ML20133G643
| ML20133G643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-828 OL, NUDOCS 8510160063 | |
| Download: ML20133G643 (109) | |
Text
ORG'NA UNITED STATES n')
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-352 OL 50-353 OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
O LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
1 - 106 4
DATE:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1985 H510160063 851011 PDR ADOCK 05000352 T
ppy ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'[
\\
444i C
to Street Washington, D.C. 20001 6 f.a M~ a ?
(202)347-3700 is gget j u,
- /
NATION %TDE COVERACE
- - - _ ~ - - _. _ - - -
CR24598.0 REE/sjg
{'
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE 3
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAPD' PANEL 4
5
x 6
In the Matter of:
4 i
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket No. 50-352 OL 7
l 50-353 OL (Limerick Generating Station, i
j 8
Units 1 and 2) 9
x i
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Fifth Floor Hearing Room 4350 East-West Highway j
Bethesda, Maryland g
(
1 13 Friday, October 11, 1985 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened i
15 at 1:00 p.m.
I i
I0 fl j
BEFORE:
17 l
CHRISTINE N.
KOHL, Chairman l
18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board i
Washingtor, D.
C.
4 19 GARY J.
EDLES, Member i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 20 Washington, D.
C.
i 21 DR. REGINALD L.
GOTCHY, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 22 Washington, D. C.
l l
23
-l
($)
l 24 Am FWwW Roo,w,s. im.
-- Continued --
25
2
(
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Philadelphia Electric Company:
TROY B.
- CONNER, JR.,
ESQ.
3 ROBERT M.
RADER, ESQ.
Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.
4 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 On behalf of Limerick Ecology Action:
6 PHYLLIS ZITZER DAVID STONE 7
MAUREEN MULLIGAN Limerick Ecology Action 8
Box 761 Pottstown, Pennsylvania 9
l On behalf of Friends of the Earth and 10 appearing Pro Se:
11 ROBERT L. ANTHONY Box 186 M ylan, Pennsylvania 19065 j
12
()
On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
13 ZORI G. FERKIN, ESQ.
14 Chief Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 15 Governor's Energy Council P. O.
Box 8010 300 North Second Street, lith Floor 16 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 i
i 17 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff; i
18 HENRY J. McGURREN, ESQ.
4 19 JOSEPH RUTBERG, ESQ.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
20 Washington, D.
C.
20555 i-
- 21 ALSO PRESENT:
l
\\
22 RALPH J.
HIPPERT Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 23 O
24 A..F o.r.: n. porters. inc.
25 i
l
24598.0 3
REE s
%,]
1
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2
JUDGE KOHL:
Good afternoon, I am Christine Kohl.
t 3
To my right is Gary Edles, to my left is Dr. Reginald 4
Gotchy.
We are hearing oral argument today on the appeals 5
of Limerick Ecology Action, Robert L. Anthony and Friends 6
of the Earth in the licensing's board third partial initial 7
cecision in the Limerick operating license proceeding.
8 That deersion concerns the off-site emergency plan for the 9
Limerick facility.
10 Our order of August 29, 1984 sets forth the 11 allotment of oral argument time and the order of 12 presentation.
I would now like the parties representatives
( }j 13 or their counsel to introduce themselves for the record.
14 MR. STONE:
Dave Stone, with Limerick Ecology 15 Action.
16 MS. MULLIGAN:
Maureen Mulligan, vice president 17 of Limerick Ecology Action.
Phyllis Zitzer is here.
18 JUDGE KOHL:
Who will be arguing and how will i
19 you share your time, and how much time for rebuttal?
20 MR. STONE:
We were going to reserve 25 minutes J
21 for rebuttal and --
22 JUDGE KOHL:
I suggest you reserve a time less 23 than that.
Rebuttal is strictly just what it says.
I 24 think your time would probably be more wisely spent in
}
25 allocating the major portion to your principal presentation.
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Com 80 4 336-6646
24598.0 4
()
i 1
MR. STONE:
Okay.
15 minutes, then, for 2
rebuttal.
3 JUDGE KOHL:
How many people are arguing?
4 MR. STONE:
We envision as a panel.
I am 5
primarily here to answer the questions on the brief, on the 6
appeal brief.
7 JUDGE KOHL:
You do understand what oral 8
argument is about.
This is not an evidentiary hearing.
We 9
expect the parties to make their presentation to us and if 10 we have questions, so be it.
If not, it is up to you to 11 make your best case before us.
Who will be presenting that?
12 MR. STONE:
I will be presenting the argument,
()
13 and certainly have enough to present to fill the full time.
14 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
Mr. Anthony.
15 MR. ANTHONY:
I am representing myself and 16 Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley.
17 JUDGE KOHL:
How much time do you want to save 18 for rebuttal?
19 MR. ANTHONY:
Well, I would like to sort of 20 divide the time in half.
It isn't very much.
21 JUDGE KOHL:
How about saving five minutes?
22 MR. ANTHONY:
That is a new kind of half, but 23 let's say five minutes.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
n 25 Counsel for the Commonwealth?
rj l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 M7 3700 Nabonwide Coverase IWB336-6646
24598.0 5
REE
(~)
'u 1
MS. FERKIN:
My name is Zori Ferkin.
I 2
represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in this 3
proceeding.
With me is Mr. Hippert, deputy director with 4
the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.
I will be 5
presenting the argument for the Commonwealth.
We will not 6
be reserving time for rebuttal.
7 JUDGE KOHL:
Fine.
8 MR. RADER:
Robert Rader with Conner and 9
Wetterhahn.
Also with me is Mr. Troy Conner, also a member 10 of the firm, representing Philadelphia Electric Company.
11 And I will be making the presentation for the Philadelphia 12 Electric Company.
()
13 MR. MC GURREN:
Henry J. McGurren, representing 14 the NRC Staff.
I would also like to note for the record 15 j
that on my right is Joseph Rutberg.
16 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
17 Mr. Stone?
You may raise the podium.
There is 18 a little button on the inside that says " raise" and " lower."
19 MR. STONE:
Okay.
20 Good afternoon.-
I will be presenting our oral 21 argument on the appeal, the third partial initial decision.
22 And I just want to say at the outset that Limerick Ecology 23 Action is a nonprofit citizens' group and an all-volunteer 24 group.
We have endeavored to participate in this process
{}
25 in good faith, to try to bring from reality what we saw as ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3900 Nationwide Coverase 800 3 % 6646
24598.0 6
_ REE w
1 an emergency plan developed by the Applicants for the 2
Applicants' purposes.
It was a lengthy process, and I 3
think it resulted in a record which contains a lot of the 4
material pertinent to the issues which we raised, but 5
perhaps not always in the most coherent form.
I think what 6
we ended up with was a lot of circumstantial material, 7
which in our findings we attempted to specify as much as 8
possible, to try to bring out each point that we felt was 9
significant.
10 In the appeal, we tried to organize a core group 11 of issues which interrelate to some extent.
If I don't 12 mention all of these issues here today, we don't waive (n) 13 anything thereby.
We are just going to try to step back 14 and look at it all.
I 15 i
I think one of the key areas in which we i
16
{
disagree with the finding of the Board is in the traffic i
17 situation in the King of Prussia area.
And this has 18 implications for a couple of other contentions, 19 particularly in that there is a transportation staging area 20 at King of Prussia which we feel affects LEA 23, which is 21 talking about the response time of buses for the 22 transport-dependent, and how that effects the evacuation 23 time estimate study.
24 Generally, the issue of traffic control at King
(~')
25 of Prussia was one that during the hearing there was enough Ac-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
207 p.1700 Nationwide Coverage ROMW6646
24598.0 7
REE O
1 there for the board to find a license condition.
- However, 2
we feel that the resolution of that, which we have attached 3
to our brief, where FEMA lists about 15 or 17 traffic 4
control points, is not anywhere near adequate.
5 JUDGE EDLES:
Is not adequate in terms of the 6
number of points or is not adequate qualitatively?
7 MR. STONE:
There are a couple things there.
I 8
think you are talking about adequacy in terms of numbers, 9
in terms of controlling up to 200,000 people who don't live 10 in the EPZ but are in the King of Prussia area.
That 11 number is based on the estimate of the Upper Marion 12 township manager.
()
13 JUDGE KOHL:
You think that you rieed more 14 traffic control points than the ones that have been 15 identified?
16 MR. STONE:
I think that is true.
Both, and the 17 manpower to control these numbers.
However, there is a 18 qualitative thing there, too, which is simply there are 19 some fundamental planning. assumptions which are made in the 20 evacuation time estimate study, which is made by the 21 Montgomery County plan, which involve the principle of 22 keeping this Upper Marion traffic off of these major 23 expressways by the use of these control points.
24 That is a planning principle.
As we discussed
/T 25 in our brief at the time of the hearing, the Upper Marion
\\-)
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORT 5RS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide h 800-336-6646
24598.0 8
REE O
1 people had never heard of that principle, Mr. Wagman even 2
had some comments about it.
To this date, this is not on 3
the record, but to this date, we have not seen anything, 4
seen anybody, that accepts this planning principle, 5
including Montgomery County.
As I understand, Penn DOT was 6
asked to make some further study when the plan was rejected 7
recently by the Commissioners.
8 However, I wanted to get back to that.
There is 9
that principle, keeping these people of f the roads.
The 10 second principle which we discussed in our brief is called 11 the zero flow assumption.
What this is is the assumption 12 that when you do the ETE for the King of Prussia area,
()
13 which although outside the EPZ, was modeled in the computer 14 simulations, but what they assumed throughout was a zero 15 flow, which essentially means that at the time that the EPZ 16 traffic is loaded onto the network, you don't have existing 17 traffic using up that capacity.
18 Now, there was some discussion in the record and 19 we discussed in our findings that you could put traffic 20 control in within a half an hour and limit access, and that 21 would clear it up.
The time there is i portant.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
You are not saying that they 23 assumed that there were no cars on the streets at the time?
24 MR. STONE:
Yes.
The computer simulation does 1
25 that.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
RiR.347 3700 Nationwide Covern NO344M6
]
24598.0 9
REE 1
JUDGE KOHL:
But then it adds them in?
It
]
2 necessarily has to start from that point; doesn't it?
i 3
Isn't it important what is added in the simulation?
l 1
4 MR. STONE:
There are a couple problems there.
I j
5 I think this was backed up by some municipal concerns in a 6
rush hour scenario which involves a considerable part of l
7 the daytime.
There is some existing traffic.
We had tried i
j 8
to get into evidence a study, the Upper Marion traffic 9
study, which wasn't accepted.
We had a witness who 1
10 prepared the study, we had the township people who t
1 11 participated, and we tried and we couldn't.
However, you j
12 have existing rush hour traffic which we contend is not EPZ
()
13 traffic.
You have traffic at the malls.
t i
14 JUDGE KOHL:
But the model did include existing j
l i
15 rush hour traffic?
f k
16 MR. STONE:
No, it did not.
What they made is i
17 the assumption of zero flow.
It was discussed in the 18 record.
You can see the tables for yourself.
You can see
)
19 the column flow, you can see the zero all the way down the l
i 20 line.
l 21 It is important to note that'I think you can all 22 for yourselves look at these tables, look at what we got i
23 into the record under Mr. Climm's testimony where he talks l
24 about the columns and_the assumptions.
You can see for l
p 25 yourself what was and was not actually modeled.
U i
i i
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l- -- -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_ _ _,_ _,,202 34, _7-3700,._ _..._ _ Nation _ wide C_o_ve_r_ age __ 80_0 33H6_46, _ _
)
1 24598.0 10 REE O
1 JUDGE GOTCHY:
You say that most of the traffic 2
flow coming out of the EPZ is not, say, people going to 3
work during the rush hour?
Those are people'from the EPZ?
4 MR. STONE:
They would be there as well.
5 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Transients coming through, too.
6 A large flow would be people leaving the EPZ going into 7
town and some people from outside the EPZ coming into work.
8 Didn't the model inherently take care of the permanent and 9
transient residents by assuming that they were all at home 10 at the start of the evacuation?
If you had, you can't have 11 people in two places at once.
12 If they are going to work, they are not at home.
()
13 As I understand what was done in the study, they assumed 14 that if the notice came during'the peak' flow, that these 15 people would turn around and go backI. home and there was an 16 allowance made for them to go home.
17 MR. STONE:
That is the arounent that was made.
18 It may apply more or less well to situations inside the EP2 19 wherever one is'from the EPZ during the rush hour scenario.
20 I would argue there might be some time involved there.
I 21 won't go into that.
22 What I am saying is in this area which is 23 outside the Emergency Planning Zone, where and I think the 24 Upper Marion traffic study showed as well as some of the 25 testimony which we did get from for Mr. / WAG man, there is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Covert]
800 336 6646
1 I
24598.0 11 REE O
1 interregional traffic.
The 200,000 people in Valley Forge 2
are from, it is a regional nexus of these major inch 3
interstate and expressways.
4 The traffic that would both try to get on that 5
road and the traffic that was already on that road and 6
roads in rush hour would by and large feel the study, the 7
Upper Marion study is not EPZ traffic.
8 Now, the other issue there is that you have to 9
visualize these roads.
They involve ramps.
If you look at 10 the material in and the maps, you see a complicated hook 11 arrangement of turns.
They involve ramps.
We have in our 12 findings and we refer to it in our appeal the testimony as
()
13 to tne character of those ramps.
Even though we couldn't 14 get the study in, we weren't allowed to bring it in, you 15 are talking one lane ramps, 270 degree turns, backups in 16 normal rush how.
17 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Deposit the ETE study consider 18 the capacities of these ramps?
19 MR. STONE:
The capacity of these ramps in the 20 abstract sense that you measure it an see what they can 21 carry.
What.they didn't consider is that if you have 22 existing traffic which is using a large part of that 23 capacity during rush hour, an then you attempt to load on 24 the EPZ traffic, that isn't taken into account.
25 I think the record in our brief clarifies that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Comm 80433MM6
24598.0 12 REE (G) 1 Now, I want to quickly move on to a couple other 2
areas related to this King of Prussia traffic traffic.
3 In our brief we broke it down in two.
We feel 4
that we discuss the complexity and sensitivity era of all 5
this traffic routing.
Dr. Urbanik, the NRC staff witness, 6
really surprised a lot of us by coming out with concerns 7
which apparently moved the board to find the license 8
condition, but I think in the whole context of it did not 9
lead the board to make the proper conclusion.
Which is 10 that it is a complex situation.
And according to the NRC 11 precedents, the kind of thing left to staff resolution are 12 l
the kind of names on a list, the 15 and 17 traffic control
_)
13 points.
We are talking about, I think this is based on Dr.
14 Urbanik's testimony, is situation where a traffic control 15 point many miles away from King of Prussia at the turnpike 16 entrance can affect the capacity you have available in that 17 King of Prussia loop.
These are all limited expressways.
18 JUDGE EDLES:
Give me an idea what you would 19 have us look at if we were to remand to examine some of 20 these?
Where would you ultimately come out?
What 21 difference would that be from where we are now?
22 MR. STONE:
Well, what I would look for, I think 23 is a couple things.
First of all, apparently FEMA in 24 verifying the few traffic control points which they saw fit
(]
25 to put there used the services of a consulting firm from a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
707-34 13700 Nationwide Coverase 800-336-6646
24598.0 13 REE O
1 Long Island to look at this.
We have never seen that 2
report.
I think the kind of thing that we would need under 3
cross-examination was to look at what those people, when 4
they looked at the situation, that wasn't available to 5
anybody.
6 JUDGE KOHL:
Did you have any dispute with the 7
traffic control points that had already been identified?
8 Was -- did you have any disagreement with the ones that had 9
been named either from a qualitative or a quantitative --
10 well, I know that you believe that there should have been 11 more points, but --
12 MR. STONE:
I think the ones that are there, I
(')
13 am not in a position to say that they, they are all 14 perfectly placed.
I think they are probably all useful.
15 But I don't think they are anywhere near sufficient.
What 16 is also in doubt is the whole planning principle.
If you 17 are going to control these hundreds of thousands of people 18 in King of Prussia.
I think you plan the county plans for 19 some alternative for these people because they entered the 20 area on these main roads, they have to leave somehow.
21 Again, our study, the Upper Marion study which was done for 22 the township shows the interconnection and the local roads 23 an these expressways.
If we could have cross-examined 24 based on that or shown that, you could see the other 25 possibilities.
C, i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700, __ __
Nationwide Coverage.
, __800-336-6646
24598.0 14 REE f'.).
)
s 1
I think it would make a real difference.
