ML19345C228
| ML19345C228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Cosby J, Sheppard W, Thompson W WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012040180 | |
| Download: ML19345C228 (51) | |
Text
V-//
VOLUME X
1 i
i AN l
l\\ J E 3 E N D E.\\ T ASSESS V ENT O:: EVACUAT;ON TIMES FOR l
THREE MILE ISL A ND 4
i i
\\UC_ EAR POWER 3 _ ANT i
t i
l Prepared for FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY mEf:f174' nuccuoszur$'dj7oeurt=axa:Rllg="3 i
G)hYhat SPmi/4 and A.ucciates JUNE,1980 801204ORO p
W ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
'The independent assessment of the evacuation times contained in this report was performed under the technical direction of John.C. Cosby.
Mr. William V. Sheppard, Vice President, was the Principal-in-Charge of the Project.
The principal contributors to the individual volumes of the report were:
Volume I
- Program Recort
- John C.
Cosby Volume II
- Bailly
- James R. Bancroft Volume III
- Beaver Valley
- Richard A.
Day Volume IV
- Enrico Fermi
- Elbert L. Waters Volume V
- Limerick George S. Coulter, Jr.
Volume VI
- Maine Yankee Robe r*. P. Jurasin Volume VII
- Midland James R. Bancrof t and Elbert L. Waters volume VIII - Millstone Frank LaMagna Volume IX
- Shoreham E.
Dean Browner Volume X
- Three Mile Island - Welbourne E. Thompson All reports were revised and edited by John C. Cosby and H. Dean Browner.
All of the above persennel are permanent empicyees of Wilbur Smith and Associates.
i l
l l
l l
TAILE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1
Evacuation Time Assessment Versus Evacuation Plan 2
General Assumptions 3
Description of the Site 6
.lcensee
/
u Type of Plant 7
Emergency Planning Area 7
General Regional Characteristics 8
Support Organizations 10 Summary of Emergency Planning 10 AREA CEARAC'" ERISTICS 11 Meteorological Characteristics 11 Planning Characteristics 12 Special Problem Areas 15 CONCEPT OF EVACUATICN 20 Notification of Evacuation 20 Public Respense Time 21 Evacuation Link /Nede Network 23 Special Transportation Requirements 37 EVACUATION TIME ASSESSMENT 39 Normal Work Day 39 Nighttime Cenditions 42 Summertime Recreation Peak 42 Adverse Conditiens 42 Sector Evacuatien 42
ILLUSTRATIONS FOLLOWS FIGURE PAGE 1
Study Site Lccation 7
2 Evacuation Network 23 3
Evacuation Network 23 4
Evacuation Network 23 5
Fvacuation Network 23 TABULATIONS TABLE PAGE 1
Jurisdictions Within 10-Mile EP 13 2
Education Facilities, Three Mile Island EPZ 16 3
Hospitals, Three Mile Island EPZ 17 4
Nursing Hemes, Dauphin and Lancaster Counties 19 5
Network Description 24 6
Vehicle en Each Link, Normal Workday 30 7
Evacuatien Route Link Nede Description, 33 By Centreid 8
Evacuation Times, By Centroid 40 1
e
INTRODUC'" ION An independent assessment of evacuation times around nine nuclear power plant sites was made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The results of this three-month study are centained in ten vclu=es, as follcus :
Volura I
- Program Report - Evacuatien Tira Assessment of Nine Nuclear Pcwer Plant Emergency Planning Zenes (EPZ's)
Bailly Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Tira Vclu=e II Assessment Volume III
- Beaver Valley Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Time Assessment Volura IV
- Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Assessment Volume V
- Limerick Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Time Assessment Maine Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Volume VI Time Assessment Midland Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation Time Volume VII Assessmert Volume VIII - Millstone Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacua~lon Time Assessment Shoreham Nuclear ?ower Plant Evacuation Time Volume IX Assessment Three Mile Island Nuclear Pcwer Plant Volura X Evacuation Time Assessment In addition, an Executive Su==ary is also available.
This volume centains the evacuation time assessment for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant.
The evaluation of four scenarios and the discussion of evacuation of special problem l
l i
i l
I
I 6
areas are included.
The scenarios evaluated are these expected when evacuation takes place at night (the optimum time frcm the standpcint of evacuation time), during a normal workday, during bad weather (the worst case conditicn), and, where applicable, the evacuation with su=mertime resident and transient population.
Evacuation Time Assessment-Versus Evacuation Plan The assessment employs available demographic data and trans-pertation f acility information to predict the public respense time to an evacuation warning en the assumption that such a warn-ing is made within 15 minutes of un en-site nuclear incident warranting such emergency action.
The assessment must provide for estimates of public respense time to these warnings, as'sembly of family and other groups,
preparation for departure, travel time on the network including censideration of capacity limitations en the network possibly formang queues which add to delays, and clearance of the 10-mile radius arcund the site.
It mus t consider the evacuation of special prchlem areas and grcups.
These would include schools, nurseries,
nursing and re tirement homes, hospitals, penal f acilities, beaches and recreational areas, and other activities which may provide periodic or seasonal concentrations of people.
Population groups without access to their own transportation or unable to provide the special transportation facilities required for evacuation must be included in the evacuation time assessment.
Evacuation time assessment methodology combines selected techniques of traf fic =anagement and planning, land use planning and operational analysis.
Because some conditions prevailing during an evacuation are not well documented, mcdifications to l l i
i
l scme established principles may be required te meet evacuation requirements.
Assu=ptions may be required in lieu of well formu-lated relationships because of the highly specialized problems being addressed.
These assumptions must be founded on best pro-fessional judgement and/or extrapolation frem existing knowledge.
The assumption' m.st be specifically identified.
The bases upon which the assumptions are founded should be appropriately dis-cussed.
Evacuation time assessments contain basic methodology cc= men to evacuation plan develcpment.
However, the assessment is not an evacuation plan.
The majcr distinction between the assessment and a plan is the extent to which the elements have been coordi-nated with all participant agencies and jurisdictions.
For
~
example, the assessment may assume that a specific traffic management eierent is established to optimize traffic cperations at a specific location alcng an evacuation network.
The feasi-bility of such an element in the assessment would be based upcn established technical principles.
Ecwever, the element would not be coordinated with specific law enforcement agencies to establish what agency would exercise the element centrol and management nor identify the type and number of persennel to be require d.
The study time allected makes such cocrdination im-possible.
The assessment must identify what is required for the evacuation time to be realized, and assume that such an eierent would be implemented.
General Assumotions In the assessment of evacuation times,
ertain general assumptiens were mandatory.
More important cf these are su=ma-rized as follcws:
1.
Emergency evacuatien of the general public frem the EPZ will be perforred largely from the hone by the family as a united (
I hum >
group.
This assumption is prefaced by the folicwing quote: I )
people will not evacuate an area, regardless of the danger, if their family group is separated, unless they knew that members of their f amily are safe, accounted for, and that arrangements have been made for them to evacuate."
It was felt that this psychological pressure is so prevalent and strong that the acove assumption appears to be justified.
In addition, to assure that segments of the f amily are safe and accounted for would have requir,ad the establishment of shelter locations and the develop-ment of a shelter support plan.
In view of the next ass umption and due to the short time period of the study, this was not done.
2.
Public use of shelters in previous mass evacuation exper-ience related to natural disasters appears to be a very small percentage cf total evacuees.
Examples cited in literature include:I )
"In a California flood, only 9,260 out of 50,000 persons evacuated registered in the 38 Red Cross shelters ; during Hurricane Carla, 75 percent of the evacuees went to other than public shelters; and during Eurricane Setsy, only 20 percent requested assistance.
Generally, shelter centers are used only if nothing else is available or if one cannot financially care for himself. "
In this evacuation time assessment study, it was assumed that the predominant traffic, after leaving the 10-mile EP", went diverse routes rather than to a shelter destination.
Therefore, the evacuation time assessment ended at the EP Z boundary.
