ML20112K067
| ML20112K067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1985 |
| From: | Gaukler P 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 | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8501180461 | |
| Download: ML20112K067 (21) | |
Text
R '
OCCfEi,ED
+ )Q gynuary 14, 1985 JM 17 P1 :58 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA {cij;c .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: M ., g 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 WILSON 12(b)(2) +
Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern i Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board"), pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
F S 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor on Wilson Contention 12(b)(2). As discussed herein, there is no genuine i issue as to any fact material to Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) and Applicants are entitled to a' decision in their favor on Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) as a matter of law.
j This motion is supported by:
- 1. Applicants' Statement Of Material Facts As To l
Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Wilson 12(b)(2);
I'
- 2. Affidavit Of Robert D. Klimm In Support Of Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition Of Wilson 12(b)(2) ("Klimm Affidavit");
- 3. Affidavit Of Dennis S. Mileti In. Support Of Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition Of 8501180461 850114 '
g Wilson 12(b)(2) And Of Eddleman 215(1) I
("Mileti Affidavit"); and
- 4. Applicants' Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motions For Summary Disposition Of Emergency Planning Contentions," (filed October 8, 1984).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) was initially advanced in the
" Contentions of Richard Wilson Concerning North Carolina Emer-gency Response Plan" (April 13, 1984). Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) was admitted as a contention in this proceeding in'the Board's " Memorandum and Order (Final Set of rulings on Admissi-bility of Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions, Ruling on Pe-tition for Waiver of Need-for-Power Rule, and Notice of Upcoming Telephone Conference Call)," LBP-84-29B- 20 N.R.C.
389, 423 (1984). As admitted by the Board, Wilson 12(b)(2) contends:
The evacuation time study itself is deficient because the 1 evacuating car / family assump-tion is too low--many families would take 2 Cars.
Applicants have served one set of interrogatories on Dr.
Wilson on the subject of Wilson 12(b)(2). See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wilson (Second Set)" (October 5, 1984), at 6. " Response by Richard Wilson to Applicants Inter-rogatories on EPJ-5 and Wilson 12(b)(2) and Wilson 12(b)(3)"
was filed October 25, 1984. Dr. Wilson served one set of
a interrogatories on the Applicante on the subject of Wilson 12(b)(2). See " Richard Wilson Interrogatories to the Applicant on EPJ-5, Wilson 11, Wilson 12(b)(2), Wilson 12(b)(3)"
(September 19, 1984). " Applicants' Response to Richard Wilson Interrogatories on EPJ-5, Wilson 11, Wilson 12(b)(2), Wilson 12(b)(3)" was filed October 16, 1984. Dr. Wilson served one set of interrogatories on the NRC Staff and FEMA on the subject of Wilson 12(b)(2). See " Richard Wilson Interrogatories to the NRC Staff and FEMA With Regard to EPJ-5 and Wilson 11, 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3)" (September 19, 1984). "NRC Staff and FEMA Responses to Interrogatories Dated September 19, 1984 Pro-pounded by Richard Wilson on Contentions EPJ-5 and Wilson 11, 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3)" was filed October 22, 1984. The NRC Staff / FEMA filed no discovery requests on the subject of Wilson 12(b)(2). The last date for filing discovery on the contention was October 8, 1984. Discovery on this contention is, there-fore, complete.
Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) 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 January 14, 1985 as the last day for filing summary disposition motions on this conten-tion. Thus, the instant motion is timely, and Wilson Conten-tion 12(b)(2) is ripe for summary disposition.
a 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 requirement for an Evacuation Time Estimate is found in Appendix E to Part 50 of the Commission's regulations. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,5 IV. Appendix E provides in rele-vant part that:
The nuclear power reactor operating license Applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for taking other protective actions for various sectors and-distances within the plume exposure path-way EPZ for transient and permanent popula-tions.
Regulatory guidance for the time evacuation estimates required by the regulations is set forth in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, t
" Criteria For Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emer-l l
gency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (Rev. 1, November 1980). Criterion II.J.8 of NUREG-0654 provides in relevant part as follows:
Each licensee's plan shall contain time esti-mates for evacuation within the plume expo-sure EPZ. These shall.be in accordance with Appendix 4.
f j Appendix 4 identifies the nature of the analyses to be under-i taken and.the range of assumptions generally permissible for l use in the preparation of an evacuation time analysis.
I i !
