ML20054D895
| ML20054D895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1982 |
| From: | Urbanik T Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION, NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D873 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204230482 | |
| Download: ML20054D895 (9) | |
Text
.
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-382
)
(Waterford Steam Electric Station,
)
Unit 3)
)
NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF THOMAS URBANIK II REGARDING THE EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE STUDY FOR WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (CONTENTION 17/26(1))
01.
State your name and occupation.
A1.
My name is Thomas Urbanik II.
I am an Assistant Research Engineer associated with the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.
02.
Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
A2.
Yes. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached to this testimony.
Q3.
In what capacity are ynu testifying in this proceeding?
A3.
I am testifying on behalf of the NRC Staff, for which I serve as a subcontractor through the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories which is responsible under contract to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for reviewing evacuation time estimates of nuclear facilities.
l 92049804T%
. Q4.
Briefly summarize your experience with evacuation time estimate studies for nuclear facilities.
A4.
I was a principal author of NUREC/CR-1745, " Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones" (November 1980), which described the limitations of several methodologies and some alternatives for determining evacuation time estimates. Also, I provided input to the development of the current guidance for evacuation time estimate studies which appear in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980).
In addition, I reviewed the initial evacuation time estimate study submittals of approximately 52 operating and near term nuclear facilities for the NRC against the guidance of NUREG-0654, Revision 0, the results of which are published in NUREG/CR-1856, "An Analysis of Evacuation Time Estimates Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites" (May 1981).
I am currently reviewing revisions to evacuation l
time estimate studies and new submittals against NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
l 05.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
AS.
The purpose of this testimony is to address, within the scope of Contention 17/26(1), the manner in which the evacuation time estimates for the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ at Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, as presented by Applicant Louisiana
. Power & Light Company in a study dated February 1982 (Revision 1),
compare to the guidance of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4.
Q6.
What was the scope of your review of the Applicant's evacuation time estimate study for Waterford Unit 37 A6.
I conducted a review of the Applicant's evacuation time estimate study at the request of the NRC Staff.
The results of the Applicant's study, as well as the methodology used to develop the evacuation time estimates, were evaluated and compared with j
the guidance of Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654, Revision 1.
Q7.
What criteria did you use during your review of the evacuation time estimate study submitted by the Applicant?
A7.
In conducting my review, I considered various elements set forth in Appendix 4'to NUREG-0654, Revision 1, which the NRC and FEMA believe should be included in evacuation time studies. These considerations include:
(a) an accounting for permanent, transient, and special facility populations in the plume exposure EPZ; (b) an indication of the traffic analysis method and the method of arriving at road capacities; (c) consideration of a range of evacuation scenarios generally representative of normal through adverse evacuation conditions; (d) consideration of con-firmation of evacuation; (e) identification of critical links and
. need for traffic control; and (f) use of aethodology and traffic flow modeling techniques for various time estimates, consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0654, Revision 1, Appendix 4.
Q8.
Briefly describe the methodology employed in the Applicant's evacuation time estimate study.
A8.
The methodology used for analyzing evacuation times is a mathe-matical simulation model which predicts the flow of vehicular traffic on the roadway system around Waterford Unit 3.
The model uses a special purpose simulation language entitled General Purpose Simulation System (GPSS).
GPSS is an appropriate simulation language for a queuing problem such as an evacuation.
The methodology used is an acceptable approach identified in NUREG-06E4, Rev. 1, Appendix 4.
Detailed population estimates were made for permanent residents, transients, and special facility residents as specified in NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
The population estimates were made for 1982, in accordance with guidance contained in NUREG-0654, Rev. 1.
Populations were converted to the number of evacuating vehicles in several ways.
Permanent residents were apportioned to vehicles based on latest available data (1970 U.S. Census) for auto availability, and projected 1982 population. Transient populations were converted to evacuating vehicles based on 0.709 vehicles per person.
School children were assumed to evacuate e
e e
- i by bus with 60 children per bus. The overall approach used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles is reasonable and makes maximum use of available data.
The Applicant's determination of roadway segment capacities is based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the standard reference used in the transportation profession to compute roadway capacities.
The Applicant's determination of roadway capacities is reasonable and appropriate.
Q9.
Did you attempt to verify the accuracy of the estimates?
A9.
Yes. I performed several independent calculations of volume-to-capacity ratios to determine if any parts of the network appeared to require times longer than those indicated in the Applicant's i
study.
My calculations lead me to conclude that the Applicant's analyses are reasonable.
Q10.
What is your opinion as to the overall compliance of the Applicant's evacuation time estimate study to the criteria set forth in NUREG-0654?
A10.
The Applicant's report on evacuation times is responsive to and is in compliance with NUREG-0654. The estimates provided by the Applicant delineate a reasonable range of times required to evacuate the Waterford Unit 3 plume exposure pathway EPZ.
, 1 Q11.
In your opinion, how will emergency response personnel be able l
to utilize the Applicant's evacuation time estimates?
All.
The Applicant's evacuation time estimates should provide to 4
emergency response decision-makers additional information and a basis on which a decision as to the feasibility of an evacuation could be made, in the event of an emergency at Waterford Unit 3.