An analysis of route capacities and service levels of highway f acilities beyond that boundary was made to assure that delays or problems were unlikely to occur.
(1)
EVACUATICN RISKS - AN EVAI.UATION, U.S. Envircnmental Pro-l tection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA-520/6 l 002, June, 1974, p. 49.
(2)
Ibid., p. 52.
l 1
1 l l
3.
Experience gained in a large range of evacuations indi-cates that privato vehicles (3)
. were the predominant mode for evacuation (more than 99 percent).
Pcpulation density ranged from approximately 15 persons per square =ile to 20,000 persons per square =ile. "
It was assumed that this was applicable to this time assessment study.
It was further assumed that persens without private vehicle transportation would be provided, at their telephcne request, adequate transportation in high occu-pancy vehicles (ECV's).
The additional vehicle volumes en the network wculd therefore be small, could be affected during the general public evacuation time, and would not affect the ecmputed evacuation times of the general pcpulation.
4.
It has been cbserved that not all persens will evacuate th e EP Z.
"In many cases, even when presented with a grave threau, people refuse to evacuate. "I4)
This source centinues, "Results of this study indicate that approximately six percent of the total populatien refused to evacuate.
Other reports indicate this figure can run as high as 50 percent.
There is ne reascn to believe that because the disaster agent is radiation rather than some other agent
. will provide sufficient =ctivation to le ave.
Rather the opposite viewpoint should be taken--people will hesitate te leave. "(5)
It is believed that a majority of this hesitance is based en fear of exposing their property to looting and vandalism.
Notwithstanding this evidence, this time assessment study assumed that all persons evacuate.
5.
It has been assumed that the traf fic entwork within the EPZ has been isolated so that no through traffic is permitted to enter it within 15 minutes after the evacuation warning has been iss ue d.
t l
(3)
Ibid., p. 52.
l l
(4)
Ibid., p.
48.
l (5)
Loc. ci t.
l
~
O O
lll111 i
6.
Traffic management by appropriate law enforcement officers will be performed at selected intersections where evacuation
- af fic ficw is given priority.
7.
All persons in the EPZ have been provided, in advance, sufficient information regarding the assigned evacuation route from their place of residence (referred to as the " centroid" in the report).
3.
It was assumed that the public response to an evacuation order can be defined as a combination of up to four categories of statistically distributed respenses :
receive warnine, le ave werk, travel home, and evacuate heme.
It was assumed that these responses are time-distributed following a nor=al distributien curve.
The details and applicatiens of this assumption are more fully discussed later in this report.
Additional assumptions were made which are discussed in the bcdy of chis report.
Description of de Site The Three Mile Island nuclear power facility is located on the Susquiehanna River, 11.22 miles southeast of Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania.
The site is enecmpassed by portiens of five counties:
Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and Yo rk.
Major popu-lation centers within the 10-mile radius include Swatara Town-ship, Derry Scwnship, a portion of Harrisburg City, Middletcwn Borough and Steelton Borough in Dauphin County, New Cumberland Scrough in Cumberland Ccunty, Elizabethtown Borough in Lancaster Ccunty and Fairview Township in York County.
Dauphin County represents 124,013 residents or about 6 3 percent of the estimated 195,000 10-mile radius pcpulation, i
Illili J
Licensee The licensee for Three Mile Island is the Metropolitan Ediscn Ccmpany and Jersey Central Pcwer and Light Ocmpany.
The NSSS Vendor is Babcock and Wilcox Company, and the Architects and Engineers are Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Type of Plant The system at Three Mile Island consists of two pressurized water reactors with a capacity of 1,706 megawatts.
Unit One cenmenced cperation in 1974 with a capacity of 800 megawatts and Unit Two started in 1978, with 906 megawatts.
E=ercency Planning Area A 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear pcwer plant is recom-
= ended for the delineation of the emergency planning :ene (EPZ).
The 10-=ile radius surrounding Three Mile Island enccmpasses all of, or portiens of, 38 Boroughs or Townships in five counties.
The planning area was established to adhere to the 10-mile radius as much as possible.
Scundaries were delineated to coin-cide with readily identifiable landmarks such as rivers, j uris-dictional boundaries, major readways, mad cther well known topo-graphical features.
The peripheral boundaries will assist the local agencies implementing the plan and the pecple affected by evacuation to identify the 10-mile radius limit and avoid the pcssibility of evacuating pecple beyond the 10-mile radius.
For areas within the 10-mile radius, 'Ibwnships and acroughs were used as planning :enes.
Figure 1 depicts the planning area boundaries, the 10-mile radius, the the townships and boroughs.
The planning area boundary along the north generally follcws U.S.
Route 22, Legislative Route 22071, Township Rcute 40 7, and the northern limits of South Hanover Township.
7
!9,$ g g.'.
\\*M
's 5
y y}
~
W E
'9 0UTH j
L li O s
j V,E,,R '
- h.. '**
7 O
N, HANO q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I,;,,
,'~
M
\\
\\ W..
s x.. {... !,.._ _ _ _ _
._ s
.~- /
m_
~
-~~-' / ~
..x.
\\
\\
N[
e'
,,. ~ '
s
, w A m.a=,
g o vja s
w
^
i
,N CONZW wO 7 0' 4 T A MA
/
Y
\\
/
s'-
s s
's, j
t; f~
V
{
/
.. ~
l n... u. e...e
.!.s7's7a y
a
~*>\\,g 7
y a
/y e
use eo* w
<s.
\\-. ~g
/
- a7-L....rs. s a o-4.
,(
(#
/
pi 2
R R
Y y
N
.......L i
\\
D N E G A L L
.k<
5",
C N O Y(
WAR NGTON
,' \\
s
~
l
'......./
,J
~
A I
(
,..,2.-
\\
7
~~ \\'
f
[
EA 37
/
(
C 0 N
,T.
W G
g e.w..
g 2
=..a A M
G A
L L.
q
,~ff'
. p.....
~
-~
s M
NCHE TER\\
N l
'a If
/
- D 0
V E
R S
a E
L L
A M
. ~'. y-j
..[ M R
~
/'
A... >
/
l A
4/
/
j s
y c l
l STUDY SITE LOCATION EVACUATION TIME ASSESSMENT THREE MILE ISLAND Wake.ha/A and.duesales FIGURE 1 I
b The eastern bcundary generally parallels the western limits of North Londenderry and Londonderry Tcwnships, Township Rcute 326, Legislat_ve Routes 36117, 36068, 36124, 36069, and Tcwnship Route 827.
The southern limit generally follcws Legislative Routes 66089, 66019, 66086, Manchester Township southern boundary, and Legislative Route 66102.
Along the western boundary, the planning area limit folicws Tcwnship Route 823, State Routes 74 and 177, Legislative Route 66026 and Yellcw Breeches Creek.
General Recional Characteristics Three W 'a Tsland is situated in the Great Valley formed by the eastern foothills of the Appalachian chain.
It is in a saucer-like bcwl, south of Blue Mountain, which serves as a barrier to provide a =cdifying influence upon the severe winter climate experienced 50 to 100 miles to the north and west.
Because of the saucer-like bowl, ceci air is frequently trapped, and f avors fog formation, which is re=cved only by a vigorcus change in air mass.
Fortunately, the air masses change with some regularity, and any one condition does not persist for many days in succession.
Maj or Pcpulation Centers - Within the 10-mile radius, the re are 13 urbani:ed areas representing an estimated resident popu-lation of approximately 85,000.
Dauphin County has about 59,700 residents, or about 70 percent of the urban population.
The larrest concentration of residents is located in the portien of Harrisburg within the 10-mile radius and the area southeast along the river between Steelton and Middletcwn Bercugh.
This area contains an estimated 52,300 residents.
_g.
lililli Swatara Tcwnship, located i==ediately e ast of Harrisburg, is estimated to contain abcut 21,000 resident pcpulaticn.
