ML20112B259
| ML20112B259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1985 |
| From: | Hollar D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112B261 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#185-988 OL, NUDOCS 8501100283 | |
| Download: ML20112B259 (12) | |
Text
. . . .- .
.~ - ._ ._ _ - -- . .. - - ..
i 0
January 7,1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERIC '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION % QED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'65 JT -9 A9 39 j1 In the Matter of ) ,_
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 215(1)
I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749 of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Power Agency hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of the first subpart of Eddleman Contention 215, which will be referred ,
~ to as Eddleman Contention 215(1). For the reasons explained herein, Applicants respectfully submit that there is no genuine issue of any fact material to this contention and that. Applicants are entitled to a favorable decision on this contention as a matter of law.
In support of this Motion,' Applicants rely upon the attached Affidavit of Robert D.
Klimm in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 215(1), the Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti in Support of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition of Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) and Eddleman Contention 215(1) which is being-filed under separate cover, Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on Eddleman Contention 215(1), Applicants' Memorandum 8501100283 850107 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR ,
v SO3
I of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions, and the pleadings and discovery filed in this proceeding regarding Eddleman Contention 215(1).
II. BACKGROUND Eddleman Contention 215 was initially advanced in " Wells Eddleman's Contentions on the Emergency Plan (2d set)" (April 12, 1984), and admitted as a contention in this proceeding in the Board's " Memorandum and Order (Further Rulings on Admissibility of l Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Submitted By Intervenor Wells Eddleman)"
(June 14,' 1984), at 24. It alleged that "conservatisms" used in the study entitled
" Evacuation Time Estimates for the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant"(October 1983)(hereinafter "ETE") result in inaccurate time estimates for evacuation of the EPZ. The ETE was prepared for i
Applicants by HMM Associates, Inc. In admitting the Contention, the Board directed Mr. Eddleman to further specify the "conservatisms" to which Eddleman 215 refers.
Mr. Eddleman specified four such "conservatisms" in " Wells Eddleman's Response to I Board Order Requiring AdditionalSpecification of Contention #215"(June 29,1984). The Board ruled on Mr. Eddleman's further specification of Eddleman 215 in its " Memorandum
. and Order (Rulings on Specification of Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 7
215 and On the Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions On the Public Information s ,
Brochure)" (October 4, 1984). The first alleged conservatism, which constitutes Eddleman Contention 215(1), was admitted into this proceeding. & at 2-3. Eddleman 215(1) thus contends:
In violation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(10) CP&L's evacuation time study does not conform to NUREG-0654 Appendix 4 and will not provide accurate and useful guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency because the study contains numerous so-called "conservatisms" including those referring to recreational populations and vehicle capacity factors (see e.g. sections 3-3 and 3-6) which may force evacuation time estimates upwards and provide inaccurate estimates for decisionmakers during an emergency, in the opinion of expert Paul Holmbeck. Potential
, n . -.~.,----ne -,, - , . . , , -,n-,-,-,,.--.,-w ,.-m-,,,, ,-,--..n , - - , , , .,n-...,--,-,-...n.,,,m-,,.,,. a.ce,,e., e .. , - - - - - - - , , , _ , , ,
hazards of such "conservatisms" are discussed in the 1984 Byron partial initial decision under emergency planning.
- 1. The assumption of evacuation from home. For certain times of day, this assumption is unrealistic for many persons who will not be at home, but be at work, school, shopping, doctor's office, etc. This could also result in double counting of evacuees for persons who both live and work within the EPZ (6/14/84 Order at 31).
