ML20082H418
| ML20082H418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1983 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312010148 | |
| Download: ML20082H418 (18) | |
Text
,
f..
LILCO, NovAmbar 28, 1983 I'
.h[0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N 50V 30 NO59 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rcrcenr
..n,_,_
v
.u..~.
g In the Matter of
)
j
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF PETER A.
POLK I.
Introduction LILCO moves to strike that portion of the " Testimony of Peter A.
Polk on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Contention 23.D. (Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon) and 65 (Evacuation Time Estimates)" (hereinafter, Polk Testimony) filed on November 18, 1983, dealing with the evacuation shadow phenomenon (page 3 through page 10 line 6, and Attachment 3 thereto) for the rea-son that it is outside the ecope of its asserted basis, Conten-tion 23.D, and is thus not relevant to issues in this proceed-ing and not admissible as evidence under 5 2.743(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, which restricts admissible evi-dence to " relevant, material and reliable evidence.
Rather, the testimony which is the subject of this motion rests fundamentally and inescapably upon a proposition already re-jected by this Board in rejecting Contention 22.B.,
that the D
SSk*N f
G m %.
hf e
L
4 i,,
scope of LILCO's emergency planning at Shoreham must account directly for persons living outside the 10-mile EPZ, rather than accounting for them insofar as their behavior following a radiological emergency at Shoreham would affect evacuation of persons living w1 thin the 10-mile EP.S.
To this extent, Mr.
4 Polk's testimony goes beyond the scope of Contention 23.D.,
which concerns the effect of voluntary evacuation on evacuation time estimates for persons living within the EPZ who are in-structed to evacuate.
II.
Background
The portion of the Polk testimony relating to Contention 23.D. asserts broadly that LILCO has underestimated the time necessary to evacuate the EPZ because its evacuation time anal-i yses have not considered the effect of voluntary evacuations from those portions of the East End of Long Island beyond the 10-mile EPZ.
To the extent that this amounts to an assertion that LILCO has failed to account for the effect of westbound voluntary evacuation from east of the 10-mile EPZ (or from any-where else) on the evacuation times of persons leaving from within the 10-mile EPZ pursuant to instructions to evacuate, it is incorrect:
LILCO has, in fact, modeled the effect of volun-tary evacuations both from within and without the EPZ on
.. _.... _. _ _.. _, _ _ -. _. _ _. _. -........... _ _ _... ~. _,. _, -.. -. _, _ _
-4 *:
evacuation times of persons living within the EPZ who are in-structed to evacuate.
.That, however, is a matter of testimoni-al disagreement and not the basis for this motion to strike.
,This motion arises out of modeling assumptions by Mr. Polk which apparently underlie the projected evacuation times of 3
approximately 17 to 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> in summer and 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in winter under normal weather conditions.
(Polk Testimony at 8, lines 7-13, and Attachment 3, " Sunrise Highway Summary" pages).
While much is unclear about this modeling enterprise,1/ the following things are clear:
1.
Mr. Polk's modeling work includes voluntary evacuees from east of the EPZ traveling on the Sunrise Highway and other routes.
For the Sunrise Highway his analysis apparently begins at East Hampton, some 35 miles east of Shoreham (Polk Testi-mony, Attachment 3, Sunrise Highway Summary pages, Intersection 4
1), and picks up all traffic west of there -- essentially all the South Fork west of Montauk Point.
See Attachment to this motion, which consists of a marked-up Hagstrom map showing l
pertinent highway locations and other landmarks.
l I
1/
The modeling work reflected in Mr. Polk's testimony was a complete surprise to LILCO, despite repeated inquiries on dis-covery.
LILCO believes that it has been significantly and un-l fairly prejudiced by it.
In the event that the Board does not grant this motion, LILCO believes that it is entitled to the opportunity for discovery on and rebuttal to this modeling work.
See the Motion of LILCO for Discovery on and Response to Polk Testimony.
i
+
. ~. -
m.
w
__,.,,.,,m.m._.-#-_-,..,y,
,,y..--
,_,,m._.-y r,.,n
,y,.c
2.
These voluntary evacuees are routed westward along the Sunrise Highway, where they meet other traffic proceeding along Route 51, just outside the southeastern boundary of the EPZ (id. at Intersection 7).