Other densely populated areas include:
Derry Tcwnship and Hu==elst wn Borough in Dauphin County, estimated to have abet.t 21,400 resi-dent pcpulation; New Cumberland Scrough, a pcpulation of about 10,300; and el 4 -="ethtown Scrough in York Ccunty, an estimated pcpulation of about 9,400.
The total resident population within the 10-mile radius is estimated to be approximately 195,500.
Major Transportation Facilities - Three interstate routes serve the area within the 10-mile radius.
Interstate Route 76, Pennsylvania Turnpike, generally serves the EPZ in an east-west dire ction.
Interstate Route 283 serves the urban area north between State Route 28 3 and State Route 322 in Dauphin Ccunty.
Interstate Rcute 33 serves the eastern seg=ent of the EPZ in a north-scuch direction in York County, then crosses the Susquehanna River easterly into Dauphin County and proceeds northerly, east of Harrisburg, ter=inating at I-81 north of the EP3.
Several state routes serve the EPZ as major links in the evacuation network.
State Route 322, a four-lane divided f acility,
serves the northern portion of the EPZ in an east-west dire ction.
State Route 293 is a four-lane divided facility from I-283 east-erly and southeasterly in Dauphin and Lancaster Counties.
State Route 230 is basically a twc-lane facility generally paralleling the Susquehanna River frem I-83 south of Harrisburg throughout the EP southeasterly.
State Route 181, a two-lane facility, serves York County residents from York Haven southerly, terminating at I-8 3 south of the EPZ limits.
i.
lililli Support Crganizatiens In case of an emergency, close coordina icn between Federal, State, and local agencies is imperative to provide the responsi-bility necessary to ensure c derly implementation cf an evacua-tien plan.
Suppc rt agencies expected to coordinate activities in the Three Mile area are :
1.
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 2.
Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency 3.
Cumberland County Erargency Management Agency 4.
Lancaster County E=crge cy Management Agency 5.
York County E=ergency Management Agency 6.
- uclear Regulatory Cc==ission 7.
Sureau of Radiation P ctection 8.
Local Municipalities, such as police, fire, and other public of ficials necessary to carry cut control cf the plan S u==ary of E=ergen cv Planning To date, an evacuation plan has not been developed for Three Mile Island.
Ecwe ve r, the Pennsylvania Emergency Planning Agency has develcped a planning estimate of evacuation times associated with Three Mile Island for 2,
5-and 10-mile evacuations.
Since the initial planning estimate for the 10-mile evacuation, a 20-mile evacuation estimate has been prepared.
These plans were prepared by the Pennsylvania E=ergency Management Agency in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Cepart-ment of Transportation.
APIA CHARACTERISTICS The area characteristics were obtained by field investiga-tiens, discussions with State and Local Emergency Planning Agencies, Local Planning Commissions, Pennsylvania Oepartment of Transportation, discussions with the Licensee, and a preliminary planning estimate of evacuation times prepared by the Pennsylvania Emergency Planning Agency in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Meteolecical Characteristics The area is favorably located to receive precipitations produced when warm, maritime air from the Atlantic Ocean is forced upslope to cross the Blue Ridge Mountains.
The mean annual precipitation for the region is 33.12 inches with August recording a mean rainfall of 3.72 inches.
Prolonged dry spells occur occasionally.
The annual mean snowfall is 35.5 inches with January and February having a mean snowfall of 9.6 inches each.
A. maximum of 21 inches fell in a 24-hour period in January of 1961.
Normal monthly temperatures average from 30.1 degrees in January to 76.1 degrees in July.
Floodine - Flood stage on the Susquehanna River occurs on the average of about every three years in Harrisburg, but sericus flooding is much less frequent.
About one-third of all floods have occured during March.
The Flood of 1972 was the highest on record, cresting at 32.57 feet at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 2 4 th.
This was 15.57 feet above flood stage and 3.34 feet above l
Ih>
l 1
the :tarch 19, 1936 crest.
Rain from Hurricane Agnes was associated with this flood.
Wind Conditions - The predcminant direction of the wind is west-ncrth-west.
This condition prevails during eight acnths of the year scstly during the winter and spring months.
The su==er mon hs have prevailing westerly winds.
During the summer months wind ranges between six and seven miles per hour with February, March and April recording wind between nine and ten miles per hour.
The mean for the year is 7.7 miles per hour.
Plannine Characteristics Demographic data were collected for the EPZ by Township and 3crcugh to identify pcpulation and Other pertinent facters which affect evaluation.
Tcwnships and Boroughs were used as planning zones; however in many instances the planning :enes were subdivided to facilitate centroid loadings to the evacuation netwerk.
Sub:enes were delineated to represent population densities determined from U.S.G.S. =aps, major industrial areas, subdivisions where applicable, and where possible, limit the population in each sub:ene to reasonable population estimates to avoid over-loading the evacuation network.
For example, Derry Township which has an estimated resident populaticn of 21,000 was sub-divided into five sub:enes F-1 through F-5, thereby f acilitating assignment to three interchanges along I-283 and I-83.
When this occured, the sub:cnes were divided by some easily identifiable basis to permit the assignment of persons residing in these areas to a logical and definite evacuation rcute.
Table 1 presents the population to be evacuated by county and political jurisdiction within each county.
Table 1 JURISDICTICNS WI3IN 10-MILE EPZ Three Mile Island 1980 JURISDICTION POPULATICN Couphin County Conewago Township 2,630 Derry Township 16,290 Lcndenderry Township 4,779 Lcwer Paxton Township 6,292 Lower Swatara Tcwnship 7,155 Susquehanna Tcwnship 3,292 Swatara Township 21,000 South Hanover Township 2,843 Harrisburg City 29,137 Hirespiral Borough 2,840 Hun =elstown Borough 5,150 Middletcwn Borough 10,970 Pax:anc Borough 2,285 Royalton Borough 1,050 Steelten Sorough 8,300 TCTAL 124,013 Cumberland County Lower Allen Tcwnship 640 New Cunberland Scrough 10,295 TOTAL 10,935 Lancaster County Conoy Township 2,470 East Donegal Tcwnship 2,100 Mount Jcy Township 2,980 West Donegal Township 3,670 Eli:abethtown Borough 9,400 TOTAL 20,620 Lebanon County South Lcndonderry Township 1,176 York County Conewago Tcwnship 4,539 Cover Township 600 East Manchester Township 3,440 I
Ib>
Table (Continued) 1980 JURISDICTION POPULATICN York County (Continued)
Fairview Township 12,000 Hellam Township 75 Manchester Township 2,950 Mount Wolf Borough 1,900 Newberry Township 9,365 Springettsbury Township 50 Goldsboro Sorough 547 Lewisberry Borough 650 Manchester Borough 1,700 Warrington Township 300 York Haven Borough 703 T0TAL 38,419 GRAND TOTAL 195,463 O
l -
e*
Scecial Proble= Areas Several assumptions were made regarding the evacuation of facilities such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, steel = ills and other synthetic production type plants.
An illustration depicting the location of these special problem areas has not been included since the necessary school information was not received in time for printing.
Schools - Table 2 presents a list of school districts by enrollment in Dauphin County that are within the 10-mile radius and a list of schools for Lancaster, York, and Cumberland Coun ties.
In evacuating schcols the assu=ption was made that students would be distributed home er to a nearby pick-up peint and evacuate from hcce.
Ecscitals - It is assumed that all patients of a hespital will not be evacuated.
Most a=bulatory patients would be dis-charged, picked up by relatives and returned home for evacuation with their families.
This activity would occur during the first three activity periods.
Confined patients, with exception of those in intensive care wards, would be evacuated to other hospitals cutside the EPZ by ambulance; beginning shortly after notification and limited by travel to and from these two facilities.
Impact en network traf fic volumes would be small, as a large portion of the activity would occur during the mobilization time for the general public.
There are four hospitals within the EP:, three in Dauphin County and one in Lancaster County (Table 3 ).
Prisons and Detention Homes - One county prisen is located in the 10-mile radius with an estimated 230 inmates.