9 Appendix 4 requires estimates of the number of vehicles that will be involved in an evacuation, the capacity of the road network to handle these vehicles and the total estimated time to evacuate the EPZ under various conditions and assump-tions. In determining the number of vehicles that will be in-volved in the evacuation, the Appendix identifies three poten-tial population segments that are to be identified and considered: permanent residents, transients and persons in special facilities. The evacuation time estimate is to evalu-ate the evacuation characteristics of each population segment and the number of vehicles expected to be utilized by each seg-ment in evacuating the EPZ. With respect to each segment the Appendix provides guidance as to reasonable assumptions that as a general rule can be utilized in this analysis.
Wilson's Contention 12(b)(2) concerns the vehicle demand estimate utilized in the Shearon Harris ETE for permanent resi-dents evacuating the EPZ. Appendix 4 provides specific guid-ance with respect to this matter. It states as follows:
The number of permanent residents shall be
, estimated using the U.S. Census data or other l reliable data, adjusted as necessary for growth. (See planning element J.10.b.).
This population shall then be translated into two subgroups: 1) those using autos and [2]
those without autos. The number of vehicles used by permanent residents is estimated using an appropriate auto occupancy factor.
A range of two to three persons per vehicle would probably be reasonable in most cases.
, An alternative approach is to calculate the number of vehicles based on the number of households that own vehicles assuming one ve-hicle per household is used in evacuation.
i
-s-
_,,.._,___,,,_.,,_._._-..~,--,m ..,,.__.r,%,m
_ , _ .._.%, ,,,.-m___ _e,._.,m. , _ ,., v-,___,,,_,.___--,,y,.._yyy.,wm.,,..--.
Regardless of the approach used, special at-tention must be given to those hcuseholds not having automobiles. The public transport-dependent must, therefore, be considered as a special case.
NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 at 4-2, 4-3. Virtually identical guid-ance is found in NUREG/CR-1745, Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, U.S.
N.R.C., November 19, 1980 at page 21.1/
III. ARGUMENT Applying the Commissien's summary disposition standards to the facts of this case, the Board should grant the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) for three separate, albeit interrelated, reasons. First, the vehicle demand estimate of one vehicle per household for house-holds owning vehicles utilized in the Shearon Harris ETE is in accordance with, and acceptable under, relevant federal criteria. Second, the one vehicle per household assumption is in accordance with well documented public emergency response phenomena and, accordingly,its use results in reasonable, 1/ NUREG/CR-1745 provides as follows:
I This population data [ permanent residents]
would then be translated into a projected number of vehicles using an appropriate auto occupancy factor. A range of two to three persons per vehi-cle would probably be reasonable in most cases, however, any rationale basis would be appropriate.
For example, one vehicle per household might be a reasonable assumption. NUREG/CR-1745, supra at 21.
\
realistic time evacuation estimates. In contrast, the signifi-cantly higher vehicle demand assumptions urged by Dr. Wilson are contrary to this well documented public emergency response phenomena and their use would generate overly conservative evacuation time estimates. Third, subsequent events have elim-inated any litigable dispute over Wilson 12(b)(2).
A. The Shearon Harris Vehicle Demand Estimate of One Vehicle Per Household for Permanent Residents Owning Automobiles is Acceptable under the Criteria of NUREG-0654 Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) attacks the assumption utilized by the Shearon Harris ETE Study to estimate the number of vehi-cles used by permanent residents in evacuating the EPZ. The i
Study assumed that for those households owning vehicles one ve-hicle per household would be used in evacuating the EPZ. Klimm Aff. 1 6. In Contention 12(b)(2) Dr. Wilson challenges this assumption, contending that many families would take two or more cars.2/
, 2/ As reflected in the quotation from Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 above, regardless of which of the two assumptions set forth in Appendix 4 is used, the public transport-dependent population is to be considered a special case and a separate estimation of the vehicles to be used by this subcategory in evacuating the EPZ is required. HMM Associates did a separate analysis for this subcategory here. Following lengthy discus-l sion with relevant state and local emergency preparedness offi-cials, it was determined that one vehicle per household for this subcategory, under the local conditions expected to occur, was a reasonable assumption to account for the traffic gener-
.ated by the collection and evacuation of the nonauto-owning population out of the EPZ. Klimm Aff. 1 6, note 1.