This traffic stream is then followed further west along the Sunrise Highway during its stretch just south of the EPZ2/ (the EPZ turns north of the Sunrise Highway at Gerard Road, between Mr. Polk's Sunrise Highway Intersec-tions 8 and 9, compare Shoreham Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Appendix A, Figure 3).
Tha Sunrise Highway in Mr. Polk's analysis is then tracked more than 15 miles further west to its intersection with Route 85, over 20 miles from the Shoreham site.
l 2/
The Folk Testimony suggests that the Sunrise Highway is within the EPZ (id. at 7-8); it is not.
As the LILCO Emergency Plan indicates, the Sunrise Highway lies just to the south of the southern EPZ border and is outside the EPZ.
See LILCO Offsite Emergency Response Plan, Appendix A, pages IV-135 and Zone Map M, IV-140 and Zone Map N, artd IV-144 and Zone Map O.
Even if the Sunrise Highway lay just inside the southern EPZ border rather than just outside it, traffic from the East End could be kept totally outside of the EPZ, and the Folk Testi-mony's argument could be totally mooted, by routing traffic one road further south, to the Montauk Highway (County Route 80).
This road, while less efficient than the Sunrise Highway for actually moving traffic, is at all points clearly south of the southern EPZ boundary, and the LILCO Offaite Plan could easily be modified in this fashion.
However, the location of the Sun-rise Highway is irrelevant to the proposition raised by the Polk Testimony, which is whether, in evacuation planning, vol-untary evacuees proceeding from outside the EPZ must be consid-ered directly and not just in their relation to persons i
j evacuating from inside the EPZ on instructions to evacuate.
l l
~
. _. -. - ~.
(
3.
The analysis displayed in Mr. Polk's testimony and its-l does not distinguish in any way between persons evacuating from within the EPZ on instructions to evacuate, persons evacuating from within the EPZ voluntarily, and persons originating from outside the EPZ who are evacuating voluntari-ly.
This is true for all roads analyzed in Mr. Polk's testi-mony, although the Sunrise Highway is the most extreme case since it is the only one actually shown in Attachment 3 to the Polk Testimony to actually originate east of the EPZ and since i
the traffic there is picked up as far east as 35 miles from Shoreham.
Thus any car still on any roadway being modeled, regardless of its origin, is included in the Polk testimony calculations as part of an undifferentiated traffic stream.
3 l
For the Sunrise Highway, the testimony describes the last vehi-J cle as leaving the EPZ during summer months, at "almost 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br />" after an evacuation is begun.
Examined on a map (see hereto), this means that-the last car has crossed Polk " Intersection 10," some 4 miles west of the EPZ southwest corner, at 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> (after having proceeded along the Sunrise Highway south of the EPZ southern boundary, westward from Polk
" Intersection 7," for some 8 miles or so).
It is impossible to tell from the Polk testimony analysis whether that last car originated within the EPZ or from east of it.
However, an
e- *:
eastern, outside-EPZ origin for this traffic is strongly sug-gested by the fact that traffic proceeding from 35. miles east of Shoreham is modeled (Polk Sunrise Summer "Intersec' ion 1")
t combined with the fact that westbound traffic is shown by the Polk testimony as clearing the southeastern corner of the EPZ (Polk Sunrise Summer " Intersection 7") only at 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes following the start of an evacuation.3/
III.
The Polk Testimony Is Beyond The Scope Of Contention 23.D.
Contention 23.D., concerning the effect of voluntary evac-uation on evacuation times, is reprinted in Attachment 1 to this motion.
LILCO has always understood it to relate to the 3/
Similarly, the Long Island Expressway is shown as clearing in summer only at 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> (Polk Testimony at 5; compare LIE Summer " Intersection 6").
Again, the factitiousness of this time is curious. --At Polk " LIE Intersection 6," and for approx-imately 4 miles eastward, past Folk " LIE Intersection 5,"
the LIE has formed the southwestern boundary of the EPZ.
At Polk
" LIE Intersection 6" the EPZ boundary leaves the LIE and turns northward along the Port Jefferson-Patchogue Road (Rt. 112).
At Polk " Intersection 5" traffic is shown as clearing at 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> O minutes; only three miles further west along the south-westarn EPZ boundary, the clearing time is depicted as being 18 I
hours O minutes.
There are no major roads intersecting the LIE between Polk " LIE Intersection 5" and Polk " LIE Intersection 6" from the northeast (i.e., from within the EPZ).
