Emergency planning, generators and evacuation not modeled in TIA; questioners press for studies

During cross‑examination, several party‑status attorneys and participants pressed the expert on whether the TIA considered emergency‑mode operations and potential interactions with nearby emergency plans — specifically, the nuclear plant emergency planning zone. Tavani acknowledged he had not conducted studies of evacuation or nuclear emergency traffic, saying such analyses are not typical for a TIA and are usually handled by emergency planners.

The discussion also covered the site's backup generators and fuel deliveries. Tavani said he had done a targeted calculation on a much larger Scranton project and, by analogy, expected routine testing or maintenance fuel deliveries to amount to at most about one truck per day, but he did not calculate emergency fuel consumption scenarios. He confirmed he had not consulted the nuclear plant operator, county emergency management, PEMA, state police, or local first responders in preparing the traffic analysis. Questioners argued that evacuation interactions, large‑scale generator refueling during prolonged outages, and vulnerable populations near schools and care facilities warrant more examination before final approvals.

Tavani replied that emergency planning and evacuation are case‑by‑case matters and usually addressed outside a routine day‑to‑day TIA; the board reserved additional scrutiny on these topics for subsequent proceedings and documentation.