Text

Staff Exhibit S-EP-1,consisting of Testimony of T Urbanik Re Evacuation Time Estimate Studies
	ML20092E291
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	05/08/1984
From:	Urbanik T; TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
To:	;
References
	OL, S-EP-001, S-EP-1, NUDOCS 8406220369
	Download: ML20092E291 (12)
	v • d • e

--

7 i gg oi- Ska WP-l l

9. Q Q . 9 lf

g. . .. n \

M * * * * ~ , ,,,te A 16, 1984 '

Ut.ITED STATES OF AMERICA +

I;UCLEAR REGULATORY C0FFISSICI: ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A!;D LICENSII:G BOARD _

. ; k:* y rrc.

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, 11 CONCERTI 1NG 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 ar: an Associate Research Engineer associated with the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas 4

A&M University System, College Station, Texas.

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

A.2. Yes. A statement of my professional qualifications is -

! 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.

4 ,

B4062g9 PDR A 0 3 PDR l' T

F h O y ., . .

Sl ,

g _. N

\ \ M Il4 es, 5 tijv !! O li E a., go s '

l %,

g, S ._

> g l E B .ijk I it &;t 4

=g

[

i Q'l i 11 a !ls i l1 I

-s .

h* .

' j C.4. Briefly summarize your experierce with evacuation time estimate studies for nuclear it:ilities, A.4. 71 was ' principal author of NUREG/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).

4 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 NUREG-0654, 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 and 15, how the evacuation time estimate study, prepared by PRC Voorhees for Catawba Nuclear 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 be relied on by public authorities for making decisions relative to the n

l

\. .

F time required to evacuate residents ir.cluding those with special trar,sportation requirements. I dio r.ot review the state and local plans which is d5ne by FEMA; my testimony relative to Contention 15 is, therefore, limited to the developr.ent of the evacuation' time estimates.

Q.6. 'r.' hat is the purpose of evacuation 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 commonly 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 I

intent of evacuation time estimate studies to include estimates of the exact conditions during an evacuation, but to indicate the sensitivity of 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 procedures might be used in a limited number of locations to reduce the evacuation time due to a bottleneck in the roadway network. An example 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.

Q.7. What was the scope of your review of the Applicants' evacuation time estimate studies prepared by PRC Voorhees?

A.7. I reviewed the Applicants' April 1983 study by PRC Voorhees against the guidance of NUREG-065a/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1. '

I have al-so r e verwed %o 4-eskomo <y e p Me %la s k .cowe ttu Apail I % s 9yH .

1

-y .

. Q.8. What were the criteria that you used during your review of the Applicants' revised study?

A.8. In conducting my review, I considered various elements set i

forth in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, which the HRC and FEhA 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 confirmation of evacuation; (e) identification of critical links and need for traffic control; and (f) use of methodology and traffic flow modeling techniqu e for various time estimates, consist-ent with the guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 4.

Q.9. For the Applicants' study, briefly describe the methodology i employed in the study for analyzing evacuation times.

i A.9. The Applicants' 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 concurrently 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 two acceptable approaches identified in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 4.

7 h

\. .

Q.10. Does the Applicants' study use methodologies for analyzing evacuation. times that are reasonable cr customary? I l

A.10.' The methodologies use accepted and proven transcortation planning techniques. The methodologies represent year.s of experience in transportation planning, modeling and operating transportation systems, and are consistent with NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Appendix 4.

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

A.11. The assumptions are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-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). N .c ._. , h x tc h is.16..e d A.10. ,z a d d i ++fmat inf;m.ation .uci : h4revided reprding ped tmsieat ig- '-itat.

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

A.13. Yes. The study used the Highway Capacity Manual, the standard 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.

e n-

6-Q.14. Does the Applicants' study adoress adverse weather conditions?

A.14. The study appropriately censiders adverse weather cer.ditions . The Applicants' study appropriately reduc.es capacities to reflect adverse weather conditions. It should be noted that the adverse weather scenario is not intended as a " worst case" scenario. 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 by adding the amount of time necessary to clear the roads (e.g., a heavy snow). _.

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

ye4+Se A.15. 78 evacuation roadway network is reasonable,wMdr eme-

t:i'.; c:::;ti;r. The cr.: ch;r.;; th;t i; acc;;;;ry conce..a Lylc Ecu':::rd (Im;k ".ill, C.C.). Ljl; 'rcve. d J m. new ice.comot en--

drd;;;. d;nt-: ::_:titr r0ute i- t' t t..T-iic .:t m;r;: ith-ether rcut;; _ i ... :II. The c"+4 : ^' of: cur:: .:im; Lyle "cui;ve A ~

71 .m s au V U W ww . ,. -m - '-

I I

Q.16. Based on your review of these evacuation time estimate studies for Catawba, have you identified any weaknesses or areas in.the studies which were not addressed? >

b/o, A.16, 4ee, The ;tud, & C .~. T.'.l., .22..;; . r m _ ;r ssenecto. ff! _ 2' ""sf:r: pt:k re-E t arrie ' - , Stien c i . . . . T. u 3 st. '. t;:. ; _ _ : ly - x i C. . . i deets. u i ' '

t; i; -%

0 7

Q.17. What would be the inpact, if any, on these studies' evr.cuation time estimates if persons evacuated frcm a tuch larger area than was intendeo by an official advisory to evacuate?

A.17. The evacuation time estimates assume the 5i plerientation of traffic centrol beyond the EPZ. This traffic control is necessary to prevent problems that could result if vehicles cutside the EPZ are not controlled. This would include the need for traffic control on I-77 outside the EPZ. This is the reason why planning is an important part of emergency preparedness.