The one detentien hcme has about 10-20 persons.
l ;
I
I n'
1 Table 2
EDUCATION FACILITIES COUNTY ENROLLMENT pauphin County Derry School District 2,500 Lcwer Dauphin School District 3,768 Middletown School District 3,231 Steelten-Highspire School District 1,385 Central Dauphin School District 5,150 TOTAL 16,034 Lancasrer County Bainbridge Elementary School NA E11:abethtewn Area Senior High NA Elizabethtown Area Middle School NA East High Street Elementary School NA Elizabethtown Ele =entary School NA Fairview Elementary School NA Mill Rcad Elementary School NA Thee=s Elementary School NA Maytown Elementary School NA York County York Haven-Newberry School NA Northeastern High NA Tcwnship School NA Fishing Creek School NA Cumberland County Manor School NA St. Theresa School NA l
Highland School NA Cedar Cliff High NA (1)
Dauphin County E=ergency Planning Agency i l l
)
~
s t
Table 3 HOSPITALS NAME AVE RAG"r., CENSUS Hershey.% dical Center 350 Comunity osteopathic Hospital 175 Harrisburg Hospital 479 Eli::abethtown Childrens Hospital N/A I
l l i
L r
u.
The assumption made for these facilities is that prisoners can be transported by high occupancy vehicles from the EPZ to other similar detention f acilities outside the EPZ.
"te additional vehicle load on the network for this activity would be insignificant in evacuation tire assessrents.
Nursinc Ecces - Table 4 lists the nursing homes in Dauphin and Lancaster Counties and the estimated population.
The assumption for evacuating nursing homes is the same as described for evacuating hospitals.
Steel Mills and Other Synthetic Production Plants - For the
=ajority of empicyees, evacuation is assumed that the four activities:
Receive Warnine, Leave Work, Travel Ecme and Evacuate Hcme will be the same.
Howeve r, the actual closing of the facility will require that a skeleton crew remain to f acilitate the actual closing.
From information determined frem other evacuation tire assessments or plans indicate that about seven to ten percent of the labor force will be required to remain at the plant.
v i
Table 4 NURSING HOMES Dauphin and Lancaster Counties NAME AVERAGE CENSUS 240 Frey Village Retirement Center Odd Fellows Home 131 Dauphin Count'l Home and Hospital 521 183 Alpine Retirement Center Colonial Pines Golden Age Home 57 Leader Nursing and Rehabilitation Center 112 Helen O. Sn avely Memorial Home 22 Villa Teresa Nursing Home 178 Beistline House 60 30 Child Day Care Center Blue Ridge Haven East 66 Lehman Guest Home 76 Masonic Home l -
CON m T OF EVACUATION The concept of evacuation in this assessment of the Three Mile Island evacvation times assumes that everyone in the ten-mile radius will be evacuated outside of the ten-mile radius.
There is no assessment of the time to evacuate within the twc-or five-mile radius.
It is assumed that all people that live within the ten-mile radius will be evacuated along a specified route known to them.
The evacuation time will include the time from notification until the last vehicle crosses the ten-mile radius.
Notification of Evacuatien There are two distinct events which are necessary o
initiate the evacuation.
One event is the direct notification of public agencies, schools, major employees and other locations of large population concentrations.
The second event is the dissamination of the evacuation warning to the general population.
Both of these events must include instructions regarding the sectors to be evacuated.
The first event is assumed to be accomplished by telephone from the Emergency operating Center to the affected group.
Ideally the second event would be implemented by a public warning system, which would combine an acoustical warning system i
by sirens or horns, supplemented by instructions over selected radio and T.V.
Broadcast stations.
In the particular site, no advanced system of this type is in place.
Therefore, the predominant mode of this notification is by use of vehicles and helicopters with mounted loudspeakers.
A specified message from these vehicles would indicate that an evacuation has been recommended and to turn on their radios for,
,,.g.-~
additional information.
Radio stations must be provided with ccmplete, accurate and current information.
They should have prior zone descriptions and repeat recommended routing information.
They should have phone numbers people can call should these people require special evacuation assistance or additional information.
Public Response Time There can be up to four activities preceding the evacuation fram the home which can be statistically distributed in time:
(1) Receive warning; (2) Leave work; (3) Travel home; and, (4) Evacuate home.
Each of the response times may have different distributions, depending upon the particular scenario being assessed.
Recei=t of Notification - Receipt of notification is assumed to approach a normal distribution in time; therefore, the accumulated probability approaches an "S" curve.
This distribution can be approximated by three straight lines.
One line, passing through the 16 percent, 50 percent and! 84 percent distributions, represents two time increments One straight line from zero to 16 percent represents ene time increment.
The third straight line from 84 to 100 percent represents one time increment.
It is assumed that the time increments are five minutes, so the total time for receipt of notification is 20 minutes.
This distribution means that 16 percent will have been notified within the first five minutes, 50 percent will have been notified in ten minutes, 84 percent will have been notified in 15 minutes, and 100 percent will have been notified in 20 minutes.
(See Volume I for more detail.)
Decarture From Place of Wcrk - Departure from the place of work is assumed to approach a normal distribution curve in the same =anner as receipt of notification.
Distribution is approximated by three straight lines and four five-minute time increments.
The distribution assumes that 16 percent will depart from their place of work in five minutes, 50 percent will depart in ten minutes, 84 percent will depart in 15 minutes, and 100 percent will depart in 20 minutes (see Volume I for more detail.)
Travel From Work to Home - The time of travel to the home approaches normal distribution of time in the same manner as the two previous responses.
Under normal conditions this distribution assumes that 16 percent wil1~ travel to home in five minutes, 50 percent in 10 minutes, 04 percent in 15 minutes, and 100 percent will travel to hcme in 20 minutes.
This distribution is expanded in certain scenarios, specifically that of the adverse weatner scenario (see Volume I for more detail).
Decarture From Home - Departure from home also approaches a normal distribution in time and the accumulated probability approaches and "S" curve.
The distribution is approximated by three straight lines in the same manner as the above three responses.
The activity is distributed over eight five-minute periods for a total of 40 minutes.
The distribution indicates that eight percent will depart frem home in the first five minutes, 16 percent in ten minutes, 33 percent in 15 minutes, 50 percent in 20 minutes, 67 percent in 25 minutes, 84 percent in 30 minutes, 92 percent in 35 minutes, and 100 percent will have departed home within 40 minutes (see Volume I for further details.)
l
~
O e
Evacuation Link / Node Network The evacuation routes for each centroid has been manually established and coded for computer evaluation.
Figures 2-5 indicate the coded network and the evacuation route for each centroid.
Table 5 contains the network descriptions.
The table contains two nede numbers for each end of a given link, the distance between nodes in miles, the assumed speed for that link, its total capacity in vehicles per hour in the direction of evacuation, and the identity of the roadway.
For example, the first link in the table is from Node 10 to Node 200.
The distance is 0.50 miles, the assigned speed is 20 miles per hour, the capacity is 1,000 vph, and the roadway segment is on State Route 230.
The values assigned to each link represent the best judgement of these factors considering roadway geo-metry, width, terrain and other f actors.
Many of the evacuacion zones are rather large and may have several centroids.
These centroids associated with population centers and are located to provide for a logical evacuation of the zone.,
The capacities established for each link are not the capacities that could be expected under normal circumstances.
The evacuation of a ten-mile area has all the vehicles headed in the same direction, with the possible exception of emergency vehicles coming into the. area.
Because of the directional flow l
and controlled routings, lane capacities are generally larger than could be expected under normal circumstances.
Another important factor that contributes to smoother flow and greater capacities is that all drivers of vehicles on any roadway
~
segment are of one accord and are headed for the same location.
Generally, they are probably the most seasoned, experienced of the drivers in a household.
All drivers know that they must evacuate the area and cross the ten-mile zone.
8.
