ML20082U048
| ML20082U048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1983 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312160222 | |
| Download: ML20082U048 (16) | |
Text
.
DOCHETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 EC 14 P2:18 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
.tira CF3'vTO r;
' ' T; 4 a
. 3 C'
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF PETER POLK j
I.
Introduction On November 18, 1983, Suffolk County filed its direct testi-mony on Contentions 65, 23 and 25 (the Group I issues)..- Among the witnesses submitting testimony on behalf of Suffolk County was Mr. Peter A.
Polk, a transportation planner with PRC Engineering [ hereinafter "PRC Voorhees"] of McLean, Virginia.
Mr. Polk's direct testimony addresses Contention 23.D (the evacu-ation shadow phenomenon) and Contention 65.D (the effect of auto-mobile accidents and running out of gas).
Mr. Polk's testimony on Contention 23.D (the portion of Mr. Polk's testimony addressed by LILCO's motion to strike) is based in large part on evacuation time estimate analyses conducted by PRC Voorhees which consider the effect of the evacuation shadow phenomenon on evacuation from the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ.
(See Attachment 3 to Polk Testimony).
V 6
F312160222 831208 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
.O
.PDR
l l
i l
2-l l
Those time estimates show that in-the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, a complete evacuation of the full 10-mile j
EPZ would require about 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> in the summer and about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> during the winter months, assuming favorable weather conditions.
1 On November 28, 1983, LILCO-filed'a Motion To Strike Por-tions Of The Testimony Of Peter A.
Polk (the " Motion"), which 1
j-requests that the Board strike all of Mr. Polk's testimony con-1 1
cerning the evacuation shadow phenomenon, as well as the time j
estimates on which part of that testimony is based.
LILCO's November 28 motion to strike is grounded upon the assertion.that Mr. Polk's testimony on the evacuation shadow-phenomenon and the~
analysis on which it is based have exceeded ~the scope of Conten-tion 23.D and the NRC regulations;and thus are' irrelevant.
Motion at 6-10.
LILCO further contends that, through Mr. Polk's testimony, the County is. arguing-to expand the'.. size of.the' Shoreham EPZ, which constitutes;an attempt-to:relitigate the admissibility of Contention 22. Lpd. at 10-13.
LILCO's arguments lack merit on-both grounds.- Mr. Polk's.
testimony is highly probative of the' issues raised in Contention 4
- 23.D and concerns.only :an evacuation from the.Shoreham110-mile p
Thus,-Mr. Polk has carefully studied the numbers of people EPZ.
who'may be~within-the 10-mile EPZ during the. time whenievacuation'-
is recommended and has presented _ evidence-concerningLthe time-required to'evacuateithese people from'the-EPZ.
.26> Polk:does' L
=not at all attempt to litigate issues rejected:byDthe Boardlin.
a
- c._,
u
, s.-
u.
.._., c,. a
,w_
4-4 i.
its denial of Contention 22.
LILCO's assertion in this regard is 1
a complete red herring which only serves to obscure the real issues in this proceeding.
Thus, this Board should reject LILCO's motion to strike.
II.
Background
To consider LILCO's motion in the proper perspective, it is.
important briefly to summarize what the evacuation shadow phenom-enon is all about.
The evacuation shadow phenomenon has been defined as the propensity for persons to evacuate from a per-ceived hazard although not advised to do so.
In a radiological-emergency, the evidence indicates'that the evacuation shadow phenomenon may take on substantial proportions, thus posing unique problems for emergency planning.
The NRC's emergency planning regulations,oas construed by this Board, focus on protective actions which may be required for persons who may be within approximately 10 miles of'Shoreham.
4 The shadow phenomenon, as described in_ Contention 23.D,"is.signi-ficant for this proceeding because the. County's? evidence.will show that there will be many more peop.le within:the.EPZ than--
~
LILCO has predicted.
These voluntary! evacuees _within the EPZ, as well as those'outside of the EPZ who cause conges' ion and thus t
delayJpeople from-leaving the: EPZ, will substantially, increase the' time. required to. evacuate the EPZ.