I 2
think if the brief and in our findings I think you can see 3
where we tried to show that it is a complex issue, nothing 4
simple, nothing that off the top of your head, it is 5
nothing discrete and simple that you can just plug them in.
6 Dr. Urbanik says that.
He was asked about the traff#c 7
control points that he would recommend.
And he said, well, s 8
I can't sit here and just pull them off the top of my head.
9 But in fact it is something that you really have to look at.
10 I think --
11 JUDGE KOHL:
Is it not true then that we all 12 have to defer to the traffic experts on something like
()
13 designation of a traffic control point?
14 MR. STONE:
Well, I think where we have a 15 problem, given the situation that we raise raised this 16 context, Dr. Urbanik comes in, he expresses these concerns 17 which supported our contention in part.
And then we --
18 JUDGE KOHL:
And you got some belief in the form 19 of --
20 MR. STONE:
These traffic control points --
21 JUDGE KOHL:
You may not be satisfied with it 22 but you would have to agree that your concerns have been at 23 least partially addressed by the very fact of the licensing 24 provision.
(~}
25 MR. STONE:
Not really.
The key thing here is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mw.um um.* com.,
sm. -
24598.0 15 REE b
1 that these traffic control points were available in the 2
current Montgomery County plan by and large at the time of 3
the hearing.
There may be a difference of one or two.
But 4
there is not the kind of extra traffic control which I 5
think Dr. Urbanik's testimony indicates.
I think that that 6
is the thing that disturbs us.
We would want to bring Dr.
7 Urbanik in and have a chance to cross-examine him.
He can 8
evaluate the situation.
9 JUDGE KOHL:
Didn't you have that chance though 10 when he was on the stand?
11 MR. STONE:
Yes.
12 JUDGE KOHL:
You could nave pursued it at that
()
13 point.
14 MR. STONE:
There is a~ secondary thing which we 15 do discuss in our brief which is a time limit thing.
There 16 was a situation where he this to catch a plain.
We were 17 limited to half an hour.
I am going to leave that aside.
18 We do discuss it a little bit.
The thing is is 19 that Dr. Urbanik expresses the concern, he says, these are 20 are not sufficient.
I am not going to sit here and give 21 you a list right now.
He says contrary to what the board 22 and some of the other parties found is, he said, well, the 23 total number of' traffic control needed might be less than 24 what is in the EPZ, but I am not going to to say, it might
{}
25 be somewhat less.
The assumption made by the parties an ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347M700 Nanonwide Coserane En33Mi6d6
24598.0 16 REE
(
)
/
1 letter board is that it is obviously tremendously less than 2
the number already provided for in the EPZ.
Dr. Urbanik 3
simply didn't know that.
He didn't know how much less at 4
that point.
5 JUDGE KOHL:
He did if he didn't know at that 6
point, how much would he know now if you were to have this 7
providing reopened and we were to call Dr. Urbanik back?
8 Would he be able to provide the answers that you are 9
looking for?
10 MR. STONE:
He could look at.
There has been 11 some conflict, I think the NRC staff brought that out, 12 about what Dr. Urbanik said in in another area.
They take
(_,)
13 one view, we take the other.
We think the transcript l
14 speaks for itself.
Dr. Urbanik can clear up that.
He l
15 could look at the so-called --
16
}
JUDGE KOHL:
He could also read the transcripts l
17 l
as well.
18 MR. STONE:
Dr. Urbanik can also look at these 19 so-called new traffic control points an see whether that 20 meets the concern he expressed.
He can also go a little 21 further in the NRC staff, he was their witness, he can go 22 further in research into the situation.
Again, it was his 23 concern which really brought us to this point in terms of 24 license condition.
25 I will leave aside, we do argue and I think that l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 17
(
1 even the applicants points of view about what you leave for 2
staff resolution and what you don't leave, I think onca you 3
accept our position that it is a complex issue, once you 4
take Dr. Urbanik's relative limited testimony under the 5
time constraints and you look at it in some of the 6
principle he is talking about.
The principle of traffic 7
control far upstream from where you need this capacity, he 8
is talking, he uses the principle, you don't necessarily 9
discount rush hour traffic.
We hear a lot from the other 10 parties that you do.
He never said that.
He said it is 11 worthwhile considering everything.
You can't simply super 12 impose, but it may be worth while to consider the existing
()
13 rush hour traffic.
14 I want to try to touch on a couple of things in 15 my limited time here.
16 I wanted to jump to a little bit different issue 17 which is the mail survey data and how that was used to come 18 up with numbers of buses for the transport-dependent.
I 19 think what we are relying on here initially was just a 20 simple premise, I think it was supported by some municipal 21 witnesses, not expert but people that know the communities, 22 that when you send out something in the mail, a certain 23 number of people respond.
A certain number of people don't 24 respond.
And you can't from none response draw the
{}
25 conclusion that those people don't need the service.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveraae 800-336-6646
24598.0 18 REE
-b 1
Especially when you are talking about something like, you 2
know, you need a bus ride because you don't have a car in 3
an evacuation accident.
I think we talk about this, we 4
talk about the EC's position that somehow that because 5
there is a discrepancy only in the urban areas, that means 6
that people can get rides to their friends and neighbors.
7 I think there is on other common sense explanations for 8
this.
People in urban areas are less likely to have cars.
9 We talked in our findings, we just tried to show that this 10 concept that if you really start playing with the numbers 11 an calculate it out, you find out that there are a certain 12 number of cars for that bureau and you almost have one out
(,
13 l
of the two cars that are available are being asked to put 14 l an extra person in them.
It is discussed in the findings.
15 I think the appeal brief we boiled it down and 16 we talked again about this comparison between -- remember 17 i
transport-dependent is not the mobility impaired.
I think 18 there was an error in one of the parties brief on that.
19 They are the people that just don't have a car.
I 20 i
The numbers of buses involved could be 21 considerable for some of the urban areas we discussed, 22 Pottstown, Phoenixville.
And the effect on the ETE, if 23 those buses are among the slowest in evacuation is 24 something we discussed.
I think that the thing there is (G~')
25 that the board really relies on the heavy artillery that no ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwid_e Coverage 800-33 6-6646
24598.0 19 REE
)
1 matter if the numbers are 100 percent off, doesn't really 2
materially affect the whole evacuation.
3 Well, --
4 JUDGE KOHL:
What happens if the entire ETE 5
study is discredited for the reasons that you assign and 6
that in fact the estimated evacuation times are twice what 7
they are?
Where does that leave us?
Does the NRC set an 8
optimum evacuation time?
Where are we from a legal 9
standpoint?
10 MR. STONE:
I think what you have to look at, 11 there are, I think, we cite :.ome of this, the concept of 12 efficiency evacuation.
If you attempt to did an evacuation
(_,)
13 plan, you do an efficient one giving the site specific 14 characteristics.
The other thing there is that Dr. Urbanik i
i 15 testified that at some point of error, the document ceases 16 i
to be useful to emergency planners.
17 JUDGE KOHL:
What if just given the nature of 18 the area that we are discussing, because of the high 19 population density, because of the character of the roads 20 and traffic patterns, to topography, whatever, what if just 21 as a matter of fact evacuation times are twice as long as 22 what the study says?
Again, where does that leave us from 23 a legal standpoint,?
In what respects then does the 24 Limerick emergency plan, is it no longer valid?
('~L;',
25 MR. STONE:
I think there the ETE wouldn't meet ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-30-3700 Nation"ide Co~erage 800-336-6 4 6
i 24598.0 20 REE 1
the requirements of 0654.
I think that that document is 2
something that people's lives depend upon if an evacuation 3'
is in fact ordered.
When you make the decision to shelter 4
or to evacuate, you will have people looking at these 5
numbers.
They will be looking at traffic patterns an 6
traffic control because in an emergency they won't reevaluate 7
the whole thing and say, maybe it should be something else.
8 The other thing there is that certainly a new 9
study with a chance for us to cross-examine and so forth, 10 the other thing there is the willingness of the relevant 11 municipal authorities to I am present implement whatever an 12 assumptions are made in the study and the Montgomery County
()
13 plan.
Those are some of things we would be looking to 14 establish through cross-examination.
15 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Getting back to your discussion 16 about the survey, as I understand your argument, you wanted 17 them to use the 1980 census data?
18 MR. STONE:
Right.
19 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Rather than the survey data?
20 MR. STONE:
Right.
Then what we would be saying 21 is then, based o~n that data which we think is the most 22 realistic available, we say it is the recommended --
23 JUDGE GOTCHY:
It is five years old?
24 MR. STONE:
Well, it could be adjusted for 25 population growth.
I think that the thing is you provide ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t F@eJ3#3D Nmhnwide h NM
24598.0 21 REE
(
1 buses in accordance with that.
2 JUDGE GOTCHY:
But the number of buses you would 3
need, that is based on -- it is really a statistical 4
abstract where you assume 2.59 persons per household 5
without private cars and then you come out, you end up with 6
a bus need.
7 MR. STONE:
If you look at that table of data, 8
which was an earlier draft plan -- I think the one we 9
included as an exhibit was Chester County.
Actually that 10 per household isn't site-specific to the municipality 11 discussed.
They do make a calculation.
There may be some 12 imperfect effects there.
We aren't quibbling over a few
()
13 people.
We are just talking about the numbers of buses you 14 need to evacuate a place like Pottstown where you have a 15 low-income population of people without cars.
16 We have the testimony of the Montgomery County 17 commissioner Rita Banning, where she lives in Pottstown, 18 and she says that is going to be a problem.
Other 19 indications -- I wanted to make a quick step back for a 20 more general point.
21 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Would you be satisfied if they 22 made arrangements for transport-dependent people based on 23 the 1980 census data but then used the survey data because l
24 that is the only data they have to identify actual people, i
i r'
25 not some kind of a statistical abstract but actual people?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3907 37$B,
Nationwide CoverJe 800 336 6646
24598.0 22 REE Ob 1
MR. STONE:
There is a key difference, which is 2
the actual people with the telephone numbers and so forth 3
are mobility-impaired.
And whoever answered the survey and 4
said, I am transport-dependent, you know, I don't have a 5
car, the thing is they make an extrapolation.
They make a 6
huge extrapolation from this survey in saying that people 7
that do not respond, which they don't have the telephone 8
numbers for, they don't know who they are, those people are 9
taken care of.
They can get rides with friends and 10 neighbors.
They make a huge extrapolation.
It effects the 11 numbers of buses.
It could lead in a real situation to 12 simply the transportation not being there where people are
()
13 forced to go out in the street literally and look for a y
l 14 I
ride from somebody, God knows who.
I think some of our 15 early analysis showed that that could be a problem.
16 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Using your own exhibits, E-39 and i
17 E-40 and 42, or 43 where you had some census data figures, 18 I compared those to what was in Applicants' Exhibit E-67 19 which was the results of the survey data.
In the case of 20 ambulances there were more people identified in the survey 21 than the census indicated.
How do you account for the 22 reverse being true for ambulances but not being true for 23 bus needs?
24 MR. STONE:
That is interesting.
What that 25 brx means to us, we had some testimony which the applicant l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-347-3700 Nationwide Covert 3 800-336-6646
~
~.
24598.0 23
()
1 tried to use to say that some of these people were called 2
during the drill and that a lot of them didn't really need 3
an ambulance.
That might be an explanation for what you 4
are talking about.
Here you have somebody who may for 5
whatever reason say, I might need an ambulance or my 6
grandmother might need an ambulance.
They get called.
7 Maybe they could get a ride.
We contend that that figure 8
may or may not be inflated slightly.
That doesn't answer 9
at all the issue of transport-dependent, who are people who 10 don't need an ambulance, who just need the bus ride.
11 So I think if you --
12 JUDGE GOTCHY:
There has to be some kind of
()
13 reflection on the coverage of the survey and the fact that 14 people had read it and responded to it either by throwing 15 it out because they didn't need it or by sending it back in 16 because they did have some needs.
17 MR. STONE:
I think what you see -- and there 18 was some discussion of this on the record -- is that people 19 tended to perhaps overrespond, in some cases with'an 20 ambulance, overestimating that they needed an ambulance 21 when they could have just used a ride.
That doesn't apply 22 to this issue of transport-dependent.
I think it is well 23 discussed in here.
I think that really answers the point 24 you raise.
[}
25 I want to just make one general comment and then 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700.
Nanonwide Coverase 80 4 336-6646
i I
24598.0 24 REE 1
try to get as specific as I can.
The general comment is 2
that we feel that we litigated this very early, all of this 3
emergency planning.
We had municipal officials come in 4
under subpoena who expressed various degrees of knowledge.
5 We had -- it was a very -- it was like pulling teeth 6
sometimes to really find out what was known by who, when; 7
and you had the energy consultants coming in and expressing 8
with certainty that there was this level of planning.
We 9
find that it was often third-hand, somebody that worked for 10 EC reporting to somebody else that worked for EC.
We 11 discuss that a little bit.
i 12 In that context I think the call for further
([)
13 hearings where our rights could be protected where we can 14 cross-examine is not unreasonable.
Remember that the drill 15 even, the July 25 drill, which we have some problems with 16 the extrapolations of municipal staff based on that drill, 17 because there were a number of PECO volunteers, quite large 18 number that are nn longer involved at the municipal level.
19 That drill was quite a while ago, July 25, 1984.
There 20 wasn't another drill.
There won't be one until April.
21 JUDGE KOHL:
I thought there was one in November.
22 MR. STONE:
That was a make-up drill only for 23 those municipalities who didn't participate the first time.
24 That is key because you have a place like Pottstown, which rs 25 is one area of concern, you have a place like Phoenixville
- i. d 1
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Com 800-336-6646
24598.0 25 REE 1
which supposedly participated the first time.
There is 2-just this uncertainty and it is old information.
3 Now, I wanted to jump to municipal staff briefly.
4 I think there is a misunderstanding there.
Our argument is 5
that FEMA goes through this process of a July 25, 1984 6
drill.
You come up with deficiencies.
You have a make-up 7
drill November 20 for those municipalities who either 8
flunked the first time or the ones that didn't participate.
9 You find out there is a certain level of municipal level 10 deficiency.
11 What you are lacking there, and then you are 12 taking this whole thing, as we understand it, and you and
()
13 you are coming up with this hodge-podge list of several 14 different drills, several different rankings of 15 deficiencies.
You end up with a situation where the first 16 drill had a vast number of PECO volunteers which apparently 17 only 50 of them are still involved.
We have the position 18 where we relied on Energy Consultants and on the record 19 this disturbed the board, Energy Consultants saying that 20 there is this chart that we give you which includes all the 21 numbers and it is just simply a matter of putting.the 22 number in.
23 I think'what we are missing here,is FEMA 24 supposedly verifies this staffing.
We don't know if they 25 just simply compiled their drill reports July 25, November
}
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-207-3700 Nationwide Cos/m (M>2W"'">
24598.0 26 REE x) 1 20 and added the numbers up.
We don't know -- and we have 2
no indication and I don't believe it happened -- went to 3
the municipality and simply asked them, who is on line, who 4
do you have?
5 There is a lot of discussion by the FEMA 6
witnesses of this process of formal submittal of plans and 7
how people are reluctant to make assumptions about what the 8
municipalities have done.
A lot of this was seen through I
9 the eyes of energy consultants.
I think the board gave undue 10 weight to that.
I think a lot of this information is 11 slanted because of their position.
I think a lot of 12 litigation which did take place was done at a very early
()
13 stage.
The municipal officials had not reviewed -- I think 14 the planners hadn't really come to grips with all these 15 problems.
16 I wanted to try to jump to a couple other things.
l 17 I want to talk about Valley Forge National Park.
18 Schuylkill Township, Valley Forge National Park are part of 19 this complex.
The park is a little different.
Here you 20 have a thing that it looks like an evacuation plan.
It 21 acts almost like an evacuation plan.
It could be part of 22 the EPZ.
I think Dr. Urbanik testified that there was some 23 reason not to make it part of the EPZ.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
What is the reason to make it part r~s 25 of an EPZ?
You argue in your brief that it is de facto, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3T00 NCoverage 800 336-6646
24598.0 27 REE
(~-)N s_
I that the park rangers are going to participate in getting 2
the park visitors out of there.
What will be gained by 3
drawing the circle a little wider?
4 MR. STONE:
You are gaining whatever is gained 5
by having formal evacuation plans.
6 JUDGE KOHL:
What is that?
7 MR. STONE:
I think what it is is a certain 8
consistency, efficiency, a certain assurance that under 9
pressure the book will be followed, that the parts will fit.
