DCL-12-128, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 & 2, Transmittal of Evacuation Time Estimate Study for Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate
| ML12363A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/2012 |
| From: | Ginn M A Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML123630335 | List: |
| References | |
| DCL-12-128 | |
| Download: ML12363A185 (7) | |
Text
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Oiablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 December 12, 2012 100.545.6000 PG&E Letter DCL-12-128 ATTN: Document Control Desk 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Study -Diablo Canyon Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate Dear Commissioners and Staff: In accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.4, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby submits the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate (DCPP EPZ ETE) study.The enclosed ETE addresses the unique EPZ described in the DCPP Emergency Plan and is different than the 10-mile EPZ contained in the regulation.
This study was developed using the area, infrastructure, and population described by the DCPP Emergency Plan and offsite response organization emergency response plans as the EPZ (approximately 18 to 22 miles from DCPP). The DCPP EPZ ETE will be used by PG&E and the offsite response organizations to develop protective actions for the general public. The study provides the methods used to derive the time and the calculated time for public evacuation.
At this time, the study is not an implementing procedure or a plan commitment, but provides an important part of the bases for development of protective action recommendations.
Enclosure 1 contains a compact disc (CD) of the DCPP EPZ ETE study, "Diablo Canyon Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates." The DCPP EPZ ETE file is in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format. PG&E is providing a copy of this CD to the Regional Administrator, Region IV; the DCPP Senior Resident Inspector; and the Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector, Region IV. The CD contains the following files: File Name File Size (Mb)KLDTR-498_Diablo-Canyon_ETERevlI
_11-08-2012.pdf 30.3 A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance L O' -Callaway
- Comanche Peak
- Diabto Canyon -Palo Verde o San Onofre
- South Texas Project
- Wolf Creek Document Control Desk December 12, 2012 Page 2 of 2 PG&E Letter DCL-12-128 Enclosure 2 provides a list of items contained in the DCPP EPZ ETE study that differ from the guidance contained in NUREG/CR-7002 (SAND2010-0016P), "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," published November 2011.Enclosure 2 provides the applicable NUREG excerpt, the DCPP EPZ ETE excerpt, and the basis for why the difference is acceptable.
On April 3, 2012, PG&E discussed some of these differences during a conference call with members of the NRC Nuclear Security and Incident Response staff. Some differences contained in Enclosure 2 are dispositioned as discussed in the conference call. Other differences identified during development of the DCPP EPZ ETE are also listed with the basis for the difference.
PG&E makes no regulatory commitments (as described by NEI 99-04) in this letter.If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 545-6300.Sincerely, A Michael A. Ginn Manager -Emergency Planning wrl8/6980/50439570 Enclosures cc: Diablo Distribution cc/enc: Elmo Collins, NRC Region IV Regional Administrator Thomas R. Hipschman, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Senior Emergency Preparedness Inspector (RGN-IV/DRS)
A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway -Comanche Peak
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- San Onofre
- South Texas Project
- Wolf Creek Enclosure 1 PG&E DCL-12-128 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates The CD in this enclosure contains the following files: File Name KLDTR-498_DiabloCanyon_ETERev1_11-08-2012.pdf File Size (Mb)30.3
-~ -~K~ U-----~~ V~i/ F Enclosure 2 PG&E DCL-12-128 Page 1 of 3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate Differences from NUREG/CR-7002 The following items are different than the guidance contained in NUREG/CR-7002, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies."* The first column provides the description of the item from NUREG/CR-7002.
- The second column provides the description of the item from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate (DCPP EPZ ETE)." The third column provides the discussion and bases why the difference is acceptable.
NUREG/CR-7002 DCPP EPZ ETE Discussion Section 2.5.3 -The volume of vehicles Section 2.3, item number 5 -Access Local law enforcement agency provided should be representative of the average Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within confirmation that through traffic would be daytime traffic within the Emergency approximately 30 minutes following the controlled with implementation of access control Planning Zone (EPZ). Values may be siren notifications, to divert traffic points within 30 minutes compared to the reduced for nighttime scenarios.
It is attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier NUREG/CR-7002 guidance of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.appropriate to assume that pass-through activation of ACP locations could delay traffic will stop entering the EPZ about 2 returning commuters.
It is assumed that This difference is acceptable due to local offsite hours after initial notification when access no through traffic will enter the EPZ after reponse organization information.
control points have been established, this 30 minute time period.Section 3.4 -speed reduction for heavy Section 2.3, item number 9 references NUREG/CR-7002 Highway Capacility Manual rain is 15 percent. Table 2-2 maintains "free flow speed" be (HCM) (2000) referenced in the NUREG has reduced by 10% for rain." been updated to HCM (2010) that states the reduction due to rain is 10% instead of 15%.HCM (2000) has been superceded by HCM (2010).The difference is acceptable because the federal highway guidance has been updated compared to the information in the November 2011 NUREG/CR-7002..
Enclosure 2 PG&E DCL-12-128 Page 2 of 3 NUREG/CR-7002 I DCPP EPZ ETE I Discussion Section 2.5 -As described below, demand estimates should also be considered for peak populations during special events within the EPZ, shadow evacuations for the population extending out to 15 miles from the nuclear power plant, and for the background and pass through traffic within the EPZ.Page 7-1, section 7.1, third paragraph, states: "Figure 7-3 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region is called the Public Education Zone (PEZ). This area is defined as an area in which residents are provided with general information about Diablo Canyon, but are not likely to be affected by an emergency at the power plant. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 23,613 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate.
See Table 6-5 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region." The PEZ was selected as the shadow region for the DCPP EPZ ETE study because it extends well beyond the EPZ defined in the Emergency Plan. The PEZ has a radius of 20 miles for the northwest to east areas from DCPP and further for the southeast area to include the population area of Nipomo. This extension to Nipomo reaches approximately 30 miles from DCPP.The principal evacuation routes out of the EPZ are U.S. Route 101 and California State Highway 1, which travel north and south. Any voluntary evacuation to the east of Protective Action Zones 11 and 12 will not have a significant impact on the ETE.The extended EPZ and PEZ provide a much larger area for calculating traffic demand associated with shadow evacuation than discussed in NUREG/CR-7002.
Enclosure 2 PG&E DCL-12-128 Page 3 of 3 NUREG/CR-7002 DCPP EPZ ETE Discussion Section 2.1 states in part, "The number of Table 1-3 uses 2010 census information 2010 census data was used to be in permanent residents should be estimated instead of 2012 population information, compliance with Appendix E IV.4. Appendix E using U.S. Census Bureau data adjusted requires the use of the last decennial census for as necessary for growth. Along with the ETE.census data, local data may be used for population estimates.
The population Text from Appendix E IV. 4 reads as follows: values used in the ETE should be developed for the year the ETE is "Within 365 days of the later of the date of the prepared." availability of the most recent decennial census data from the U.S. Census Bureau or December 23, 2011, nuclear power reactor licensees shall develop an ETE analysis using this decennial data and submit it under § 50.4 to the NRC. These licensees shall submit this ETE analysis to the NRC at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities for use in developing offsite protective action strategies."[underscore added for emphasis]Page B-2, checklist item 2.1.1.b states to Page 3-16, second paragraph states, "A This alternate approach was discussed with the list major employers, vehicle occupancy of 1.08 employees per NRC and San Luis Obispo County. Nuclear vehicle obtained from the telephone Energy Institute is submitting this methodology survey (See Figure F-7) was used to to the NRC through the rulemaking FAQ determine the number of evacuating process to officially document the NRC's employee vehicles for all major employers acceptance.
San Luis Obispo County has also within the EPZ." approved this alternate methodology during their review of the ETE.