Thus,'asistated in Con -
tention 23.D:
J
o
, Voluntary evacuation will result in a much larger number of people attempting ~ evacuate (and thus using the limited capacity of the existing road network) than is assumed by LILCO in its evacuation time estimates.
The addi-tional vehicles will create congestion within the EPZ and in the regions-just outside the EPZ, which will'cause queuing'and will impede traffic-evacuating from the EPZ.
The additional conges-tion caused by voluntary evacuation will cause adverse health' consequences to the public-because (a) evacuees from beyond the 10-mile EPZ will impede the evacuation of those within the 10-mile EPZ who are ordered to evacuate, result-ing in evacuees receiving health-threatening radiation doses; and (b) those who choose to j
evacuate will be unable to do so: safely.and l
efficiently.
Moreover, while LILCO acknowledges that persons 4
not~specifically instructed to evacuate will,:in fact, attempt _ to evacuate -( Appendix A, atLI-5),
the LILCO evacuation time estimates ignore the i
number of vehicles which will be on the roads
~
due to such voluntary evacuation..~The'LILCO evacuation time estimates thus are inaccurate for failing to'take into account the numbers and.
-locations of epople who will evacuate voluntar--
ily contrary to instructions.
If voluntary-evacuation were properly taken into account, the 1
'LILCO estimates would increase substantially, rendering evcuation an inadequate protective.
action for many accident scenarios.
'Thus, the.
LILCO Plan fails to comply with 10LCFR Sections 50.47(a)(1), 50.47(b)(10),-Part150 Appendix E Section IV, NUREG 0654 Sections J.8, J.9,'J.10, i
and Appendix ~4._(Footnotes,omitted)L Suffolk County's testimony on Contention 23 presents evi->
dence to prove that in the event of a radiologicalfemergencyLat' Shoreham, there-_.will be a substantial amountEofLvol'ntaryfevacua '
u r
tion.
-In the case of-a recommendation forievacuationfof--;the110-
~
i-mile EPZ,:it is'estimat,edithat hundredscof thousands ofcfamiliese av h
y b-g,
p w
9M
. on Long Island would seek to evacuate.
All but about 31,000 families would be evacuating from outside the EPZ.
(See Testi-mony of Dr. Cole on Contention 23 at 14).
The effect of so many evacuees seeking to use the limited roadway network on Long Island would be to increase substantially the time required to effect an evacuation of the 10-mile EPZ.
In many cases, voluntary evacuees would be using the same roads within the EPZ as evacuees whose trips originate in the EPZ, resulting in much greater demand on the limited available roadway capacity.
To the west of the EPZ, which is densely populated, voluntary evacuation of the magnitude estimated by the County would result in long queues which could " spill back" into the EPZ, thus causing delays in people exiting the EPZ.
The people residing to the east of the EPZ are likely to attempt to evacuate west.
(Testimony of Drs. Zeigler and Johnson at 14).
To do so, however, they will pass through the middle of the EPZ (on the Long Island Expressway) or along the EPZ's southern edge (the Sunrise Highway).1/
This means that many more people will be in A! LILCO states (Motion at 4, n. 2) that Mr. Polk's testimony erroneously suggests that the Sunrise Highway is_within the EPZ.
In fact, LILCO's own consultant, KLD Associates, stated in testimony filed with this Board that the Sunrise Highway runs "just inside" the EPZ.
Cordaro, Weismantle and Lieberman Testimony on Contention 65, 23.C, 23.D and 23.H, Attachment 11.
However, the fact is that the Sunrise Highway forms the southern border of the EPZ for a distance of about 8 miles.
Given that large' numbers of people will be traveling and queuing along this stretch of the Sunrise Highway, it is fruitless to quibble over whether the Sunrise Highway is just inside or on the edge of the EPZ boundary.
The important point is that the Sunrise Highway (footnote continued)
9 the EPZ during the course of an evacuation than have been con-sidered by LILCO in its evacuation time estimates.