In short, here I
too, traffic which has already reached the EPZ boundary on the way out is shown as being delayed for about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> by traffic
(
which must be arriving,. totally or in major part (the Polk i
analysis does not disclose enough information to tell) from or-igins other than within the EPZ.
l.
i
\\-
.- ~.- - - - -
effect of voluntary evacuation, by persons originating from outside the EPZ, on evacuation by persons evacuating, on in-struction, from areas within the EPZ.
LILCO's testimony has, in fact, considered that scope for voluntary evacuations from both east ind west of the Shoreham EPZ.
Thus LILCO has modeled the effect of traffic originating from east of the EPZ and pro-ceeding westward just outside its southern boundary on the Sun-rise Highway on the time it takes for traffic originating from within the EPZ to leave the EPZ via the Sunrise Highway.4/
It has also considered the effect of some voluntary east-of-EPZ traffic entering the EPZ contrary to instructions and evacuating to the west along the LIE, on evacuation from within the EPZ.
LILCO's testimony and other prosentations to the NRC have not, however, considered how long it would take voluntary evacuees originating outside of the EPZ and never actually en-tering it, but rather proceeding voluntarily toward it and then along its edge on the Sunrise Highway, to finally leave that edge for the last time.
4/
The Polk testimony appears to argue that LILCO's analyses do not account for this effect (Polk Testimony at 8, citing Lieberman Deposition Tr. at 192).
This argument is incorrect, see Testimony of Cordaro, et al. on Contentions 23.C., D. and H.
at 13-15 and Lieberman Deposition Tr. at 191-192).
- However, this issue is not pertinent to this motion but is rather a mat-ter for questioning at the hearing.
--e
-,-wr op p,
r
,----m wsw,-e g
-vm--a w---r--+s-
,w
,w---
Nothing in Contention 23.D. suggests that it was intended to require voluntary evacuees originating from outside the EPZ to be considered, except to the extent that their voluntary evacuation affected the evacuation times of persons evacuating from within the EPZ pursuant to evacuation instructions.
The reason is simple:
under the Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 and NUREG-0654, an EPZ is so defined that pro-l tection of the population within it provides an acceptable planning basis for emergencies.
It follows that persons out-side the EPZ need not be explicitly considered 'except insofar as they affect the feasibility of appropriate protective ac-tions for persons inside the EPZ.
Contention 23.D. must be read consistently with that regulatory requirement.
There is no question that Mr. Polk's testimony contem-plates analysis of the evacuation of persons evacuating volun-tarily from east of the Shoreham EPZ, along routes getting no l
closer to Shoreham than the Sunrise Highway, not simply in re-l lation to their effect on " instructed" evacuees from within the EPZ, but also in their own right.
This is simply outside the scope of Contention 23.D.
The pertinent passage, Polk Testi-many at 8, reads as follows:
(
Whether the Sunrise Highway lies just inside
(
or directly on the EPZ boundary, it is clear that it is a major evacuation route which can-not be ignored in computing time estimates.
Thus, in modeling an evacuation, automobiles on that portion of the Sunrise Highway should not be considered to have exited the EPZ until they have left the portion of the Sunrise Highway which defines the edge of the EPZ.
Yet, LILCO's time estimates in KLD-TM-77 do not account for automobiles originating from outside the EPZ traveling along that route (Lieberman Deposition at 192), although KLD-TM-77 does appear to account for traffic ori-ginating within the EPZ.
LILCO has apparently assumed that since the northern shoulder of Sunrise Highway has been established as the EPZ boundary, it is not necessary to include in its estimates the time required for automo-biles from the East End to travel over that portion of the Sunrise Highway which lies sev-eral feet beyond the EPZ boundary.
[ Footnote omitted.]
As is observed in footnote 3 above, this passage proceeds from an incorrect assumption about the LILCO traffic model runs.
More central, however, this passage, when read together with the tables in Attachment 3 to the Folk Testimony, make it clear that Mr. Polk's entire work is oriented toward depicting those evacuation times when (1) the last car, (2) voluntarily evacuating f, rom east of the EPZ, (3) has passed various marks, ultimately the southernmost mark, on the EPZ boundary, (4) without ever actually entering the EPZ, (5) regardless of the time at which the last car evacuating on instructions from within the EPZ left the EPZ.
This scope is simply beyond any fair reading of Contention 23.D.
There is also no way, from the information presented in the Polk Testimony, of distinguishing between the calculated effect of extra-EPZ voluntary evacuees on evacuation times for
" instructed" evacuees from within the EPZ, and the evacuation times of the extra-EPZ voluntary evacuees themselves.
