ML20112J936
| ML20112J936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1985 |
| From: | Ridgway D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112J843 | List:
|
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL, NUDOCS 8501180427 | |
| Download: ML20112J936 (17) | |
Text
y' i
4 January 14, 1985 CCCKETED t"N c I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J"! I 7 Pi:57 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CJ BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 215(3)
Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 215(3).
As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue as to any fact material to Eddleman Contention 215(3), and Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Eddleman Contention 215(3) as a matter of law.
This motion is supported by:
1.
" Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on.Eddleman 215(3)";
2.
" Affidavit of Robert Klimm on Eddleman 215(3)"
("Klimm Affidavit");
3.
" Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti cn Eddleman 215(3)"
("Mileti Affidavit"); and 8501180427 850114 PDR ADOCK C5000400 0
4 o
4.
" Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Conten-tions," (filed October 8, 1984).
I.
PROCEDURAL 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 proceed-ing in the Board's " Memorandum and Order (Further Rulings on Admissibility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions Sub-mitted By Intervenor Eddleman)" (June 14, 1984), at 24, where 6
the Board directed Mr. Eddleman to further specify Eddleman 215.
Eddleman 215(3) was submitted in " Wells Eddleman's Re-sponse to Board Order Requiring Additional Specification of Contention #215" (June 19, 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 215 and on the Admissi-bility of Eddleman Contentions On the Public Information Bro-chure)" (October 4, 1984), at 2-4.
Eddleman 215(3) thus con-cends:
In violation of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(10)
CP&L's evacuation time study does not con-form 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 numer-ous so-called "conservatisms" including those referring to recreational populations and vehicle capacity factors (see e.g. sec-tions 3-3 and 3-6) which may force evacua-tion time estimates upwards and provide l
inaccurate estimates for decisionmakers during an emergency, in the opinion of ex-pert Paul Holmbeck.
Potential hazards of such "conservatisms" are discussed in the 1984 Byron partial initial decision under emergenc planning.
(These conservatisms
'l include:
The apparent assumption that those house-holds without vehicles will automatically evacuate with neighbors (or can) at the rate of one vehicle per household.
i Applicants have served one set of interrogatories and re-quest for production of documents on Mr. Eddleman on th6'sub-ject of Eddleman 215(3).
See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents To In-te'rvenor Wells Eddleman (First Set)" (August 9, 1984), at 21-22.
" Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' 8-09-84 Emer-gency Planning Interrogatories" was file ~d September 7, 1984.
~
Mr. Eddleman has served two sets of interrogatories on Appli-cants on the subject of Eddleman 215(3).
See " Wells Eddleman's e General Interrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power & Lighl, et al. (9th Set)" (June 29, 1984) at 14-16 and " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants Carolina Power
& Light, et al. (10th Set)" (August 9, 1984) at 19-20.
"Appli-cants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories to Applicants (Ninth Set)" was filed on July 25, 1984 and "A'ppli-cants' Response to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories (Tenth Set)" was filed on September 7, 1984.
Mr. Eddleman served two sets of interrogatories on the NRC Staff and one set on FEMA on the subject of Eddleman 215(3).,
n-,,
i See " Wells Eddleman's Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA (4th Set)" (June 29, 1984) at 9-11; and " Wells Eddleman's Sec-ond Round I,nterrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments 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; and "NRC Staff Response to Second Round Inter-rogatories Dated September 5, 1984 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 Eddleman 215(3).
The last date for filing discovery on the contention was August 9, 1984.1/
Discovery on this contention 1/
In its " Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Specification of Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and on the Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions on the Public Information Brochure)" (October 4, 1984), the Board directed that discovery on Eddleman 215 "will close on January 4, 1985."
Applicants believe that the Board may have been unaware that the parties have heretofore treated Eddleman 215 -- including all four alleged cohservatisms
-- as a part of the first group of emergency planning con-tentions admitted in this proceeding (i.e., all emergency planning contentions admitted prior t6 the August 3, 1984 Board order).
As such, the parties have already conducted discovery on Eddleman 215, including all four of the al-leged conservatisms.
Indeed, Mr. Eddleman propounded two rounds of discovery to Applicants, in addition to his dis-covery of the NRC Staff / FEMA.