10 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Didn't Chief Fewless testify that 11 he would have traffic control on the east side of the park 12 on 23 gnd that people evacuating the park would be forced
()
13 to go out west on 23 or something of that nature and not be 14 allowed to go into 3937 15 MR. STONE:
I think off the top of his head --
16 and I think he testified under examination as to how he --
17 he said if it was okay he would probably-let the people 18 through and then if it became a problem he would try to 19 shift them another way.
I think what the problem there is 20 is that you have got to have established written procedures --
21 JUDGE GOTCHY:
This is outside the Emergency 22 Planning Zone as it now exists.
23 is south of the l
23 Emergency Planning Zone and 23 runs due west out of Valley 24 Forge Park and --
l 25 MR. STONE:
What I am saying is that 23 west ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 900-33Mi646
24598.0 28 i
()
I would take you back into Phoenixville and I think --
2 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I am sorry.
East, 23 east.
I am 3
sorry.
You are right.
4 MR. STONE:
There is another problem there which 5
was not and is not written anywhere is you got the problem 6
that the park is doing traffic control at that end, too.
7 You have a major intersection which we had this business 8
with the maps, you know, it was drawn urong, HMM map that 9
came in like three times.
This intersection ends up being 10 in.
It is really part of the park.
You have the park 11 rangers with a lot of responsibility.
12 I think, just again what do you benefit by
()
13 having a formal plan?
Well, first of all, they are 14 involved really in the planning process.
Fewless testified 15 that he was never asked whether Valley Forge should be 16 included or not.
He is a chief ranger.
If there had to 17 have been an evacuation plan for Valley Forge, I am sure 18 his input would have been more highly regarded and it would 19 have been formal instead of at the hearings.
20 JUDGE KOHL:
I thought according to the 21 Commonwealth's brief the Park Service was consulted by PEMA 22 and they had an opportunity for whatever input they desired 23 to make.
24 MR. STONE:
I think this is one reasor, for these
{}
25 formal proceedings and this formal planning process that we i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u smunara m
mwem
24598.0 29 REE 1
come in and we try to bring some reality to it.
In the 2
real world, who the heck wants to think about evacuation 3
plans for their park?
Who the heck ever thinks it is going 4
to happen?
5 JUDGE KOHL:
Park administrators, that is within 6
the scope of their responsibilities.
I am just trying to 7
determine whether or not you say that they did not 8
participate, were not consulted.
As I understand the 9
briefs from the other parties, they were.
I am trying to 10 determine what reality is, 11 MR. STONE:
I don't think it really swings so 12 much on that factual point as the fact that essentially the.
(')
13 park wants an evacuation plan.
They have one.
It should 14 I
be part of the formal process.
15 JUDGE KOHL:
Where in the record has any park 16 official expressed concern or displeasure with the fact 17 that Valley Forge National Park is not formally included in 18 the EPZ?
Is that anywhere in the record?
19 MR. STONE:
No.
However, I would point out that 20 they did see fit to make these arrangements, and I also 21 point out that the NRC in its responsibility to implement 22 0654 has a much more sophisticated task before it.
23 Wnatever reason, whatever ignorance there might be at that 24 level, whatever political-reason there may be for noninclusionc, 25 it is really the business of the NRC to cut through all ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
R%237-27fC NationwideGIqaT3 CTA E M*?"5
24598.0 30
/_ REE
~
i
)
- m. '
1 that and say, you are going to evacuate your people.
You 2
are going to do traffic control.
You are going to try to 3
do route alerting.
You have got to be consistent with 4
everyone else.
You can't be sending traffic this way and 5
this way.
You have to have it written down.
6 JUDGE KOHL:
It is written down.
But you 7
disagree with the way in which it is written down, correct?
8 It is not that they haven't drafted a plan.
There is a 9
plan.
There is nothing in Commission regulation that would 10 require the inclusion of Valley Forge National Park.
11 As I ununderstand it, the Schuylkill River is 12 the natural boundary and thEt was one of the reasons chosen o
()
13 for not extending the zone a little further to the opposite 14 I side of the park.
15 Isn't that consistent with the Commission's 16 regulations that say it is roughly ten miles in radius and 17 you take into account various topographical and other 18 features of the site in question?
19 MR. STONE:
I think there what you run up 20 against are a couple things.
First of all, the park has 21 chosen to be de facto part of the EPZ.
Whether the NRC 22 feels it is your responsibility to bring it into the fold 23 so to speak and make it part of the program,.that is really 24 how you interpret the regulations.
We interpret them to
/
25 mean -- I think there was a case, South Carolina, there ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.W.3T00 Nationwide Coverage
$(WWM46
24598.0 31 REE O
\\_/
1 have been a couple cases where there has been issues of 2
something that is the edge of an EPZ.
I have to get that 3
cite.
4 JUDGE EDLES:
Is there a provision made for 5
communication by PECO with the park directly?
6 MR. STONE:
There is supposed to be provision 7
for communication.
We don't have a plan.
We never 8
cross-examined on a plan.
We never filed a contention on a 9
plan.
I think what we would be looking for is some kind of 10 process where we can protect the rights of our members who 11 may be using the park, other members of the public.
They 12 are, they are going to be put through this procedure.
The
()
13 park officials are going to be participating in the 14 evacuation one way or another.
They are entitled to the 15 written thing which meets the NRC guidelines.
16 That is the protection we need.
17 We would seek as a minimum, the right to 18 cross-examine on whatever plan might exist, but we would 19 really think this may be the most straightforward way to do 20 it, is to make it part of the EPZ.
Get a plan and Energy
~ 21 Consultants can prepare it and look at that.
22 I want to touch on a couple things I may not 23 have hit here.
A lot of this stuff is in the brief and in 24 the findings.
{}
25 The bus drivers I wanted to talk about.
This 2
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INb.
. 202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coveraae PQ(E336-6646 9
24598.0 32 REE O
1 board makes this generalized assertion about bus drivers, 2
adequate numbers.
We spent a lot of time in the hearings 3
looking at an exhibit Annex I of the Montgomery County plan.
4 We had a witness come in from -- it is all in the record.
5 They have a problem here, some questions.
You 6
have a very careful list of response times for these 7
various outfits.
One, two hours, they were asked to fill 8
this in, when they do deliver or mobilize a bus.
That that 9
is separate from the time it takes that bus to leave that 10 point and get to where they are supposed to be.
There is 11 some discussion on this with respect to LEA contention 24.
12 We feel that to some extent these times are additive.
They
()
13 may be overlapping a little bit, but they are basically 14 additive.
15 If you look at the numbers in Annex E, it is 16 very close to what Montgomery County says it needs.
In 17 Chester County you have an unmet need.
What you have the 18 board doing in the end of it is to say, there is ample --
19 they take some figure like one third of bus drivers outside 4
20 the EPZ are all that would be needed.
21 That doesn't say anything about whether these f
22 bus drivers or their companies have been lined up, whether 23 they have been been offered training.
One third to me 24 seems a high number for a big county like Montgomery when 25 all these bus companies have other responsibilities.
The l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveraar 800-33MM6
24598.0 33 REE O
1 board seemed to find that conclusive.
2 I think that is irresponsible.
I think there is 3
much specific data which even specific evidence which 4
caused them to question what is assumed in Annex E or Annex 5
I.
6 JUDGE GOTCHY:
In retrospect, doesn't the May 21, 7
1985 FEMA findings tend to substantiate what the board 8
concluded based on the record?
With regard to buses?
9 MR. STONE:
Insofar -- you have to understand 10 that in a drill situation or what FEMA looks at is not 11 actual mobilization of buses.
I think that --
12 JUDGE GOTCHY:
In numbers, yes.
()
13 MR. STONE:
What are they using?
We think they 14 are using probably Annex I.
We think they are using 15 whatever agreements are supposedly under negotiation and so 16 forth.
We think that the record shows that we have shown 17 at least this much, that Annex I cannot be relied upon.
18 FEMA at the point of the hearing did not make a 19 statement that there was efficiency.
This had been 20 post-hearing.
I think that the problem there is the board 21 just pushed it all aside and said there is ple'nty.
I don't 22 think that should be allowed to stand.
It doesn't breed 23 responsibility at the local level.
There had been some 24 school plans approved since that date.
25 JUDGE GOTCHY:
At the time of the hearing there l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-347 3700 Nationwide Com 800-336 4646
1 24598.0 34 REE r s 1
were a lot of unmet needs identified.
The question was, 2
here the board is trying to make a finding and there are 3
plans being developed which certainly aren't finished at 4
the time you had the hearing.
And the emergency plans are 5
living documents.
They are continually being revised.
6 MR. STONE:
We believe as of this date there 7
aren't enough bus drivers to be there, for the documented 8
needs, let alone the transport-dependent and the day care 9
children.
10 However, if the board is going to find that way, 11 let them confront the evidence in Annex I.
Let them 12 confront the people that we brought in and let them say,
()
13 this one is credible.
This one is not credible.
Instead 14 of coming in with a broad brush and saying there is plenty.
15 That doesn't even take in the issue of response times in i
16 i
terms of distances of traffic which may affect LEA 23 with l
17 respect to ETE.
18 I think that is a problem there.
I am out of 19 time, but it is discussed in the brief and in the appeal.
20 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
21 Mr. Anthony.
22 MR. ANTHONY:
I am here again.
Judge Kohl, 23 gentlemen.
24 It was a few months ago, I guess it was in April
(^)
25 that we met before.
L; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n?.t17 A7m N atinnwide Cm erane RW-136-6646
24598.0 35 REE 10 G
1 JUDGE KOHL:
March.
2 MR. ANTHONY:
That PID number 2 is still waiting 3
for a decision.
I know you people are hard pressed.
You 4
have a lot to do.
5
' JUDGE KOHL:
You fellows keep us awfully busy.
6 MR. ANTHONY:
And you are working hard at it.
7 Meanwhile, we have got a serious danger.
There is a plant 8
operating, a plant called Limerick.
There are almost 3 9
million people that can be affected by an accident there 10 and the plant is not safe.
The emergency plans will not 11 work.
So I think it is a heavy responsibility you have as 12 a board to do something about that.
I recommend that you
()
13 suspend the license and do it on the basis that the 14 emergency plans are not adequate and cannot be implemented.
15 In my brief of the 6th of June, I asked for the 16 following remedies:
Reverse the third PID, reverse the 17 decision; order the NRC to return the emergency plans to 18 the Commonwealth and to FEMA stating they are inadequate 19 and not able to implement it; order the NRC to begin the 20 evacuation planning process over again to the boundaries of 21 the EPZ set up in consultation with FEMA, as required by 22 FEMA regulations, and consultation with the National Park 23 Service.
24 Four, order the NRC to submit revised evacuation
{}
25 plans to the parties with provision for, including the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coverase aan.1 E 66a6
24598.0 36 i
REE
(-U 1
Valley Forge Park, King of Prussia area and Marshalls Creek 2
Park /Exton area in evacuation planning.
3 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. Anthony, why do you think FEMA's 4
participation in this emergency plan has not been adequate 5
or in accordance with its regulations?
6 MR. ANTHONY:
Well --
7 JUDGE KOHL:
Haven't they reviewed the plan in 8
various stages and issued interim findings improving that 9
plan?
10 MR. ANTHONY:
I submitted evidence, and one is a 11 freedom of information request I made to FEMA and to the 12 National Park Service asking if they have anything in their
()
13 records that show they ever were consulted or ever 14 consulted about the setup of the EPZ.
Neither organization 15 l.everhadanythingtodowithit.
16 JUDGE KOHL:
Those letters, though, are not in i
17 the record of this proceeding; correct?
18 MR. ANTHONY:
They are in my brief.
19 JUDGE KOHL:
But were they ever tendered as-20 evidence in this proceeding?
21 MR. ANTHONY:
No.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
They are not in the record then?
23 MR. ANTHONY:
No, they are not in the record.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
Wasn't there testimony concerning 25 the views of various FEMA officials and --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t s m737o>
new rwere
24598.0 37 REE 1
MR. ANTHONY:
Yes, there is testimony and they 2
disclaim any connection with the EPZ.
They said they 3
accepted it from the Commonwealth.
4 JUDGE KOHL:
But then they have approved it.
5 Why isn't that adequate?
6 MR. ANTHONY:
Well, it must be set up in 7
connection, in consultation with FEMA.
FEMA never 8
consulted about the setup.
9 JUDGE KOHL:
I thought FEMA's regulations 10 indicate that FEMA relies heavily on the state and local 11 entities for purposes.
After all, they are the people who 12 know best about the region that is involved.
I thought
()
13 what FEMA's usual practice was was to leave it to the state 14 in the first instance and its function was more in the 15 nature of review.
16 MR. ANTHONY:
With due respect, the FEMA is 17 responsible-for all off-si.te planning.
They are the 18 ultimate responsibility.
And --
19 JUDGE KOHL:
Ultimately, yes.
But I thought we 20 were talking about the initial drafting of the --
21 MR. ANTHONY:
If they don't have anything to do 22 with drafting the original EPZ or the formulation of the 23 plans, then how can they be ultimately responsible?
24 JUDGE KOHL:
Why isn't their review of what 25 somebody else does adequate?
Why isn't that an adequate ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646
24598.0 38 REE 1
means for FEMA to contribute whatever expertise it has in 2
the emergency field?
3 MR. ANTHONY:
If --
4 JUDGE KOHL:
I am trying to determine what it is 5
that FEMA would have added by its -- by a more substantial 6
participation?
7 MR. ANTHONY:
I am glad you used that 8
" substantial."
I think they didn't add anything --
9 JUDGE KOHL:
I said "more substantial."
10 MR. ANTHONY:
If you want my frank opinion, they 11 act as a rubber stamp.
I think they don't have the 12 resources.
I don't think they were set up properly to
()
13 handle the resources to do this kind of job that they were 14 expected to do so they have to accept what is handed out by 15 the utility or by the state.
They do that -- even I was 16 told by the man in charge the other day, that they get 17 their plans right from the utility.
They don't even bother 18 to get them from the state.
19 JUDGE KOHL:
Even if all that is true, for 20 purposes of argument only, why then does that render the 21 Limerick emergency plan inadequate?
Couldn't it be 22 adequate in any event?
23 MR. ANTHONY:
It rendered it inadequate because 24 the EPZ was not set up in a way that provides for the
{J3 25 public safety.
I will go into --
~
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
rres;.frin Ne@m:rm N
r--
4 24598.0 39 REE O
V 1
JUDGE KOHL:
In what specific way?
2 MR. ANTHONY:
I will refer to NUREG 0654.
Page 3
7, paragraph 2, definition of the area over which planning 4
for a predetermined action should be carried out.
That is 5
when the EP2 is set up.
That is the basis.
6 Paragraph 3, the same page, the time frames are 7
very important.
Initial recognition of when radioactive 8
releases are going to start to the surrounding environment.
9 Page 8, time available for exposures; when the 10 radioactivity reaches several miles off-site.
Paragraph 3, 11 areas for major exposure pathways dependent on the 12 characteristics of the planning areas.
This is where they
()
13 should come in.
14 Page 9, paragraph 1, general downwind direction, 15 the prevailing wind from Limerick is down the Schuylkill 16 River toward the population concentration at King of 17 Prussia.
18 Page 10, number 2, areas for planning to assure 19 the prompt and effective action to protect the public in 20 the event of an accident.
21 Page ll, number 2, for the worst -- this is the 22 key, the key to the whole thing -- for the worst possible 23 accident protective actions would need to be taken outside j
24 the planning zones.
l 25 This was never done in the planning.
gg G
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
24598.0 40 REE 1
Paragraph 3, the actual shape would depend on 2
the characteristics of the particular site, and there we 3
come into the regulations of the 10 CPR 5047 and 44 CFR 350 4
which governs the FEMA.
5 I want to mention that these plans are made on 6
the basis of a TMI scenario; that there ere going to be 7
hours, maybe days in which to make a decision.
The worst 8
case was not considered at all.
9 The worst case is table 2 in the NUREG 0654.
10 The worst case says, a release starting in the first half 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />.
The major portion of the release starting in the 12 first half hour and continuing for a. day and the travel of p)
(,
13 the radioactive cloud cculd go 10 miles in one hour.
14 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Under those conditions, 15 Mr. Anthony, what would be the protective action taken?
16 MR. ANTHONY:
Well, you may decide in your 17 wisdom, I hope you will, as a board, that there is no 18 protective action that can be taken.
19 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I think they call it, sheltering 20 is the alternative.
You either shelter or evacuate?
21 MR. ANTHONY:
Is there any plan for sheltering 22 for King of Prussia?
King of Prussia is an hour and a half 23 away at this rate, downwind.
