 18 octimato are ossentially moot.
Tho Euronu of Corrections has looked at that 20 ontimato and they have indopondantly, as I understand it 21 from tho testimony in thic procooding and evidenco in this i
22 procooding in conjunction with discussions with Commission i
l 23 Jeffos, davoloped a what I will call a revised ostimato of 24 4<G oight to ton hours.
jos n,penm, w 25 The Staf f submits that that antimato is occontially i
l
. ~ _.
21,074 Sim 5-10 conaistent with the first estimate and believes that based j
/'
(_)N 2
upon the testimony of Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Urbanik and 3
Superintendent Zhnmerman is consistent with NUREG 0654, 4
Appendix 4, which is the guidance that governs the development 5
of an evacuation time estimate for a special facility, and 6
that because the evidence demonstrates that, that therefore 7
there would not be any requirement for there to be any change g
in the emergency planning or preparedness for the State 9
Correctional Institution at Gratorforcl.
10 Given that in the Staff's view there would be no 11 such change.and the evidence cleurly doesn't support that 12 there would bo such a change in the estimato, and given that 13 it has been clearly establishod that nothing in the Commission'. ;
y regulations or guidanco requirac that a particular ETE n
15 il developed for a special f acility be achieved in a particular
]i 16fperiodofLima, that accentially qucatieno concerning the 17 adequacy of the bacia for the methodology for what I call l
10 the original six to ton-hour ostimato has in offect boon 19 mooted becauso it is very cloar at this point that the Stato l
l 20 Correctional Institution at Gratorford will bo relying upon 21 the oight to ton-hour entimato developed by Superintendant 22 Zimmorman.
i 23 With respect to the second clomont that the Staff i
l 24 believon was estabinhod by tho Board in the bania for the g
4
, Av,.u...,,,,. ine 25 ontimated timo of ovacuation portion of thin contention, f
21,075 Sim 5-11 it essentially provides that the inmates contend that the j
()
2 failure to specifically address the estimated time of evacuatior 3
if the plan fails to meet the criteria suggested by Appendix 4
4 to NUREG 0654, and specifically Section Roman numeral II-C and Section Roman numeral IV-B.
5 6
There are essentially two propositions here.
7 First, there is no evidence in this record at all 8
that Appendix 4 to NUREG 0654 requires that an evacuation 9
time estimate for the special facility appear in the plan 10 itself.
I 11 1 Secondly, the Staf f subraits that as a legal metter 4
l 12 l that the Commission's regulationc -- that neither the 13 l Commission's regulations nor NUREG 0654 or Appendix E to Os it ja l Part 50 requires that euch an estin,ato appear in the plant 0
15 llI It" If' l
nJ Sim 16 N 17 ]l foo fois 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (y
4,
- ,.i e,n.,....
ee.
25 i
6-1-Jos Wol 21,076 1
Thus, in any event, the Staff believes that
-sb 2
this portion of the inmates contention essentially is without 3
merit. based upon the record of this proceeding, and 4
emergency plan regulations and guidance.
5 With respect to the third area that is raised 6
in the Staff's view by the Board's admission of the basis 7
for estimated time of evacuation portion of the admitted 8
contention, the inmates contend that a breakdown of the 9
various sequential events for the six to ten hour eva cuation 10 timo estimato is necesssary, and that that breakdown was i
11 not included in the evacuation time estimate as prescribed i
12 I by Section 4.B of Appendix 4 to NUREG 0654.
()
13 o Uith respect to this particular area, the 14 evidence, the Staff submits, essentially shows that the 15 Intervonor's concerns essentially fell in the area of raising 16 worst caso sconarios with respect to the development of the ll 17 ovacuation timo estimato for tho special facility.
18 Wo believo that the record clearly ostablishes 19 that Appendix 4 to NUREG OG54, based upon tho export testimony 20 of Dr. Urbanik, who was tho principal author with respoct to 21 that document that worst caso scanarion as ho has explained, 22 as will bo fully cited in our writton submission, that 23 nuch worst cano neonarios are inappropriato for uso in
(~}
24 devoloping tho actual ovacuation timo ostimato for special i
A.b,o n.nori,i, W.
