ML20010J561

Testimony of ST Mccandless Re Contention 6a on Evacuation Time Estimate.Related Correspondence

ML20010J561
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	09/29/1981
From:	Mccandless S HMM ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20010J560	List: ML20010J559 ML20010J561 ML20010J563 ML20010J566 ML20010J568 ML20010J570
References
NUDOCS 8110050350
Download: ML20010J561 (14)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ILEl GED CORllESIWiDT7CB NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO"J4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

)

and ) Docket Nos. 50-387

) 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

,4 Oh 8)

C OOr4D Yd E

~

3: P UC//nc -

.,, 3 0 gggg; , 311 c.

y i; APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF y I ~Vl[%r17

{. *!^0 p SCOTT T. McCANDLESS \& ,

ON CONTENTION 6(a) \N l

i l

September 29, 1981 l

8110050350 810929 gDRADOCK 050003g7 PDR

~

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE TESTIMONY OF SCOTT T. McCANDLESS HMM Document No. 81-2848 September 18, 1981 Prepared for:

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION l

Prepared by:

HMM ASSOCIATES l

255 Bear Hill Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 l

t s

1. INTRODUCTION My name is Scott McCandless. I am Vice President and a co-founder of HMM Associates, Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts.

HMM is a consulting firm that specializes in environmental ano emergency planning studies. The firm has been actively involved in emergency planning for the nuclear industry since it was founded three and one-half years ago. To.date, HMM has compiled evacuation time estimate studies for 14 nuclear power plant sites in various parts of the country. I have directed seven of these studies over the past three years. In addition, I have worked on related studies for local emergency response and tIaffic control issues.

2. SITE LOCATION AND STUDY BOUNDARIES The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station is located in Salem Township, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. It is about one-half mile from the northern bank of the Susquehanna River.

The plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) boundaries for the Station cover portions of two counties within about 10 miles of the Station. These are Luzerne County and Columbia County. A total of 27 municipalities (townships, boroughs, and a city) are located partially or entirely within the EPZ boundaries.

Figure 1-1 shows the location of the Station and the boundaries of the EPZ in relationship to the Susquehanna River, nearby municipality boundari s and county boundaries. The evacuation studies performed by HMM investigated the time required to evacuate both the entire EPZ, and nine selected sub-areas within the EPZ, under a wide variety of circumstances.

1

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

---

x--r--- -

'N / I ] 3D f$

M :.,

D' p$05 h h ? i k b f % u &, b.

"I,. _

',5 F, $ 3 "

,, [ J A w

'.C t

2 e s( q &'I : h#

'(

E $-

,,(~ -

p g' ( -

's '

[( 1 x gd I[ k[ .

p a

' o\.

.['I,f  !,

$ I .! '

7'D 1 -

I w, Cs d'. '+ ' , .

N"j#Ypl gA 1

.'l

'y % \r L, .1 ,_. 3f'\Q'V Q g .: -

n.g -

, c., _ . , . 3 so -

q. . ' r@.

7 .

om- o t',e ~,

),,

A,,x((g.- '

L.-

i ,4 .\ . t h, 4 e ,

4 e

s J. M -

.t . , > g e 6,9, ,,

rN A v 3 e  ;' g 's t s.

e s e y_ [

x

,- - -  %% , ksdd,.C 7 tk M

'- u T 4 M g.

N-hggPI

. h*/ -I q

l S n k' ,

W i

- \ .g ( i

• j p s.\T(]\a3 L , v.a ' R

. ., }., .

i g ":- r d -

~

-; c; ; w n *  ;

J i.'. J 6

gh --

.i-l  : 1

p, ,Y l O p

k _h h,.

h l __

_O.y y_

_ ,\ _ ' . '

~

_e.___ g j r.  %  ! (.

p A0 , j

'io 'h( tf.'j'{. \' (.~

R '

.\. J' '

! '.. '~'

- \\ .) , k8,

\

x

~ ^

- Me'3 i Q,[ W :

, [ i'

' ' ~

\-

, }jS

\e_ i

- I y t f, v ,i s - . ..

} 1 - 1 (

_. o (f -; .^ '

l s.iQ \ )

yg ^ C -k !' ' ' '

.f g^ @qM %' Q s T. 4 n y,5 , -'7 .mq 'y 7 T.*Ng'n Ts . - i; y

- , .~ . , c,- , \; y .,

i., .

, ., Y i 1 -

s _ { -

• • /' T' N '

\'., ,

.Q.

, # L' ;

s _--  %{6 y '

a g.