Q.18. Did you atte.mpt 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 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 Applicants' study. My calculations lead me to conclude that the Applicants' analyses are reasonable tuMk i :- piete. Th: L,1 Cu.1 scru w;.oo3 2l.wwim ov6 2 3..; Ti ceati, ;I ter_ ~

i.n c u n.e en imo a dwo Z um ovo;iosic olisineti,e . utes. %J . , . . ..;i -

esti :t:: wil' ' r t d +r - - - -

':: be r : '_ f: per' ^ - : feat

.pce.ir... iir we a m.. r . Th^ - J ...... c. c ati nt: S ' ";I; +2 be.

i t ;" fi .i,tly 1^ :-- 't-- -tbe :t'- ---..mias _ ,

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.

s

[ .

l

. g.

Q.20. Do the evacuation time estimates assume quick response or multiple trips?

A.20. 35. " ; :: tim ter irer"e a44ti ral time i; cc;mircd to-ct: : . = b r_ n :d ;;e Lcce;5t 'rce ::t:ii tt :f .

The m5tist;s d ' ^ ' ! E 'J : th '.! 2 I ^y E E- _ -i c : : Of b-i ; i i.t s.Jiluvic Ivi a f. ..;l 6 ci;;.;ti;. .7 ;p pu v o ., . C M : "^^#^" ^#

thi_----- ;,, Caeur;;', is a T N . e os s o me < usel<. As s perise n 'J *W nCCC;:_ . p 2 r t O f wiim owwwul yl0".

b* dwisvo b'TS #' ## U '4' wof b(WM d of et wens cs de o r,Eiit . .c ome m sritopie 93e'0 JL

+ripG to ete nec e4.s41asj C.> wesMvt.

's s'o ,i C h e Islat*] ** *1 sl n Iso eets .s afest he he.s cAtprec4ess f popsig4 grarsg , %

rw iibpse t e- r* 4 cloetcfI.**rac.e m e uc

+,m e er 4-,m + es . ,,,/.,,,y Q.21. Would parents picking up their children at school significantly affect the time estimates?

A.21. No. The distribution functions used for preparation time are such that they assume 20 percent of the population which requires more than.40 minutes for preparation. This should be adequate for contingencies such as some families picking up their children if that were in fact feasible (i.e. they hadn't already been evacuated by bus).

Q.22. Would you consider 33 hours3.819444e-4 days 0.00917 hours 5.456349e-5 weeks 1.25565e-5 months 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 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months to a maximum of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months . .

l 1

l Q.23. Do the evacuation time estimates adecuately consider j transients, including those at the Carowinds There Park anc heritage !

U'S'S'?

x ,e 5 , a p c ja k. nin r's w " 'r'U " N W "*

W

A . 23., . A5 pr;;': :1y indi;;t;d, cr ;dditi m ! est.imate u m 5; -

ansty a, w ws,c.k ., dudes Can owmdx anel IMokye , US A( PTL) .

E __:_?j #c- th: ;;;'_:'! Cr ;; n;ric t Y. 4-^1;d: : ' %.. ; W r"ad

,Am._ cf C;c;. .,da ;:d 9:r't:;e.

Q.24. What is your opinion as to the overall compliance of the Applicants' study with the criteria set forth in EUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 17 A.24. The Applicants' study is in overall compliance with the NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1 Appendix 4. ext pt ;; prc';icurly _

nct:d. 'h; p-& lems mc m L - rcJ.;d i:f;c: ; , a;.-.: d tic + cf a c cy 6 th: H ~ ; C te: W ;9:e- by -e to th: tn; ;;;f'. I, de-- m + 2 ti- % +^ ;n3 ,.; tic; ; '

r

-+' ; t": if':i:--*^c.

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.

O

February 1954 CIC2.1/.PHIC/.L DATA URCA"IK II, THC:*.;S Program Manacer, Texas Tran:por ation Institute Lecturer, Civil Engineering D2partment, Texas A&". University Education ,

Ph.D., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1932.

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-Pre sent.

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 Planning 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 Pemberships American Society of Civil Engineers Institute of Transportation Engineers Sigma Xi Chi Epsilon SIGNIFICANT REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS i Traffic Engineeringr

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.

l State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Report l

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 i .

Research Record Number 414, 1972.

l

(

L'T.U':It II, T::0."T.S Page 2 l

l l

Era:~::r ion.Plar:ing

~

An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Times For a Peak Population Scenario in the Emergency Planning Zone of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, U.S. Nuc lear Regu l atory Co .-ission, NUREG/CR-2903,

. 1982.

CLEAR (Calculates Logical Evacuation And Respcnse). A Generic Transportation Net-work Model for the Calculation of Evacuation Ti r.es Estianes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2504

. October 1981. . .

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

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

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

Harricane 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 Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Technical Report 0965-1F,1981.

Bryan-Co l l egt. 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 Report 136, 1973.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Acce!sible Fixed-Route Buses in' Texas. Technical Report 1061-1F, 1979.

Transportation of the Elderly and Handicapped in Texas:. A Case S'tudy.

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

Total Accessibili.ty Versus Ecuivalent Mobility of the Handicapped.

Institute of Transportat' on Engineers, Compendium.of Technical Papers, 49th Annual Meeting,1979. --

j 1* ,

U.~.S A*:IK II, TSO:*AS ptge 3 Survey of Venicles ar.: E:;uis sent for Elderly and Handicappe: Trans- 1 portation. State D3partment of Highways and Public Transporta- l tion, Technical P.eport 1056-1, 1978. )

Corpus Christi Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Study. City of I Corpus Christi, Texas, 1978. .

W l

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

9 8 e

p.

I 4

- e S 5 k

t O

- g.

D e

e e

m

ML20092E291

Text

Navigation menu

Search