There is no realistic way of determining that some portions of the Polk testimony on Contention 23.D. are properly within its scope and some are not:
the entire argument inherently includes the extra-EPZ evacuees, and is pegged to the time it takes the last voluntary extra-EPZ evacuee to clear from the edge of the EPZ for the last time.
Therefore, the testimony should be struck.
IV.
The Polk Testimony Is Inherently Based On Portions Of Contention 22 Which Have Been Rejected By This Board As has been discussed above, the Folk testimony labeled as treating Contention 23.D. is concerned directly with the direc-tion of voluntary evacuation by persons who originate beyond the EPZ and are never seriously contended to enter it, rather than with its effect on evacuation times for persons proceeding from areas within the EPZ to be evacuated.
This argument is beyond the scope of Contention 23.D.,
the contention to which it is assertedli relevant, for the reasons demonstrated in Part III. abcVe.
Indeed, it can have relevance to issues in this
i r
case only if travel times for persons originating in and volun-tarily evacuating from areas outside the lO-mile EPZ and never in fact entering it, are relevant in and of themselves.
This is tantamount to extending the 10-mile EPZ beyond its defined boundary specifically to encompass those voluntary evacuees living beyond -- here, to the east of -- it.
Just such an argument appeared, in only slight different form, in Suffolk County Contention 22 B which was struck by this Board.
The pertinent portion of this contention is printed below:
Contention 22.B.
The area of Long Island which surrounds Shoreham, particularlv the area which lies east of the Shoreham nuclear plant and east of LILCO's proposed EPZ (including the towns of East Hampton, Southold, Shelter Island, most of Riverhead and virtually all of Southampton), possesses a number of distin-guishing characteristics, which taken togeth-er, contribute to the need to plan beyond the 10-mile EPZ proposed by LILCO.
Among these distinguishing characteristics are the follow-ing:
4.
Due to Long Island's configuration, the inadequate road network on the north and south forks connects to two principal east-west arteries, the Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway, both of which pass through or very close to.LILCO's proposed EPZ; 4
m-a
=
--y
%--eg-,-,--,
w w
.e-
-c
-.-,--~.,www-
--i-,--.--,.,-.-- -, r m. #
e---,-,-----
e
5.
The area east of the EPZ provides no means of exodus to the east, meaning that per-sons deciding to evacuate must travel toward and through LILCO's EPZ.
Studies show that large nurubers of people in this area will spontaneously evacuate toward the EPZ; Intervenors contend that these site spe-cific characteristics which exist for Shoreham demonstrate that local emergency response needs and capabilities require planning and preparedness beyond LILCO's proposed 10 mile EPZ.
Such planning and preparedness are nec-essary to assure the existence of an adequate response base to support expanded response ef-forts which may be required in the event of a serious accident.
Thus Contention 22.B. set forth assertions about the evac-uation of persons from beyond the 10-mile EPZ -- assertions not dependent on any interaction with persons evacuating pursuant to instructions from within the 10-mile EPZ -- which were ar-gued to require expansion of the EPZ beyond the nominal 10 miles proposed by LILCO, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47 and NUREG-0654, as a planning basis for emergency planning.
This argumtat was squarely considered and rejected by this Board as a challenge to the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
Special Prehearing Conference Order, August 19, 1983, at 8-12.
In rejecting Contention 22.B. the Board rejected an argu-ment based on background facts which would have required it to consider extra-EPZ voluntary evacuees in their own terms and
S...
not just in relationship to " instructed" evacuees from within the 10-mile EPZ.
That argument, if accepted, would have sug-gested the inadequacy of a 10-mile EPZ as a basis for emergency planning.
The portion of Mr. Polk's testimony which is the subject of this motion relies on exactly the same background facts to generate evacuation time estimates whose only perti-nence is to suggest the inadequacy of evacuation time estimates which are premised on evacuation of those persons living within the 10-mile EPZ.
The essential conceptual difference between Mr. Polk's testimony and LILCO's analyses is that, like Contention 22.B.,
the Polk Testimony considers evacuation times for voluntary evacuees originating beyond the 10 mile EPZ to be relevant in their own right and not solely in connection with the evacua-tion of persons leaving the 10 mile EPZ.
The testimony is lit-tle more than Contention 22.B. in another guise, and thus in-herently in conflict with the Commission's emergency planning regulations and this Board's prior rulings.