24 JUDGE GOTCHY:
At 15 miles an hour, what wind 25 speed?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveranc B00-33Mn46
24598.0 41
)
1 MR. ANTHONY:
Well, 10 miles an hour, 10 miles 2
for the first hour.
So if King of Prussia is 15 miles, you 3
would have to add a half an hour to it.
4 So this is a mortal threat, 300,000 people at 5
peak times in the King of Prussia area, and there is no 6
plan for them, if this radioactivity is going to reach them 7
in an hour and a half.
This is a worst case, and there is 8
no way to make an average out of a worst case.
It has got 9
to be a worst case.
10 Maybe FEHA could have, if they really were on 11 the job, if they had enough manpower, if they really knew 12 what they were doing, they would have discovered this.
()
13 They wouldn't have left it up to me to discover this.
14 I am not the expert, but I know when people are 15 in danger and I can read a table which says these releases 16 can start half an hour, and you know it can happen.
It is 17 in the record.
It is in all the figures.
These towers can 18 collapse.
They can be collapsed by a tornado.
They can be 19 collapsed by an explosion on this railroad right here.
It 20 is all in the record.
When those towerI collapse, they can 21 put out of commission the cooling pond up here.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. Anthony, your time has expired 23 and I think you are arguing on the second PID.
Thank you.
24 MR. ANTHONY:
Excuse me.
This is -- I mean on N'~J T
25 the PID, the fact of what can happen in a worst case.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
32 347-3T00
_ ___ fWrhmT!bCoverage CM036-6646
1 24598.0 42 REE
,_s(j 1
JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you, Mr. Anthony.
2 MR. ANTHONY:
Might I show you just one more 3
exhibit?
-4 JUDGE KOHL:
One more.
We have all got it in 5
front of us.
6 MR. ANTHONY:
You don't have this.
This is --
7 this was an addition.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
I am sorry.
We go by the one that 9
was admitted to the record.
10 MR. ANTHONY:
The roads are all in there, but 11 they are not pointed out.
This is the way the through 12 traffic goes across this circle.
And this was not
()
13 considered at all in the time studies, and Dr. Urbanik 14 brought up the theory, the idea that the 76 has traffic on 15 it all the time and these routes have traffic on them all 16 the time.
17 This is a main route from West Chester to 18 Allentown, from Chester to Allentown, Wilmington to 19 Allentown, Philadelphia to Pottsville and west.
These are 20 all considerations that were completely left out of the 21 time study.
22 They have to be considered; the whole study is 23 disqualified because of this.
And the plan cannot work.
24 The other thing that cannot work is people in 25 King of Prussia who have come in to, commute in or gone
{}
Ac$i-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 1700 Natir*N W
i 24598.0 43 REE 7_
1 there to shop, at the first sound of an alarm, will head 2
back so that the opposite flow will take a partial amount 3
of the time.
For if the inflow took an hour, the outflow 4
back to rescue their houses and pack up their goods and 5
flee will take half that time.
6 These people cannot be stopped by any kind of a 7
traffic control device.
They will seek other ways to go 8
around.
There will be a terrific traffic jam.
There's no 9
way to make this work.
10 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you, Mr. Anthony.
Mr. Rader.
11 i
MR. RADER:
Thank you.
I would like to point 12 out at the outset that over the course of this hearing I
13 Mr. Stone and LEA have been trying to characterize, as 14 Mr. Stone did today, these plans as the Applicants' plans.
15 And as something that has just been foisted off on the 16 various jurisdictions.
The evidence of record is exactly I
17 to the contrary and demonstrates that the plans were 18 developed from prototypes which were approved by PEMA 19 before they were even distributed to the counties, to the 20 municipalities and the school districts for their review.
21 Those prototypes included the basic principles, 22 assumptions and underlying operational concepts and 23 principles that are used by PEMA for the other nuclear 24 power plants in Pennsylvania.
/N 25 So they are anything but the " Applicants' plans" ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverace 80 4336-6646
24598.0 44
_ REE i
<.J l
quote unquote.
2 Further, the record demonstrates that as these 3
plans were developed and submitted to the various 4
jurisdictions, comments, suggestions, recommendations and 5
resource information was received in return by Energy 6
Consultants, and all of this information was incorporated 7
in successive drafts and submitted to the jurisdictions for 8
their further review and comment.
So that each successive 9
draft has in fact incorporated all of the material which 10 the various counties and school districts feel is essential 11 for them to implement their plans.
12 JUDGE EDLES:
What provision is made in the (f
13 plans for communicating with the folks at the National Park?
14 MR. RADER:
The Montgomery County plan contains 15 an appendix on notification, I believe it is annex C, 16 appendix 2, which lists all of the various officers or i
17 l
entities which would be notified in the event of an 18 emergency.
Park Services are listed at the alert stage.
19 The record demonstrates that the park would be notified at 20 the alert stage by Montgomery County.
21 I believe Mr. Bigelow so testified.
If he 22 didn't, I am sure that the Energy Consultant witnesses or 23 perhaps the park ranger himself has so testified that they 24 would receive notification at the alert stage.
That
(')
25 notification would be passed on to the park visitors via t
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2fp4471700 Nationwide Coverage 80M36-6646
24598.0 45 REE 7_
NJ 1
the public address system of the park and the visitors 2
could do as they liked at that point; if they evacuated 3
they would be assisted.
4 JUDGE KOHL:
For all intents and purposes then 5
the park is included.
Why wasn't it officially included?
6 MR. RADER:
Because it was not deemed necessary 7
to include the park in the EP2 to effectuate the purposes 8
of NUREG 0654 in the Commission's regulations, which are 9
primarily aimed at implementing protective actions.
10 The park officials were simply faced with a 11 situation of what to do with this -- with these -- this 12 number of people, given the fact that they would probably
()
13 hear the sirens in neighboring areas and be wondering what 14 to do.
I think the general consensus was that they would k
15 simply be alerted so that if they wanted to leave, they 16 could do so.
But this was not as a protective action for 17 their benefit or welfare under NUREG 0654, but merely more 18 as an informational service.
19 JUDGE KOHL:
I realize it is not in the record, 20 but it is curious -- I am referring to the letter that, 21 from the National Park Service that was attached to Mr.
22 Anthony's brief in response to his FOIA request.
That 23 letter, as well as one to FEMA, indicates that neither the 24 Park Service nor FEMA had any papers in their files
{}
25 regarding the Limerick EP2.
Isn't that a little curious i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nation ~ide Co_v_erage Et@36 6646
24598.0 46
,, REE 1
for two government agencies not to have any papers in their 2
files on something that they allegedly did participate in?
3 MR. RADER:
I can assure you just about every 4
agency in this town wishes it had less papers in its files, 5
and it's certainly not unusual at all because the record 6
shows that Montgomery County met with the park officials along 7
with Energy Consultants and I believe officials from PEMA, 8
at least once, maybe twice prior to the arrangements which 9
were made in the plans for traffic control points outside 10 at either end of the park a'nd for the notification 11 arrangements which I mentioned.
So the fact that this was 12 not reduced to any particular form of paper, I think is not (w')
13 unusual.
v 14 JUDGE KOHL:
Would they even have a copy of the 15 plan?
16 MR. RADER:
The plans as such do not really i
I 17 affect the Park Service.
The Park Service has an extremely 18 limited responsibility in the event of an emergency.
And 19 as I stated, it was not really an implementation of a plan 20 as such because there is no requirement under a plan or 21 anyone's plan that the Park Service notify people in the 22 park and alert them to the alert situation at Limerick.
23 HoweVer, this was deemed a problem under the 24 circumstances.
(~N 25 Now, with regard to the access control which was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3931n mmfrmwMh @w;7 age f3133M646
~, -.......
24598.0 47
)
I touched upon, my understanding is now that the park rangers 2
will perform a traffic control point function at the 3
intersection of Route 23 headed east out of the park where 4
that dumps off into what used to be -- what is still Route 5
363.
6 For the Board's benefit, at the time of the 7
hearing, the major expressway, known as the County Line 8
Expressway, Route 363, headed from Trooper Road down to 202, 9
was known as 363.
10 My understanding now is that Penn DOT hEs 11 renamed that whole segment 422, so that if you start with 12 the segment from the Schuylkill extension above the park, O)
(,
13 it heads down, all of that is 422, and 422 continues down 14 into what used to be designated the County Line Expressway.
15 I think you will find that on our Exhibit 92.
16 So that juncture all the way down to 202 is now 17 422.
18 With regard to the issue of traffic control 19 points, Mr. Stone stated this was a very complex issue.
It 20 may be complex to him, but it is certainly not complex to 21 the planners.
403 traffic control points have been 22 established under this plan for the area inside and outside 23 the EPZ to manage the flow of traffic.
There are a total 24 of 108 access control points also to assist in the
{~ }
25 management of traffic and to keep unnecessary traffic ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Narinnwide Coversee 800-33Md46
24598.0 48 REE O
1 outside the EP2 in the event of an emergency.
2 JUDGE KOHL:
When we talk about a traffic 3
control point, what are we talking about here?
A policeman 4
at the corner waving people on by?
5 MR. RADER:
Exactly, assisting the flow of 6
traffic.
In other words, it is not access control as such, 7
it is simply assisting traffic in keeping moving.
8 With regard to the zero flow assumption that 9
Mr. Stone referred to in the evacuation time estimate, I 10 think he has demonstrated again today that he still doesn't 11 understand it.
12 It is not an assumption that roads will be
()
13 emptied in fact at the time an evacuation commences.
It is 14 an analytical assumption that all cars will be evacuating 15 the EP2 and therefore will be assumed to be loadings onto 16 the EPZ network at some point.
So what the planners did 17 was to assume a range of mobilization preparation times 18 starting from 30 minutes to 150 minutes and then loaded the 19 cars in the EPZ on the network throughout that period.
20 So there is no assumption that the roads will be 21 literally empty at the time.
The assumption is the access 22 control measures will be adequately in place such that the 23 EPZ flow can come out of the EP2 without being impeded.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
It assumes, stating it another way, 25 it assumes the maximum vehicle usage at that time?
In l
I l
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-37D Nat%ir$@@Sverage
@3 3 W.
24598.0 49 REE 1
other words, everyone who has a car or access to it gets in 2
it and leaves?
3 MR. RADER:
Within the EPZ that is correct, 4
given the vehicle occupancy factor which was used.
5 JUDGE GOTCHY:
And the different time 6
distribution assumptions.
7 MR. RADER:
On the time distribution from 30 8
minutes to 150 minutes; yes, sir.
9 With regard to the area outside the EP2, I think 10 the Board adequately explained at pages 50 and 51 of its 11 opinion exactly how these areas of the roadway network were 12 examined by HMM Associates in preparing their conclusions.
/~~'s l
(
13 They did look at the actual roads in use, the 4
i 14 configurations of the road.
I think they used the term 15 "geometrics," which includes the ramps that would be used 16 for the particular expressways under consideration, 17 including what used to be called the County Line Expressway 18 and which I have now explained is basically Route 422.
19 Also, I think Mr. Stone misspoke himself when he 20 stated that Mr. Urbanik said that peak hour traffic might 21 be considered or should be considered.
What Mr. Urbanik 22 said,that is that a good planner never excludes anything.
23 I suppose a good witness always leaves himself an opening, 24 too.
]
25 With regard to the control points that have been l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 P&#wmf@ fanaFe PTM36-6646
24598.0 50 REE p
i i
s 1
added as a result of the Board's condition, I think 2
Mr. Stone also misspoke himself when he said that Upper 3
Marion didn't have any input.
As a matter of fact, a 4
letter dated -- the memorandum, rather, date May 30 from 5
FEMA to the NRC attaching the PEMA review of the matter 6
clearly states that PEMA reviewed it with the townships, 7
with HMM Associates and together they reviewed it with the 8
Pennsylvania state police and then they adopted the 9
additional traffic and access control points which were 10 attached to that letter from PEMA.
11 Moving on to the area of unmet needs, again, I 12 am totally at a loss to understand what Mr. Stone believes j
-s (l
13 would be added to the planning by using Census data.
The 14 Census data doesn't identify people.
In order to identify i
15 l
people that you know who need transportation in the event i
16 I
of an emergency, you have to know their names and addresses.
17 This information appears in the EOC lists which are kept on 18 file for each municipal EOC as stated in Annex G of the 19 municipal plans.
You will see a reference to 21 names or 20 41 names which are kept on file in the municipal files.
21 This is the information that is needed.
Not just for 22 mobility impaired individuals, but also for 23 transportation-dependent individuals.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
You are referring to the survey
(~3 25 then that the counties conducted using what, PECO billpayer
\\_/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3T00 Natinnwide Coverage R00-336-6646
24598.0 51 REE 1
lists; is that how it was done?
2 MR. RADER:
That is correct.
3 JUDGE KOHL:
What about people who live in 4
apartments who don't pay their utility bills themselves?
5 How would they be identified under that survey?
6 MR. RADER:
They would be identified because 7
municipalities would be aware of those special 8
circumstances and they would make an effort to identify 9
those kinds of individuals.
They were not part of the 10 survey per se.
11 JUDGE KOHL:
What was done in terms of 12 identifying people who live in apartments and condominiums
()
13 and so forth?
How were they figured into the survey?
14 MR. RADER:
I don't know what particular efforts 15 were made by municipal officials in that respect.
I do 16 know that efforts were made.
17 JUDGE KOHL:
Doesn't that undercut then the 18 reliability of the survey that you relied upon?
19 MR. RADER:
Not at all.
Because in the plans it 20 is stated that additional persons may call the municipal 21 EOC at the time of an actual emergency, and it has always 22 been recognized that the list which --
23 JUDGE KOHL:
What if they are an elderly person 24 without a car, living in an apartment building?
25 MR. RADER:
That person is going to do one of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Covers 800 33MM6
i 24598.0 52 REE O
1 two things.
That person is going to call the local police, 2
city hall, that person is going to call somebody.
And in 3
some way that person is going to get
- directed to the 4
appropriate transportation officer in the municipal EOC.
5 That person is not going to stand idly by.
A person in 6
that situation is likely to have family or friends in the 7
area who are likely to be looking out for the person.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
Isn't that a big assumption?
9 MR. RADER:
Not really.
The record has 10 demonstrated that in emergency evacuations with far less 11 planning than we have here that there really hasn't been a 12 problem with people being left behind.
I am talking about
()
13 instantaneous evacuations that are a result of gas spills, 14 chemical spills, people are evacuated.
There has really i
15 never been a problem as demonstrated in the testimony of --
16 JUDGE EDLES:
Are those historical data 17 j
extrapolatable to those circumstances?
Are those spills 18 and various things, do they produce the type of sort of 19 mass exodus that we are contemplating in the event of a 20 necessary evacuation at this plant?
21 MR. RADER:
In terms of the notification issue, 22 yes, I think they are roughly analogous because basically --
23 JUDGE EDLES:
In other words, a spill, for 24 example, would involve a 10-mile circle similar to the 25 O-Emergency Planning Zone?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202-347 3700 Nationwide Covee 800-336-6646
24598.0 53 REE O
1 HR. RADER:
In total geographic size, probably 2
not.
3 JUDGE EDLES:
Would be a lot smaller?
4 MR. RADER:
Let me point out, however, sir, that 5
in the record below, there was testimony that, I believe it 6
was the Phoenixville, utilized its plan with regard to a 7
flood situation, and I think there were some 10, 15,000 8
people evacuated.
I know of no evidence in that respect 9
that there were any people who were left behind because 10 they hadn't received the proper notice.
11 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Mr. Rader, I know that the record 12 shows that public service agencies and municipalities also
()
13 had these survey forms available to people who were seeking 14 their services and doing business with them?
15 MR. RADER:
That is correct.
16 JUDGE GOTCHY:
The media did make announcements 17 to people, too.
So that if presumably they didn't get a 18 mailing, why they could request it.
19 MR. RADER:
That is correct.
Any elderly person 20 who had reason to deal with a local social welfare agency 21 giving help to the aged, would necessarily have that 22 information as well.
23 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Let me ask you the question about 24 the wording of the survey.
It says "Does everyone in your 25
)
household usually have private transportation available?"
}
t j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M2M.M NMa@h N
=
24598.0 54 f_
REE
~j 1
That is a direct quote from the LEA Exhibit 44, 2
If you had asked them, instead of using the word 3
"usually," if you had said, "Does everyone in your 4
household always have transportation available," is it 5
possible you would have gotten a greater response?
6 MR. RADER:
It is possible, but that might have 7
caused some confusion.
People customarily have to leave 8
their cars in a garage for repair and things of that nature.
9 It might have been taken too literally and produced a 10 response which was not intended.
I think that anyone who 11 owns a car is going to say he usually has a car.
