ML20083N081

Testimony of T Urbanik Re Evacuation Time Estimate Studies

ML20083N081
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	04/16/1984
From:	Urbanik T TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
To:
Shared Package
ML20083N076	List: ML20083N081
References
OL, NUDOCS 8404190053
Download: ML20083N081 (12)

Text

.

,s

,+ -

April 16, 1954 BSCKETED USMRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY CC.'CSSl[L ... .

154 NH 18 A9 55 SEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI E 3 CARD .,

In the Matter of

)

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-413 OL

) 50-414 OL (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 )

(Emergency Planning)) )

NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF THOMAS URBANIK, II CONCERNING THE EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE STUDIES FOR CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION Q.1. State your name and occupation.

A.1. My name is Thomas Urbanik, II. I am an Associate Research I.

Engineer associated with the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.

Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of your professional' qualifications?

A.2. Yes. - A statement of my professional qualifications is- 2 attached to this. testimony.

Q.3. In what capacity are you testifying in this proceeding?

A.3. 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.

t.

6*

2

(.4. Eriefly summari e your experier.ce with evacut-ion tite estimate studies for nuclear facilities.

A.4. I was principal author of HUREG/CR-1745, " Analysis of Technicues fcr Estimating Evacuation Times for Erergency Planning Zones" (riovember 1980), which cescribed 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/ FEMA-REP-1, 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 time estimate studies and new submittals against NUR$G-0554, Revision 1.

Q.5. What is the' purpose of this testimony?- ,

A.5. . The purpose of this testimony is to address, within the: scope of ' Contentions 14 snd 15, how the evacuation time estimate' study, prepared by PRC:Voorhees for Catawba.Rutlear Station compare.to the ~

guidance of Appendix 4, NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,,. Revision'1. With. respect -

to: Contentions:14 and 15, I will address.whether this study can bei relied.onbypublicauthoritiesformakingdeciskons.relativetoithe g  %

4

_-__--__.-.--__-------._.----.-.--_-__-J

.7 4

time requirec to evacuate residents it.ciudinc these with special

. ranspcrtaticn recuirements. I cic n;; re ne,. :he state end local plans which is done by FEMA; my testimony relative to Contention 15 is, therefore, limited to the development of the evacuation time estimates.

Q.E. What is the purpose of evacuatien time estimate studies?

A.6. The purpose of evacuation time estimate studies is to indicate the range of times required to evacuate the emergency planning zone under a limited number of ccmmonly occurring events. In the event of an actual emergency, decisionmakers will have a good basis on which to make informed-decisions based on actual conditions. It is not the intent of evacuation time estimate studies to include estimates of the exact conditions during an evacuation, but to indicate the sensitivity e

o.' the analysis to a limited number of commonly occurring events.

A secondary purpose of evacuation time estimate studies is to assist emergency planners in deploying resources during an evacuation. -

A prime _ example would be the use of traffic control at congested '

locations. Also, in some cases, special- traffic control proceduras might be used in a '.imited number of locations to reduce the evacuation I'

~

time 'due to aL bottleneck in the roadway network JAn examp1e would be ,

the use of.a shoulder on an entrance ramp to provide more access

capacity to a freeway-to make more effective use of' freeway capacity.

Ql7. What was the scope. of your review of the Applicants' evacuationftime estimate studies prepared by PRC Voorhees?

. JA.7. I reviewed -the Applicants' April 1983 study by PRC' Voorhees -

against the-guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1. ..

s L  :.

.a.

Q.E. '? hat were the criteria that ycu used durinc ycur review of the Applicants' revisec stucy?

A.S. In conducting my review, I considered varicus elements set fcrth in :ppendix 4 to NUREG-0654/FE!4 :.EP-1, 'evision 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 indica-tion 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 confsirmation of evacuation; (e) identification of I critical links and need for traffic control; and (f) use of methodology and traffic flow modeling techniqu cs. for various time estimates, consist-ent with the guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 4.

T Q.9 For)the Applicants' study, briefly describe the methodology employed in~the study for analyzing evacuation times.

i

-A.9. The Appli' cants' study used the -PRC Voorhees ~ EVACPLAN models to estimate evacuation times. The consultant's model was developed specifically for evacuation time estimate studies. It has been used Lconcurrently with other simulation models at a number of sites and has-produced similar time estimates. The method for computing total

' evacuation time was the distribution method, consistent with one of .the-twoLacceptable approaches identified in.NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1,

}Revisionl', Appendix 4.

t c s .

1.

, . , . . t . .

.E_

Q.10. Does the A;;1icants' stuc use methcccicg'es for analyzing evacuation tires that are reascnable ;r cestcrary'.

A.10. The methoccicgies use accepted anc proven transportation plar.ning techniques. The methccolcgies represer,t years of experience in transportation picnning, c,odeling anc cperatir.g transportation systems, and are consistent with huREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revisicn 1, Appendix 4.

Q.11. Are the assumptions made by these studies reasonable?