25 facilition, i
A
6-2-Jos Wal 21,077 1
The Staff also submits that neither Mr. Morris
~h (V
2 nor Mr. Case has presented any site specific information 3
that would suggest in this instance why those particular 4
worst case scenarios that they present should be presented.
5 The only thing that, in the Staff's view, may 6
have been probative was with respect to the particular 7
blackout incidents that were mentioned during the course of 8
the examination of Superintendent Zimmerman.
9 The Staf f submits that the evidence of record 10 shows that that problem has been rectified through the l
11 l addition of auxiliary power at the State Correctional l
12 Institution at Gratorford, and therefore, th'e record docs i
l
()
13 not establish that there arc any special circumstancos in la this case which would warrant the application of worst case I
f I
i i
15 [
ocenarios in a situation where they are clearly not i
16 contemplated, required, or called for by t:UREG 0654.
17 That is essentially the Staff's argument.
18 Thoroforo, the Staf f believes that based on the i.
19 full record in this proceeding that this Board should _
20 conclude that thoro is reasonablo assurance that the 21 radiological omorgency ronponso plans for tho Stato 22 Correctional Institution at Gratorford would protect the i
I 23 inmatos at said institution in the event of a nuclear I
(~}
24 omorgoney at Limorick Generating Station with respect to tho j
A.,_.co nneneri, lae.
25 admitted contention in this proccoding.
l l
6-3-Joa Wal 21,078 I have nothing further.
1 J
2 JUDGE HOYT:
That concludes your remarks?
3 MR. HASSELL:
Yes, it does, Judge Hoyt.
4 JUDGE HOYT:
Does the Applicant, Mr. Conners, 5
wish to go ahead at this point, or do you want to wait until 6
you have in hand the written findings of fact and conclusions 7
on law that Mr. Hassell will hopefully have available soon.
i 8
MR. CONNER: We are prepared to go ahead.
l 9
JUDGE HOYT:
Ve ry well.
Proceed.
l 10 MR. CONNER:
We have relatively few points to' i
l 11 }
cover, because tir. Hassell covered many of the points that i
12 we might otherwice have stated in his argument, so I will E '.
13 try to skip through these as rapidly as possible.
i i
a I
14 g On Mr. Love's point about vested interest, we 11 13 ]lcertainly take exception to that bcing brought in, given the i
16 j fact that there was absolutely no effort to show any bias Il" 17 and prejudice on the part of any of the witnesses who 18 testified for the Commonwealth, for the NRC, or for FEMA.
19 And given that, it becomes gratuitous to suggest 20 that this is an appropriate consideration for this Board, even 1 21 if there were any bacis for it, which there is not.
22 I would note as a general proposition, that based 1
23 upon our very quick review of the Intervener's proposed 24 findings of fact, that there are several points made therein
,a n m ei.,i,inc.
25 that are beyond the speci fied lusues.
I
6-4-Jon Wal 21,079 3
i 1
Many are redundant, and many are irrelevant.
2 I don't mean this as a criticism, but there are also some 3
typographical-type errors that would creep into anything 4
that might have to be prepared on short notice, and our
-5 proposed findings are probably not free of them, but I 6
would note two points in that line very quickly.
I 7
On Roman I G, the transcript reference is to
,8 page 21,001; not 20,001.
a 9
And on II H, in referring to comments by Major i
10 Case, in the second line of that sentence, it said, 'could 11 k cut' the overall E.T.E.
The transcript at that point uses i
12 the word,
'up' where ' cut' appears.
(}
13 Now, I don't know.
t 14 JUDGE HOYT:
I am sorry.
Would you give us that l 15 reference again.
1 16 MR. CONNER:
II H.
i s
I 17 JUDGE HOYT:
Oh, II H.
All right.
I 18 MR. CONNER:
Yes.
II Henry.
I am not suggesting 19 that Mr. Love may not have intended to use the word, ' cut' 20 there, but at the transcript, the word, 'up.'
U-p.
21 Addressing Mr. Love's findings seriatim, I F, we 22 submit, is beyond the issue in this case as to training 23 in inmate custody and control.
24
(^}
Likewise, J -- I am sorry, not J.
It is K; Am%, rd Reporters, Inc.