As noted above, PRC Voorhees has considered all of the effects of the evacuation shadow phenomenon and concluded that the EPZ cannot be cleared of evacuees during the summer months prior to 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> after an evacuation advisory (12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> in winter).
III.
Discussion A.
Evacuation Time Estimates Must Consider All Persons In The EPZ, Not Just Those Who Originate In The EPZ LILCO seeks to strike all of Mr. Polks testimony on the evacuation shadow phenomenon on grounds that the PRC Voorhees analysis makes no distinction between evacuees whose trips origi-nate from within the EPZ, and those whose evacuation trips, though taking them through the EPZ on the EPZ roadway network, originate outside of the EPZ.
The latter category of persons, LILCO argues, should not be considered in deriving evacuation times:
The analysis displayed ~in Mr. Polk's testimony and its Attachment 3 does not distinguish in any way between persons evacuating from within the EPZ on instructions to evacuate, persons (footnote continued from previous page) comes into contact with the EPZ.
Therefore, cars traveling over it must not be ignored in deriving evacuation time estimates.
Indeed,-the portion of the Sunrise' Highway forming the southern boundary of the.EPZ which was_ studied by Mr. Polk also is part of KLD's evacuation network.
Thus, even in LILCO's time estimates, automobiles originating from within the EPZ are not considered to have finished the evacuation trip, i.e.,
to have exited the EPZ,-
before leaving that portion of the Sunrise Highway.
. evacuating from within the EPZ voluntarily, and persons originating from outside the EPZ who are evacuating voluntarily.
Thus any car still on any roadway being modeled, regardless of its origin, is included in the Polk testi-mony calculations as part of an undifferen-tiated traffic stream.
Motion at 5.
Thus, LILCO argues that the passage of long streams of voluntary evacuees along the EPZ roadway network should be considered only to the extent that they affect the evacuation of residents of the EPZ.
The Commission's emergency planning regulations ascribe no significance to voluntary evacuation from areas not required to be evacuated, inde-pendent of its effect on appropriate protective actions --
i.e.,
evacuation being taken for the benefit of persons living within areas to be evacuated.
(Emphasis added).
Motion at 14.
Therefore, LILCO concludes, "[i]t follows that persons outside the EPZ need not be explicitly considered except insofar as they affect the feasibility of appropriate protective actions for persons inside the EPZ."
Motion at 8.
In other words, according to LILCO, the evacuation time clock should stop ticking when the last car belonging to a resident of the EPZ leaves the EPZ, despite the fact that many thousands of people, whose evacuation trips have now brought them into the EPZ, will still be on the roads inside or on the edge of the EPZ.
LILCo's argument is not only absurd and inhumane, but also i
constitutes a tortured " interpretation" of the NRC's regulations
-- an' interpretation which would be entirely contrary to the NRC's obligation to protect ~public health and safety.- The'pur--
. pose of evacuation time estimates is to give persons in command and control of an emergency response accurate and r,eliable infor-mation concerning the time required to clear the EPZ of people.
The purpose of an svacuation is to clear the EPZ (or at least a portion of it), and an EPZ of course is not clear until all evac-uees have left it.
The people who live east of the plant and travel into the EPZ are just as susceptible to the adverse health effects of radiation as people who reside in the EPZ.
- Yet, according to the logic of LILCO's argument, persons in command and control of an evacuation should order an evacuation without any consideration for'whether people from the East End (or else-where) might still be on the EPZ roadway network (particularly the Long Island Expressway, which is only about 6 miles from the plant, and the Sunrise Highway, which is about 10 miles from the plant) at the time that the plume is projected to pass over the EPZ.S!
In essence, LILCO seeks to establish two classes of people:
those whose trips originate in the EPZ, whom LILCO asserts it will seek to protect, and those whose trips begin outside.the EPZ S[ LILCO states (Motion at 4, n.
- 2) that Mr. Polk's testimony could be mooted altogether by routing traffic from the East End down to the Montauk Highway, thus avoiding the EPZ altogether.