It boils 12 down to that.
(m!
13 JUDGE KOHL:
I have another question relating to 14 the reliance on historical incidents of evacuation and so i
15 I
forth.
16 Is it, is that a reliable thing to use in this i'
17 case where we are talking about a possible radiation 18 exposure.
Civil defense workers and so forth are used to 19 dealing with floods and hurricanes and other natural 20 disasters of that sort, but do we have a problem here of 21 public perception?
I am thinking in terms of possible 22 reluctance by bus drivers and other emergency workers to 23 enter the EPZ to help transport people out of the zone.
Is 24 it fair to say because they have done it before in a flood
(~';
25 situation they would do it in a situation involving an l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-349-3700 Naticmwide Co'erage R00 336-6646
24598.0 55 REE O
1 emergency at the Limerick facility?
Are the things 2
comparable?
3 MR. RADER:
The same basic question was asked by 4
LEA of virtually every emergency planner who testified.
5 All county planners, people and officials and the 6
Applicants and all Applicant's witnesses answered with an 7
unqualified yes.
That they are comparable, and we can rely 8
upon the historical analogies.
9 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Is there any historical evidence 10 that is in the record other than these expert statements, 11 that this is the historical experience?
12 MR. RADER:
Well, they did testify as to the bus
(}
13 driver response at a site emergency at Genny and also the 14 emergency at Three Mile Island.
There were bus driver 15 responses then and they did come and respond as requested.
16 Also, I might point out that although a toxic 17 spill or a gaseous release might be different, it does pose 18 the same kind of idea of a somewhat invisible threat, which 19 is a little bit different of a flood or hurricane and 20 individuals have responded under those circumstances as 21
- well.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
Did any of the witnesses testify 23 about that sort of emergency, a chemical release?
24 MR. RADER:
Yes, the Union Carbide incident 4
25 JUDGE KOHL:
I mean was there any testimony 7-)
(>
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 56 REE 1
involving that from any of the people who testified at the 2
Limerick nearing?
Did any of the emergency personnel who 3
you called as witnesses refer to that?
4 MR. RADER:
Yes.
Mr. Bradshaw did, I am sure.
5 And.I believe that is in the board findings regarding 6
historic responses in the section dealing with bus driver 7
responses.
4 8
With regard to Mr. Stone's complaint that the 9
board shouldn't have relied upon EC's testimony so much, I 10 think the board had excellent reason to rely upon the EC 11 testimony.
They were intimately involved, particularly the 12 witness who testified, with the development of the plans
()
13 and with the collection of resource information from the 14 time the plans were first developed to the time that they 15 were presented to the various municipalities in the form 16 that they were received at the time of the hearing.
17 They demonstrated highly detailed memory and 18 highly credible responses were given to the questions, and 19 also I pointed out that with regard to the staff 20 information in particular, it is in my mind irrelevant l
21 whether the board relied upon them or not because the board 22 didn't make predictive findings with regard to EC staff 23 levels.
The board said they have to be okay before a 24 license can be issued.
So it is irrelevant what 25 Mr. Bradshaw said about the staff levels, although the
)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covaire 800-336 6646
i
\\
24598.0 57 I
REE
- l~1
\\_/
1 information was correct and was subsequently confirmed by 1
2 FEMA.
Because at the time of the hearing, there were only 3
a few spaces empty.
I believe there were a few spaces 2
4 missing in Union Township, South Coventry was as yet 5
undetermined and there were three other municipalities each 6
missing one space.
The board said, no license until that 7
staffing level comes up to meet the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> capacity.
8 JUDGE GOTCHY:
No license or they could go --
9 MR. RADER:
No full power license until that 10 condition was met.
11 JUDGE GOTCHY:
You brought in these FEMA 12 findings.
I didn't see anything in there about SEPTA.
Is
()
13 SEPTA no longer considered a backup for busing?
14 MR. RADER:
I wouldn't use the term " backup."
15 The SEPTA general manager testified that SEPTA buses would 16 be made available even without an agreement, because there 17 are at least 300 buses on average available every day 18 because they are out for routine repairs and inspection and 19 so forth.
The testimony by both him and the Chester County 20 chairman, who is on the SEPTA commission, was quite clear 21 that those, buses would be made available even without an 22 agreement.
23 JUCGE EDLES:
What about the drivers?
24 MR. RADER:
The manager and again the chairman 25 testified that in their professional opinion the drivers l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l.
RR347 3700 NEdo_nwid_e @MTD;n f7MDfD
24598.0 58 REE
,s
(
LJ 1
would be available and the drivers would cooperate.
2 JUDGE GOTCHY:
But Mr. Taus who is their union 3
boss says that he is going to tell them not to show up.
4 MR. RADER:
Mr. Taus lost any credibility with 5
the comments he made to the board.
I know of no other way 6
to describe it th7e to say the man's views of government 7
border on anarchy.
He simply is not 8
JUDGE KOHL:
Isn't that beside the point?
If he 9
still has credibility with his membership and his union, 10 isn't that the key thing that we should be concerned with?
11 MR. RADER:
I think that from an objective point 12 of view, one finds it difficult to make that connection c'x I
i
)
13 i
based upon what he said.
I believe the historic record as s
14 to the responses for schools and other emergencies in l
15 i
general is so great to -- is so greatly to the contrary l
16 that there is no basis for finding that Mr. Taus on his own l
is going to be able to convince 4000 SEPTA drivers not to 17 i
18 drive the buses.
19 JUDGE EDLES:
How do they actually go about 20 getting these people?
If an emergency is announced and 21 these bus drivers are doing their normal everyday activity --
22 maybe there are these 300 buses sitting on the lot but 23 where do they get the 300 drivers while everybody else is 24 out there driving their regular bus routes?
(~')
25 MR. RADER:
Keep in mind there are shifts.
\\.m_,/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202149.3?m P#atioTwide Coverage 8004 36-6646
i l
24598.0 59 REE 1
Drivers have days off.
2 JUDGE EDLES:
In other words, they have a plan 3
for calling them up?
4 MR. RADER:
Yes.
Yes, sir.
They would be 5
called, although SEPTA would consider pulling certain buses 6
off their routes, and the SEPTA manager so testified that 7
they would consider pulling buses off their regular routes, 8
if that were necessary.
But from everything he stated, 9
that wouldn't be necessary because they have a sufficient 10 pool of buses not used or out of use for maintenance, so i
11 that could be easily accomplished.
12 JUDGE GOTCHY:
The FEMA findings indicate the
()
13 SEPTA buses are not going to be needed.
I think there is 14 something about three different counties having adequate 15 buses?
16 MR. RADER:
I would put it this way:
The FEMA 17 findings indicate that other agreements have been reached 18 which further supplement the total pool of buses.
This 19 involves the red Lion Bus Company in York County and the 20 Johnson Bus Company in Lancaster County, and this is set 21 forth again in the PEMA letter which is attached to the 22 FEMA letter you are referring to of may 21, I believe it is.
l 23 And it states that these buses will be made available under 24 agreement.
25
(-}/
Here again, who Chester County would choose to i
rr l
l i
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 202 347-3700 Nationwide h 800-336-6646
1 24598.0 60 REE l
O
\\J I
use under the circumstances or call upon first, I don't 2
know.
But it is clear that there is a sufficient pool of i
3 buses for Chester County to use to evacuate the few 4
remaining children who would be there.
In that respect, 5
let me point out, we are only talking about a very small 6
number of buses that were missing at the time because 7
although in their annex 0, which states their resources, 8
they were 103 short at the time of the hearing.
9 Mr. Campbell, the Chester County director of emergency 10 services testified at the hearing that an additional 100 11 buses had been secured by letters of agreement which were 12 found acceptable by the board, by FEMA and could be
(])
13 utilized in an actual emergency.
So there was really only 14 a very small shortfall of about 30 or 40 buses at the time 15 of the hearing.
It was those buses that would have to be 16 filled from resources from SEPTA or as I mentioned the 17 Johnson Bus Company or the Red Lion Bus Company.
18 With regard to the point made by Mr. Anthony, I 19 would only point out that regulations are quite clear, they 20 do not become involved in the EPZ boundary designation.
21 Ordinarily they consult, they provide advice.
Customarily 22 they accept the EPZ boundary if it is reasonable and if it 23 complies with 0654 and the requirements of 5047-C2.
The 1
24 only time they become involved is if there is some 25 interjurisdictional dispute.
That was not the case here.
s i
i i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
FliM37-27ti)
N3ionwWh N
24598.0 61
,,REE
_/'
1 Everyone was in agreement that the Valley Forge Park need 2
not be included in the EP2.
The park rangers discussed it 3
with Montgomery County and PEHA officials.
They certainly 4
knew that they could ask that it be included, yet they 5
never did.
6 I believe the other points which I would have 7
made are covered adequately in our brief.
Unless the board 8
has any further questions, I think I have used my time.
9 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I had a couple more questions.
10 Just a couple quick questions.
Exhibit 67, the ETE study, 11 shows about 130,000 people evacuating the EPZ in Montgomery 12 County.
ia()
13 MR. RADER:
Yes, sir.
14 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I am trying to figure out what 15 the basis is for the, apparently, about 48,000 people that 16 are assumed to evacuate in Bucks County, and there is an I
17 assumption that half of them seek refuge in mass care i
18 facilities in Bucks County?
19 MR. RADER:
Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE GOTCHY:
How do you get from the 130,000 21 down to, I think, the 48,000 number?
I can understand 22 taking half of that, I can find the 24,000 or so people i
23 identified at the reception centers and mass care centers 24 in the exhibits, but how do you get from 130,000 down to
(~')
25 48,000?
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
E
?n?a4M700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 62 REE (O
_/
1 MR. RADER:
Keep in mind, sir, that the 2
Montgomery County, Bucks County and Chester County, while 3
they are risk counties, they also function as support 4
counties for their own population.
So there would be a 5
much -- Montgomery County would simply be moving out or 6
much of Montgomery County would simply take refuge beyond 7
the EPZ in Montgomery County.
8 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Is there something in the record 9
that explains this?
I couldn't find it.
10 MR. RADER:
I can't state for a certainty that 11 there was any part of the record which analyzes which 12 segment of the population is predicted to go where.
I
()
13 think there was a basic assumption that a number of the 14 population go to Montgomery County outside the EP2.
Other 15 portions of the population would go further east, perhaps 16 all the way to Philadelphia and elsewhere, and the best 17 estimate was that approximately 40,000 would go into Bucks 18 County and about half of those individuals would seek 19 refuge in the mass care centers.
20 Incidentally, I point out in passing that as the 21 record establishes, that 50 percent assumption was 22 extraordinarily conservative.
The historic record shows 23 that only about 10 or 15 percent of all evacuees actually 24 use mass care centers.
I think that is important in the
{}
25 board's evaluation of the points made by LEA on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nauonwide Coverase 800-336-6646
24598.0 63 REE N,/
1 development of plans for mass care centers.
2 JUDGE GOTCHY:
There was a survey characterized 3
as a one-time survey.
But as I read the exhibits for the 4
plans, this is supposed to be redone annually or something 5
of that nature.
Has that survey been redone?
6 MR. RADER:
Yes.
A survey was conducted by 7
another consultant in July of this past year.
The results 8
are being tabulated.
I under understand that they will be 9
shortly transmitted to the various risk counties for use in 10 incorporation in their plans.
11 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I was curious if the results had 12 significantly changed?
()
13 MR. RADER:
I couldn't answer that because I 14 don't think the results have been compiled.
But of course, 15 as you pointed out, the counties will do precisely that.
16 They will adjust their list accordingly.
17 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you, Mr. Rader.
18 Ms. Ferkin.
19 MS. FERKIN:
Good afternoon.
Before I begin, I 20 would like to make an introductory comment.
In these 21 proceedings on off-site emergency planning for the Limerick 2;
stations, the Commonwealth has provided information and 23 testimony for the purpose of insuring a clear and complete 24 record.
On review of the appeals filed by Limerick Ecology l
~
25 Action and by Friends of the Earth on these matters,
( ')
x/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2()2.t47.17m Na:ionwide Coverage R%336 6646
24598.0 64 REE m
f i
1 Commonwealth determined that it is important to address 2
certain of the issues raised therein for the purpose of 3
aiding this board in ruling on those appeals.
That is the 4
purpose of our presentation and our participation here 5
today.
6 I would like to turn to an --
7 JUDGE KOHL:
I just wanted to thank you for 8
providing all the board members earlier this week with 9
Commonwealth Exhibit E-9.
Unfortunately, our own record in 10 this case is not as complete as it should be.
That was one 11 of the items that seemed to be missing.
So I do appreciate 12 your sending us the three maps as promptly as you did.
(
I 13 MS. FERKIN:
You are very welcome.
l With that introduction, why don't I turn first 14 i
15 l
to an issue that has received quite a bit of attention l
16 I
today.
That is the question of Valley Forge Park.
l 17 LEA and FOE raised a contention about whether 18 traffic congestion in certain areas outside the Limerick 19 plume exposure pathway EPZ would adversely affect the 20 ability to evacuate and the timeliness of an evacuation of 21 the plume EPZ.
One of these areas is Valley Forge National 22 Historical Park which lies generally to the south and east 23 of the Limerick EPZ.
24 The board heard evidence on plans for traffic (N
25 control in this area and heard expert NRC Staff testimony ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?A?.t.17.1?nn Narinnside Int ernor MYL1m
24598.0 65 i
REE OV 1
which stated that traffic in the area of Valley. Forge Park 2
as well as other areas beyond the EPZ is not unmanageable 3
and that the EPZ need not be expanded to include these 4
areas.
The Commonwealth agrees..
5 NRC regulations in 10 CPR 50.47 C2 provide that 6
the plume EPZ for a nuclear power plant will generally 7
consist of an area about 10 miles in radius.
The exact 8
size and configuration of the EPZ is to be determined in 9
relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities 10 as they are affected by a variety of factors.
11 These are listed in the regulation:
demography, 12 topography, land characteristics, access routes and
()
13 jurisdictional boundaries.
1 14 In setting up the boundaries of the plume EPZ 15 for Limerick, the Commonwealth, in consultation with 16 appropriate local officials, took all of these factors into 17 account.
i 18 JUDGE KOHL:
What about park officials, National l
19 Park Service officials?
20 MS. FERKIN:
There is testimony in the record of 21 this pr'oceeding by Park Ranger Fewless that he had a number 22 of meetings with Commonwealth and county officials with 23 respect to the participation, if you will, of Park Service 1
24 personnel in facilitating the flow of traffic from the 25 Limerick EPZ through the park.
)
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L RiMD7 27D Nh N
24598.0 66 I
REE O
1 JUDGE EDLES:
Did he say whom he actually spoke 2
with at the Commonwealth?
3 MS. FERKIN:
I would have to go back to the 4
transcript.
I have transcript pages which I could refer 5
you to at this point.
W0uld the board like that?
6 JUDGE EDLES:
I am curious, I can't quite figure 1
7 out why there is this disagreement over the role -- whether i
l 8
or not the Park Service was consulted, given that people j
9 said he was consulted.
And yet there are no records of any 10 of this.
11 ft GE GOTCHY:
Isn't the man who discussed it i.
12 with Chief Fewless sitting there.
()
13 MS. FERKIN:
No, that is Mr. Ralph Hippert who 14 was present at a number, if not all of these meetings.
I 1
15 certainly have Mr. Hippert here to testify to you now as to i,
16 who was at those meetings.
I think the issue is not 17 whether -- or the dif ference between what the Park Service 18 knew or didn't know or participated in and didn't 19 participate in.
I think what you are referring to are the 20 letters that Mr. Anthony has shown you here today.
21 JUDGE EDLES:
That is right.
22 MS. FERKIN:
Those, as I understand it, were 23 requests for file information as to the Limerick generating i
24 station.
25 JUDGE EDLES:
I realize that they could be i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
24598.0 67
,_~ REE s
\\_/
1 rationalized.
It is possible that there were meetings 2
which were never memorialized in anybody's files.
But what 3
I am trying to get at is whether there is testimony in the 4
record which discusses any consultations or meetings 5
between the Commonwealth on the one hand or local officials 6
on one hand and the National Park Service on the other.
7 You tell me that there is although you can't off 8
the top of your head give me the page citations.
9 MS, FERKIN:
It would be Chief Ranger Fewless' 10 testimony in the vicinity of transcript page 14,500.
11 JUDGE KOHL:
He is the chief park service 12 administrator for the park; is that correct?
,m
(
,)
13 MS. FERKIN:
There is a chief in his title.