25 as to the financial incentives we would simply echo the point i
4
6-5-Jos Wal 21,080 1
that there is no regulatory requirement for financial Os 2
incentives in 0654 or otherwise.
3 In J, the point was involving civilian bus 4
drivers.
It should be made clear that we assumed this 5
applies only to the ones for the Graterford potential 6
evacuation, and not relating to the transportation providers 7
which were discussed at length in PID 3, because of course
)
8 there are letters of agreement and so forth set forth there.
I 9
In II A, Roman II A, and B, really, these refer 10 to the early estimated time -- evacuation time estimates l
11 and we would reiterate that the one submitted, which is the i
12 document identified as Graterford Inmates No.
1, this was
(}
13 not even a Commonwealth estimate.
This was an estimate i
14 we made in response to the NRC's request, and was nothing I
15 but an estimate made in 1980.
l 16 We note again that in F of that section, the i
17 fact that the Graterford plan does not, itself, give an ETE 18 is irrelevant.
Not required.
19 On H,
I think the Board would be well l
[
20 disposed to look carefully at the reference there, because I
21 as we read that part of the transcript, the purport of Major 22 Case's testimony is that, as we read it, that with the 23 education provided, this would validate the Superintendent's 24 time estimates.
("}
AmQtt Reporters, Inc.
25 On the point on Mr. Morris' ideas of how 0654 i
6-6-JoD~Wal 21,081 1
1 should have been written to include worst case and panics,
)
2 we submit that the decision in the 3rd PID ful~ly deals with 3
that and is controlling.
4 We do not believe that J is correct in alleging 5
that the eight to ten hour estimate is based on ideal 6
conditions.
The word, ' ideal' is incorrect.
Actually it 7
is based on realistic conditions and existing experience.
8 Similarly, with K, it is not fair to read the 9
finding as worded as suggesting that there is anything in 10 the record of this particular proce'eding on the Graterford 11 contentions to suggest that Skippack Township has refused j
1 12 to approve an emergency response plan.
$ (}
13 The situation considered in the 3rd PID, that i
14 Shippack is waiting until the routes have been established I
i l
15,
is the only reference and only information in the record on l
16 the point.
17 Looking at 3 G, the. fact that -- well, reading 18 F and G together, about the addendum to the handbook having 19 been developed only in the last few weeks is a 'so what'.
20 It is irrelevant how it was done.
Major Case at page 20,941 21 in response to a question by Mr. Otto, recalled that t
i 22 indoctrination of the prisoners is something that had been 23 discussed last March.
24 On Roman Number IV C, that finding standing rp Reporters, Inc.
25 alone is incorrect in its implicit assumption that the I
4
6-7-Joe Wal 21,082 1
Graterford plan should have considered corresponding public a
2 evacuation.
3 Actually, the Graterford plan has, indeed, been 4
coordinated as the record shows with PEMA to assure that 5
what is done there will not interfere, or be interferred with by the plans for the general public.
6 7
Again, G in that section is Mr. Morris' idea 8
of how o654 should be written to include panic.
9 There are, among others, O and P refer to 10 commercial telephone lines and so forth, which are not 11 pertinent here, which were rejected in the 3rd PID, and I
12 has no record basis by anything produced by the Graterford i
()
13,
prisoners as to the P.on the Hurricane Agnes in 1972.
I 14 Commenting quickly on Roman Numeral V, it is 15 important to note that this document which was produced 16 by the prisoner -- Prison Committee -- discusses the general i
17 system for the State, not necessarily Graterford.
I 18 In fact, I don't know that it discusses 19 Graterford individually from what three pages we have seen, t
20 Therefore, it is important to emphasize that 21 D there, which suggests that inmate population is expected 22 to keep ahead of additional capacity, would not. apply 23' necessarily to Graterford.
It applies only to whatever I
(~}
24 it means for the entire Commonwealth.
Acewsrti Reporters, Inc.
j 25 And Superintendent Zimmerman noted that the
21,083 6-8-Joe Wal 1
Staff and support resources would keep pace with any O
2 population increase at Graterford.
3 There is no record in the evidence that 4
Graterford's population is not expected to level off.
5 Actually, Commissioner Zimmerman indicated he did not think 6
it would get too much larger, or words to that effect, which 7
he gave on cross examinatiin.