Accordingly, although the result of different analyses, it (Continued Next Page) i
_7_
t
_ - _ ~ _ . -_
J This contention is without merit. NUREG-0654 sets forth )
l relevant criteria and guidance for reviewing whether on-site and off-site emergency plans satisfy the Commission's emergency !
planning standards found in 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b).3/ Both the Appeal Board and numerous Licensing Boards have recognized that Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 sets forth the relevant criteria and guidance for reviewing the acceptability of the evacuation time estimates required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E,S IV.4/
. (Continued)
! happens in this case that the assumption of one vehicle per household was used for households that do not own automobiles as well as for those that do. Wilson Contention 12(b)(2) obvi-ously focuses solely on the estimation of vehicle demand for the auto-owning population and this motion is limited to that analysis. Whether HMM Associates' vehicle demand estimate for the public transport-dependent population subcategory is also proper is the subject of Eddleman Contention 215(3) and is not addressed in this motion. Accordingly, whenever this motion, and the papers supporting it, make reference to permanent resi-
- . dents or permanent households or one vehicle per household, or the like, the unstated limitation is permanent residents owning
-vehicles or households owning vehicles or the like.
I 3/ See Note 1 to 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b). Notwithstanding its reference in the regulations, however, the status of NUREG-0654 for purposes of Commission proceedings is that of a regulatory guide.' See Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Unit 1),
ALAB-754, 18 N.R.C. 1333, 1334, note 3 (1983). As a regulatory guide, NUREG-0654 provides nonbinding guidance to licensees on means acceptable to the NRC staff for satisfying the require- ,
ments in 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(b). See Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1460 (1981), aff'd, ALAB-698, 16 N.R.C. 1290, 1298-1299 (1982).
4/
~
See, e.g., Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-727, 17 N.R.C. 760, 770, note 16 (1983) (" Appendix 4 * *
- sets out guidelines for making. evacuation time estimates"); Duke Power Company (Catawba (Continued Next Page)
.r . ?
0 Reviewed under these criteria and guidance, the evacuation time study for the Shearon Harris Plant is plainly acceptable.
By its terms, Appendix 4 sets forth generally permissible assumptions for estimating vehicle demand for permanent resi-dents. Here, the Shearon Harris evacuation time estimate has adopted and utilized one of the two acceptable assumptions set forth in Appendix 4 for estimating vehicle demand -- i.e., one vehicle per household. HMM Associates has utilized this as-sumption in the majority of its more than 20 evacuation time analyses that it has conducted for nuclear power plant sites throughout the country. Klimm Aff. 1 7. These analyses have consistently been found acceptable by the NRC under NUREG-0654.
Id.
Moreover, the Shearon Harris estimate of vehicle demand for permanent residents is equally acceptable under the alter-native assumption provided for by Appendix 4. As set forth above, Appendix 4 provides that a range of two to three persons per vehicle would probably be reasonable in most cases in
- (Continued)
{ Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. 933, 992 (1984) ("[t]he criteria for judging the acceptability of the evacuation time estimates which are required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E.IV. are set forth in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4.");
Consolidated Edison Company (Indian Point, Unit 2), LBP-83-68, 18 N.R.C. 811, 961 (1983) ("the Criteria generally used for ad-judging [ETE] adequacy are given in NUREG-0654 Appendix 4");
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1578-1579 (1981), aff'd, ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C. 1265 and ALAB-698, 16 N.R.C. 1290 (1982).
estimating vehicle demand for permanent residents. The average household size in the Shearon Harris EPZ is 2.7 persons, and therefore the assumption of one vehicle per household trans-lates to approximately 2.7 persons per vehicle, which is in the range considered reasonable and acceptable in NUREG-0654.
Klimm Aff. 1 9.
Thus, ~ the vehicle demand estimate utilized for the Shearon Harris ETE falls within the bounds of both assumptions consid-ered to be acceptable in Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654. As a regu-latory guide, see note 3 supra, this guidance found in Appendix 4 reflects the NRC's (and also FEMA's) regulatory judgment as to the assumptions that will generally produce rea-sonable, realistic evacuation time estimates as called for by the regulations. Dr. Wilson has identified no reasons why these assumptions found acceptable generally by the NRC (and specifically in this case /)5 should not be utilized here. As pointed out in the affidavit of Robert Klimm, there is nothing atypical with respect to the evacuation of the Shearon Harris EPZ that would suggest or dictate the radically differing i
l 5/ The NRC Staff, through Dr. Thomas Urbanik, II, has con-cluded that all aspects of the Shearon Harris ETE are "ade-l quate" (the highest rating given on the evaluation form),
including the vehicle demand estimation for permanent resi-dents, and are consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654, Ap-pendix 4. See Attachment to "NRC Staff Response to Interroga-tories Propounded by Wells Eddleman on June 29, 1984 on i Contentions 215 and 224" (August 29, 1984) and "NRC Staff Re-sponse to Second Round Interrogatories Dated September 5, 1984 Propounded by Wells Eddleman on Contentions 215 and 224" (September 26, 1984)).