) D ,d- .f- ,f[ c 2- k S- ' _ ' ;g,{[f _ \} Y _ x' g'1 h, W "

r, A f5 d. w"^ , ',\H \. * -

., % qf ,,;,^ )\ . (1 q ,g ,I[c A

f ,Z f _\' N GD-

~~

^ '

Q

^

i ^

, s, ,

{&=b$'WYW -20: - M b b 2 2 .- Y A . _ _ . -  ? - =. . L - 4 1

FIGURE l MAP OF EPZ i

i eMw~w.u.- , --- -

- -- - --mm t - - '-

3 M 'Am m x " M M 2 .

3. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY i

The evacuation time estimates compiled by HMM are based 4 upon computer simulation modeling of several evacuation scenarios recommended in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 4

Rev. 1 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emeroency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, November 1980. The model used by HMM is the NETVAC model which simulates the movement of evacuating vehicles over a predetermined highway evacuation network.

NETVAC is a state-of-the-art computer evacuation simulation model developed by Professor Yosef Sheffi of the M.I.T. Center for Transportation Studies and HMM. The NETVAC model has previously been used by HMM to estimate evacuation times for I eight nuclear power plant sites. The model is a dynamic network model which accounts for traffic congestion on the evacuation network, and for route choices by the operators of the evacuating vehicles. Traffic capacities of the streets and highways in the evacuation network are calculated based upon algorithms taken from the Highway Capacity Manual (Highway Research Board Special Report 87, 1965). The NETVAC model has been validated by comparison to field data and by comparison to the Federal Highway Administration NETSIM model.

To apply the NETVAC model to evacuation scenarios within the Susquehanna Station EPZ, HMM sta#f collected and analyzed a

considerable amount of population and highway network data.

Best available input data were collected from census records and f rom the State and County emergency management pers el, who have detailed knowledge of the EPZ, and are responsible for

) implementing any required emergency response actions. The best available data were supplemented by field survey work undertaken by HMM staff. Where key assumptions were required i for evacuation modeling, HMM conferred with the local t

{ officials. The following are key data elements and assumptions incorporated in the HMM studies. Population numbers are l

summarized in Table 1-1.

h-I, _ - - _ _ _ , _ , _ _ , - _ . _ - - - - _ _ - - .. ~ ,- m , _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . - , _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ - - _ - . - _ .

8 l

J TABLE l-1

SUMMARY

OF POPULATION TO BE EVACUATED Day Night Weekend Permanent Population 71,511 71,511 71,511 School Students 15,587 -- --

Employees 6,458 1,208 1,525 Recreational Trans'.ents 2,220 120 2,220 Hospital &

Nursing Home Patients 509 509 509 -

l l

6 I

4 1

)-

l

)

1 l

s During the evacuation time estimate studies, HMM calculated the time required to evacuate all permanent residents of the EPZ. The permanent population data were taken from the 1980 U.S. Census summaries. In total, the EPZ is estimated to have a permanent resident population

, of 71,511.

e The evacuation time estimates also included consideration of the time required to evacuate transient population from the EPZ. Transient population, including workers at the Susquehanna site, included a maximum estimated 6458

employees at major employm.

nt centers within the EPZ, and a maximum of 2,220 visitors to recreational facilities within the EPZ. The numbers and distribution of transient population were derived by a phone survey undertaken by j HMM.

! e The evacuation time estimates included the time required to evacuate special facilities within the EPZ. Special facilities included schools, with a total enrollment of 15,587 students, and hospitals and nursing homes with peak ,

i patronage of 509 persons. Descriptions of the special

l. facility population were taken from the County emergency l response plans and verified by telephone with institutions concerned.

e The evacuation *.ime estimates included consideration of the non-auto-owning population within the EPZ. HMM

! estimated a total of 9679 people in the EPZ may be members of non-auto-owning households. The estimate is based upon

! 1970 and 1980 U.S. Census data. Evacuation time estimates for this population group are based upon evacuation by buses to be provided by the County and municipal emergency

planners.

e The highway network to be used during an evacuation was defined by HMM based upon routings and instructions in the i l'

State, County, and municipal emergency response plans.

1 The network was reviewed by PEMA staff for consistency '

with evacuation implementation plans. The capacities of the roadways in the network within the evacuation network were determined by the NETVAC model. The model calculations are based upon physical descriptions of the network that were compiled by HMM through field surveys of each roadway link and intersection in the network, o Evacuation mobilization and preparation times were assumed based on discussions with county officials. It was assumed that the first departures would take place 30 minutes after the initial alert is given. It was assumed that employee departures from the work places would take place over the next 30 to 90 minutes. Permanent and transient population departures were distributed over a 120-minute period beginning 30 minutes after the order to evacuate. School departures are assumed to start 90 minutes after the order to evacuate is given. These departures were staggered t,o approximate a statistical distribution of departure times.

l 1

I . _ . _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ -_ _

4. ESTIMATED EVACUATION TIMES Evacuation time estimates were made for three time periods for the entire EPZ and for each of the nine subareas within the EPZ. The principal time period is the normal weekday. In addition, HMM simulated evacuations representative of a night evacuation and an evacuation during a weekend. The normal weekday case evacuation was modeled with one or more family member in each residence; children in school; work places fully staffed; and recreational facilities at peak use. The night scenario postulated that all permanent residents are at home; schools are empty; work places are staffed with night shift; and recreational facilities are at overnight attendance levels. The weekend scenario assumed at least one family member in each residence; schools empty; recreational facilities at peak capacity; and work places at weekend shift levels.