8 I think those are the only comments we feel t
9 need be made, recognizing that our comments were not intended 10 to be comprehensive on each of the Intervener's findings, I
11 but merely illustrative.
12 JUDGE HOYT:
Does that conclude your remarks,
(}
13 Mr. Conner?
14 MR. CONNER:
Yes, it does.
i 15 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me go off the record a moment 16 here.
i l-i 17 (Off the record discussion ensues.)
l 18 i
End 6.
19
-SueWal fols.
20 Ii l
21 22 23 1
24
{ Acav,fcA Reporters, Inc.
25
21,084 J
7-1-SueWall JUDGE HOYT:
The hearing will be on the record at 2
this point.
During the of f-the-record period,- the Board and 3
counsel for all parties had discussions concerning the various 4
exhibits that had been attended here, the status of whether 4
5 or not some of these exhibits had been admitted or had not 6
been admitted.
7 We made several suggestions as to how the account-8 ability for these documents could be made at this time.
The 9
parties have agreed that they would do so.
And the first 10 counsel that -- let me first inquire, do all the parties 11 l agree that that's roughly what occurred during the off-the-1*
12 ;
record conference?
()
13 MR. LOVE:
Yes.
I t
14 l
JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
I have affirmative nod-i il i
dings of head from all counsel and will so consider that there!
15 q'
16 II are no objections to that description.
Il d
i 17 Mr. Love, you have at various times here identified; 18 five exhibits for the Graterford Inmates that have been 19 marked GI Exhibits 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5.
20 Would you at this time indicate to the Board how 21 you wish to dispose of those exhibits?
1 22 MR. LOVE:
Yes, I would, Your Honor.
I would move i
23 1,
2, 3 and 5 into evidence, or request that they be moved i
I 24 into evidence and would withdraw 4.
(~
- Av~~}stst Reprters, Inc.
l 25 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
Exhibits 2, 3 and 5 will I i
21,085
- 7-2-SueWal; be received into evidence.
Exhibit 1 for identification will 2
be, as it had previously been rejected, attached to the record 3
of these hearings.
4 (Graterford Exhibits 2, 3 and 5 for 5
identification are received into 6
evidence as Graterford Exhibits 2, INDEXX y
3 and 5.)
8 Mr. Conner?
9 MR. CONNER:
As we indicated off the record, given l
10 the fact that 3 and 5 are excerpts from what purport to be 11 State official documents we do not object to them for the I
I 12 purposes that they were used on cross-examination subject 3
()
13 to the State counsel notifying us tomorrow if contrary to 1.s my expectations they are not State documents.
I I
ii 15 n We object only to that part of 2 -- the parts of 0
~
16 F 2 which go beyond anything that was used for cross-examination, 17 Purposes.
18 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
The Board's recognition i
19 of these three exhibits, Graterford Inmates 2, 3 and 5, 20 and particularly 3 and 5, are provisionally admitted into f
I i
21 evidence depending upon the notification to the Board of l
22 the accuracy and correctness by the counsel for the Common-23 wealth of Pennsylvania.
{~}
24 Ms. Ferkin, you and Mr. Otto will have twenty-four Ace 4werLI Reporters, Inc.
25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> in which to accomplish that.
f
=.
21,086
{%7-3-SueWal MS. FERKIN:
- Yes, wY 2
JUDGE HOYT:
Now you have the Exhibit 1 for the 3
Applicant.
4 MR. CONNER:
That was admitted.
5 JUDGE HOYT:
That had been previously admitted.
6 MR. CONNER:
Yeah.
i 7
JUDGE HOYT:
I beg your pardon.
I believe that 8
that takes care then of all the exhibits.
9 MS. FERKIN:
Judge Hoyt, with one exception.
10 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
4 II MS. FERKIN:
Previously the Commonwealth had i
12,
identified an exhibit, G-1.
The Commonwealth withdraws that '
()
13 exhibit at this time.
i ld JUDGE HOYT:
Very wcll.
Thank you.
Then, all i
15 i exhibits offered and not withdrawn have been ruled upon l
16 by the Board.
17 Any others not accounted for will accordingly be t
18 rejected.
l 19 Mr. Hassell.