- i l
L.
a assumptions suggested by Dr. Wilson here. Klimm Aff. 11 ll.a and 11.c. Accordingly, the Board should grant the Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Wilson 12(b)(2).
B. Use of the One Vehicle per Household Assumption to Estimate Vehicle Demand Results in Reason-able, Realistic Evacuation Time Estimates "The primary purpose of [an evacuation] time estimate is to provide a basis on which to determine whether evacuation is a viable, protective action option in a particular situation."
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1) LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1579 (1981), aff'd, ALAB-697, 16 N.R.C. 1265 and ALAB-698, 16 N.R.C. 1290 (1982).
Accord, Louisiana Power & Light Company (Waterford Steam Elec-tric Station, Unit 3), LBP-82-100, 16 N.R.C. 1550, 1561 (1982)
(evacuation time " estimates form the basis for a protective ac-tion decision"), aff'd, ALAB-732, 17 N.R.C. 1076 (1983);
Catawba, supra, LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. at 992. Because evacua-tion time estimates form the basis of protective action deci-sions, it is necessary for these estimates to be realistic and reliable. As observed by the Appeal Board in Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Co. (Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAB-727, 17 N.R.C. 760, 770-771 (1983):
If the responsible government officials are to make an infctmed decision respecting what is appropriate protective action in a given radiological emergency, they must have avail-able to them time estimates that are realis- ~
tic appraisals of the minimum period in which, in light of existing local conditions, evacuation could be reasonably accomplished.
1 As stated above, the embodiment of the one vehicle per household assumption in Appendix 4 reflects NRC's and FEMA's regulatory judgment that such an assumption will generally re-sult in realistic evacuation time estimates. Its validity is further confirmed by its use in numerous evacuation time analy- l i i ses for nuclear power plants throughout the country and the ac-
' ceptance and approval of those analyses by federal and state i
emergency preparedness officials alike. Klimm Aff. 1 ll.c. ,
- Those officials, who generally have had substantial experience y
both in emergency planning and emergency response, have found the assumption to be reasonable and to produce what they con-sidered to be realistic evacuation time estimates. Id.
Beyond its acceptance by those versed in emergency plan-i
- ning, the assumption has a sound sociological underpinning. As !
i articulated by Dr. Thomas Urbanik II on behalf of the NRC l
Staff, the rationale for the one vehicle per household guidance ,
found in Appendix 4 is that .
family units have a preference to remain a fami-t ly unit as op /
thanonecar._gosedtodesiringtotakemore j As explained in the Affidavit of Dr. Dennis S. Mileti, i i
- 6/ See "NRC Staff Supplemental Response to Interrogatories ,
Dated September 19, 1984 Propounded by Richard Wilson on Con-tentions EPJ-5 and Wilson 11, 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3)," (October :
22, 1984). As noted by the Licensing Board in Catawba, supra, j LBP-84-37, Dr. Urbanik "provided input to the development of i current guidance for evacuation time estimate studies which ap-pears in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654 * * *." 20 N.R.C. at 994, ,
note 12. Additionally, he "was a principal author of NUREG/CR-1745." Id. d
~ ,
- x l
4
+,4wv. -r-,. p..e. ,-.e-,ma-.m%. -,,y,., .r,.7%, s,ry,,mm,w,.-m._mwm-%--, ,, e, w - , . - -
1 Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Director of the Hazards Assessment Laboratory at Colorado State Univer-sity, this rationale is in accordance with well documented principles of public response to emergencies. As explained by Dr. Mileti, people generally respond to emergencies as a group, placing as their first priority the health and safety of the collective community, including the family, which priority su-persedes the value normally placed on material objects in non-emergency times. Mileti Aff. 11 3-5. As a result, in times of an emergency, families will in all likelihood seek to unite, absent sound public emergency information to the con-trary, and to remain united rather than to separate for the purpose of protecting physical property. Mileti Aff. 11 4-5.
Accordingly, Dr. Mileti concludes that it is highly un-likely (although it is possible in a few cases) that families would separate one member of the family from another into sepa-rate cars in a health and safety threatening situation in order to move two cars out of the EPZ rather than one. Mileti Aff.
1 6. In such instances, the value on property, in this case an I
automobile, would be superseded by the higher value placed on the safety of the family. Id. By the same token families that are separated with two or more usable vehiclen would generally unite in order to evacuate as a unit in one vehicle. Id.