- ; Applicants have served one set of interrogatories and request for production of
- documents on Mr. Eddleman. on the subject of Eddleman 215(1). See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)" (August 9,1984) at 21-22. " Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' 8-09-84 Emergency Planning Interrogatories" was filed on September 7,1984. Mr. Eddleman has served two sets of interrogatories on the Applicants on the subject of Eddleman 215(1). See " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power & Light, et al. (Ninth Set)" (June 29, 1984), at 14-16; and " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power & Light e_t_ a_l.l (Tenth Set)" (August 9,1984), at 19-20. " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's GeneralInterrogatories to Applicants (Ninth Set)" was filed on July 25, 1984, and " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to "X
. Applicants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants (Tenth Set)" was filed on September 7,1984. Mr. Eddleman served two sets of interrogatories on the N,RC Staff and one set on FEMA on the subject of Eddleman Contention 215(1). '
I See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (Fourth Set)" (June 29,
- i. 1984), at 9-11; and " Wells Eddleman's Second Round Interrogatories & Request for i
Production of Documents to NRC Staff on Contentions 215 and 224"(September 5,1984);
, " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Intervenor Wells Eddleman" was filed on August 14,1984; "NRC Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Wells -
Eddleman on June 29, 1984 on Contentions 215 and 224" was filed on August 29, 1984; 4
i i
{.
and "NRC Staff Response to Seeand Round Interrogatories Dated September 5,1984 g Propounded by Wells Eddleman on Contentions 215 and 224" was filed on September 26, 1984. The NRC Staff / FEMA did not file any discovery requests on the subject of Eddleman 215(1). The last day for filing discovery on the contention was August 9, 1984.1 Discovery on this contention is, therefore, complete.
Eddleman Contention 215(1) is classified as an emergency planning contention to be addressed in the hearings scheduled to commence June 18, 1985. Written direct testimony on the contention is scheduled to be filed June 3,1985. Further, the Board and ,
the parties have established Januaq 14, 1985 as the last day for filing summary .l disposition mobons on this contention. Thus, the instant motion is timely, and Eddleman Contention 215(1)is ripe for summary disposition. ,
III. APPLICABLE LAW ,
The well-defined standards applicable to motions for summary disposition under 10
>i C.F.R. S2.749 are discussed in detailin Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of I In its " Memorandum and Order (Rulings on S,eeification of Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and on the Admissio !!y of Eddleman Contentions on the Public Information Brochure)" (October 4,1984), the t -ard directed that discovery on j Eddleman 215 "will close on January 4,1985." AppEcan ' Weve that the Board may have been unaware that the parties have heretofore t'eateo Eddleman 215 -including all four alleged conservatisms - as a part of the first group of emergency planning contentions admitted in this proceeding (M., all emergency planning contentions '
admitted prior'to =the August 3,1984 Board order). As such, the parties have already g~ ..
conducted discovery on Eddleman 215, including all four of the alleged conservatisms.
Indeed, Mr. Eddleman propounded two rounds of discovery to Applicants, in addition to his discovery of the NRC Staff / FEMA. And Applicants filed a set of discovery requests >J on Mr. Eddleman. This discovery was completed on the schedule for discovery on the '
first group of admitted emergency planning contentions. No party objected to any 3 discovery request as premature on the ground that the specific conservatisms had not yet
~
been ruled upon. Accordingly, discovery on Eddleman 215(1) was completed even before '
c the Board ruled on the admissibility of the four alleged conservatisms. ,
4- ,
r;
- - , V.
- i
[' 4
Motions for Summary Disposition on Emergency Planning Contentions, filed in this proceeding on October 8,1984. Applicants rely upon the discussion therein, which is incorporated by reference, and upon the discussion herein regarding the application of those standards to Eddleman Contention 215(1).
The Commission's emergency planning regulations require the preparation of "an analysis of the time required to evacuate." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E. S IV. As noted in footnote 1 to 10 C.F.R'. S 50.47, the standards embodied in the emergency planning L.
regulations are further addressed by NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev.1, November 1980). NUREG-0654 Criterion J.10.1 provides that plans shall include:
l 1. Time estimates for evacuation * *
- based on a dynamic analysis * *
- for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (See Appendix 4).
l Detailed regulatory acceptance criteria for evacuation time analyses related to emergency planning for nuclear power plants are contained in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654.
.' Eddleman Contention 215(1) claims that the assumption of evacuation from home, which was utilized in the Harris ETE, !s one of the "conservatisms" which "may force .
evacuation time estimates upwards and provide inaccurate estimates for decisictmakers during an emergency." This, in turn, is alleged to be a violation of 10 C.F.R. 550.47(b)(10), which states:
- s. .