-4m
~A S
[
7 f
'a e,. 2,
+
s l
'O 0 *
- N i
p 21 6
\\
3 CE2 g
O t-.
f 2ee Td 3-y j_ g;
~
j
^ ~e g; t o.,i ef s
30 rsf" I
3'
/
6
g A
- \\.
N-
,/
/
p' /
73 u
3 34*
I2 1
'a
' j' 6q\\
i
\\
u r
\\ d
\\ u'r H3Q sa a.i q ca t
P2=
s W
4r. %x,.,
x
.g n
g k
~
1io 43 SN e
.4
),
57 eg
/
(\\
s.io3
..so.
,,.a..
i
/ (/4 '
i 7 ',/
.., b
/
i
~.
74 g o.3
/
/si ). / 4 t-sc
\\
-y
/
- t. E END:
j ad o a.i cENrmoio ANo suusEn
-- - l--i b
l
/
o.
NCOE AND NUMBER 3
5 2
3
- EV ACU ATION ROUTE ulL E $
EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Evacuation Time Assessment Study u.z a. a au
- g
.g, v
l1 l
ll 11 l, \\ l N
?
bM*3/,E' zaoethtown
/
g
-/
, J L30
- [
g Q l
l\\-5..
s; g[]
-~
n
\\
\\
v, i s s
N
.2 73
\\,
Q k
47' L2
,76 j
(
\\
'd m, N
,cx' b
(h s
Li N
- 23 d
Si -
t j.j
\\
./
Womtjoy a
n.,
21
.O L
y-7 12 7g K2 78 N
..I N2C 'O
' s,5 S a ;ida.
4
- g. A 2
N
,A /
E?? A Asa acq;e 3
- 2.,;.,
N
,h
_ %- _ _ _ j. _ '. _ -
~
Varietta 12 l
l 81 7 g
83 -- C R-3 6
k o-e
~
O
)-
Wrept sville
\\
12 4 e
p
= 64 0 g
LEGEND:
O A-1 CENTRQlO AND NUMBER g,
a i4 NCDE AND NUMBER
l Qua0R ANT INDEX 8
EVACUATION ROUTE wLES EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Discuation Time Assessment Study k,&e l7med and.dueena4e p,auae 3 i
4
- - - + -,,,, - -, -
M'f
/ ], l5 ij ice o
/
- 8
'I,h(?j
- '*""*l
\\
l o,
,/ j#
7
/
ex Mh.2
\\/
bvs m
<c r N
I, h hi(
.)!%\\}
....rry
\\
\\-
sr i
\\
~ (p 533 g
,,,,.Cv s i
AdQ C,) A 3s u.
0 "
3
'I L s.
/\\u i
c,.,
bt6 y
P
)
S s'
7 N,
/
(N s
8
,3
's 4
4-6 N'
\\
0 4
@.sSS i
,,, /
~,.,...,78 g)C tI4 C
ts j~
R 22.
z'z P
" C **
- 'Ct ~. f
\\
/,
"N d e/
/
,< o...,3 vv w\\
s LEGEND:
O 4-.
CesTaoio ano suussa
- =
- ;=q q
g b4 Q'
...: soos Ano suusen J
2 3
- EV ACU ATION ROUTE MILES EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Evacuation Time Assessment Study Minas %M and &
2' ^
e,cung.
.9//
\\
% #)N N
i u
r
'- 7,i A
7 l
)_
l
'233
- A /,' ~., \\
\\ \\
s.
l 9
' 'n
'\\ \\
gF.:
.derr.s F.3 Q 426 g
3
\\
N q
'A
's 34 CFt d\\
22
=i 4 s
7 232 i,
F-5Q F-4 gg, I
Y2 S-
^
ri. o S ello
-/
3
[M I
/
. C~
3'
\\ flS 49 ~ 0 G-2 O
..C 8-4 7 --
[
_ =%
D
.18
.,4 h,
=. '
/
131 a
s 2
4,3,,,
'I 4,4 H-4 47
/
3
,2 a N easse'e n.
w srse 4..y= s ras-f5 O
sto
- R ora t t o r w-3 w.5
/
, w -i g
g l
\\N 8
22 11 2 J ni 4
1
\\ '08 l
\\
)
g l
\\/
\\/
y
\\
(['
jh i A
i l
l, Dv-3 los n
'cn
/
\\Dlu.
04 Gota LEGEND:
i A--
I O A-4 CENTRolO ANO NUMBER f
- L.,Q e i4 2 NCOE ANO NUMBER s
o 2
3 EV ACUATION ROUTE wut s EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Evacuation Time Assessment Study hi/Jas L /4and ds*wsak auauRE s
TABLE 5 NE""40RK DESCRIPTION 4G
- 0% 3I37 IF!D ClP ROACWAY DENTITY
- 0 230 0.!0
!!.0
'!00 State Route 230 1;
12 0.40 3!.0
- !00 Legislative Route 139
.2 0.40 15.0
.!!0 I-83 13 15 1.30 23..
4000
-83
- 4
- ! 0.;)
A
!!00 Ramp 15 202
- 4. !0
- <)
4000 I-83
- 6
- 04 0.70 3.
- .0 1 >M Legislative F.oute 22015 C
.is
?!.J
- 500 Legislative Route 22021
- .; ' :0 I!.0 t'A0 State Route 39 4 :.w)
!!.0
- !00 Legislative Route 22008
'M ).30 3!.0
- !00 U.
S.
322
- 07 0.'0
!!.0 1!00 U.
S.
422 23 0.!0 15.0 1:00 Legislative Route 618
.3 4 0.;0
- 0.0
!!00 Ramp
- 4
- G
- .30
!0.0 AM0 I-83 I7 1.;0 I!.0 1!00 U.
S.
322
- ' i.30 3!.0
- !00 Legislative Route 22021 27
.3
.00 20.0 I!00 Ramp
- 9
'3 ).00
!0.0 4000
- -83 9
!3 :.30
!!.J i!00 State Route 230 30
- I :.40 II.0
- !;0 State Route 441 I2 II
- .30
!!.)
'!M State Route 441 23 14 :.!0
!!.0
- !00 State Route 441 I4
!! ).;0
!?.0
- !;0 Ramp 3!
s3 2.:0
- .)
E00 State Route 283 25
.04
?..0
- ).;
.M0 T 325 30 I3 1 70 3;..
1000 T 325 40 2:0 3.;0
?!.e i!00 State Route 341 41 4 0.30 I!.0
- !00 State Route 74 3 4
!= 2.;0
- !.0 1500 State Route 341 4
!! :. 0 50.0 4000 State Route 283 44 3 0.20 20.0
!!00 Ramp 4!
44 0.00 20.0
!!00 Ramp
-! :. 0
!!.0
.500 State Route 341 4;
46 0.40 15.0 i!00 State Route 441
- 4
- ;0.00
!0.0 4 00 Turnpike 47
!0 0.20 20.0
!!00 Ramp 50 51 0.00 20 0
!!00 Ramp Turnpike
!!! !.30
!0.0 3000 Turnpi?ce
!2 53 0.40 15 0
- !00 State Route 230 53 49 0.50 I!.0
- !00 Legislative Route 22019
{
!4 119 2.30 30.)
1000 T-969 54 4 00 30.0 1000 Legislative Route 22042 TA3L.E 5 (Cont'd) 40IE C E 0:37 IRED
.::.F ROACWAY IDENTITY 40 0.30 35.0 i:30 State Route 341 59 ' ;0 20.0 1500 Ramp fi 0 1.40
!0.0 0c0 State Route 283 fi 57 ).30 35.0 1500 State Route 743 9
9 0.&)
!!.0 1:00 State Route 743
't
- 3 3.!0 35.0
- 500 State Route 230
'6
- 13
- 0C i!.0 1500 Legislative Route 35001 34
- . t.
