ML20041C361

Responds to Util 820212 Supplemental Info Provided in Response to NRC 820202 Ltr Re Revised Evacuation Time Estimates.Util Info Sufficient to Consider Study to Be Reasonable Estimate of Evacuation Times

ML20041C361
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	02/22/1982
From:	Urbanik T TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
To:	Barth C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20041C358	List: ML20041C361
References
NUDOCS 8203010216
Download: ML20041C361 (3)

Text

.

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STATION TEXAS N3136 THANSPORT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (713) gas.tsss February 22, 1982 Mr. Charles Barth U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Barth:

The following is in response to the February 12, 1982 supplemental infor-mation supplied by E. A. Borgmann of Cincinnati Gas and Electric. The supplemental information was provided in response to a February 2, 1982 letter from Mr. B. J. Youngblood requesting a revised evacuation time submittal. The basis of my review is NUREG 0654, Appendix 1, a site visit to the Zimmer EPZ and rqy experience with nuclear power plant sites around the U.S.

Respor.se to Item 1.

The data on the evacuation road network (Table 1 and Figure 1) is compre-hensive and well presented. The capacities are shown to be in excess of the 1000 vehicles per hour used in the evacuation time estimate study.

The merging of three primary evacuation routes, near Alexandria, has been appropriately considered as indicated in Figure 1 and the supporting text.

The population data (929 residents) supports the lack of a capacity prob-lem in Felicity.

Response to Item 2.

The supplemental data indicates that New Richmond is the only area where capacity is a consideration at vehicle demands in excess of those used in the study. The CG&E material also indicated the increased time required using a higher number of vehicles. Adequate consideration has, therefore, been given to this issue.

Response to Item 3.

The question of bottlenecks has appropriately been addressed and explained.

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH ANO DEVELOPMENT i 9203010216 820224 PDR ADOCK 05000358 l G PDR

I Mr. Charles Barth Washington, D. C. 1 February 22, 1982 l Page 2 1 1

Response to Item 4.

Revised population data has been provided and its impact evaluated.

Adequate consideration has, therefore, been given to this issue.

Response to Item 5.

Consideration has been given to the impact of various plant activities on evacuation times. No further consideration appears appmpriate.

Response to Item 6.

The areas subject to flooding and sliding have been identified. The necessary information is, therefore, available for decision-making. I do take exception to the statement on page 20 "... the road presents no special con-siderations for normal, adverse, or any other evacuation scenario." Certainly if a roadway were to become blocked due to sliding or flooding, special con-sideration would include alternative routing or removal of the blockage. The previous comment notwithstanding, the potential flooding and sliding locations have been identified and the appropriate action can be taken if required. The issue has, therefore, been considered as requested.

Response to Item 7.

The response to Item 7 adequately addresses the question.

Response to Item 8.

Provision has been made to identify the location and numbers of transpor-tation dependent. This method is certainly superior to estimating their number.

Adquate resources also appear to be available to handle the transportation de-pendent within the time frame necessary to handle the general population.

Response to Item 9.

The response to Item 7 adequately addresses this question.

Response to Item 10.

The response adequately explains the inappropriateness of comparing the two studies.

Response to Item 11.

The adverse weather scenario is " conservative" based on the intended purpose of an adverse weather scenario. The word " conservative" is used in the sense that the time estimate is likely to be in excess of the time actually mquired

-+. ._

Mr. Charles Barth j Washington, D. C.  :

February 22, 1982 Page 3 for typical rain or light snow conditions. It should be noted that evacuation time estimates should not be overly " conservative" because their purpose is to select between alternative protective actions.

Response to Item 12.

The conclusion that Clermont County plans not to evacuate into Brown County will have little effect on evacuation time estimates appears to be reasonable.

No change in the evacuation time estimate appears to be warranted.

In conclusion, the supplemental data supplied by CG&E is sufficient to consider their evacuation time estimate study to be a reasonable estimate of evacuation times and consistent with the guidance of NUREG 0654.

Sincerely, Thomas Urbanik II Assistant Research Engineer TU:bb cc: Mitzte Solberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Pam Cunrnings Battelle PNL P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352

_ . . . - . , , , _ . , .. , . - -