And Applicants filed a set of discovery requests on the subject of Mr. Eddleman.
This discovery was completed on the schedule for discovery on the first group of admitted emergency planning conten-(Continued next page) -
is, therefore, complete.
Eddleman Contention 215(3) is classified as an emergency planning contention to be addressed in the hearing scheduled to commence June 18, 1985.
Written direct testimony on the con-tention is scheduled to be filed June 3, 1985.
Further, the Board and the parties have established January 14, 1985 as the last day for filing summary disposition motions on this conten-tion.
Thus, the instant motion is timely, and Eddleman Conten-tion 215(3) is ripe for summary disposition.
II.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS A.
Summary Disposition
" Applicants' Memorandum of Law In Support of Motions For Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions," filed October 8, 1984, is fully applicable to this Motion and is in-corporated by reference herein.
B.
Substantive Law The Commission's emergency planning regulations require the preparation of "an analysis of the time require @ to evacuate * * *."
10 C.F.R. Part 50, App.
E, 5 IV.
As noted in (Continued) tions.
No party objected to any discovery request as pre-mature on the ground that the specific conservatisms had not yet been ruled upon.
Accordingly, discovery on Eddleman 215(3) was completed even before the Board ruled on the admissibility of the four alleged conservatisms.._
footnote 1 to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47, the standards embodied in the emergency planning regulations are further addrressed 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 in-clude:
1.
Time estimates for evacuation * *
- based on a dynamic analysis * ** for the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (See Appendix 4).
Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 sets forth the regulatory accep-tance criteria for evacuation time estimate studies ("ETEs").
Appendix 4 specifies that, ir estimating demand:
The number of permane'nt residents shall be estimated using the U.S. Census data or other reliable data, ad-justed as necessary, for p
growth. * *
- This popula-tion chall then be trans-lated into two subgroups: 1) those using autos and [2)]
those without autos.
The number of vehicles used by permanent residents is esti-mated using an appropriate auto occupancy factor.
A range of two to three per-sons per vehicle would prob-ably be reasonable in most cases.
NUREG-0654, at 4-2 to 4-3.
Appendix 4 emphasizes that:
- *
- Special attention must be given to those households not having automobiles.
The public transport-dependent population must, therefore, be considered as a special case.
i I
NUREG-0654, at 4-3.
Finally, NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 directs:
An estimate of the time re-quired to evacuate that seg-ment of the non-car-owning population dependent upon public transport shall be made, in a similar manner to that used for the auto-owning population.
This estimate shall include consideration of any special services which might be ini-tiated tc serve this popula-tion subgroup.
Such ser-vices might include fixed-route departures from designated assembly points.
NUREG-0654, at 4-9.
III.
ARGUMENT Applying the Commission's summary disposition standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that the instant motion for summary disposition should be granted.
Applicants do not dif-fer with Mr. Eddleman as to the need for realistic evacuation time estimates.
To the contrary, as described below, the very assumption challenged in Eddleman 215(3) was included in the ETE methodology to ensure that the ETE realistically reflected the traffic which would be associated with evacuation of the non-auto-owning population.
(
t The Harris ETE was prepared utilizing a state-of-the-art computer simulation designed to project evacuation times as ac-curately as possible.
However, even state-of-the-art methodol-ogy requires the use of some simplifying assumptions, to gener-ate input data for the computer simulation.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 3.
Indeed, NUREG-0654 itself recognizes that some such as-sumptions must be made.
NUREG-0654 requires only that the analyses identify the assumptions which underlie the time esti-mates.
See NUREG-0654, at 4-2, 4-7; Klimm Affidavit, 1 3.
The simplifying assumption challenged in this contention -- that non-auto-owning households will evacuate at the rate of one ve-hicle per household -- is clearly identified in section 3.1.2 of the ETE.
See also ETE, 5 2.2 Mr. Eddleman cites Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-2, 19 N.R.C.
36 (1984),
in support of his Contention 215.
However, nothing in that de-cision proscribes the use of reasonable assumptions to facil-itate an evacuation time analysis.
Indeed, it is clear that the Byron Board recognized that using some assumptions is per-missible.
See generally Byron, supra, 19 N.R.C.