- ;. 0 Legislative Route 36004
'I ).'-
.I
- !S0 Ramp 1
- p :. t-)
0..
t)an State Route 283
.3
,.:0
- g.0
,$ 30 State Route 231
- :.iG 20.0
- W)
Legislative Roits 36001
's
.22
- 1. 0 i!.0
- !co State Route 241 l3
- .:0 25.0
!00 State Route 4 41 i
.;2 :.50 i!.0 1:u)
State Route 441
.~ i
- .s..ii 10.0 1000 Legislative Route 36002
- 9
.i 10.a
<c State Route 743
- n :. ;
50. 0
- r.'9 Legislative Route 66102
- 2
- '
- .i0 0.
.A Legislative Route 66040
!?
i-
- ..]
iL )
159.'
State Route 24 54
- !.w
.!00 State ? cute 24 15 is t.40
.foo State Route 181 ie l'
- )
i!.G
'a State Route 181
!~
.40 State Route 181 State Route 181
- )
34 1.;0
- f a.
35 31 2. W 25.0
.? >
State Route 181
- 0 17 ' 30
.!;0 State ? cute 24 i
3. 50 I!..
.D)
State Route 181 3
- 3 0.!0
!0.0
- X:-
Legislative Route 66003 ii
.3 1 30 v.0
- xa Legislative Route 66112 34
!S 0
34.0
.%)
Legislative Route 66003
- s ;.59 10.9
'. X*
Legislative Route 66033 4
- 27
.:0
}0.;
. *2 State Route 177 n
.1) :.70 350
- 10 1 State Route 385 29 is 30
!!00 State Route 295 37
- 00 e. 0
- 0.0 t!N Ramp R0
.2'
!.N
$0. '
4000 U.
S.
Route 33 10:
is :.0
?!.0 i:00 7 H 3 - State Route 295 10:
!!2 1.w 15.0
- 00 LesisJ.ative Route 66003 10?
104 1.50
!!.0
- !ad State Routa 392 108
- 05 '.
- 0
.i.0
!!00 Ramp 105
- i! 1 50
$3.J 4000 U.
S.
Route 83 10e ilo 0.:J 35.0 1500 State Route 385 l l
l TABLE 5 (Cont'd) w3E
=0 E ~457 4' fD
~4
~
RCACWAY 2DENTITY
- S 1 40
- 00 State Route 385
- q
- ...fo m.)
- !O
State Route 262
.a,
..s
...)
- c.. )
..a State Route 262 ar a
- ..o T 970
.,, a
- e..
- i. rc.<
State Route 114 s.
.. :.....ra
- =. 3
<.0 State Route 114
.;I
- 11 :.M n.0
.-0 U.
S.
33 Ra:::p 3
....9
) -
- )
.30 10,-
.s.
Turnpike
..- e.
.e..-
- v.,0 State Route 26 2
,;3
.>o
- 5.,
NUC State Route 441
- 3 4 3.;
.g.J 5.)
State Route 441
.;5 4; ',0 I'. )
- no State Route 341
.;)
. ;.)
.0
..o State Route 341
- 22 0.30 I!.0
- 500 State Route 230 21
- 4.;0
!!.]
100 State Route 230 1:3 1:1 1.70 35.]
- $09 State Route 230 1
- 4
- 13 :.70 35.0
- !00 State Route 441
- M
',.50 I:.0
.s State Route 24 50 :.30
?0.0
- wa Legislative Route 66153 E3..).
!5 0
- D'.
State Route 24
- i
- 4. 34 i '. 0
- Go S tate Route 9 21
- ! :.;0 ti..!
- )co T 883 20
.g' 1.34 00 State Route 335
.3; 1:4.;.
a.o
'v9 Ramp
- r, y0 Ramp
- 3 131 s
- X
.;S
')..
r,.i; U. S.
Route 33
,;4
,a. >
.t.)
..e State Route 262
$2;
.x
!!.a
- fu)
State Route 114 I
- n
- .4
.o
.e Local Road
.!?
- 33 }.f;*
I;.,
- v =..
Legislative Route 21022
- 33
- 24 <. 50
. ice T 250
'.)
- !M Ramp
.ii
- 3'i a.20
.t
.!; :.00
- ).o X0 Local Road
!0;
- 0 ;.50
.5.9
'500 Centroid Connector
- 0; i ' 30
- '.0 6W Centroid Connector
!.I
- 01 J.5a
- .c
- !w Centroid Connector
-N 2;3 ).56 t!.0
.!00 Centroid Connector
!05
- 6 4 50
.:.)
Centroid Connector L
- 3 0.50
- 5.0
.fM Centroid Connector 507 M 1.00 a.4
- 500 Centroid Connector fCS
- 1 G.50
.5 0 3!00 Centroid Connector 503
- :.50
.:.v
.M Centroid Connector _ _
TA3I.E S (Cont'd)
E 4a03E
- EE SIST IFiiD
.W RCADWAY IDENTITY n0
- ! !.00
'G 10^
Centroid Connector n;
- s
'!. s
.:.)
Centroid Connector X v.!i
' !N Centroid Connector n3
.i ).!0 Centroid Connector i;4
.!G Centreid Connector n!
- 7
- .70
.'4
.4 Centroid Connector us
!! 2.!0 Centroid Connector r
n7 14 ;.44 Centroid Connector n3 4
i.59
- ')
Centroid Connector n;
4; J.!9
.N Centroid Connector
- 0 13 J.S
!.)
Centroid Connector C;
1A
).!^
.'.s
..A
'*entroid Connector t! 0
'40 Centroid Connector TO )
CI
?; M0 li.;
- W0 Centroid Connector
- 4
- 0 i.:0
!.S 00 Centroid Connector
.!0 31 Cen.roid Connector C3
- 4
- 0. 0
'f.3
'! /
Centroid Connector C7
?6
.70
!.)
D' Centroid Connector C!
..10 iX" Centroid Connector
.e d.
!!G" Centroid Connector C?
- 4
!10
..A
, 5.,
Centroid Connector
!!1
?) b!-)
- !.0
.%0 Centroid Connector II2 i; :.00 t!.C
- 00 Centroid Connector
!n
- 0.!0
- i.0
.500 Centroid Connector
- .4
.:s 120 d.s
.N0 Centroid Connector
- )
..D
- P0 Centroid Connector ca i
- 0.20
- !.0
's Centroid Connector is
.!G ii.;
.! 4 Centroid Connector i;;
- .. ic
'v Centroid Connector
'ii
.0
.: ' 3 Centroid Connector
.i If00 Centroid Connector
'40
!4; 33 ;.0 d..
.N0 Centroid Connector
!a M :..,.)
- i.,
Jr Centroid Connector 93
- 4
..0
.M Centroid Connector
- 44 i
.:0 0
.Su Centroid Connector 9!
. F.
- 5.c
- M Centroid Connector i
- 3
.0 d.v 10 Cer?.roid Connector 97
- 1.00
')
Centroid Connector
!49
.,e
).20
!.0
- 00 Centroid Connector 99
- 0I
- .00
.!.0
- Na Centroid Connector
$!0 is:. 00
- !.C G0 Centroid Connector j
- n
,0;.;. !0
.'00 Centroid Connector
.!!2
- ca ).!G
- !.0 i!w Centroid Connector ;
t i
i 1
l TABLE 5 (Cont'd)
W W JIST is W
ROACWAY IDENTITY
- !3 109 1.00
- !.J 1500 Centroid Cennecto
'!.0
- !00 Centroid Connector
!!4 116 1.00 10 1 00
- !.a 19 Centroid Connector 1)7 1 50 15 0 i!00 Centroid Connector
!!7
- 1 50 15.)
- M0 Centroid Connector
!!3
- is 0.10 15 0 iM Centroid Connector
!!?
137 0.50
- 20. i IA'o Centroid Connecror
!A
- 30 ).!0 35 0 1500 Centroid Connector
!al 52 0.50
- !.J
- W Centroid Connector fo2 7 1.00
- !.J
- 000 Centroid Connector
!s3 30 1.00 1!.J M0 Centroid Connector
!64 47 0.50
.5.4
- !ou Centroid Connector So5 46 !.00
- 5
- !41 Centroid Connector N
36 0.!0 15 0 1!00 Centroid Connector
!67 35 0.50 15.0 1500 Centroid Connector i l l
Table 6 indicates the vehicles on each link.