(b) The onsite and, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section
[ pertaining to issuance of low power licenses], offsite emergency response
- olans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards
- ;
(10) A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines for the choice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with
' Federal guidance are developed and in place, and protective actions for the ingestion pathway EPZ appropriate to the locale have been developed.
g ( _(
.r
s r.,
p .p IV. ARGUMENT .
A. . The ETE Process -is Designed To Estimate Evacuation Times as Realistically As Possible.
In order to assist emergency planners in cMosing among potential protective actions, the NRC's emergency planning rule requires that an analysis of the time to evacuate the population within the plume exposure pathway EPZ be developed as a part
- of the emergency planning for each nuclear power plant site. It is, of course, important that the' analysis produce estimated times that are as realistic as possible. It is also important to emphasize, however, that the ETE analysis is only designed to produce an estimate of the evacuation time. The evacuation scenarios utilized in the analysis cannot be expected to replicate with exact precision vehicular activity during an actual evacuation. That activity will vary from evacuation to evacuation even in the same locale and can never be precisely known beforehand. The scenarios modeled in an ETE should be empirically supportable and as realistic as practicably possible.
As explained in Mr. Klimm's Affidavit, the evacuation time estimates for the Harris Plant were developed, utilizing a state-of-the-art computer simulation designed to
- project evacuation times as accurately as possible. Even though HMM Associates, Inc.
attempted to use the most realistic evacuation scenarios possible, current state-of-the-art methodology requires that some simplifying assumptions be used. Such assumptions
.are necessary in order to produce input data that can be used for the computer simulation. Where the simplifying assumptions have a potential for error, HMM Associates sought to balance over-predictive versus under-predictive assumptions.to produce realistic scenarios. Klimm Affidavit,14.
The use of some assumptions in the ETE is anticipated in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 itself. The criteria document requires only that the analyses should indicate what assumptions underlie the time estimates. NUREG-0654 at 4-2, 4-7; Klimm Affidavit,
e-, .- - . --w-e- - + - - , e--. - , . - - - --w--
4 Mr. Eddleman cites the Licensing Board's decision in Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP-84-2,19 NRC 36 (1984), in support of Contention 215. Nothing in that decision argues against the use of reasonable assumptions to facihtate an evacuation time analysis. Indeed, it is clear that the Board in Byron recognized that using some assumptions is permissible. See generally Byron, 3 supra,19 NRC at 253-63. The Byron Board did caution against using "conservatisms," or assumptions that result in overestimating evacuation times, without labeling them as such. The Board did not, however, conclude that conservative assumptions are -
improper. According to the Board,"[elonservatisms may remain in the [ evacuation time
- study] provided they are clearly identified as such and quantified." 19 NRC at 263.
Similarly, the instant Licensing Board in admitting Eddleman Contention 215 stated: "We see no objection to the estimates' containing clearly marked conservatisms, as long as the estimates also contain results based on more realistic assumptions, or assess the effects of the conservatisms [ citing Byronl." " Rulings on Specification of Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and on the Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions on the Public Information Brochure" at 4-5 (October 4,1984). As discussed below, the subject of Eddleman Contention 215(1)-the assumption of evacuation from home-Is a realistic, supportable assumption and is not a conservatism that results in an overestimate of the evacuation time from the Harris EPZ.
B. The Assumption of Evacuation From Home is Rer.sonable and does not Result in Time Estimates that are Unrealistic.
Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards to Eddleman Contention
- 215(1), it is clear that the instant motion for summary disposition should be granted. Mr..
Eddleman has shown no basis for the assertion that the assumption of evacuation from home is unreasonable and may result in unrealistically high evacuation time estimates,
(
7-t
- - ,- ,- ,,,---r -,_..,-i.#. ,, , , e., ..-,,-ey,,,m_-y- y-.e ---,-y,e-,.,+,-r .,yw-w , -.,,,,,,%g-,-y ,yv,, e c--e,vy- ,-c, ,- p---,w-t
either in his discovery responses regarding this contention or in the statement of the contention itself.2 In contrast, the attached Affidavit of Robert D. Klimm demonstrates ;
that the assumption was based upon consultation with local emergency preparedness officials, HMM Associates' extensive experience, and is consistent with empirical data for other evacuations.