14 JUDGE GOTCHY:
He is the chief ranger, but I 15 don't think he is the chief administrator.
16 JUDGE KOHL:
Who is in charge?
17 MS. FERKIN:
Well, my understanding is there is 18 an administrative director for the Park Service.
My 19 understanding is that Mr. Fewless is the chief ranger for 20 Valley Forge National Historical Park.
21 JUDGE EDLES:
If Mr. Fewless is not in charge,
~
22 he at least speaks for whoever ir in charge on the record?
23 MS. FERKIN:
That is my understanding.
24 Now, even though the Schuylkill River in this 25 portion of the area around the Limerick station is more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 3 4 1200 Nationwide Coyerane 800 336-6646
24598.0 68 (1) *""
1 than 10 miles from the Limerick station, the river forms a 2
natural boundary for the EPZ on this southeastern side.
3 The choice of the river for the boundary of the EPZ is thus 4
consistent with considerations of topography and land 5
characteristics in accordance with 10 CFR 50.47 C2.
6 Mr. Stone conceded in his argument earlier that 7
nowhere in the record of this proceeding is there evidence 8
that the National Park Service ever requested to be made a 9
part of the Limerick EPZ.
Mr. Fewless testified that the 10 Fark Service never asked that Valley Forge or any portion 11 of it be included in the EPZ.
12 Commonwealth and local emergency planning
()
13 officials met with Park Service officials to discuss 14 notification procedures for the park and the responsibility 15 of park officials to facilitate traffic leaving the EPZ, 16 such traffic flowing through the park to join the evacuation routes away from the EPZ and onto the turnpike 17 18 and other routes.
19 This, these discussions were for the purpose of 20 insuring that park traffic does not adversely affect or 21 have any impact on an evacuation of the Limerick EPZ.
22 All of this information came out through 23 Mr. Fewless' testimony in the evidentiary hearings held in 24 this proceeding and is of record evidence.
25 The Park Service has agreed to provide traffic
[
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202449-F00 Nationwide Coverage Crrb336-6646
24598.0 69
)
I control assistance at certain intersections within the park.
l 2
These are intersections which persons evacuating the EP2 3
could be expected to cross.
And FEMA has confirmed in a 4
memo which we have heard discussed today to the NRC, dated 5
May 30 of this year, that additional traffic control points 6
are being established and although this is not record 7
information, are, to the best of the Commonwealth's 8
knowledge, reflected in current county plans.
9 These points are being established and manned to 10 ensure a smooth flow of traffic along what used to be Route 11 363, which is the eastern border of Valley Forge Park.
12 FEMA --
()
13 JUDGE GOTCHY:
How many additional control 14 points were discussed in that, in addition to the numbers 15 that were already in the record?
Do you know?
16 MS. FERKIN:
I can verify that for you right now 17 by consultinng the May 30 memorandum.
I believe -- I would 18 say 17 additional traffic control and access control points.
19 All aimed at, again, facilitating the flow of traffic away 20 from the park and towards the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
21 JUDGE GOTCHY:
That is primarily in the King of 22 Prussia area you are talking about?
23 MS. FERKIN:
Yes.
24 The nature of the license condition imposed by 25 the board dealt specifically with the area in Route 363,
{
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i t
Riur74mim
{msnshh N
d
24598.0 70 REE i
(m
(-)
1 King of Prussia, which is on the southeastern end of the 2
EPZ; the Marshall Creek Exton area is a different area.
3 I would also note in response to comments by 4
Mr. Anthony -- this is reflected very clearly in the 5
Commonwealth's brief -- that there is record testimony by 6
FEMA witness Richard Kinnard that the U.S.
Department of 7
Transportation representative on the FEMA assistance 8
committee reviewed the configuration of the Limerick plume 9
EPZ.
He did not recommend including Valley Forge Park 10 within the EPZ.
11 Mr. Kinnard testified that based on that expert, 12 that transportation expert's evaluation, FEMA did not
()
13 support expanding the EPZ to include Valley Forge Park.
14 FEMA testified explicitly in these proceedings that the 15 Limerick plume EPZ as it is now is in accordance with the 16 provisions of 10 CFR 50.47 C2.
17 Commonwealth's position on this point is that 18 there has been in this proceeding no affirmative showing by 19 any party of any reason to include any portion of Valley 20 Forge Park in the Limerick plume EPZ.
21 The board's findings on this point should be 22 affirmed.
23 In our brief we did address two additional 24 points.
I have just a few minutes left.
I would like to 25 touch on them just for a minute.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Covertry 800-336-6646 t
i 24598.0 71 REE l
O 1
One point thet we addressed was to explain our 2
position on whether or not the Commonwealth believes that 3
current emergenc3 plans, even though they have not been 4
formally accepted in many cases by many of the 5
jurisdictions, nonetheless could be reasonably expected to 6
be implemented in the event of an emergency at Limerick.
i 7
JUDGE KOHL:
Do you know how many offhand 8
haven't yet been approved by the respective jurisdictions?
9 MS. FERKIN:
I am going to pose a caveat to my 10 answer before I give it.
Not all of the current draft 1.1 plans -- I am not necessarily referring to plans that were 12 in evidence in this proceeding, but there have been a
(')
13 number of revisions to certain plans since then, but not 14 all of these plans have been officially submitted to the 15 Commonwealth for review.
16 of the plans that have been submitted to the 17 Commonwealth for review, my understanding is there are two 1
18 school district plans, I believe that is Downington and 19 Phoenixville which have been formally accepted by the 20 district governing boards.
I cannot speak for the 21 remainder of the plans.
It is possible some of them have 22 been formally accepted.
23 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I am glad to know the kids dor.'t 24 have to walk out of the EP2.
25 MS. FERKIN:
Again, my knowledge is limited on
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
mn37 37oo
- s. tion iaee a n s z*z n
24598.0 72 REE 1
that point.
I do have to caution you on that one.
2 More recent drafts of --
3 JUDGE EDLES:
May I ask a question.
I am not 4
certain you can answer it, but I notice in the May 21 FEMA 5
letter, the bottom line conclusion is that "Off-site 6
radiological emergency planning and preparedness is now 7
adequate to provide reasonable assurance that protective 8
measures can be implemented to protect the public health 9
and safety."
10 Does the fact that it says only "can" and not 11 "will," does that mean that they are not sure that these 12 plans will be implemented?
()
13 MS. FERKIN:
No, I don't think so.
I think 14 there was testimony in this proceeding by FEMA witnesses 15 that the goal was to insure that these plans would in fact 16 be implemented.
17 Our position is that we heard sufficient 18 testimony in this record by municipal officials and other, 19 and county officials of an intent to comply with state law 20 on emergency planning.
That state law, which is, we refer 21 to it as public law 1332, mandates that local government's 22 prepare disaster / emergency response plans.
23 JUDGE KOHL:
How is that state law enforced?
24 Whose responsibility?
The attorney general?
25 MS. FERKIN:
Well, the oversight is by the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m,xes ra,ercen@mrm e
24598.0 73 REE O
1 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.
The Emergency 2
Management Agency reviews local plans, insures that they 3
are consistent with the overall state emergency plan.
But 4
in terms of a penalty for noncompliance with the law, I 5
don't believe that the law sets forth a precise penalty.
6 However, it is state law, it is mandatory that each local 7
political subdivision in the Commonwealth prepare a 8
disaster plan.
9 JUDGE KOHL:
So there is no teeth to the law.
10 When you say it is " mandatory," that is as far as it goes?
11 What if PEMA was actually presented with a school district, 12 township, whatever, that either affirmatively refused to
()
13 adopt any plan, or just didn't get around to it because 14 there were more pressing items on the agenda?
Is there 15 nothing that PEMA can do to facilitate the process?
16 MS. FERKIN:
I think what is more important here is insuring that the needs of the public in that particular 17 18 jurisdiction are protected.
If, for some reason, at a 19 particular point in time a local jurisdiction did not have 20 an emergency plan, there is a provision in public law 1332 21 for the needs of that jurisdiction to be addressed to the 22 extent possible by higher authorities.
In the case of a 23 municipal, that higher authority would be the county.
If 24 for some reason the county could not address the resources,
{}
25 that needs would be passed on to the state, even to the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 WatiorSh Coverage 800 33MM6
24598.0 74 REE 7
I w/
1 Federal Government if necessary.
2 So there is provision in the law for local 3
citizens to be protected, even if at a particular point in 4
time there is not an accepted emergency plan in place.
5 JUDGE KOHL:
Does the Commonwealth have a time 6
schedule yet for when it will invoke the 44 CFR part 350 7
procedure to get final FEMA approval?
8 MS. FERKIN:
Yes, we do.
There is a full scale 9
participation joint exercise of the Limerick off-site 10 emergency plans scheduled for April of 1986.
The 11 l
Commonwealth intends following that exercise.
12 JUDGE KOHL:
Does that mean all of the eptities
(
13 involved are expected to participate this time?
i 14 l
MS. FERKIN:
It is intended that all the 15 entities involved in the Limerick EPZ participate.
The l
16 licensee of course would participate.
l 17 l
JUDGE KOHL:
Whether or not they have approved 18 their plans?
In some of these jurisdictions that, let's 19 say, they haven't yet by that time actually approved their 20 radiological response plans, they would still be expected 21 to participate?
22 MS, FERKIN:
Yes.
We would hope that the 23 exercise would provide them with, I guess the word is 24 enough comfort with the ability of their plan to work so
(~';
25 that they would, if they had not at the time of the (j
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n?,347.3700 Nationwide Coverane 800 336 C
24598.0 75 REE
/'
,l 1
exercise, be prompted to in fact accept their plan, 2
following the exercise.
And with that 3
JUDGE KOHL:
Of course, the opposite could 4
happen; could it not?
5 MS. FERKIN:
The intent of an exercise is to see 6
if a plan works.
We would hope that all of the entities 7
would approve -- or, excuse me, accept their plans as soon 8
as possible.
And if there are any questions remaining, we 9
would hope that the exercise would have resolved those 10 questions.
11 After the April 1986 exercise, it is the present 12 intention of the Commonwealth to invoke the formal review
(,,)
13 process under part 350 and obtain FEMA review and approval 14 l
of the local government, county and state plan for Limerick, 15 which has not yet gone through that process.
l 16 l
JUDGE KOHL:
I think your time has expired.
17 MS. FERKIN:
I think it has.
If there are no 18 further questions.
19 JUDGE KOHL:
I have one that I ask more out of 20 personal curiosity than anything.
If and when this 21 evacuation -- or if it is ever necessary and it is 22 necessary for some of the traffic to evacuate onto I-76, 23 the Pennsylvania Turnpike, is it Pen.n DOT's intention to 24 waive the toll?
25 MS. FERKIN:
That is a question that has come up ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34?-3T00 Wat'mTwide Coverage 800 336-6646
1
\\
i 24598.0 76
()
1 during these hearings.
If you will give me a moment, I can 2
consult with Mr. Hippert on this issue.
It was not in my 3
brief.
4 JUDGE KOHL:
I realize that.
I realize it was 5
not part of this case, but it did occur to me as a former 6
frequent traveler on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
7 MR. HIPPERT:
It is our intention that it will 8
be waived.
We do not have formal approval from the 9
Turnpike Commission yet, but it is our intention that it 10 will be -- booths will be closed or open, but no toll paid.
11 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
We will take a ten-minute 12 break and resume the argument at 3:00.
()
13 (Recess.)
14 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. McGurren.
15 MR. MC GURREN:
I defer to the request of 16 counsel for the Commonwealth for a moment.
17
~ ~ ' --MST FERZ28 :
With the board's indulgence.
Thank 18 you, Mr. McGurren.
The board had questions with respect to 19 whether our state law, public law 1332 contained any 20 enforcement provisions or penalties for noncompliance.
I 21 have taken a moment to review the statute which I would be 22 happy to provide the board at a later time.
The statute 23 does provide in section 7707 as a general rule that any 24 person violating any plans and programs adopted under the 25 Act shall upon conviction be sentenced to pay either a fine l
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L M4237-27G Narionwide @igrG 800-336-6646
24598.0 77 O,REE 1
or be imprisoned for not more than 30 days.
There is also 2
an additional fine for subsequent offenses.
3 I think it is more relevant to the board 4
questions, however, the section that provides that 5
political subdivisions who in effect do not comply with the 6
Act, do not prepare plans, as one example of noncompliance, 7
are subject to a loss of federal personnel and 8
administrative funding for the remainder of the fiscal year 9
in which they do not comply.
So municipalities, counties 10 who do not comply with the provisions of the Act are 11 subject to a loss of funds.
12 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I see where Rita Banning's road
()
13 can turn into one big pothole.
14 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
I would appreciate it 15 if you could cend us that statute and any other relevant 16 provisions because we don't have Pennsylvania law in our l
17 library here.
So if you could send us a copy,,we would I
18 appreciate it.
19 MS. FERKIN:
I would be happy to.
Thank you.
20 Thank you, Mr. McGurren.
21 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. McGurren?
22 MR. MC GURREN:
Good afternoon.
Judge Kohl, 23 members of the board, my name is J. McGurren.
As I 24 indicated, I am speaking on behalf of the Nuclear 25 Regulatory Commission Staff.
I see from the counsel that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 1227-27fi)
No^(mir#h@w:Em N
24598.0 78 REE O
1 have preceded me that I am going to be touching on many 2
areas that have been addressed before and I apologize if my 3
response might sound a bit repetitious.
I will make every 4
effort to cut from my argument things that have been said 5
before and will try to emphasize as I go along those points 6
that I think have not been touched on.
It appears to me at 7
this point that there are not many of those.
But I will 8
make an attempt to be as brief as possible.
9 With regard to LEA 24, FOE 1, a subject that has 10 been brought up much this afternoon, LEA does argue that 11 the board erred in not including within the EPZ the Valley 12 Forge Park, King of Prussia area in particular.
We feel
()
13 that what LEA has failed and what FOE has failed to do is 14 show how the configuration, present configuration fails to 15 meet 5047 C2.
16 I think what was touched on earlier was that 17 Valley Forge Park lies outside the EPZ with the exception 18 of a small portion of the park which is north of the 19 Schuylkill.
I think the record is clear that that portion 20 of the park that does lie within the EPZ on the north side 21 of the Schuylkill contains only a sma'11 trail headed to the 22 parking lot and is not very often used.
23 Furthermore, with regard to the Valley Forge 24 Park, the board found that control of access to the 25 evacuation routes near Valley Forge would be required and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{
R%237 3700 Nationwid e Com CJ33PE"3
24598.0 79 REE 1
(
l would be easily put in place.
As the report indicated by 2
other counsel, Park Service did not request that any 3
portion of this park be included within the EPZ.
4 With regard to FOE's argument that there was a 5
failure on the part of this board to meet the requirements 6
of part 350, 44 CFR 350, what is clear from the record was 7
that there was consequence station with FEMA.
Furthermore, 8
FEHA testified that the configuration of the EPZ as drawn 9
did meet 5047 C2.
10 JUDGE KOHL:
Is it your position that there was 11 also consultation with the Park Service?
12 MR. MC GURREN:
Your Honor, my recollection of
()
13 the record is,it was focused on whether or not the Park 14 Service found -- actually made a request.
My understanding 15 of the record was that they did not request that this be 16 placed in the EPZ.
I cannot recall whether or not there 17 was a consultation between the Park Service --
18 JUDGE KOHL:
If they have agreed to participate 19 in the evacuation, there would have had to have been some 20 consultation there, wouldn't there?
21 MR. MC GURREN:
I would assume so.
My 22 understanding with regard to the participation in the event 23 of an evacuation goes to, with the procedures that have 24 been set out, that there would be notification of the Park 25 Service, that the Park Service would go out by way of
}
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveran 33M(S"5
24598.0 80 REE 1
either -- go out with their rangers and notify the visitors, 2
and I think the record shows that, as well as showing that 3
the congestion would be out of that area before the 4
evacuees would reach that area.
5 Another point raised by LEA was that the board 6
erred with regard to zero base flow.
I would just like to --
7 since this area has been covered, I would just like to 8
point out that Dr. Urbanik pointed out that it seems to be 9
the argument of LEA that we superimpose the simulated ETE 10 study, traffic analysis, upon the peak traffic flow, what 11 we are doing is double counting.
I think that is exactly 12 what LEA, the result of what LEA is arguing to do.
()'
13 Furthermore, there was mention made of 200,000 14 shoppers in the Valley Forge area.
I think the record is 15 clear that with only a small number of access control 16 points in that area, it will be manned, that they could 17 restrict the flow of evac, of the evacuees so that these 18 200,000 people in that area would not interrupt that flow 19 of evacuees from the EPZ.