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 3oard, "[clonservatisms may remain in the [ Evacuation __
Time] Study provided that they are clearly identified as such
.and quantified."
19 N.R.C.
at 263.
Similarly, in admitting Eddleman Contention 215, the Licensing Board here 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 Byron]."
See " Rulings on Specifica-tion of Eddleman Offsite Emergency Planning Contention 215 and on the Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions on the Public Information Brochure" (October 4, 1984), at 4-5.
In any event, as discussed below, the assumption in the ETE that non-auto-owning households would evacuate at the rate of one vehicle per household is not a " conservatism" that re-sults in an overestimate of evacuation times.
Rather, the stated assumption is a practical means of simulating the traf-fic which would be generated within the EPZ in the provision of transportation assistance for non-auto-owning households in an evacuation of the Harris EPZ.
In the event of an actual evacuation due to an emergency at the Harris plant, transportation for all non-auto-owning households would be furnished through rides with friends, neighbors, or relatives, or through coordinated efforts by state and county emergency preparedness officials.
Klimm Affi-davit, 1 6; Mileti Affidavit, 1 2.
(Of course, the exact num-ber_of vehicles necessary to evacuate this population category _
would vary based upon several factors, including the type and numbers of transportation resources available at the time of the evacuation.)
Klimm Affidavit, 1 6.
The assumptions used to develop the evacuation time esti-mates presented in the Harris ETE (including the methodology used to estimate vehicle demand of permanent residents) were developed based upon informal discussions held with state and county emergency preparedness officials, empirical data on past evacuations, and the knowledge and experience obtained by HMM Associates in conducting similar evacuation time studies for more than 20 nuclear power plant sites throughout the country.
Klimm Affidavit, 14.
The assumption that non-auto-owning households (like auto-owning households) would evacuate at the rate of one vehicle per household was specifically reviewed with the local emergency preparedness officials and was deter-mined to be appropriate as the most realistic means of repre-senting the evacuation traffic which would be generated in the provision of transportation assistance (by friends or family, or emergency response personnel) for non-auto-owning house-holds.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 7.
Thus, in practice, the assumption that non-auto-owning households would each generate the traffic associated with one vehicle is a reasoitable means of simulating traf fic along the roadway network, following internal routes to collect non-auto-owning passengers.
(This traffic could range from.
cars or vans going to individual homes to pick up evacuees,2/
to larger vehicles -- such as buses -- traveling from one pick-up point to another to pick up evacuees.)
Klimm Affidavit, 1 8.
Mr. Eddleman has asserted that "[t]he ETEs need to be com-puted in an accurate manner without using the conservlitism * * *."
See 9/7/84 Responses to Interrogatories, at Response 215-10.
As discussed above, the assumption chal-lenged in Eddleman 215(3) is not a " conservatism."
But, in any event, a reduction of a total of 410 (or 655) vehicles 2/ would not reduce evacuation time estimates appreciably --
i.e.,
a re-duction of 10 minutes might result from changing the assumption to (in effect) reflect no vehicles to evacuate the non-auto-owning population.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 9.
Of course, such a change would then underestimate the time required for evacuation.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 9 n.4.
The assumptions incorporated into the Harris ETE are con-sistent with those used by HMM Associates in its compilation'of similar analyses for other nuclear power plant sites.
Most of the more than twenty evacuation time analyses prepared by HMM 2/
For purposes of estimating evacuation times, it does not matter whether such vehicles are operated by friends or family, or by emergency workers.
The effect of such traf-fic is the same.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 8 n.3.
-3/
These figures represent the number of non-auto-owning households within the EPZ, as derived from Census data.
Compare ETE, S 3.1.2 with " Affidavit of Kevin Twine on Wilson 12(b)(3) and EPJ-2" (January 14, 1985), 11 3-6. J
o
^
Associates already have been found acceptable by the NRC; the remaining analyses are currently under review.
Klimm Affida-vit, 11 3, 10.
Indeed, Dr. Urbanik, who reviews evacuation time analyses for the NRC Staff, has already reviewed the i
Harris ETE and has concluded that all aspects of the Harris ETE
-- specifically including the assumptions used -- are "ade-quata" (his highest rating), and consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4.
