ML19296C655

Forwards Ofc of Emergency Svcs & County of Sacramento Comment Ltrs Re Evacuation Time Estimates to Be Incorporated in App B of Ctr for Planning & Research,Inc Rept Included W/

ML19296C655
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	02/22/1980
From:	Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Grimes B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8002270274
Download: ML19296C655 (8)

Text

'

O' SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C 6201 s st suuo 95813: (916) 452-3211 February 22, 1980 Director of Nuclear Reaulation Emergercy Preparedness' Task Group U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

ttention Brian K. Grimes Occket No. 50-312, Evacuation Time Estinates for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. I Gentlemen

In our evacuation implementation time submittal letter of January 31, 1980, we noted that the required agreement / disagreement letters frcm local and state agencies were not included.

We also said that these were being obtained and that they would be forsarded upon receipt.

Attached are 10 cooies of the connent letters from the three counties within the 10 mile radius and the State of California.

These letters should be inccrporated in Appendix B of the Center for Planning and Research Inc. report which acccmpanied our January 31, 1980 letter.

Submittal of these letters fulfills the recuirements of the November 29, 1979 letter from Brian K. Grimes to All Operator Reactor Li:ensees.

If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact

'1r. Don Martin on (916) 452-3211, utension 603.

Si nce rely,

!b~lb

/

John J. Mattimoe Assistant General Manaaer and Chief Engineer Attachment 8002270 M y

.,s

I STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor I OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES b

Post oFFict aox 9577 5 A(..MENTo, CALIFORNIA 93073 (916) 421-4990 l

.,1L d g '

- ~,

February 19, 1980 I

Mr. Don Martin SMUD - Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95813

Dear Mr. Martin:

The State of California, Office of Emergency Services has reviewed and concurs in the findings outlined by the Center for Planning and Research (CPR), Inc.,

in their report " Evacuation Time Estimates for Areas Near the Rancho Seco Power Plant."

This information was developed consistent with the requirements set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in their letter to all power reactor licensees, dated November 28, 1979.

Although the Office of Emergency Services concurs in the general findings in the report, we have concerns and reservations regarding (1) the criteria used to determine the time for alerting of the general population, (2) the use of shelter as the basic countermeasure for the Preston School of Industry, and (3) the neces-sity of outlining the time to verify extent of evacuation. Our concern is based on the following:

1.

Reference is made to the existing plan and the alert procedures described in this plan.

It implies shortcomings in the alert procedures of the present plan without emphasizing that this plan only covers the low population zone (LPZ) ;

5 miles around the facility. The parameters for alerting in the LPZ were used as the basis for computing time to alert the population out to 10 miles.

This is unrealistic and although there is reference that alert times would be reduced if additional personnel and resources are used, it still leaves the reader with the impression an inordinate amount of time would be required to alert the population. Obviously, when plans are developed for the 10-mile or I

greater emergency planning =one, alert procedures will be given considerable attention and a better definition of alert times will evolve.

2.

The Preston School of Industry houses approximately 500 inmates and as indi-I cated in the report there isn't sufficient transportation available on-site to evacuate them.

Since 275 of the prisoners are considered hard-core, spe-cial caged buses would be required. The Center for Planning and Research recommends sheltering in the dining hall as an alternative to evacuation. We question the wisdom of such action. Considering that they may be confined in this mrea for a long period of time, could lead to an explosive situation; fights and knifing's occur frequently at this facility. Again, when the 10-mile or greater plans are prepared, special consideration will be given this problem. The counties involved in this planning effort will be working with the California Youth Authority and other law enforcement agencies in a detailed analysis of the evacuation possibilities for the Preston facility.

Don Martin - p2 3.

The requirement by the NRC that an estimate be made of the time to verify evacuation is questioned.

In reviewing the " Guide and Checklist for the Development of Emergency Plans" NUREG 75/111 and the recently issued NUPIG-0654, there is no requirement that evacuation verification be considered.

