ML20117J450
| ML20117J450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000128 |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1985 |
| From: | Urbanik T TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX |
| To: | Matthews D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8505150104 | |
| Download: ML20117J450 (2) | |
Text
--
y THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STATION TEXAS 77843-3135 TRANSPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (409) 845-1535 May 6, 1985 Dave Matthews U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Emergency Preparedness Washington, DC 20555
Dear Dave:
I believe that we need to move ahead in an area of evacuation time estimate studies as they relate to current technology in general and IDYNEV in particular.
Based on my experience in licensing hearings and other events like Maine Yankee, it is time to move ahead in order to avoid potential future problems for NRC.
I do not believe that I can continue to be effective for NRC staff if we do not address some fundamental issues underlying how evacuation time estimate studies are done and how FEMA will affect present and future evacuation time estimate studies.
Historically, evacuation time estimates were defended against criticism that they were too low. We have apparently driven that point home and current contentions often deal with the relevancy of assumptions. As you might easily conclude, it is more difficult to defend the absolute magnitude of assumptions, than it is to defend their reasonableness. That is to say, it is easier to convince someone that an estimate is not low than it is to convince someone that the estimate is accurate.
More recently, FEMA has begun to get involved in evacuation time estimates per se. This involvement further exasperates the issue of assumptions. This involvement of FEMA is likely to increase as it is clearly within their domain.
In order for NRC to be in a strong posture relative to evacuation time estimates, I must be able to move forward coiicerning the state-of-the-art relative to evacuation time estimate studies. Otherwise, I am not going to be able to function effectively on behalf of NRC.
IDYNEV clearly represents state-of-the-art technology in evacuation time estimates. The IDYNEV model does not represent FEMA technology, but only FEMA packaging of U.S. Department of Transportation models.
I suggest we collaborate with FEMA and. IDYNEV while maintaining a strong NRC capability. This will avoid cost of developing a similar capability and the inevitable battles over computer g,@2. model s.
h Y
in" m nuun y
PDR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
.)
My proposal is to develop NRC capability relative to IDYNEV in order to accomplish two objectives. First, development of the capability protects NRC's position relative to evacuation time estimates.
Second, development of that capability will allow informed revision of Appendix 4 in a manner that can be defended.
In order to proceed, a computer tie to FEMA's Integrated Emergency Manage-ment Information Systems (IEMIS) would be required. This would require $20,000 for a color terminal, 4800 baud error correcting modem, and printer. This equip-ment allows full system capability.
In addition, sufficient staff time would be required to become familiar with the system.
In addition, I would propose that we do some sensitivity studies similar to those done for CLEAR. A budget of $70,000 (including hardware) would be required for this undertaking. A more specific proposal could be developed if NRC was interested in pursuing this matter.
In closing, I believe we are at a decision point for NRC relative to evacu-ation time estimates. NRC needs either to commit to additional development work in this area, or pass the ball to FEMA.
Because FEMA has yet to operation-alize its responsibility in this area, I believe it is in NRC's best interest to continue involvement in evacuation time estimates.
Sincerely, L
b Thomas Urbanik II Program Manager TU:kab cc: Matt Moeller, Battelle PNL J.A. Mac Lellan, Battelle PNL P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352