Thus, Dr. Mileti concludes that the assumption that families would evacuate in one vehicle from the Shearon Harris EPZ is a reasonable assumption in accordance with what is known about public response to emergency situations. Id.
y i
In his response to Applicants' interrogatories concerning Wilson 12(b)(2), Dr. Wilson suggests that vehicle demand esti-mates of 1.5 or 1.75 vehicles per household should be consid-ered.7/ Outside of referring to the common fact that many fam-ilies own more than one car, he supplies no basis for his i
estimates. In view of the likelihood that families would evac-uate in one vehicle, however, such vehicle demand assumptions would produce overly conservative, worst case evacuation time estimates. Indeed, Dr. Wilson in effect concedes as much in his response to Applicants' Interrogatory 12(b)(2)-2 where he refers to 1.5 and 1.75 as " worst case assumptions."
It is well established, however, that overly conservative, worst case time estimates do not serve the function intended by ETEs. As succinctly warned by the Board in Catawba, "there is an inherent danger in basing time estimate studies on worst case scenarios: it could lead to advising the population to shelter when evacuation is feasible and safer." Catawba, supra, LBP-84-27, 20 N.R.C. at 997.8/ Accordingly, the Board 7/ See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wilson (Sec-t ond set)," Interrogatory 12(b)(2)-2, page 6.(October 5, 1984) and " Response by Richard Wilson to Applicants' Interrogatories on EPJ-5 and Wilson 12(b)(2) and Wilson 12(b)(3)", pages 1-2 j (October 25, 1984).
8/ Accord, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-70, 16 N.R.C. 756, 785-786 (1982), aff'd, ALAD-781, 20 N.R.C. 819 (1984) ("[t]he time es-timates must be realistic since wrong decisions concerning
, evacuation might be made if based on overly conservative esti-mates").
i
_14_
(
should reject the overly conservative, worst case vehicle de-mand assumptions suggested by Dr. Wilson.
In sum, the assumption of one vehicle per household re-sults in reasonable, realistic estimates of the time to evacu-ate the Shearon Harris EPZ. This assumption is (1) in accor-dance with NRC and FEMA guidance in Appendix 4, (2) supported by, and in accordance with, three decades of sociological re-search concerning public response phenomena to emergencies and (3) has been used and accepted in numerous other evacuation time studies for nuclear power plants throughout the country.
In contrast, the vehicle demand assumptions urged by Dr. Wilson are overly conservative, worst case assumptions that would not give decisionmakers a realistic estimate of the time necessary to evacuate the EPZ.
C. Subsequent Events Have Eliminated Any Dispute Over Wilson 12(b)(2)
In Applicants' interrogatories to Dr. Wilson on Wilson Contention 12(b)(2), Dr. Wilson was asked to describe in detail any and all changes you believe must be in offsite emergency plans to meet the concerns expressed in Wilson 12(b)(2).
See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wilson (Second Set),"
Interrogatory 12(b)(2)-2(a), page 6 (October 5, 1984) (emphasis supplied). In his response, Dr. Wilson replied as follows:
The Evacuation Time Estimate should demon-strate how the evacuation times would vary if the assumption of 1-vehicle household were altered to 1.5 or 1.75 vehicles per household.
See " Response by Richard Wilson to Applicants' Interrogatories on EPJ-5 and Wilson 12(b)(2) and Wilson 12(b)(3)," page 1
{ (October-25, 1984). Dr. Wilson went on to say in response to Applicants' Interrogatory 12(b)(2)-2(b), which asked Dr. Wilson to state the basis for his answer to 12(b)(2)-2(a), that "a worst case assumption," referring to the assumption of 1.5 or 1.75 vehicles per household, "should at least be investigated" and considered, though the " worst-case does not have to be in-corporated as the basis for planning * * *." When asked fur-ther by Applicants' to "[d]escribe in detail any and all
[other] actions or changes" which he believed were "necessary ,
) to meet the concern expressed in Wilson 12(b)(2)," Dr. Wilson replied "none".1/
As set forth in the affidavit of Robert Klimm, the Appli-cants have computed the evacuation time estimates for the Shearon Harris EPZ for the four conditions considered in the ETE utilizing vehicle demand estimates of 1.5 and 1.75 vehicles
+
per. household. Klimm Aff. 1 12. As reflected in Mr. Klimm's affidavit, even with an assumption of 1.75 vehicles per house-hold, the maximum increase in the evacuation time for the en-tire EPZ is less than an hour (54-minute increases for the sum-mer weekday, good weather, and for the fall weekday, adverse 9/ See " Applicants' Emergency Planning Interrogatory and Re-quest For Production of Documents to Intervenor Wilson (Second Set)," supra, Interrogatory 12(b)(2)-3(a), page 6 and " Response by Richard Wilson to Applicants' Interrogatories on EPJ-5 and Wilson 1:2(b)(2) and Wilson 12(b)(3)," supra, page 2.