For both the entire EPZ and for each of the nine subareas, the normal weekday evacuation was more time consuming than the night or weekend evacuation. HMM calculated that the areas within 5 miles of Susquehanna Station could be evacuated in about four hours during the day, and in less than three hours during the weekend or night cases. HMM calculated that areas within 10 miles of the Station could be evacuated in about six hours or less during the day, and in five hours or less during the weekend or night cases.

Evacuation of the plant site itself is the limiting factor for the 5-mile evacuation time estimates. This is the case since the peak construction employment level of 2650 workers was assumed for the normal weekday cases. It should be noted that the normal employment level when both units are operational is 650 workers. At the lower employment level, 5-mile evacuations are estimated to be an hour shorter.

For the 10-mile cases, the evacuation of the high-density population areas, together with the evacuation of the plant site, determines the duration of the evacuation. The

high-density population area in the northwest quadrant is Berwick; the high-density population area in the northeast quadrant is Nanticoke, which is actually more than 10 miles away from Susquehanna Station, but within the EPZ.

_9_

=

5. EVACUATION DURING ADVERSE WEATHER At the request of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, HMM studied several adverse weather evacuation scenarios in addition to the normal weather evacuation scenarics. A total n' four adverse weather cases were modeled. The first assumed moderate snow or heavy rainfall. To model this case, HMM reduced calculated highway capacities to 70% of their normal capacity, and imposed a 30-mph maximum speed on evacuating traffic.

Three variations to the initial adverse weather case were 1 hypothesized and modeled, based upon discussions of local adverse weather phenomena with~ local officials and State Police. The first assumes concurrent precipitation and flooding of the Susquehanna River, which results in inundation of a portion of Route 11. To model this condition, the segment of Route 11 between Shickshinny and West Nanticoke and the small bridge between Shickshinny and Mocanaqua were eliminated from the network in addition to the capacity constraints imposed for all adverse weather scenarios, and a 20 mph speed limit.

The second variation of the adverse weather case involves icing. Icing of Interstate 81 as it passes through Butler Township was modeled, since this stretch of roadway is elevated and often freezes after small amounts of snowfall or rain. The i

State Police close this roadway segment under these conditions. Accordingly, this link was e.11minated and traffic was forced to use alternate routes. Again, a 20 mph speed capacity and 30% reduction in capacitie. Nere included also.

The third adverse weather variation involved modeling a winter storm. In this case, after discussions with State Police, it was decided to eliminate portions of Route 93 from the evacuation network, since it becomes virtually impassable a i

few times each winter for two or three hours, as a result of heavy snowfall. The segments between Route 239 in Nescopeck Township and the Route 80 interchange, and the segment of

m ..

J O

Route 93 between L.R. 40010 and A-3770 in the southern part of Sugar Loaf Township were closed for modeling purposes. Traffic was assumed not to travel above 20 mph and roadway capacities were reduced by 30%.

With the primary adverse weather assumptions (70% capacity and 30-mph maximum travel speed) imposed, HMM calculated increases of about 40-50% to evacuate the EPZ. The evacuation of areas within 5 miles is estimated to take absut six hours, rather than the four during normal weather. Maximum prrdicted 10-mile evacuation times increase from six hours or less to nine hours or less. For the 5-mile cases, evacuation of traffic from the Susquehanna Station remains the limiting factor; for the 10-mile cases, evacuation of the plant, along with Berwick and Nanticoke, remain the limiting factors.

The adverse weather case variations (flooding, icing, and winter storms) result in increases of 10%, or less, from the primary adverse weather case time estimates. This is due to the 30 mph speed ceiling during the primary adverse weather case, vs. a 20 mph ceiling in the variations. In no case does a route closing result in evacuation time estimates of more than nine hours. The conclusion that can be drawn from the adverse weather sce~.arios is that it is not the isolated roadway closings and rerouting that have significant ef f ects on evacuation time estimates, but rather the network-wide traffic l conditions that result from the poor weather.

l l

l l

l l

i

a

6. CONCLUSIONS The evacuation time estimates compiled for Susquehanna Station are comparable to evacuation time esr.imates for other nuclear power plant sites that HMM has studied. It is estimated that the EPZ or any of its subareas could be evacuated in less than six hours during normal weather, and in less than nine during the most severe adverse weather conditions modeled. The EPZ aopears to present no unusual or unmanageable constraints to an orderly evacuation.