ML20235B012
| ML20235B012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1988 |
| From: | Urbanik T AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Kantor F NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235B016 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#189-8168 2.206, NUDOCS 8901260090 | |
| Download: ML20235B012 (3) | |
Text
,
M4NM
'TECMAS URBANIX II g'/ ([
'12 Pont Oak Bend Road ffB ggg M
Ir College Station, Texas 77843-9hf*
7,.-
7 September 29, 1988
,9 i
Falk Kantor U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7
FEB - 91989M12 Washington, D.
C.
20555-9 DOCKETWG &
2RVICE BRAUCil 7
Dear Mr. Kantor:
'Y J
Dg I have' reviewed the " Pilgrim Station Evacuation Time Estimates and, Traffic Management Plan Update" prepared by KLD Associates dated August 25, 1988.
Although this document is numbered revision 0,
a draft was issued on August 18, 1988; the current. version represents revisions as the result of review and I
ongoing work.
The current estimates are extensive.
They represent the results of continuing planning based on a number of studies.
I must express, however, a concern regarding the precision implied by 242 cases (up from 90 a year earlier).
Although sensitivity studies are useful in understanding the characteristics of the
)
evacuation process, there would seem to be a limit to the number of~ estimates.that are useful in a plan.
Moreover, organization of the information is a concern - as,the document becomes voluminous'.
Appendix I'has 185 traffic control diagrams and no index.
'These concerns, although not specifically covered in NUREG-0654, are offered as an observation of a process that has evolved - over several years of plan refinement.
Although the
~ extensive analyses are useful in developing an understanding of the variables, a summary of significant factors and scenarios may be appropriate with some supporting analysis presented as appendices.
The following-summarizes my review relative to the guidance of NUREG 0654, Appendix 4.
Planning element J.10.a is met, the assumptions are reasonable, the methodology is acceptable, the demand estimates a~e provided (pursuant to planning element J.10.b) for permanent residents, transients, and special facilities, the appropriate EPZ and sub-areas are established, traffic capacities including network and roadway characteristics are
- provided, the results are appropriately presented, confirmation times are provided and the plans have been reviewed.
The only qualification concerning the ETE study are the lack of details concerning traffic control beyond the EPZ.
Specifically, limited detail concerning traffic diversion and control on Route 3 southbound, at Norwell and' separation of Cape Cod and evacuating traffic west of Borne Rotary are provided.. Furthermore, -control points that provide both access and traffic control should indicate which movements have priority 1
b g
y:osL^
r-
~
36 tio cxp:dito Gvacutting trOffic.
A rsvicw cf th2 tha traffic signing and diversion plan in the vicinity of Norwell should.be made and a review of traffic control west of Borne Rotary would be appropriate.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,(
M Thomas Urbanik II, PH.D.,
P.E.
cc: J. A. MacLellan, Battelle PNL 8
e
-)
I 's 4
9