This argument lacks merit.
As the County claims'in. Contention 23.H, LILCO's plan will be ineffective in preventing travel into the EPZ by evacuees from the East End.
See Testimony of Suffolk County Police Department concerning Contention 23.H.
-In'any event, Montauk Highway is so inadequate to handle the expected.
volume of traffic from the East End that LILCO's suggestion 1can only be described as absurd.
. 1 l
but carry them through the middle of the EPZ or along its southern edge.
As to the second class, LILCO asserts that there is no need to give them any. consideration in making protective action recommendations or for other purposes.
See LILCO Motion at 8.
Such a distinction, however, is directly contrary to the purpose of the NRC's emergency planning regulations, which is to give reasonable assurance of protection.
Protection does not mean protection only for some people, but rather for all people who may be within the defined zone of danger, i.e.,
on the EPZ roadway network.
No reading of the regulations or NUREG 0654 supports the argument that only those within the EPZ at the time an evacuation is announced should be protected.
LILCO is obli-gated to protect those whose evacuation trips cause them to enter the EPZ roadway network 30 minutes, 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or more after an evacuation advisory, not just those who are in the EPZ at the time of an evacuation advisory.A/
The failure of LILCO's evacuation time estimates to account for passage of voluntary evacuees on the Long Island Expressway and the Sunrise Highway means that LILCO has. failed to recognize d# To give an example of LILCO's tortured reading of the regulations, consider a person who resides within the EPZ but who works outside of it or the person who resides outside-the EPZ but has family within the EPZ.
When an evacuation advisory is given, that person may. travel into the-EPZ'to obtain household effects, to reunite with family', or for any other purpose.
That person's trip will not originate within the EPZ.
LILCO's theory then would hold that these people-need n'ot be considered in evacuation time estimates,' even though they will be within the' zone of potential-danger.
l-l reality.
Indeed, LILCO has treated the requirement for evacua-i q_
tion time estimates Jus a paper exercise offering protection only-i to some.
The County's estimates have avoided that pitfall byL i
considering all traffic moving through the middle or along the edge of the EPZ, no matter what the origin of that traffic.
The
. key, then, in the County's view is whether the person enters the l
EPZ roadway network.
If he does, he then is someone who must be accounted for under the LILCO plan and in the time estimates on.
which that plan relies.
The County's time estimates have 4
accounted for these people.and thus are far more realistic, accu-rate and reliable indicators than,LILCO's of the-time it will-
]
' take to evacuate the EPZ.
B.
Mr. Polk's Testimony'Is Within The Scope Of Contention 23.D and Does Not Reargue The Issues' Raised In Contention 22 LILCO cla'ims (Motion at16-7) that it has.always understood-
. Contention 23.D to relate only to the effect of voluntary evacu-ation, by persons originating from outside the EPZ, on' evacuation by persons originating within the EPZ.
As noted above, LILCO's:
l Lattempted distinction between evacueeslis without'. basis.. In any f
event,-the: plain meaning of Contention-23.D demonstrates that Mr..
Polk's testimony is consistent---with theflanguage of contentioni I
23.D, whichtstates clearly that the evacuation sh'adowiphenomenon' l
"willL resulti -in ' a much larger number.of people att'emptingJ to -
-evacuate (and,thusLusi'ng.the limited' capacity 1ofLthe.existingf 4.
- t v.
a u
.-,y 4m 9
9 y
,,9,
.. roadway network) than is assumed by LILCO in its evacuation time estimates."
Thus, the evacuation shadow phenomenon "will impede traffic evacuat'ng from the EPZ."
Since the origin of that traf-fic is not specified in Contention 23 to be only persons s thin the EPZ, LILCO cannot rely on the contention to support its theory that there should be an arbitrary distinction between evacuees.
If LILCO has misread the contention, the fault lies with LILCO, not the. County.
Indeed, LILCO's alleged misunderstanding of the contention really cannot be accepted as reasonable under any circumstance.