The number of vehicles is' deter =ined by the population to be evacuated and is based upon the assumption that each vehicle will evacuate 3.0 people.
It has been observed in other actual evacuations that about 99 percent of the evacuees leave by private automobile.
Therefore, this is a conservative assumption that all people are to be evacuated by automobile.
The number of vehicles on each link is a summation of all the vehicles from the different centroids that use any specific link of roadway.
Table 7 describes the evacuation route with a link-node description by centroid.
This table gives the numbers of each node through which each evacuation route passes.
Table describes each link in this evacuation route and Table indicates the nt=ber of vehicles on each link.
Directional Flcw - All network routings will operate as two-way facilities.
In the case of a two-lane roadway, the outbound lane is for evacuation with the inbound lane used for emergency vehicles.
A three-lane facility assumes tuo evacuation lanes and one inbound lane.
A four-lane facility assumes two evacuation lanes and two emergency lanes.
Travel Sceeds - Speeds were assigned to each link depending on the character of the roadway.
Freeway speeds were assigned at 50 m.p.h. with ramp speeds at 20 m.p.h.
For two-lane roadways,
State Highways were assigned at 35 m.p.h. and 30 m.p.h.
for roadways of lesser quality.
Centroid connectors were considered as local streets and assigned a speed of 15 m.p.h.
Capacities - Capacities were assigned to the evacuation network to reflect emergency conditions with traffic flowing in -
a
\\
0 hh TABI.E 6
D VEHICIES ON EACH LINK NORMAL WORKDAY A NCDE B NODE VEHICLE A NCDE 3 NCDE VEHICLE 23 5712
!d 40 1:93
- 2 741 f1
!3 1904
.3
~61
!3 7
(101.
I
! 31 59 57 1904 4
'5 2 00 60 59
!!73 202 7?&1 el 215 1573 i
24 473 70
- 3 993 17 17 2 00
'l 72 333
.i 25 474 7
73 333 19 14 2 00
'3 214
!434 20 04 2715 74 13 223 21 207 2715 75 121 500
'3 1000 76
- 22 500 23 24 2'00
.~7
,~9 617 24 29 500 79 1:4 323 25
- 7 2000 79
- 16 233 04 17 2500 to 217 444 27 S
2000 31 19 2
29 13 4:00 12 127 000 29 53 2764 33 34 1099 10 23 1500 34
- 5
- 099 32 33 Ili2 65 34 234
!3 i4 1192 34 37 900 34 35
- 192 37 33 900 35 43 1192 38 39 1444 IS 209 433
- 9 41 21 4 37 30 438 70
- 27 699 a
210 0331 il 21 23 4 41 40
- IS 72 23 750 42 54 1040 33
.25 443 43 58 1195 74 129 443 44 43 2003 45
.:a 200 45 44 2003
- s 227 100 4
45 0003 7
.39 790 47 24 2003
?9 39 693 48
- 12 3:95 M
- 0 693 49 10 1712 100 22 2441 50 3712
.31 29 444 51 5
3712 102 132 600 52 53 744 1;3 c;4 600 53 49 3712
'.04 205 20 T4 119 530
.05 133 600 55 54
!33
- 4 130 214 1 -
i
\\(h
Dh i
O TABLE 6
( Co..t ' d )
A NODE B NODE VEHICLE A NODE B NODE VEHICLE
.,7
..2
,,1
.h
....A e r,.
.;4
.1 r.e.,
30
.,*g
+
s
- 09 1
- a
!73
'13 29 2746
.1)
- 13
!!3
':4 32
- 192
- 4..
.3
.3 t.
,7
. 72 6.
29
!73 I:s 55
!I3
.2
...S 4
114
.!io
!!3 42
!30
.30
!'M 41 438
- 3!
- 029
!:0 3?
238
- 7
- 'd
- 92
!:1
.;0 372
.99
.a as 0.93
.s
- 7 4
530
!:3 71 333 3
- 11 32
!:4 20 1.'73
..3 1
. M.,
.a
,9 2.33 e*4
.=s
=,
J g..
13 e.nn vv
- 04 213 323
'9
!00
.7
., 4
,23
- a 70
- s
'30 7
417
.;7 33 sii
!Il
'3 006
.4 42 a.1
- a,
- t s.g
.o g
..a
.27 s
'34
- 26 se
- 35a e3!
20 633
. a..
..a J
.3a 2.,
.0
'33
- .' 0
- .ii
- 37 iS
'so
'3:
- 27
.1
!:a 39
- 30
.i.
,39
-,0
- 36 231
- 3
'40 2:
200
- 37
'.33
- 431
'41 33 000
- 33
- 34 3 00
!42 83 54 3 J,
- 33
~19 i43 94 23 4
.3
,44 2
7
'01
.0 27:2
!4!
2!
200
'02 11 741
!46 96 100
!)3
- 01
.;97
'4' 27 758
!?4 203 2097
!48
- 6 2M
!0!
.6 473
!49 103 iM
!G6 19 874
- !0
- 2 a00
..s.
.3
..e g.).
466
..s 1
u..g
.s.
'a 182 l-
!09 1200
!!3
'. 09 416 l
510 2000
!!4 116 430
t i
l l'
i TABLE 6
' ' ~
(Cont'd) 9 0
^ "o% = "a" vre
!!4 107 71 6
!U 193
!!3 134 213
!9 137
- 431
!40 1:a 2!C0
!61 12 444
!42 79 233 563 M
4e
!a4 47 2003
!a5 46 l003 W
36 644
!47 J5 234 Table 7 EVACUATION ROUTE LINK NODE DESC.UPTION 9
BY CENTROID
.:* E
- ~I " G: 4X 3 MX 4 MM5 CE6 6 7 MX 3 G :
.,.0 n.
.).
4
.4 s.
,.i.
.s.,
4
..a
.4
.s 0:
704
- 3 205
- e.,
...s
.3
.31
..s
,,9
.a
.3
.2
.s
...J
.s
.s 2
.3 9
4 3
4 3
- s...
.s 4
- s
.ses
,1
.0
.a
.t
- e.,
i 24 34 3
,3 g.,
667
.,a 4
,, a 1
..a
.o
..)
w.
,1 f tf
..y gA
,4 g
..e WI 40 id
-C
- 10 il 3*9 40 013 I2 f:0 39 38 007 J1 5:1 00 211.
s o,
cr Table 7 9
(cont'd) gg ggt M2 M3 M4 M5M6M7Md 1
.s
.3
..a 7.
a 4
93
':4 is
'9
.7
!3 73 214
-4
- 1 21:
95
!*6
!?
37 53 73 014
'i 527
~4 122 215 8'
- S
'5 121 102
'.3 09 74 1*3 1:1 1.'2 215
<1 Ur 77 73 1:4
- !S a'2
!31 73 1:4 013 21
.30 il 19
~1 G3 10:
200 R1
- 4
- 25 7G
!~7 33 34 15 000 24 535 70 127 33 34 20 G4 32 107 33 34 125 000 4
57 38 39 91 021 4
!33 37 1
- 1 P1
!39 32 2*3 P
ide 91 2
R3 541 83 84 1:5
'20 S1 54 73
- 8 2:4 9
5) h Table 7 g
(cont'd) 3i u::E : *::E '..:*E I -::E 2 $0;E 5 5::E3 GE7 v::E 3 CE* C E 10
- r. g ;
- r. -
i
.?
.0 o
- r. ~. r.
f.
=3
-r
=
2
.r; -
- ?
.;g
. t.*.e0
- 4
.d.
. ;w.
.,s.
.3 s4:
.s*
.a
..se.
e;
. a..
- a n.
.v
. a c
. r.,
..s
- t. r 3.-
.. a.