A.11. The assumptions.are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-065t./ FEMA-REF-1, Revision 1, make best'use of available data, and are therefore reasonable,-

Q.12. Are the demand estimates (estimate of the number of people to be evacuated) for the Applicants' study reasonable?

A.12. Yes. The Applicants' study considers all population components (permanent residents, transients, and special facility populations). Howeve'r, as noted in A.16. and A.18., additional information needs to be provided regarding peak transient pcpulation.

Q.13. Does the Applicants' study use traffic capacities that are reasonable?

A.13. Yes. The study used tne Hichway Capacity t'.anual, the stendard reference in the transportation profession for determining -

capacities. The capacities suggested in the contention (600 and 900 vehicles per hour) are unreasonably low and are not supported by experience or sound technical analysis.

L

. a -

(a .

6-

, .Q.14. Does the Applicants' study accress acverse v eather conditions?

1.

A.14. The study appropriately censiders adverse weather tenditions. The Applicants' study apprc;riately recuces capacities to reflect adverse weather conditions. It should be notec that the adverse weather scenario is not intended as a " worst case" scer.ario. It is intended.to reflect wet or slick roadways under which capacities are impaired, but the roadway is still passable. The decision maker could use -this adverse weather estimate under more severe weather conditions I by adding the amount of time necessary to clear the roads (e.g., a heavy snow). _ . . .

4 1

Do the . studies use an evacuation roadway network that-is Q.15.

reasonable?

~

-A.15. The evacuation roadway network is reasonable with one ,

notable-exception. The one change that is-necessary concerns Lyle-f Eculevardi(RockHill,S.C.). Lyle Boulevard does not represent an ,

independent evacuation route 'in that traffic'must merge with other b

routes outside .the EPZ. lThe routing of evacuees.using Lyle Boulevard will have to be altered.

t iQ.16. Based on'your review of these evacuation timefestimate

studies for Catawba, have you identified any weaknesses or a'eas-in.the r

studies which'were' not addressed? '

..~ 1

'A.16. Yes.- The study does not. fully address a peak summerl 4

$ scenario. ' Additional. estimates for a peak. summer transient population

~

Levacuating simultaneously.with residents will have.to'be made.:

• l -

1. f' , s

+

Q.17. What v.ccid be the impact, if ar.y, en these stucies' evacuatier tire esticates if ;erstns evacuite frcr a m;cr. ,arcer area than was intended by an official advisory to evacuate?

A.17. The evacuation tire esticates assure the irplementation cf traffic centrol beycnd the EPZ. This traffic centrol is necessary to prevent problems that cculd result if vehicles cutside the EPZ are not controlled. This would include the need for traffic control on I-77 outside the EPI. This is the reason why planning is an important part of emergency preparedness.

Q.18. Did you attegpt to verify the accuracy of the estimates made by the Applicants?

A.18. Yes, I drove the roadways in the Catawba EPZ and surrounding area in order to become familiar with the roadway network. I also performed several indeperdent calculations of volume-to-capacity ratios to determine if any parts of the network appeared to require times longer than those indicated in the Applicants' study. My calculations lead me to conclude that the Applicants' analyses are reasonable, but incomplete. The Lyle Boulevard change should not significantly alter the time estimate due to the available alternative routes. Additional estimates will also be required to account .for peak transient populations.in the summer. The peak-summer estimate is likely to be significantly icnger than the other scenarios.  :

Q.19. Is the road system adequate to evacuate persons within the plume exposure pathway EPZ?

A.19. Yes,-the road system is adequate to evacuate persons.in the EPZ.

_mY

3.- .

-g.

-Q.20. -Do the evacuation time estimates assure quick resconse or i

nultiple trips?  !

A.20. fio . The estimates assume additicr.al time is required to obtain some buses which are brcught 'from cutside the EF2. The estimates

-a}so. assume that adequate _ numbers of buses are available for a single evacuation trip per bus. Demonstration-of the necessary resources is a

-necessary part of the actual plan, i

Q.21. Would parents picking Jup their children at school significantly affect the time estimates?  !

A. :21. No. The dis _tribution functions used for preparation time are such that1they assume 20 percent of the population which requires more than 40 minutes for preparation. This'should be adequate _for

contingencies such -as soc..r families ' picking up their children if that

~

were in fact _ feasible (i.e. they hadn't.already been evacuated by. bus). -

t

-0.22. Would you consider 33 hours3.819444e-4 days <br />0.00917 hours <br />5.456349e-5 weeks <br />1.25565e-5 months <br /> a realistic time estimate for-Catawba? .

A.22. . No. There isn.'.t a single site in the U.S. where a 33-hour" ~ ~-

estimate would be reasonable. The range of general population-

~

evacuation time estimates for all sites-in the United States under:

normal weather = conditions is from a minimum _of 1. hour.to a maximum of

~12 hours._ -

e I

N e

,o

_c_

Q.23. Do the eVaCUdtiCD time estirates adequatel;, cCnsider transients, inclucinc thcse at the Carov.ir.cs r.ere Far anc keritace U.S.A.?