In discovery responses, both the NRO and the FEMA Staffs concurred in the
. assumptions utilized in the ETE regarding this Contention. In responding to Mr.
Eddleman's interrogatory regarding the FEMA staff's understanding of Contention 215,
- the staff responded: "The Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) study appears to comply with NUREG 0654 guidelines." " FEMA Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Wells Eddleman" (August 7,1984) at 2. The NRC Staff's response to Mr. Eddleman's
, interrogatories was provided by* Dr. Thomas Urbanik II, Associate Research Engineer with the . Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M System and subcontractor to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories which is NRC's contractor responsible for .
reviewing evacuation time estimates. Dr. Urbanik concluded that all aspects of the ETE, '
!- specifically including the assumptions used, were " adequate" (which is his highest rating) and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. See Attachment to "NRC Staff Response to Interrogatories Propounded by Wells Eddleman on June 29,1984 on Contentions 215 and'224" (August.29,1984); and "NRC Staff Response to Second Round of Interrogatories Dated September 5, 1984 Propounded by . Wells Eddleman on Contentions 215 and 224"(September 26,1984), at 4. The assumption of evacuation from
'2 In the statement of Contention 215, Mr. Eddleman refers only to "the opinion of
- expert Paul Holmbeck" to support his allegations. However, the Licensing Board in Byron, supra, found that Mr. Holmbeck has only "a well-informed layman's knowledge of -
radiological emergency plans." 19 NRC at 254. In contrast, the expert credentials of Mr. Klimm -in the preparation of evacuation time analyses and of Dr. Mileti in public response' to emergencies are set forth in the resumes attached to their respective
-affidavits.
-.m-, , , ,-s , ~.,.r,.s w,s.y.p., , _ , . . - - . ,
home was also reviewed with and concurred in by a number of state and local emergency I
preparedness officials at the time the ETE was prepared. Klimm Affidavit,15.
As Mr. Klimm explains, the assumption of evacuation from home was based ~ upon '
information from a number of sources, including informal discussions with state and county emergency preparedness officials, review of empirical data on past evacuations, d
knowledge and experience obtained by HMM Associates in conducting evacuation time I
studies for more than 20 nuclear power plant sites, and federal guidance in l NUREG-0654. Klimm Affidavit,15. HMM Associates recognized, of course, that the exact locations of people within the EPZ when notification is initiated will vary, depending upon such factors as the time of day, day of week, and season of the year.
Klimm Affidavit,16. However, that fact is not inconsistent with an assumption of evacuation from home because the evacuation will take place only after the initial
! . notification, mobilization, and preparation. These activities will involve traveling to -
home for the purpose of forming family units and gathering belongings. The assumption that persons generally will travel to their homes before evacuating is supported by available literature on past evacuations. K11mm Affidavit,16. In addition, Dr. Dennis S.
, Mileti, a sociologist who specializes in the study of public response to emergency' situations, confirms that families usually seek to unite during emergencies and that persons will usually travel to their places of residence to do so prior to evacuation, unless presented with sound emergency directions to the contrary. See Mileti Affidavit to be filed separately. Each of the more than 20 evacuation time stuales that have been prepared by HMM Associates, most of which have been accepted by NRC and the
- 1 remainder of which are currently under review, utilize this assumption. Klimm Affidavit,114,6. '
In order for the assumption of evacuation from home to be valid,it is not necessary to show that each and every person within the EPZ will travel to his or her. home before 9
f
, <--, e vs y e ,g-- ,-w- ,-y--,,, -w,., , , . . .--r,,~.,,e ,,--ew,,,-,,,,y ,~c,y- , , . - , - g- . .r.g---,e,-3---.--e,.,e-.* r--r-*we-e
-~
. 1 evacuating. As discussed in section A supra, no ETE scenario can ever replicate activity during an actual evacuation with total precision. Information demonstrating that persons will usually evacuate from home provides a realistic basis for the assumption and srpports its inclusion in the ETE.