The CPR Report cites excellent reasons why it isn't always feasible to ask residents to identify that they have indeed vacated their home.

In addition, I

there remains the question of what do you do if the party hasn't left and refuses to do so.

Will the Sheriff forcibly remove them and if so does he have the right to take such actions?

Considering the time constraints under which the Center for Planning and Research had to work, they did an excellent job in compiling evacuation time estimates.

They are to be commended for their effort; this information will be invaluable when Sacramento and adjacent counties begin preparation of revised emergency response plans consistent with California and NRC requirements.

Sincerely, N

JohnJ. Ke Assistant Di~ rector I

I I

I I

I

I jenoj.u,. sic,oi,,eie, O* 3 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO I

4

~

• k DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES to b]

4 9e.ns an a.d. C Q a?

FEB 15133 i

February 15, 1980 I

Mr. Don Martin I

Environmental Specialist Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street, Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95813

Dear Don:

The following are my comments on the report prepared for SMUD by the Center for Planning and Research, Inc. (CPR) dated January 30, 1980 and entitled I

" Evacuation Time Estimate for A reas Near Rancho Seco Power Plant":

1.

I appreciated the opportunity to work with you and the staff of I

CPR during the conduct of the study. We were favorably im-pressed with the CPR staff assigned to conduct the study, and although I do not agree with their time estimates, much of what they did will be of value to Amador, Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties during our updated planning for Rancho Seco.

2.

I agree with the population data, sector distribution and design population as presented in Section II.

3.

I agree with the data and findings in Section III, Special Evac-uation Conside rations.

4.

I agree with the data and findings in Section IV, Evacuation Route s.

I 5.

With respect to the sector selection in Section V, Movement A nalysis, I would have preferred a selection based on prevailing winds; howeve r, this is a minor point.

I 6.

With reference to the balance of Section V beginning with " Analysis Methodology" on page V-4 through tables V-1, V-2 and V-4 which provide the evacuation time estimates, I have several problems with the differing terminology and definition of the various 3700 BRANCil CENTER ROAD e SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (>5827 = TELEPilONE (916) 366-2111

Mr. Don Martin Februa ry 15, 1980 parameters which constitute an evacuation used by NRC and CPR.

I also have problems with the manner in which NRC presented the questions and criteria for the development of estimates.

7.

I do not have the time, money nor resources available to evaluate alerting / preparation time formulas used by CPR. My basic I

reaction is that they are probably better than the rather simplistic evacuation formula used in the WASH-1400 report.

8.

I question the inclusion of the notification time included by CPR since, in my judgement, it was not requested by NRC. In addition, if such notification time is a factor to be considered, I

I think it begins from the onset of the incident, as discussed in Section VII.

9.

My primary reason for not concurring with the time estimates is that the study utilizes only the resources which were determined by Sacramento County for its 5 mile LPZ plan. It is quite obvious that additional resources will be required to evacuate an area over four times as large and extending into two additional counties.

A s a result, these time estimates are essentially meaningless.

10.

The travel time estimates for all the sectors analyzed appear reas onable.

I 11.

I can't really comment on the evacuation verification data. I have never heard or read of evacuation planning using markers --

I and I doubt if it would be accepted by the public.

Since rely, f

i

/l.

4 H. B. White Eme rgency Operations Coordinator I

HBW:pw cc:

State OES Amador County El Dorado County I

E o, t., Q 55 %

[ _ 10 CR

. r"-r. b COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 2\\

g, e -

Jl Mg g { 3,ggc.,:..UU8 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

,/

Roome 401. Countwovsa coo 4DiNATOR IJAF h>'

222 EAST WEBER AVENUE y

STOCKTON. CALIFORNI A 952o2 TELspwows a 209 i 944 2111 February 13, 1980 I

Mr. Donald W. Martin Environmental Specialist Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street Sacramento, California 95813

Dear Mr. Martin:

The report (Evacuation Time Estimates for Areas Near Rancho Seco Power Plant), submitted by Center for Planning and Research, Inc.,

has been reviewed by the San Joaquin County and City of Stockton Offices of Emergency Services and is considered to be a thoroughly researched document that should prove to be very helpful in the development of a comprehensive plan for Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant.