1 l
o
)
)
i i
THOMAS URBANIK II FEBRUARY 1982 PRGFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Education:
Ph.D. Candidate, Civil Engineering (Transportation), Texas A&M University.
Degree expected May 1982.
M.S., Civil Engineering (Transportation), Purdue University, 1971 B.S., Civil Engineering, Syracuse University,1969 B.S., (Forest Engineering), State University of New York,1968 Professional Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, January Positions:
1977 to Present. A'ssistant Research Engineer.
City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972-1976.
Traffic Engineer.
City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971-1972.
Transpor-tation Planning Engineer.
Joint liighway Research Project, Purdue University, 1970-1971.
Research Assistant.
Experience:
Principal person responsible for the evaluation of evacuation time estimates for the NRC.
Work includes review of all evacuation time estimate submittals and the preparation of recomendations for revisions when submittals are not consis-tent with the guidance of NUREG 0654, Revision 1.
Expert testimony has also been prepared for several sites concerning evacuation time estimates.
Principal Investigator on several studies concerning public transportation planning at the state and local levels.
Areas include general transit, intercity bus service, rural puolic transportation, elderly and handicapped transportation, and priority treatment of freeways and arterial streets.
Other
~
transportation planning studies include hurricane evacuation, nuclear evacuation and truck routing for hazardous materials.
Responsib.le to Director of Streets, Traffic and Parking, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Responsible supervisory and professional traffic engineering work in directing the traffic engineering function of the department.
Work involved responsibility for the application of professional ' engineering skill and-knowledge to difficult traffic enginee'rirrg problems in traffic regulation and control, street use, street lighting, geometrics, parking, l
l l
THOMAS URBANIK II FEBRUARY 1982 school safety, curb cuts, and related traffic engineering activities.
Was directly responsible for the supervision of the traffic signal and traffic sign maintenance personnel.
Responsible to Director of Traffic Engineering and Transpor-tation, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reviewed tran:portation aspects of all plans for development in the city.
Staff member to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority responsible for budget and union negotiations.
Staff Coordinator for the planning, design, implementation, and operation of the Dial-A-Ride demand-responsive demonstration project.
1 Under general direction of Dr. Kenneth W. Heathington, Purdue Universi.ty, designed attitudinal questionnaire concerning public transportation for a home interview survey in Lafayette, Indiana.
Also anal' zed survey results for inclusion in a y
report wnich was the basis for improving public transportation in Lafayette.
Affiliations:
Institute of Transportation Engineers Sigma Xi Chi Epsilon Registration:
Registered Professional Engineer, Texas and Michigan.
Publications:
Urbanik, T., et al., The Intercity Bus Industry in the U.S.
and Texas. Texas Transportation Institute Technical Report 0965-IF, August 1981.
Urbanik, T. and A. E. Desrosiers, An Analysis of Evacuation Time Estimates Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites, U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Sites, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, NUREG/
CR-1856, May 1981.
Urbanik, T., et al., Analyses of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times Tor Emergency Planning Zones, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1745, June 1980.
Urbanik, T. and' Jose' A. Soegaard, Cost-Effectiveness of Accessible Fixed-Route Buses in Texas, Texas Transportation Institute, Technical Report 1061-1F, September 1979.
Urbanik, T. and Jose' A. Soegaard, Transportation of the Elderly and Handicapped in Texas: A Case Study, Texas Transportation Institute, Technical Report 1056-2F, September 1979.
Urbanik, T., Bryan-College Station Transit Improvement Plan, i
Texas Transportation Institute, September 1979.
l i
THOMASURBdNIKII FEBRUARY 1982 Urbanik, T., Total Accessibility Versus Equivalent Mobility of the Handicapped, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Com-pendium of Technical Papers, 49th Annual Meeting,1979.
Urbanik, T., e_t;, Eap, ped Transportation, Texas Transportation al.
Survey of Vehicles and Equipment for Elderly and Hand Institute, Technical Report 1056-1, September 1978.
Urbanik, T. and R.W. Holder, Corpus Christi Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Study, Texas Transportation Institute, September 1978.
Urbanik, T., Texds Hurricane Evacuation Study, Texas Transpor-tation Institute, September 1978.
Urbanik, T., Priori.ty Treatment of Buses at Traffic Signals, Transportation Engineering, November 1977.
Urbanik, T. and R.W. Holder, Priority Treatment of High Occu-pancy Vehicles on Arterial Streets, Texas Transportation Institute, Report 205-5, July 1977.
Urbanik, T. and R.W. Holder, Evaluation of Alternative Concepts for Priority Use of Urban Fmeways in Texas, Texas Transpor-tation Institute, March 1977.
Urbanik, T., et al., Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Project Final Report, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, April 1973.
Urbanik, T., Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Operations, Highway Research Board Special Report 136, 1973.
Urbanik, T. and K.W. Heathington, Driver Information Systems for Highway-Railway Grade Crossings, Highway Research Record Number 414, 1972.
Urbanik T., et al., The Greater Lafayette Area Bus Transit Study, Joint Highway Research Pmject, Purdue University, April 1971.
Expert Witness: Pmsented expert testimony before the At' mic Safety and Licens-o ing Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission conceming evacuation times at several nuclear power plant sites including Three-Mile Island and Diablo Canyon.
,