Mr. Klimm explains that the ETE took into consideration a range of preparation and c mobilization times in estimating the evacuation times. Based on discussions with local i 1
. officials, it was concluded that the actual evacuation would begin no sooner than 30 minutes after initial notification and that some residents would require up to two hours J
longer to begin evacuation. The shorter time periods pertain to persons who may already be at home and who do not need extended periods of time to prepare for evacuation, while the longer periods are for those persons who must travel to their homes and engage
. in other activities prior to evacuation. Klimm Affidavit,17. Consistent with empirical data on , past evacuations and HMM Associates' experience on other studies, this
- methodology provides a reasonable simulation of vehicle activity during an actual evacuation. Mr. Eddleman has shown no basis for challenging the methodology in the ETE and no reason to suggest that the resulting evacuation time estimates are not realistic.
C. Some Segments of the EPZ Population Were Intentionally Double-Counted in Order to More Accurately Reflect Realistic Vehicle Activity on the Evacuation Roadway Network.
In order to project vehicular activity during an evacuation, it was necessary to 4
determine the population and. population' distribution within the EPZ. As Mr. Klimm
, explains, double-counting of some segments of the ETE population was intentional.
Employees at major places of employment and persons visiting major recreational areas within the EPZ are counted separately from the permanent population. ETE at 3-3. That n portion of those employees and visitors who are permanent residents of the EPZ are also counted in the permanent population estimate. Similarly, school children who live within
+-w t- 4>? 9- -r ry ee-rt a 'vwa gesw %. - m. s,e re,, m p-.wo- y <w+r y w w. -s -m @ w T- m ven-w qw- n T T w+"***~ ***8-e
- t- T bN" 9- -Fg**f F mWW-T'
4 the EPZ and also attend a school within the EPZ would be counted twice. Klimm Affidavit,18. The double-counting of these population segments was done intentionally to implicitly simulate realistic traffic flows on the roadway network within the EPZ.
, Klimm Affidavit,19. The double-counting simulates traffic friction on the roadway network due to travel home prior to the actual evacuation. Employees and recreational visitors will be evacuating the recreation areas and places of employment, regardless of whether they are destined for homes within the EPZ or traveling directly to areas outside
! the EPZ. Thus, double-counting of these population segments results in a more realistic simulation of vehicle activity during an evacuation. It does not produce an overestimate of the time to evacuate the EPZ. Id.3 t D. There is No Issue of Material Fact, and Applicants are Entitled to a Decision in Their Favor as a Matter of Law on Eddleman Contention ,
215(1).
The assumption utilized in the ETE that permanent residents of the Harris EPZ will J
evacuate from their homes is fully supported and provides a realistic simulation of vehicle activity for the purpose of estimating evacuation times. It results in a realistic estimate of the evacuation times. Because Mr. Eddleman has cited no authority and provided no other basis for claiming that the assumption is a " conservatism" that skews the results of the ETE, Eddleman Contention 215(1) is wholly without basis. Mr. ,'
Eddleman has raised no issue of material fact as to the appropriateness of the assumption of evacuation from home. Applicants are entitled to a favorable decision as a matter of law on Eddleman Contention 215(1).
3 Nor does the double-counting of school children who also live in the EPZ result in an inflation of evacuation times. When a school child evacuates <iirectly from the school, the rest of his or her family will depart from the residence but with one less passenger in
-the car. Klimm Affidavit,19. Thus total vehicle activity is unaffected by the double-counting of school children.
< o.
V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that this Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 215(1) be granted.
ThisMIday of January,1985.
Submitted by:
- 6.
Dale E. Hollar, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 Attorneys for Applicants:
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Delissa A. Ridgway, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.-
Washington, D.C. 20036 '
(202) 822-1000 ,
Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Samantha Francis Flynn, Esq.
/
H. Hill Carrow, Esq.
Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office' Box 1551
. Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
-(919) 836-6517 I
l
.