In footnote 5 of Contention 23.D, the County stated:
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.) (emphasis supplied).
The County studies which are referenced and which LILCO has had for over a year make clear that the origins of the evacuees will, in many cases, be from outside of the EPZ.
Thus, it is'not acceptable to argue that there has been some sort of surprise in the County's position that all persons in the EPZ need to be accounted for in evacuation time estimates.
LILCO also claims (Motion at 10) that Mr. Polk's testimony "is inherently based on portions of Contention 22 which have been rejected by the Board."
Again,LLILCO's argument is wide of the mark and really constitutes a red herring to cloud the-legitimacy-
- of the County's testimony.
In Contention 22, the County and other intervenors questioned the size of the Shoreham EPZ, con-tending that the local conditions on Long Island warranted a larger EPZ.
One of the reasons set forth by the County was the voluntary evacuees from the East End whose evacuation, the County argued, should be planned for and taken into account in areas outside of a traditional 10-mile EPZ.
The Board denied Conten-tion 22 on grounds that the regulations require an EPZ'of approx-imately 10 miles and that any contention seeking to expand-the size of the EPZ was an impermissible challenge to the regula-tions.
Special Prehearing Conference. Order'(August-22, 1983) at 8-12.
It is clear, however, that Mr'. Polk's testimony does'not address the issue raised.in contention 22 -- that ist whether a 10-mile EPZ is appropriate for Shoreham.
Rather, Mr. Polk's testimony is restricted to his' analysis of the 10-mile EPZ'and discusses the time'it will take to clear thatLEPZ'of all evacua-tion traffic.A!
Thus,-LILCO's claim that the. County'is attempt-A# LILCO discusses at; length the: PRC Voorhees modeling process which traces some evacuees from points'far East of the Shoreham-EPZ.-
See LILCO Motion at 3-5.
This discussion'is irrelevant.and-
.mislea3Ing.
while the PRC Voorhees' study did analyze 1the-effect-of traffic coming from' areas beyond the EPZ, Mr.; Polk's testimony and the PRC Voorhees time estimates concern only 'the ~ tine. it'
~
- takes for. traffic to clear the-10 mile EPZ'-- a matter squarely within Contentions 23.D,and-65.
Furthermore, while-it is true that the Voorhees analysis does-look at the time it willitakeJfor
. traffic-to. travel:further west:of'the EPZ,'that-time issinE l.
addition to the timeJit will take to' clear 1the EPZ..
"~
3
... ing to reintroduce the issues raised in Contention 22 is totally without merit.
IV.
Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny "LILCO's Motion To Strike Portion Of The Testimony Of Peter A.
Polk."
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
,7,/, f$ h $9' i
Hdrbert H( Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher
/'
f Christopher M. McMurray p
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
December 8, 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)-
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION T6 STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF PETER POLK, dated December 8, 1983, have been served to the following by U.S. mail, first class, except where noted, this 9th day of December 1983.
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 e
- Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C.
20555
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
- Mr.
Frederick J. Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707. East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
General Counsel Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Long Island Lighting Company New York State Energy Office 250 Old Country Road Agency-Building 2 Mineola, New York 11501 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
175 East Old Country Road Twomey, Latham & Shea Hicksville, New York 11801 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 By Hand
- By Federal-Express (on December 8,.1983)
p t
i Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Hon. Peter. Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Rerearch Group, Inc.
H.
Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Tctten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Comm.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection Bur.
Empire State Plaza New York State Dept. of Law Albany, New York 12223 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Atomic Safety and' Licensing H. Lee Dennison Building
. Appeal Board Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Board Panel Staff Counsel,-New York State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien' Public Service Commission-Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq.
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Stuart Diamond
- 26. Federal. Plaza, Room 1349 Environment / Energy Writer
-New York, New York. 10278.
NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747' James B. Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Washington,.D.C.
20008
.2-gm
.-,yhe e
f' Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 V
~4 lhthw Christ 6pher M. McMurra
/
~,
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART
- ILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED:
December 8, 1983 l
l l
l
-.3 I