It should be stricken for this reason, as well as for the fact that the tes-timony is beyond the scope of Contention 23.D.
V.
Conclusion The Commission's emergency planning regulations ascribe no direct significance to voluntary evacuation from areas not required to be evacuated, independent of its effect on appro-priate protective actions -- i.e.,
evacuation -- being taken for the benefit of persons living within areas to be evacuated.
Mr. Polk's Testimony on Contention 23.D. improperly ascribes such independent significance to voluntary evacuation.
It is thus both beyond a fair reading of Contention 23.D. and the permissible scope of emergency planning contentions.
Like its close analogue, the already rejected Contention 22.B., Mr.
Polk's testimony on Contention 23.D. inherently challenges the Commission's emergency planning regulations.
Nor does it at-tempt to parse the difference between this purely voluntary evacuation per se and its effect on persons being evacuated as part of a protective action, and therefore does not lend itself to being struck only in part.
For these reasons, as well as those set out above, the testimony of Mr. Peter A. Polk, from page 3 line 1 through page 10 line 6, and Attachment 3 to that testimony, should be struck as being beyond the scope of admitted contentions, and incon-sistent with the Commission's regulations.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY O
By
[.
Donald P.
Irwin Lee B. Zeugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
November 28, 1983
s 1
(
jq,expectina en==--urt; eal, u.su.lu.vu.a
.ithiu LILC-c i.
] 0-m1 EPZ without expecting residents of the border z one(s) and ably other zones as well, also evacuate.
zone recommende o be evacuated will
'P eople not located n ot wait while their immedi ne bors evacuate in response to a protective action reco ndat This is particulcrly so f or people who live c e to the plant.
ordingly, LILCO's plan for staged acuation of the inner EPZ zone s unworkable tnd thus in com'pliance with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(
- 1) and
-A y_1g_
sua ownEG G63.; 3.ctien; !! _7 a p to)(10),
l Contention 23.D.
Voluntary evacuation will result in a l
much larger number of people attempting to evacuate (and thus C.
using the limited capacity of the existing road network) than is assumed by LILCO in its evacuation time estimates.5/
The additional vehicles will create congestion within the EPZ and in the regions just outside the EPZ, which will causa queuing and will impede traffic evacuating from the EPZ.
The addi. tion-al congestion caused by voluntary evacuation will cause adverse health consequences to the public because (a) evacuees from j/
The numbers of people expected to evacuate voluntarily, the locations from which they will evacuate, and the circumstances under which they will evacuate are set forth in a survey and studies which the County has provided to all parties.
(See " Basis" section of this contention.)
(. _.
~.
beyond the 10 mile EPZ will impede the evacuation of those within the 10 mile EPZ who are ordered to evacuate, resulting in evacuees' receiving health-threatening radiation doses; and (b) those-who choose to evacuate will be unable to do so safely and efficiently.
Moreover, while LILCO acknowleges that persons not specif-ically instructed to evacuate will, in fact, attempt to evacu-ate (Appendix A, at I-5), the LILCO evacuation time estimates ignore the number of vehicles which will be on the roads due to such voluntary evacuation.5/
The LILCO evacuation time estimates thus are inaccurate for failing to take into account the numbers and locations of people who will evacuate voluntar-(.
ily contrary to Instructions.
If voluntary evacuation ~were properly taken into account, the LILCb estimates would increase substantially, rendering evacuation an inadequate protective action for many accident scenarios.
Thus, the LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10 CFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10), Part 50 Appendix E Section IV, NUR2G 0654 Sections J.8, J.9, J.10, and Appendix 4.
O 1
1/
LILCO has recently provided the County with a new KLD study which attempts to take into account voluntary evacu-ations from outside the EPZ.
The study is not part of the Plan and the County has not had sufficient time to evalu-ate it completely.
As appropriate at a later time, this portion of this contention may be revised to include this ELD study if LILCO's Plan takes it into account.
~.
=
e, t
DOCUMEN..T PAGE~
~
~'
PULLED
~
l ANO~ w -
k NO. OF PAGES _
REASON O PASE ELEGIBl.
~
CF D MAC COP (MD A1. PDR OTHER _
J J_
D BETTER COP (REDJESTED DN _
$.PASE100 LARGE10 FEM.
OTMER -
W M
hEMED DN APERTURE CARD ND
-