A.23. No. As previcusly indicated, an Eccitional estimate will be recessary for the peak-summer scenaric that inciuces maximum cbserved utilization of Carowinds and Heritage.

Q.24. What is your opinion as to the overall compliance of the Applicants' study with the criteria set forth in GUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1? ,

A.24. The Applicant.s' study is in overall compliance with the NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 4, except as previously

-noted. The problems must be corrected before a recommendation of adequacy of the time estimates can be given by me to the NRC Staff. I do not anticipate any problems in correcting the deficiencies.

-Q.25. In your opinion, how will emergency response personnel be able to utilize these evacuation time estimates?

A.25. #

The Applicants' evacuation time estimates should provide to 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 Catawba.

.Q

___-____W

. Febru a r; 195:

C : 0 2.7 .F M I C/.L D ? '

U.~CANIK II, THC".'.S Prograr Manager, Tens Tran:gr:a:icn : ;;i: te Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, Texas AD' Jniversity Education Pn.D., Civil Engineering, Texas AG University,1922.

M.S., Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1971.

B.S. , Civil Engineering, Syracuse University,1969.

B.S., Forest Engineering, State University of New York, 1968.

Experience -

Program Manager, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, 1.983-Present.

~

Assistant Research Engineer, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, 1977-1983. .

Lecturer, Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University,1982-Present.

Traffic Engineer, City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972-1976.

Transportation P l~anning Engineer, City of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan,_ 1971-1972.

Research Assistant, Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University, 1970-1971.

Professional Licenses Registered Professional Engineer, Texas and Michigan -

Memberships ,

American Society.of Civil Engineers-Institute of Transportation Engineers Sigma Xi Chi. Epsilon SIGNIFICANT REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS Traffic Engineering Speed / Volume . Relationships on Texas Highways, State Department of Highways and Public -Transportation, .Research Report 327-2F, Austin, - Texas, . October' 1983.

Priority Treatment of Buses at Traffic Signals. Transportation Engi- ~

neering, November 1977. - _

Priority Treatment of High-Occupancy Vehicles on Arterial Streets.

' State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Report 205-5, 1977.

Evaluation of Alternative Concepts for Priority Use' of Urban Freeways in Texas,1977.

Driver -Information Systems. for Highway-Railway Grade Crossings. ' Highway Research Record Number 414, 1972. .

J.^.:.* *:I': II, Ti:0:'AS P3pe 2 Fra=ctica 21.~i=;

An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Times For a Peak Population Scenario in the Emergency Planning Zone cf the Seabrook Nuclear Fcmer Statien, U.S. Nu c l e ar Re g . l ator . Cc- .i s sicn, ';UREG/CR-2903,

. 19E2.

CLEAR (Calculates Logical E v acu ation Anc Response). A Generic Transportation Net-work Model for the Calculation of Evacuttion Times Estimates, U.S. i;uclear Regulatory Cc nission, tiUP.EG/CR-2504

. October 1981. . . -

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HUREG/CR-1745, 1980.

Analysis of Evacuation Times Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites. U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1856 Volume 1,1980.

Hurricane Evacuation Demand and Capacity Estimation. Florida Sea Grant College, Report Number 33, 1980.

Texas Hurricane Evacuation Study.

The Texas Coastal and Marine Coun-cil, 1978.

Public Transportatico

)

Intercity Bus Riders in Texas, Transportation Research Record 887, 1982.

The Intercity Bus Industry in the U.S. and Texas. State Departmen.t of Highways and Public Transportation, Technical Report 0965-lF,1981.

Bryan-College Station Energy Contingency Study. Metropolitan Planning' Organization of Bryan-College Station,1980.

Bryan-College Station Transit Improvement Plan. Metropolitan-Planning Organization, 1979.

Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Project Final Report, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, 1973.

Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Operations, Highway Research Board Special Rbport 136, 1973.

The Greater Laf ayette Area Bus Transit Study. Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University, 1971.

Elderly and Handicapped Transportatico Evaluation of Selected Human Services Transportation Providers. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation t 1980.

Cost-Effectiveness of Accessible Fixed-Route Buses in Texas. Technical Report 1061-lF, 1979.

Transportation of the Elderly ~ and Handicapped in Texas: A Case Study.

State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Technical Report 1056-2F, 1979.

Total Accessibili.ty Versus Equivalent Mobility of the Handicapped.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Compsndium.of Technical Papers, 49th Annual Meeting,1979.

j

U..;A::IK II, THO::A5 ;ye3 Survey of ienicies an: irui;ter: ~:r licer', S r. : '5-fi:a;;e:

. int-portation. 5:a e Da;artmen s f ~i g n..ays a r.: F.::ic Tra .s;cr:a-tion, Technical Reper: 1056-1, 1972.

Corpus Christi Elderly and Handicapped Transpcrtation 5:vdy. City of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1978.

E.bert witness Presented expert. '

testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U. S. fiuclear Regulatory Comission, concerning . evacuation times at several nuclear power plant sites including Three-Mile Island, Diablo Canyon, Indian Point, Seabrook and Shoreham.

w

==

e e .

%w e.

6 9

.--