1
.- .-....._,,.._,_....,_,_.._.._,,.,--.,,.,,,...,_m_., .-.,...m__.,,_~,.-_.
9 l
weather conditions) with the minimum increase (for the summer evening, good weather condition) being as little as 19 minutes.
Id.lE/ More importantly, however, regardless of any increase, the assumptions of 1.5 and 1.75 vehicles per household are overly conservative, worst case assumptions that do not result in realistic time evacuation estimates. Accordingly, the time estimates computed using these assumptions should not be used for planning purposes in the event of an emergency. Klimm Aff.
11 11-12.
By investigating and computing the evacuation time esti-mates for the worst case assumptions of 1.5 and 1.75 vehicles per household, the Applicants have voluntarily undertaken the relief sought by Dr. Wilson in Wilson Contention 12(b)(2). As i
a result, there is no longer anything to be litigated between Applicants and Dr. Wilson with respect to this contention and, 10/ Dr. Wilson could not, even if it were his intention, argue that the evacuation time estimates resulting from an assumption of 1.5 or 1.75 vehicles per household are unreasonably long.
As the Eoard has already observed, "NRC rules set no time limit
! on evacuation." LBP-84-29B, 20 N.R.C. 339, 394 (1984). Accord
, Waterford, supra, LBP-82-100, 16 N.R.C. at 1561 ("no minimum l
l evacuation time [has] been set" in which the evacuation of the EPZ of a nuclear power plant must be accomplished). Moreover, as reflected in Waterford, an evacuation time for the EPZ of a nuclear power plant of about 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> for " favorable" conditions
, and 7.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> for " unfavorable" conditions "is about average."
l 16 N.R.C. at 1560. See also, Catawba, supra, LBP-84-37, 20 N.R.C. at 999 (" general range of general population evacuation time estimates for all sites in the U.S. under normal weather conditions is from a minimum of one hour to a maximum of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />"). Here, even under the worst case assumption of 1.75 vehicles per household, the evacuation times for the Shearon Harris EPZ are approximately 1.5 to 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> shorter than that average. See Klimm Aff. 1 12.
i
o o
therefore,*ypplicants' motion for summary disposition should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Licensing Board should grant Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Wilson 12(b)(2).
Res ectful submitted,
- Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Paul A. Gaukler SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 and Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for Applicants Dated: January 14, 1985 l
1 i
4 V)
~
4
s n.
r _.
d'h;'I J January 14, 1985
'85 jay ;7 p ,
L Ik UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 'NN "U NC
- a. [n d' ',
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) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Motion For Summary Disposition of Wilson 12(b)(2)," " Applicants' Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard On Wilson 12(b)(2)," " Affidavit of Robert D. Klimm in Support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Wilson t
Contention 12(b)(2) and " Affidavit of Dennis S. Mileti in Sup-port of Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition of Wilson 12(b)(2) and Eddleman 215(1) were .erved this 14th day of January, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, post-age prepaid, upon the parties listed on the attached Service List.
M .
~
Dated:
L
January 14, 1985 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 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, NC 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, NC 27502 E Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman.
Janice E. Moore, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street
- Office of Executive Legal Director Durham, NC 27705 i' . U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
1 L Docketing and Service Section Richard E. Jones, Esquire Office of the Secretary Vice President and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Counsel
. Washington, D.C. 20555 Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 4
n-,-.-.,.- ..a
u Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Dr. Linda W. Little
[ CHANGE Governor's Waste Management Board P.O. Box 2151 513 Albermarle Building Raleigh, NC 27602 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire Steven F. Crockett, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Savety and Rsgion II Licensing Board Panel 101 Marietta Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Executive Director Box 395 Mayo Public Staff - NCUC University of Minnesota Post Office Box 991 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 R21eigh, North Carolina 27602 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Steven Rochlis, Esq.
Acsociate General Counsel Regional Counsel FEMA FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20740 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 l
, ., , _ . - . - . . , _ . _ .- ... -.- _ _ - - ,-- . _ . . . , , - . .-