20 JUDGE KOHL:
What is your response to Mr. Stone's 21 characterization of Dr. Urbanik's testimony?
LEA contends 22 that that staff witness' testimony reflected considerable 23 level of concern about the adequacy of the traffic control 24 points and the whole evacuation plan.
l 25 MR. MC GURREN:
I would like to note that
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-34_7-3700 Nationwide Coverage _
24598.0 81
_ REE i
\\
U 1
Dr. Urbanik said that the ETE study met the requirements of 2
0654, appendix 4.
He said that he had a concern about the 3
movement of traffic beyond the EPZ to the south and the 4
east in urban areas.
And we feel that what the board has 5
done with regard to its condition 1, with regard to 6
verification of -- f rom -- to FEHA and then receipt of that 7
verification by the staff takes care of this concern.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
Was there any further consultation I
9 with Dr. Urbanik on the subsequent identification of the 10 traffic control points in question?
11 MR. MC GURREN:
No, your Honor.
What followed 12 was, as indicated in the memorandum from Grimm to Jordan,
()
13 dated May 30, where in the selected points were indicated --
l 14 j
that was received by the Commission and this was addressed I
15
{
in the SER supplement to the Limerick station, I think it i
16 is supplement 5.
That was the closing of the loop on that 17 l
matter.
Dr. Urbanik did not look at these.
18 JUDGE KOHL:
But SER 5 then considers that 19 matter resolved satisfactorily?
20 MR. MC GURREN:
That is correct.
21 With regard to planned implementation, LEA 22 argues that the board improperly made a finding of 23 reasonable assurance in light of the fact that there were 24 few of the 43 municipal plans that had been adopted.
(~' :
25 We feel that public law 1332, which was R. J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2n2.tv 17m Natinnwide coverage norttiA6646
24598.0 82 REE 1
referenced by counsel for the Commonwealth, imposes a 2
mandatory, not a discretionary obligation, upon the local 3
government's to have in place workable plans.
We also 4
belief that the record shows that each county and municipal 5
official testified it was the intention of his or her board 6
to comply with public law 1332 by working toward the 7
adoption of a workable plan.
8 Furthermore, the school districts unanimously 9
stated the intention of their school districts to work 10 toward the adoption of a workable plan.
11 JUDGE KOHL:
As a hypothetical question, is it 12 the Staff's position that a state law such as public law
()
13 1332 is necessary in order to achieve an adequate emergency 14 response plan?
15 MR. MC GURREN:
No.
I think that the case law 16 is clear that the Commission does not require that there be 17 a state law but that the evidence showed that there is an 18 effort towards a workable plan but there are no obstacles 19 toward adopting of a workable plan.
The board on that 20 basis can find that there is reasonable assurance, make a 21 predicted finding that the plan can be used and protect the 22 public in the event of an emergency.
23 JUDGE KOHL:
So in this case, the existence of 24 that state law is just one further piece of evidence (m
25 indicating that the plans will be implemented?
V l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Com 800 336-6646
24598.0 83
. REE
\\~)
1 MR. MC GURREN:
That, and the fact that each of 2
these individuals representing these municipalities and 3
districts and risk counties as well as the support counties 4
has indicated that they will comply with public law 1332.
5 JUDGE GOTCHY:
I meant to ask, has anything 6
further been done in Bucks County, or are the commissioners 7
still kind of awaiting the outcome of all of this?
8 MR. MC GURREN:
With regard to Bucks County, I 9
can't indicate what has happened since recently.
I can 10 indicate what was in the May 30 -- May 31 response 11 indicating -- FEHA has made its final interim finding that 12 there is reasonable assurance that the proper protective
()
13 actior s can be made.
14 Just touching on Bucks County, I think that the 15 record is clear in light of the history of that county, the 16 fact that for 15 years they have had a plan, they annexed 17 the radiological plan to their plan in the way they reacted 18 in the Three Mile Island incidents and as well as the 19 exercise report on November 20, 1984 exercise that this 20 record supports a finding of reasonable assurance with 21 regard to implementation of that support plan.
22 I believe that Mr. Stone touched upon the fact 23 that their cross-examination was from time to time limited.
24 I think that the board addressed this point in a great deal (N
(
25 of detail.
It is in partial initial decision at page 1234 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Com 800 3flX"")
24598.0 84 REE 1
and 1235 when they noted that FOE and LEA with regard to 2
LEA 24 and FOE 1, that they were consolidated and that the 3
board had every right pursuant to the Commission's policy 4
statement to have them identify lead intervenor, which they 5
did.
And that they still allowed Mr. Anthony for FOE to 6
conduct some cross-examination.
7 JUDGE EDLES:
Does the lead intervenor provision 8
permit to a board to assign responsibility to one 9
intervenor to the exclusion of another, total exclusion of 10 another?
11 MR. MC GURREN:
I can't say.
My best 12 recollection of that decision was that when requested, the
()
13 board can request that they select a lead intervenor.
14 JUDGE EDLES:
But does request mean that they 15 can't order it?
16 MR. MC GURREN:
I would say that in light of the 17 other provisions that the board does have to it under 2.757 18 C as well as -- that is with regard to prevention of 19 repetitious or cumulative type of cross-examination.
2.71E 20 has to do with the power of a board with regard to 21 conducting the course of the hearing as well as the thrust 22 of the policy statement, That there should be fair but 23 timely hearings, that the board would have the authority to, 24 if there couldn't be a selection made, that a board would 25
)
have the authority to indicate who would be the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide CoverJe 800-336-6646
24598.0 85
,,REE k
1 representative of an intervenor group.
2 I was just going to add that I think the record 3
shows that it was only af ter 14 days of hearing that the 4
board did set limitations.
Those limitations that were set 5
were based upon estimates from the parties.
6 JUDGE KOHL:
So, in other words, they didn't 7
the board went strictly, if the individual party said, I 8
need another two hours for oral or for my cross-examination, 9
the board said, fine, you have got two more hours, but when 10 the two hours approached and they still had further 11 questions, the board made them stick to their own original 12 estimate?
( ))
13 MR. MC GURREN:
Yes.
And at times they even 14 allowed some more, some further questioning.
15 I would also like to add one other point.
That 16 is with regard to a recent decision in the Catawba, ALAB I
17 813 where it indicated that a party that is concerned about 18 loss of a right in terms of cross-examination has a duty to 19 show that there is some sort of prejudice and that the kind 20 of prejudice that the Court there indicated was that they 21 have to show that there is a substantial effect on the 22 outcome of the proceeding.
23 We feel that neither LEA or FOE has made that 24 showing.
They have not shown that there has been an impact, 25 a large impact from any limitation that they have asserted.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Covercg3 800-336-6646
J 24598.0 86 REE O
1 With regard to buses, I believe that one of the 2
judges questioned whether or not with regard to the 300 3
buses that Mr. Wert, who was the deputy general manager of 4
SEPTA, indicated would be available sort of on an impromptu 5
basis, where would you get drivers.
I think it is 6
important to note that the record shows that Mr. Wert 7
testified that he had, that there were approximately 4000 8
bus drivers who worked for SEPTA, 15,000 buses with 4000 9
bus drivers.
I would like to note that there would appear 10 to be a large availability of drivers and that Mr. Wert 11 furthermore testified that in his opinion these people 12 would respond in an emergency.
()
13 JUDGE KOHL:
That is the total work force though, 14 correct?
15 MR. MC GURREN:
I believe it was total work 16 force but the record will show that he indicated that 17 approximately there were 4000 potential drivers, that they 18 were licensed to drive.s l
19 JUDGE KOHL:
My point is that most of those, a 20 major portion of those would be otherwise committed to 21 their usual duties.
So then, what you ought to focus on, 22 should you not, is how many additional drivers there are 23 of f shif t or who would be available to be called in for 24 this overtime or emergency duty?
Isn't that correct?
25 MR. MC GURREN:
If you look at the record, you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide @$niD'3 800-3M
24598.0 87 REE
(.
'V 1
also see that Mr. Wert said that even in a peak situation, 2
there are up to one third to one fourth of the buses, 1500 3
buses that would likely be available.
4 JUDGE KOHL:
I have a question that maybe you 5
could clarify a matter on.
On the contention that LEA 6
withdrew during the hearing regarding the drills and 7
exercises, was that contention admitted and then they 8
withdrew it, or did they withdraw it before the licensing 9
board ruled on its admissibility?
10 MR. MC GURREN:
I think if you will look at the 11 particular page that is cited by LEA, I don't have it with 12 me here, but it appears that they withdrew it after the l
f)'
13 statements were made by both Ms. Ferkin and Ms. Nathene u
14 Wright for the NRC Staff.
I think that there was certainly 15 no deception there.
16 l
JUDGE KOHL:
That is not my question.
My l
17 question is, had the board ever ruled on the actual 18 admissibility?
In other words, at what stage of the 19
. proceeding were you at at the time that that exchange 20 occurred?
21 MR. MC GURREN:
My best recollection was that it 22 was at the stage of determining whether or not there was a 23 contention that met 2.714.
24 JUDGE KOHL:
In other words, it was before the 25 board had ruled on its admissibility?
<-)
%J l
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i l
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 88 REE 1
MR. MC GURREN:
That is my understanding.
But I 2
would like to add that with regard to that, that the 3
exercise report that followed the July 25 exercise was 4
placed in evidence by FEMA.
It is a FEMA exhibit.
That 5
there was an opportunity by LEA and FOE to cross-examinate 6
on the basis of that report as well as the testimony, and 7
the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Asher and Kinnard for 8
FEMA; so they had every opportunity to conduct litigation 9
on the basis of the full scale exercise of July 25, 1985.
10 I think the record will also show that they had an 11 opportunity to cross-examinate on the basis of the 12 supplemental exercise of November 20, 1984.
()
13 JUDGE KOHL:
As someone who works for a 14 government agency, don't you find the responses of FEMA and 15 the National Park Service to Mr. Anthony's FOIA request 16 rather curious, that there was no paper generated --
17 particularly the Park Service response.
We have no 18 information in our files, including the files at Valley 19 Forge National Historical Park, on the Limerick nuclear 20 plant, plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone.
21 MR. MC GURREN:
I think in response to your 22 question, as a government employee, I just don't --
23 certainly I find it curious.
I don't know if this is 24 something that cou12 be explained away in terms of the type 25
(
of research that was done or research that was done under I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 89 REE 1
the FOIA request.
2 JUDGE KOHL:
The regional director of FEMA in 3
his responses, after a review of our files, we have found 4
no correspondence, notes, drawings or any other matter i
5 pertaining to the establishment of the Limerick plume 6
exposure Emergency Planning Zone.
Does that mean region 3 7
of FEMA doesn't even have this map in its file?
8 MR. MC GURREN:
I just can't say.
I don't know.
9 JUDGE EDLES:
With respect to the Park Service, 10 they at least did invite Mr. Anthony to come in and look 11 through their files, didn't they, which at least suggests 12 some good faith on their part, I guess.
The more curious
()
13 matter is the FEMA letter.
I also realize, Mr. McGurren, 14 it is not your agencies that we are dealing with here.
I 15 am not holding you accountable for their letters or their 16 filing procedures.
17 JUDGE KOHL:
But as counsel for the Staff, the 18 Staff, as I understand it, in NRC emergency planning, 19 people have a lot of dealings with FEMA.
Again, it seems 20 rather interesting that there wouldn't be the matter in 21 their files.
-Don't they have an ongoing correspondence 22 with the NRC?
23 We have seen several memoranda, the May 21 and 24 May 30 memoranda that all of the parties have received and 25 as it has been referred to here it seems to be part of an O
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24598.0 90 i
REE i
1 ongoing general correspondence.
2 MR. MC GURREN:
I just don't have anything to 3
add other than that it appears, based upon the record, that 4
there was no difficulty with regard to configuring the EPZ, 5
and other than that, I can't add anything on that point.
6 JUDGE KOHL:
Your time has just about expired.
7 Do you have anything further?
8 MR. MC GURREN:
If I might add one point, it 9
doesn't directly relate to something that Mr. Anthony did 10 raise, but it concerns 44 CFR part 350.
While it is not a 11 Commission regulation, it is something that is not ignored 12 by the Commission in its adjudicatory process and what
()
13 follows the process of the license itself.
14 I would just like to point out that as a 15 condition of the license, paragraph 15, subject emergency 16 planning procedures subject to 44 part 350, it states that 17 "In the event the NRC finds that the lack of 18 progress in completion of the procedures in the Federal 19 Emergency Management Agency's final rule, 44 CFR part 350 20 is an indication that a major substantive problem exists in 21 achieving or maintaining an adequate state of emergency 22 preparedness, the provisions of 10 CFR section 5054 S 26789 23 II will apply.
Which in essence, that section of our 24 regulations gives the Commission the right to follow up on 25 any difficulty with making sure that there is reasonable ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
RiWA37 2700 Nationwide Com 800-3;E
24598.0 91
,REE V
1 assurance of protective actions.
2 I would just like to at this point say that it 3
is the position of the NRC Staff that we don't feel that 4
the arguments of LEA or FOE are substantiated by the record 5
and furthermore, we request that this board reaffirm the 6
third partial initial decision.
7 Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you, Mr. McGurren.
9 Mr. Stone, you have 15 minutes in rebuttal.
10 MR. STONE:
Thank you.
I am just going to run 11 through rapid fire manner here things we have written down 12 during the preceding material.
The Applicant seems to have s.,
s,)
13 this idea about prototypes which is almost a 14 scholastic-type argument.
They made this argument way back 15 at the beginning of this proceeding and they think -- and 16 they didn't think we had to litigate anything at all.
That 17 is the problem.
These plans, the Applicant may think these 18 plans exist, but that doesn't mean that they do.
19 I think there is a similar problem we discussed 20 in our brief with respect to public law 1332.
Public law 21 1332 mandates that a community try, but it doesn't mandate 22 and cannot mandate that a community succeed in achieving 23 that capability to protect their people.
And furthermore, 24 even to have a predictive basis upon which to make a
{}
25 finding, there has got to be, we feel, some solid proof of i
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-u?-1700. _ _ _... _ __ _ _ Nationwide Coverage 800-)M 6646
24598.0 92 (2) 1 some beginning of the achievement.
I think the record, as 2
it stands, doesn't have that.
3 Now, I want to jump to this drill.
Based on the 4
information we have gotten today, where in fact PEMA will 5
will begin its formal plan review in response to the April 6
drill, we would have to modify our request at least orally 7
here; the opportunity we sought to have input into this 8
drill evaluation is even further pushed away and in fact, 9
it is this new drill which will be the basis of what is j
10 going to be decided.
11 I am just going to leave that real quick and try 1
12 to move.
()
13 I want to talk about some of the procedural 14 problems which resulted from consolidation of LEA FOE.
The 15 problem is those procedural problems affected the traffic 16 situation in King of Prussia / Valley Forge, which seems to 17 be an area of concern this afternoon.
And if you look at 18 things like why the Upper Marion study wasn't entered into 19 the record by stipulation, we had this problem where at one 20 point LEA was a lead intervenor and couldn't control 21 Mr. Anthony and at another point we couldn't.
This led to 22 problems of cross-examination, of such key witnesses as 23 Dr. Urbanik, Mr. Fewless, who has been discussed this 24 afternoon.
So I think it is a material consequence, at 25 least on the King of Prussia / Valley Forge situation.
{
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 349-3700 Nationwide Ce N
24598.0 93
()
1 About the time limits in general, the time 2
limits were established in the beginning of the hearings 3
for LEA witnesses only.
LEA did express grave concerns 4
about the same limits being applied to PEMA and FEMA and 5
NRC with testimony on multiple contentions.
In some cases 6
we were limited to about eight minutes per context, 7
especially Mr. Hippert and Dr. Urbanik.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. Stone, there were 32 days of 9
hearings on these contentions.
How can you say that is not 10 enough to develop your arguments?
11 MR. STONE:
First of all, this is a very complex 12 and densely populated EPZ.
In Pennsylvania the
()
13 municipalities are the root element of government.
There 14 are 43 of them.
A difficult situation at best.
But the 15 problem we had, we come into the hearings and you have 16 Energy Consultants up there.
We don't know at that point 17 whether our subpoenas for our other witnesses are going to 18 be honored or not.
That happened in the middle of the 19 process.
If you look at the timing, we were brought in, we 20 feel like we have got to take a crack at these guys while 21 we got them.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
Isn't there an exchange of prefiled 23 testimony before you ever get to hearing?
Both sides are 24 expected to present their case, there is pretrial discovery?