..a gr
..a
.3
..r.
.*1
.2
..r
.-a
.3 J.
. r.
r.e;
. s;
. - r.
.4
.. e.
.st. a a
- 4 -
er.g
..te
...t
...e
.a
- =*
..d E1
.r.e.r
...g
..t
..e
- 6. 'd
..J
.44 9
.JV ry-e.
.3
.;/
3 d6 t.r.e -
e n. t.
s e.9
=.== 3 e
8 6
6.
se.s e8
...t
.Je Ie
.a
.t*
4
.J f.
- t..eg
.=*
.44
- i
.;e.9
.4 4' 4 e
==
e'a
.t.a -
?*J
- f r0
- e..t
.. e.
.30 a
- 23 L
l I
gt
- .4 9 -
- 3 9*3 gi t.04
. r.
.9 w
e.
4 i
i
~..
- ~ -.
, -,. -.-,..,. -..,,, - - -,.. l
h 9
Table 7 0
(cont'd)
.isE S;:E: -::E :.CE 3 CE 4 'OE 5 -%E a +2E ~ 'GE 3 4
5 5,:
ac
.s 15
- T 23
,ss
- o 3
2 2
2 s
2,
- s
..i.
t I
l '
l
one direction, occasional emergency vehicles opposing the traffic flow and problem areas controlled by special traffic features.
Under these conditions the following capacities were as signed :
- 1. -
Freeway - 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour; therefore, two evacuation lanes would be 4,000 per hour.
2.
Two-lane Facilities - A capacity of 1,500 vehicles per lane per hour was assigned to State Highways and other high type roadways and 1,000 vehicles per lane per hour for a roadway of lasser quality.
3.
Interchanges and Ramps - 1,500 vehicles per hcur.
Special Traffic Control Stratacies - In order to attain maximum capacity on the network, controlled critical intersection movements and control for complex esacuation routings, special traffic control strategies are imperative.
In scme instances major population centers were split to avoid overloads to the network and produce abnormally long delays.
These locations will require special handling to insure that motorists utilire their assigned routing for evacuation.
Interchanges and ramps which affecu the capacity that can be loaded to the main line will need special control strategies.
i Special Transportation Rectirements Transportation requirements for special problem groups, such as non-car cwning families, hospitals, schools, jails, etc.,
were not included in the evacuation time assessment.
The assu=p-tion was that all families would evacuate as a unit frem home. -
This would preclude the requirement for evacuating school students frem school to outside he risk area.
f I
i l
l.
m
EVACUATION. TIME ASSESS E As previcusly stated, the evacuation time assessment has assumed that all of the f amily will leave home in one car as a unit.
The assessment time includes mobiliration time and travel time to evacuate the 10-mile radius.
Mobilization time includes notification, leave work or school, travel home, and evacuate home.
Four conditions were measured in assessing evacuation time:
1.
Normal wor.kday - workers at work, children in school; 2.
Nighttime - most everyone at home; 3.
Su=mertime recreation peak; and, 4.
Adverse conditions - ice.
The assessment was performed by computer to a process described in some detail in Volume I.
Table lists the evacu-ation times by centroid for the four scenarios shcwn above.
Normal Workday Table 8 presents the travel times for each centroid to evacuate the 10-=ile radius.
The most critical area relative to length of evacuation time occurs in subzone F-5, Steelten Borough.
A total evacuation time of three hours is required to evacuate the estimated 8,300 Steelten residents.
This is attri-buted to the network routing which requires motorists to travel south on State Route 230, proceed via Legislative Route 22019 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and proceed westerly to leave the EPZ.
The actual travel ti=e incurred is 17 minutes; however, the delay time caused by queuing due to lack of capacity at ramps, etc.,
is 98 minutes, with the remaining 75 minutes attributed to mehi-lization.
The portien of Harrisburg within the EPZ was the largest populated =cne with an estimated 29,100 residents.
To facilitate a legical evacuatien, four readways were used as evacuatien routes. _.
~.
TABLE 8 EVACUATION TIMES SY CENTROID NORMAL WORKDAY NIGHTTTME ADVERSE
..cs...,.
...e
...c.
.:.1.<. 0D
.o...
41
- f 41
..a 4.' '
.3
.e 31 11 3
.r=
.1
.')
.1 r;
..o
'd 1
- 3 3
3 e
'9 L.,
...J 1.
.4
-=
.4
- m.)
-1
- Ja s
..y
=41
.w r.,
. e
- 32 9
. ~.4 y
- r!
-4 144
.sv
.r4
.,3 e
- 30 r,.
1 q
2.,
.:r 2.
- i
- 4
,i 3,
..4
~-
'14
',f3 103 7
..a
.i
.3 61
.:0
.r
.?
31
..a
..t 1
,,.s
./r
.=-
..I y4
. s.
.a,
20 4
..c)
.t 3.,
.4 t
-4 39 4
.4 r3
.~"
5 a
.o 37
.4 s4 4;
,3
-~
a.,
.J 0
3
.t
]
3
.\\1
.a*
s.
6 27 5.3
..a al a;
s 21 73
- r..
al
.,o 6
_s1 sd s.,
.=
4 2J
- 4 3
- 4 5s 94 34 s*3
..s
,/
5 s5
.?'
b
'id 4
'03
.u
'.d
. 3.-
i p,
91
. C.
?1 910 r4 3/
P2 p,*
1.,,.
. i
. -, ~
. ~
s-4 4
TABLE 8 (Cont' d)
NORMAL WORKDAY NIGHTTIME ADVERSE
.,.:#.r) 7..E
-*'u'*
.U.
.3
.. 4 AI 3 '
S 3
es s.T al
.9
- J
- 3.,
t
.g
.s 71 3.
J
.f 33
- ,= -
3J
.l
.3 3
.4 6
J.,
t;1 4
s
.40 el
- a
?
3 -
.r e.
j *t
.J
.1 4
y
.=
w
. =.
?
4 v6 H
'3 24 13 s
37 2
45
,.e t.c7 ia.
4.e
%4
'01
.4 34
'a4
.;)
.3
.h 23 34 d3
- 20
..s
- 3
...7 41 ao gi
.3 81 31 1
- s X1
.3
.03 f.
.9
- a
.4
- s 33
.23 33
.'d l
11
'l w
v.-
4e 54
-4
- 12 4
- 9 4
. W, 4
.I; e.
-5
- .9 j?
- 0e v7 8
123
.a
- 08 s0 af i
I e
i f
A i
41-
.,,-,,-w.----
e-w re
-T e
d TT E
M T
P-
"*F*
I State Route 230 utilized two lanes northhcund, with 13uh,17th and 19th Streets utilizing ene ncrthbound lane each.
Inbound amergency vehicles would be acce==odated by U.S.
Route 322.
Nichttime Conditions This condition assumes that = cst pecple are at home ; the re-fore, only notification time and the time to evacuate hcme pre-vail under this assessment.
Because the leave work or school and the travel time to hcme do not have to be considered, the time to evacuate the EPZ for each zone centroid is reduced by approiximately 15 minutes (Table 8 ).
Su==ertime Recreation Peak Since no =ajor recreation areas are within the EPZ and su==erti=e pcpulation is the same as other seasons, the evacu-ation times do not change during the su==er.
Adverse Cenditions This assessment assumes icing conditions as the = cst probable situation which would have an adverse effect on evacuation time.
(
The assumptions made for these conditions are:
reduce the travel speed 50 percent and increase the travel tire from home to work 100 percent.
Travel time increases approximately 20 minutes under this assessment (Table 3 ).
Sector Evacuation Evacuation Plans are usually set up on a sector or quadrant basis.
This assessment has net been concerned with segmenting the 10-mile radius.
The assessment icoked at total evacuation from the EPZ.
However, this does not preclude evacuation by quadrants.
Quadrants can be examined from the data in this report.
Sector evacuation can be approximated by the selection of appropriate planning =cnes..
=
m