See Attachment to Staff's 8/29/84 Responses to Interrogatories; Staff's 9/26/84 Responses to In-terrogatories, at Response 215-4.
FEMA, too, has concurred in the reasonableness of the ETE assumptions, noting, "The Evacua-tion Time Estimates (ETE) study appears to comply with NUREG-0654 guidelines."
See FEMA 8/14/84 Responses to Inter-rogatories, at Response 1.
In summary, the methodology for the Harris ETE utilized a state-of-the-art computer simulation that has been used at nu-merous nuclear sites throughout the country and that has previ-ously been approved by the NRC; and the assumptions incorpo-i rated in the Harris ETE are consistent with those in HMM's other NRC approved analyses.
As explained above, the assump-tion that non-auto-owning households would evacuate at the rate of one vehicle per household was employed as a practical means of simulating the evacuation traffic which would be generated j
in the provision of transportation assistance (by friends or family, or emergency response personnel) for non-auto-owning,
.m.
i households.
Thus, the assumption is fully justified and re-sults in realistic estimates of the evacuation times for the Harris EPZ.
Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's assertions, the assump-tion is not a " conservatism" that results in an overestimate of evacuation times.
Klimm Affidavit, 1 10.
Mr. Eddleman has completely failed to provide any authori-ty to support his assertion that the challenged assumption is a
" conservatism" that skews the results of the ETE.
His conten-tion refers only to "the opinion of expert Paul Holmbeck" to support his allegations.
Hove /e r, the Licensing Board in Byron, supra, characterized Mr. Holmbeck as simply a "well-informed layman."
19 N.R.C.
at 254.
In contrast, the impressive expert credentials of Dr. Urbanik are described in Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C.
933, 994 n.12 (1984), and the professional qualifications of Mr. Klimm and Dr. Mileti are set forth in the resumes attached to their respective affidavits.
Mr. Eddleman cannot avoid summary disposition of Eddleman 215(3) on the basis of guesses or suspicions, or on the hope that at the hearing Applicants' evidence may be discredited or that "something may turn up."
See Gulf States Ut_ilities Co.
(River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C.
- 246, 248 (1975).
In the face of the sworn discovery responses of Dr. Urbanik, and the Affidavits of Mr. Klimm and Dr. Mileti, the unsupported, lay opinions of Mssrs. Eddleman and Holmbeck are simply insufficient to invoke a hearing on Eddleman 215(3). (0
4 i
IV.
CONCLUSION There is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard on the issue of the use of the challenged assumption -- that households without cars would evacuate at the rate of one car per household -- to realistically simulate the traffic which would be generated within the EPZ in the provision of evacua-tion transportation for non-auto-owning households.
According-ly, Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 215(3) should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, A*N2th-Thom6s'A. Baxter, P.C.O V
Delissa A. Ridgway SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1C00 Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicante Dated: January 14, 1985
.. i
s i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN n..
t
': q--
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOiRh'
'65 Jw 77 P1 :57 In the Matter of
)
g.,,,_ _
)
I:cdry... !- nt :e f CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
g;l,Ng " f."
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL If MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Eddleman 215(3)," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Eddleman 215(3)," " Affidavit of Robert Klimm on Eddleman 215(3)," and " Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti on Eddleman 215(3)" were served this 14th day of January, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the parties listed on the attached Service List.
4 Y1A ^
Deliss% A. Ridgwa']
().
G Dated:
January 14, 1985 7
1
?..._.
6 Q
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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)
)
SERVICE LIST James L.
Kelley, Esquire John D.
Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C.
20555 307 Granville Road Mr. Glenn O. Bright Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M. Travis Payne, Esquire Edelstein and Payne Washington, D.C.
20555 Post Office Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard D. Wilson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 729 Hunter Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Apex, North Carolina 27502 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Durham, North Carolina 27705 fieo Exe e Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E.
Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section Carolina Power & Licht Company Post Office Box 1551 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Daniel F.
Read, President CHANGE Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 I
I
_._.__--____m.
mmm_____-m_ _. _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - -. _ _ _
t 1
Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street j
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven F. Crockett, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 335 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA 500 C Street, S.W.,
Suite 480 Washington, D.C.
20740 Steven Rochlis, Esq.
Regional Counsel FEMA 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
_ _ _ _ _