1 20 MR. HASSELL:
The staff would like to distribute 21 copies of a document entitled "NRC Staff Proposed Findings t
22 of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Graterford Issues."
i 23 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
We wish to afford the
()
24 counsel for the opposing parties and all other parties an i
- N=4 sai nes=rters ine.
25 opportunity to examine this document prior to closing the
21,087 7-4-SueWal; record.
w (Mr. Hassell distributes the document to all 2
counsel and the Board.)
JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
We will go off the record.
(Off the record.)
JUDGE HOYT:
The hearing will come to order.
Let the record reflect that all the parties to the hearing who were present when the hearing went into its momentary off-the-record period for the purpose of counsel examining the Find-ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as submitted simultaneously 10 l
with Mr. Hassell's argument on behalf of the Nuclear Regula-i tory Commission staff.
12 i
Have you had ample opportunity, Mr. Conner?
MR. CONNER:
Yes.
14 I
i JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Love?
ll F
MR. LOVE:
Yes.
f JUDGE HOYT:
Ms. Ferkin?
MS. FERKIN:
Yes.
l' 18 l
JUDGE HOYT:
And that is as well for Mr. Otto?
I g
~~
MR. OTTO:
That's correct.
20 i,
JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Hassell.
MR. HASSELL:
Yes, Judge Hoyt.
The staff would like to make one formal correction in those findings.
JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
24 Aa:'%sr t Reporters. Inc.
MR. HASSELL:
For the record, thanks to the review 25
21,088 67-5-SueWah by Applicant's counsel they pointed out to me that on Page 17 0
2 of the document, the finding denotated by Paragraph 50 --
3 and I might digress here a bit, the particular person who 4
typed this is so used to being involved with Mr. Anthony 5
being an active participant in Limerick that she has the 6
wrong name here.
It should be Mr. Morris, not Anthony.
So, 7
if you would strike Anthony, the word should be M-o-r-r-i-s.
8 The last name should be M-o-r-r-i-s.
l i
9 JUDGE HOYT:
I'm glad you only brought that up on i
10 the last day of the hearing, Mr. Hassell.
11 (Laughter.)
l 12 i MR. HASSELL:
No.
I don't think it's denigrating.
l s
/
)
! ?,,
I think it's accurate, you know.
v N
14 !!
In any event, I would like to make that formal 11
' 5 j' change.
16 ]
JUDGE HOYT:
Would all the parties and the Reporter ll 17 lj make that correction in the record.
For the Reporter's I
18 benefit, that's on Page 50 -- correction, 17, and Finding 19 Number 50 in the very first line of that Findings of Fact 20 and Conclusions of Law as submitted by the staff.
The 21 words, " Finally, Mr. Robert Anthony..." should be deleted 22 to that extent and insert Mr. Robert Morris, M-o-r-r-i-s.
23 Very well.
Anything else?
Does counsel for any 4ar;I Reporters, Inc.party have any other matter prior to closing this record?
24
! Am 25 MR. LOVE:
No.
l
.. ~. _ _. -. - -. -
21,089 7-6-SueWah JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
None having been heard, 1
2 the hearing has been concluded.
There is no additional i
3 evidence to be taken.
1 4
And the hearing and the record on this matter is 5
closed.
6 (Whereupon the hearing is adjourned at 3:35 p.m.,
1 7
Wednesday, July 17, 1985.)
8 ENDDDDD 9
10 l
-11 1
12 d
1 Id 1
i l
15 i i
16 1
i 17 l
6 18 19 i-i 20 l
5 21 L
1 23 n
24 4#
.o a e.,..,~.
I 25 l
1 I
i 4
t i
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O.
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED ST5TES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the 5
matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
PHILADELPIIIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (LIMERICK GENERATING STATION)
DOCKET NO.:
50-352 50-353 PLACE:
PIIILADELPIII A, PA DATE:
'fBdniiisdsy JULY it,1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
/jgM 3
(TYPED) GARRETT [WALSH, JR.
W n D. Al.!):}Lh'!_l
' MYRTLE-!!. WALSH Official Reporter Official Reporter Ace Federal Reporters Reporter's Affiliation Ace Federal Reporters fj i
/
y W
. DW % _
MARY C/SIMONS
\\
Official Reporter Ace Federal Reporters I