/~T 25 It is not exactly a case of walking into a hearing room and v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, RifM47J177%
- NMn@h N6N
24598.0 94 REE 1
seeing and hearing people for the very first time?
2 MR. STONE:
The problem we faced as a volunteer 3
nonprofit group is simply this:
You have got public 4
officials who are being, you know, shown 1332 by God knows 5
who.
You have all this going on.
They often --
6 JUDGE KOHL:
The public officials should already 7
know about 1332.
It is state law.
Irrespective of any 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission --
9 MR. STONE:
Until Limerick came around, nobody 10 had ever heard of it.
It had been in effect for several 11 years.
12 We had to bring in on subpoena many of these
()
13 public officials.
They certainly didn't want to get 14 themselves in legal hot water by venturing opinions in 15 prewritten form.
We can see it even in Bucks County and 16 other places that may be involved in litigation with PECO I
in other matters.
It is a very difficult situation.
17 18 In fact, even when these people finally come in 19 after having been served a subpoena, they often didn't have 20 that much knowledge.
21 Part of our point, going back to what I said 22 before, 1332 may exist.
It may or may not have sanctions 23 or threats that people may associate with it.
But 24 certainly it is the municipalities' ability to at least
,e '
25 begin to implement that, implement their plan, work at it
(_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
24598.0 95 REE 1
in the real world which counts.
2 I want to keep moving if I may, to this problem 3
of Valley Forge.
The Applicant said that it was in the 4
Montgomery County plan that that denoted the notification 5
of Valley Forge Park occurs.
6 Our information is that the Montgomery County 7
and Chester County RERP do not contain any reference to 8
notification of Valley Forge Park.
The PEMA brief says 9
Chester County will contact.
Which is it?
This is the 10 problem we have.
This is the problem we have in these maps.
11 Which of the many versions of maps that we have seen in 12 this proceeding are applicable?
()
13 In terms of sirens, we don'*. know what sirens 14 are audible for Valley Forge Park.
The NRC Staff is not 15 going to make that determination because they simply don't 16 have the jurisdiction because it is not in the EPZ.
17 In terms of Philadelphia buses, we are getting 18 into an abstract argument.
There may be buses in 19 Philadelphia.
It is a long way from Philadelphia to the 20 EPZ.
It is a long leap of the imagination for Mr. Taus' 21 employees to get on a bus and go up to Montgomery County.
22 Just think about that for a minute.
That is the kind of 23 thing that we tried to show through our brief and through 24 the record.
(~)
25 The survey, this new survey, I got the survey, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Com 800 33MM6
I 24598.0 96 REE 1
it was a blank envelope and it had Philadelphia Electric 2
return address on it.
I thought I was an electric bill or 3
something.
I threw it away.
That is the kind of thing you 4
run into.
5 JUDGE KOHL:
You are a concerned citizen though 6
about this, why would you throw it away?
7 MR. STONE:
What I am really saying is that how 8
the survey is conducted is something -- this second survey, 9
we don't get a chance to protect ourselves in due process 10 with this?
We don't get a chance to find out how it was 11 done.
No response, you aren't listed.
That is it.
12 Again, as I understand it, you have to open it
()
13 up inside to see what it was.
It says " Dear resident."
14 We had testimony from Phoenixville from the i
15 bureau counsel president who called a few apartment 16 dwellers and found that they weren't surveyed.
So this is i
17 the kind of thing we tried to show in the municipal i
18 witnesses.
19 Taus' testimony was discussed in LEA findings of 20 fact 455 and 464.
Mr. Campbell's testimony with respect to 21 his unmet bus needs was that they remained despite the 22 written letters of agreement he had at the time due to the 23 need for buses for day care facilities still being arranged 24 for.
Of course, on top of that, we would impose that the
( ~'s 25 U.S.
Census results should be used to assign more buses to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 232 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
24598.0 97
_ REE V
1 the urban areas which we feel are underplanned for and that 2
would increase its problems.
3 I think under LEA 23 the problem of the distance 4
the buses have to travel for the transport-dependent comes 5
in.
Let me go to another area here.
6 With this County Line Expressway 422 situation, 7
again we see how complicated things get after the hearings.
8 We have now the name of the road changes to 422.
There is 9
another 422, which is another evacuation corridor which is 1
10 local 422, which was planned for.
What we mention in our 11 appeals brief is this concept of this new Pottstown 12 extension.
There are two areas where this is brought up, O(j 13 in the ETE, in the place we cite.
It is also mentioned in 14 the transcripts.
15 I can give the citations.
Here you have another 16 corridor, a recently completed road which the ETE says 17 can't shorten evacuation times because you would be 18 funneling people into the same Valley Forge corridor.
19 There is nothing in the new traffic control plan in the 20 Valley Forge area to indicate they are going to keep people 21 off this new corridor to make them take old 422 away from 22 King of Prussia as opposed to being channeled right in on 23 top of Valley Forge in this new --
24 JUDGE KOHL:
But doesn't the addition of any new 25 road enhance the evacuation?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - K%P30-26% - -- --- - M W ---- --M-----------------
24598.0 98
,, REE O
1 MR. STONE:
The problem here is really --
2 JUDGE KOHL:
Isn't that just one more road for 3
people to use, whether they are directed there or whether 4
they decide because that is the most convenient one they 5
are going to use it?
Doesn't the failure of the ETE to 6
take that into account simply make it that much more 7
conservative.
8 MR. STONE:
If you look at that road, what it 9
does is it funnels traffic that would otherwise have taken 10 old 422 and some of the older plans and funnels it into the 11 Valley Forge area at exactly the same route as the 363 12 County Line Expressway traf fic.
The problem is you are rm
(_)
13 just adding more cars onto that route.
14 JUDGE KOHL:
But you are not creating more cars.
15 You are giving the cars an additional road to travel on?
16 JUDGE GOTCHY:
Aren't they just getting there l
17 quicker?
18 MR. STONE:
No, because this traffic was 19 assigned to old Route 422, which doesn't go into the Valley 20 Forge area.
We tried to get into the record like the Upper 21 Marion township wide traffic study which makes this clear.
22 But again, this is the kind of complexity you run into.
23 What is going to keep people from taking that expressway l
24 and taking instead old 422?
It is an unarawered question.
~N
(
25 I want to keep moving here.
This historical ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 ~3700 Nationwide Coverata N
24598.0 99 REE 1
record --
2 JUDGE EDLES:
Let me ask you a question, is it 3
your basic position that these matters are sort of 4
categorically unresolvable or is it that there just wasn't 5
enough time and energy going into resolving them?
6 MR. STONE:
I think they involve matters of 7
principle.
I think they involve exactly the kind of 8
planning assumptions and -- that should be stated out 9
clearly in any workable plan or any plan that meets 0654.
10 The problem is, for example, Dr. Urbanik said that the ETE 11 met the criteria of 0654 with the exception of the traffic 12 problems he mentioned.
So I think you have got to look at (y
( )
13 the principle of keeping these non-EPZ people off these 14 highways, how you do it, if you have the resources to do it, i
15 are you the people right now, is the principle going to be 16 to keep people off this Pottstown expressway?
l 17 That is a tough one.
You know, those basic 18 principles.
You got to bring in a few public officials, 19 you have got to bring in Penn DOT, who apparently is 20 reviewing all this now.
I would like a chance to 21 cross-examine this mysterious Long Island consultant who l
22 has looked at all this.
If it is only 15 traffic control 23 points, I want to know why they had to hire a Long Island 24 consul. tant.
You can't have it both ways.
^ ~')
25 The problem we had with FOE / LEA consolidation ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
T2 34%3700 Nationwide Coverane fm1%M
24598.0 100 CE)"S" 1
was the same thing.
It was both ways.
As I was saying, 2
one time we were in charge, another time we weren't.
I 3
think it affected all of this mesc in Valley Forge.
4 I want to get back to reality here.
We had 5
substantial municipal witnesses wno, such as Dr. Vutz, a 6
really qualified man, his reaction, he has got concerns.
I 7
mean, you can't just brush these people away.
8 JUDGE KOHL:
Is he an expert in traffic?
9 MR. STONE:
He does traffic analysis in his job.
10 Admittedly a lot of it has to do with rail transportation.
11 He was not even -- this is -- this bothers me, when all 12 this ETE stuff was generated, a man like him at the O
13 municipal level which in Pennsylvania is basic to 14 government, a man like him was not given input.
I don't 15 know who was.
A couple officials at the county level maybe 16 at best.
A man like him could have made the kind of 17 suggestions, could have had the input and even the hearing 18 time.
He did not have that input and so he was ignored.
19 There is Mr. Fedders.
20 JUDGE KOHL:
Did he make any effort on his own 21 to offer his expertise to PEMA?
22 MR. STONE:
As early as 1983 he wrote a letter 23 detailing his concerns, expressing his concerns.
These 24 officials live in the community.
They are busy but they
()
25 still made the effort early.
The problem is, as I see, you ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
203-34 %3*00 Nationwide Coveras:
800-3)M
24598.0 101
'___')
REE v
1 have a product of bureaucracy here at all different levels.
2 It just kind of turns out material.
I wanted to know, and 3
I think further hearings in a focused way would specify how 4
do things stand now in these various areas we mention in 5
our brief.
6 I think that -- I guess I am just going to wrap 7
it up here -- we really took a lot of concern with both our 8
brief and our findings.
We are an overworked volunteer 9
organization.
Many times it seems like the NRC Staff and 10 the applicant say we don't understand something, or many 11 times they answer our arguments and I think if you compare 12 what we have written with their answer, I think you will c
13 find that in many cases they just simply did not grasp what 14 we were.saying.
I think it is there clearly.
15 I think this simple matter of transport 16 dependence, our point is simply you can't verify who 17 doesn't return a survey form by calling those who might.
18 That seems a very simple thing to us.
19 There are some other examples.
20 JUDGE GOTCHY:
It does verify the accuracy of at 2) least what they have on the list, but it doesn't verify 22 whether there is anything missing.
23 MR. STONE:
If the second survey makes the ne 24 assumption, it.is going to have similar results, if it 25 makes the same assumption that people who don't respond ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?n? w.17m Narinnude Crverane 800-336-6646
. -. ~
24598.0 102
(
E 1
don't need help.
2 JUDGE GOTCHY:
You want to see a door-to-door 3
survey?
4 MR. STONE:
That was recommended by a couple of 5
municipal witnesses.
As a minimum we would want to 6
certainly cross-examine these survey outfits.
Why did they 7
hire a second outfit?
What is the procedure?
This comes 8
down to critical issues though.
Buses for people who need 9
them.
And you can't just -- you just can't talk it away.
10 JUDGE KOHL:
Mr. Stone, you have about one 11 minute left.
12 MR. STONE:
I think that I will just end it with O
13 a plea for that.
I think these issues, if you look at it 14 in its entirety, many of them overlap a little bit.
They 15 are all related to focused contentions.
I think they do 16 affect workability of the plan in its entirety.
I think 17 that an opportunity if properly focused to cross-examine 18 some of the new players in this thing would be beneficial 19 to the plan, which after all we we all have to live with 20 for 20 or 30 years.
And I would just end with that.
21 Thanks a lot.
22 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you.
Mr. Anthony, you have 23 five minutes for rebuttal.
24 MR. ANTHONY:
All that.
Wow.
25 JUDGE KOHL:
That long.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w.m.nnn h.a en--
min.an
24598.0 103 I~) REE v
1 MR. ANTHONY:
Mr. Rader said that the visitors 2
to Valley Forge Park would be notified and they could do as 3
they like.
That is a tragic and ridiculous statement.
It 4
sums up just what is the matter, and if there are worst 5
case accidents and people are told at Valley Forge, do what 6
you like but there is a radioactive cloud coming this way, 7
it will be here in an hour, what kind of advice is that?
8 What has been done --
9 JUDGE KOHL:
Do you seriously think anybody is 10 not going to leave in that scenario?
11 MR. ANTHONY:
They might not be able to leave.
12 By that time there will be a rush of traf fic f rom King of 13 Prussia through the park.
It is a two-lane highway 14 situation all the way through the park.
These roads will 15.
be blocked in no time.
The question is, has anybody 16 thought through whether there will be sheltering at the 17 park.
What buildings are there, what food, what water will 18 there be available f,or people who are stuck in the park?
l 19 All these things are what has to go into planning for an 20 emergency which is a worst case.
21 As far as the Valley Forge being included in the 22 park, in the EP2, Mr. Fewless testified that he was never I
23 asked, nobody was ever asked.
Why should I be the one who 24 had to go to the superintendent of the park and why should 25 I be the one that goes to the regional director of the
\\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
u.,
,u. cmm m m ~'
m m.unn m
24598.0 104
(
1 National Park Service?
Why wasn't FEMA, why wasn't that 2
FEMA's job?
Why wasn't somebody else involved?
Why can't 3
we be protected now?
4 Ms. Ferkin also says that the park had plenty of 5
chance to be included.
6 Mr. Fewless testified the park was never given a 7
chance to, never given a choice, they were never notified 8
that any jurisdiction that was in 10 miles of the plan of 9
this park is included; part of it is that within 10 miles 10 has a choice to be included in the EP2.
They were never 11 given that choice, never notified.
12 She seems to think there will be perfectly O,
13 smooth traffic going through the park.
I say that this is 14 not so.
There will be blockades.
15 She said that Mr. Kinnard testified that the 16 FEMA did review the EPZ, that the U.S. Department of 17 Transportation representative on the RAC was the one who 18 approved it.
What does the U.S.
Department oi 19 Transportat.on expert have to do with radioactivity?
He is 20 an expert on transportatior. and pipelines.
21 JUDGE KOHL:
But isn't transportation a key 22 element of the emergency evacuation plan?
23 MR. ANTHONY:
It is a part of it.
But the 24 judgment was what is going to happen with the radioactivity.
()
25 that comes from this worst case?
What does he know about ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cm CIN1DC"3
24598.0 105
(~S REE
\\_)
1 that?
2 JUDGE KOHL:
He was just one representative on 3
the --
4 MR. ANTHONY:
He was the one that she cited and 5
Mr. Kinnard cited as the ultimate authority on FEMA.
He 6
doesn't even come in under the FEMA regulations.
He has 7
his own regulations.
He is not required to meet the 44 CFR 8
350 regulations.
It is a completely specious argument.
9 Mr. McGurren said that there was no violation of the 10 configuration of the EPZ.
This is not the point at all.
11 The point is that if Valley Forge is not included in the 12 EPZ, little details -- not so little either:
there is no O}
k-13 monitoring equipment for the park rangers.
That is not i
i 14 even provided for them because they are outside the EPZ.
15 As far as Dr. Urbanik goes, I have a couple of 16 citations of the record.
One is 19226.
He was asked about 17 the time estimates prepared by HMM Associates.
The 18 question is, are you satisfied that adequate traffic access 19 and traffic control points have been established to 20 adequately manage traffic in the areas of the EPZ as well 21 as beyond the EPZ.
His' answer was, no.
He did not think 22 the traffic control was adequate.
23 We did not have time to finish our questioning 24 of Dr. Urbanik, so this is not in the record, what else he
()
25 found wrong with the time estimates.
However, he did say, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202K.3M
, -,, Nationwide Coverage
__,804 336,6646 _,
24598.0 106
(]) REE 1
describing the variations that could cause, quote, a peak 2
condition on the population side, he concluded:
"We would 3
have a list that would be so long that it would make the 4
plan useless or the estimates useless, I should say."
5 In other words, it doesn't plan for any peak 6
shopping or employment rushes and so forth.
The plan is 7
useless.
8 As far as PEMA and Mr. Asher, I would like to 9
quote from his testimony.
The last testimony I mentioned 10 was transcript 19240.
This one is transcript 20238.
The 11 question to Mr. Asher of FEMA was:
"Have you had any part 12 of the deliberations that were considering whether that" O
13 what is the park -
"should be included in the EPZ?"
14 Answer:
"No."
Question:
"Have you heard any talk about 15 it at all?"
Answer:
"Only from you."
That is me.
16 JUDGE KOHL:
Thank you, Mr. Anthony.
Your time 17 has expired.
18 I would like to thank all the parties for their 19 participation today.
The case is submitted.
20 (Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m.,
the oral argument was 21 adjourned.)
22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 M71700 Natinnwide Covernac E n 1E 66d6
1 l-CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER b
i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before i
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
I t
DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND DATE:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1985 l
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i f
(sigt) A 9' 6
(TYPED)
REBECCA E.
EYSTER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
.~-,-.w-r-,-,,--,,.,e-.
e- - -. - -,,.,
,-----.,v,-a.,,--r--s
,,----.,ne.--g