The data presented in the report may provide a base for the individual county's emergency plans.

At this time we have no opposition to any of the information presented in this report.

We appreciate the cooperation we have received from SMUD officials.

Sincerely, Georp,e Nelson Cleo Janiw Assistant Director Coordinator Emergency Services Emergency Services City of Stockton San Joaquin County CJ:GN/hld

fon co.i

~A AMADOR COUNTY - CALAVERAS COUNTY f,4pb I

,,. [. a OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

, > yEfg I

COLLEEN ROB ERTSON, COORDIN ATOR 4

A MADOR COUNTY CALAVERAS COUNTY Y

COU RT HOU SE GOVERNM ENT CENTER h')R 5\\

IFO

ace SON. ca. 95s42 sas *N onEAs. ca. 95249 209'223-t 3 63 209/754-4458 I

e ~. 2 1. j a

,. o February 19, 1980 F:a g

Don !artin, Envirorcnental Specialist D M Sacramento :hnicipal Utility District 0:01 S Street, Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95813 dear Don:

Re:

Evacuation Time Estimates For Areas Near Rancho Seco Power Plant Final Report dated January 30, 1980; Submitted by Center for Planning and Research, Inc.

I had only briefly reviewed the final draft of the subject report before the meeting I

on January 20th.

Since that time I have had five key people in our County govern-ment review the report. The following comments are a sumary of that review.

The total time of 250 minutes to evacuate Segaents 1-3-5 is too optimistic for the I

following reasons:

Section II.

Population Distribution I

.se feel the population figures plotted on Figure II-2 are not current, and within six months or a year will be far outdated. Sector G shows the popu-lation as 5.

This sector includes the north shore of Camanche. A new sub-division is being built in this area; some homes are completed, others will be completed iis year.

Section III.

Special Evacuation Considerations I

ine report states tnat most of tne stucents at Ione Elementary and Ione High Schoc1 would be picked up by parents evacuating the area, and that arrangement could be made with the school district to take the children from the MOl Day Care Center by bus. The principal of Ione High School recently I

attempted to evacuate the school because of a gas leak.

It is his opinion that it is not realistic to have the parents pick up the children. The traffic congestion in the small area causes chaos.

Special considerations are definitely necessary in this case.

-Section IV.

Evacuation Routes he nave no prcblem witn this section.

Section V.

Movement Analysis Die alerting procecure gives us the most problem. The heliccpter with I

FA system would take the shortest alerting time.

But there are too many " ifs" to w ke it dependable.

If the helicopter were assigned to this function on a I

I Don Martin February 19, 1980 24-hour basis, kept fully maintained and fueled; if wind and weather conditions were right; etc. The alternative under existing conditions would be door to door alerting using patrol cars.

Recently the Sheriff's department attempted to alert citizens in an outlying area. This was done during daylight and was I

not urgent timewise. Two of the biggest problems encountered were locked gates and getting lost.

To alert the population in the dark, with time the most important factor - if six patrol cars were available, to cover three sectors would take 5 or 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

Adverse weather (fog, rain, muddy roads) would add to the total time.

VI.

Evacuation Verification Since the total time involved in just alerting the population is excessive, trying to determine verification time estimates would be meaningless.

VII. Alternative Protective Actions sneltering the residents of Preston School of Industry instead of trying to evacuate them seems to be advisable.

Attempting to keep the general population in place during a radiological I

emergency would be a problem. The instinctive action will be to move out.

We do appreciate the work done by the CPR staff during their study. The data they have compiled and made available to us will be valuable as we continue our local planning.

Sincerely, Amador County Office of Emergency Services I

/

/

L j7^&

I Colleen Rooertson, Coordinator cc Hal White, Sacramento OES I

I I

I I

I