ML20049H421
| ML20049H421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Borgmann E CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049H418 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203020765 | |
| Download: ML20049H421 (35) | |
Text
-
TIIE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY CFI ~ '
CINCINN ATI. OHIO 4 5206 sth on v c ars o Nr Docket No. 50-358 February 12, 1982 Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE:
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES
Dear Mr. Denton:
This is in response to the February 2, 1982 NRC letter from Mr. B. J.
Youngblood to Mr. E. A. Borgmann regarding your review of the August 1980 evacuation time estimate study for the area around the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station. Your review of this response is requested on an expedited basis to permit the conclusion of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board deliberations on emergency planning.
Mr. Youngblood's letter stated that although the evacuation time estimates appear to be reasonable, supplementary information should be provided to support the evacuatiol time estimates. This information, which further supports the study and its assumptions, is attached.
Very truly yours, THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY hk h i[W-By E. A. BORGMANN EAB: dew Enclosure cc: John H. Frye III State of Ohio
)
M. Stanley Livingston County of Hamilton)ss Frank F. Hooper Troy B. Conner, Jr.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this James P. Fenstermaker 6 t4 day of February,1982.
Steven G. Smith William J. Moran J. Robert Newlin Samuel H. Porter a
James D. Flynn 66u M Mured W. F. Christianson Notary Public James H. Feldman, Jr.
AUCE M. LEURCK John D. Woliver Notary Pubuc, Sitte of Ohio Deborah F. Webb MY Commaa b"" Demwr m mi David K. Martin George E. Pattison Andrew B. Dennison B203020765 820224 Thomas Urbanik II fM ADU" 05UOU$f)!
r
~ _ - -
9' s
Attachunt RESPONSE TO NRC LETTER OF FEBRUARY 2, 1982 REGARDING WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR STATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES t
r CENERAL:
j f
i The following information is provided in response to the questions centained in Enclosure 1 of the subject letter. All matters raised in the enclosure have either already been included in the time estimate i
l study or do not significantly affect the time estimates' usefulness for its function during an emergency - as a basis for the evacuation time input to be used in the protective action decision-making process.
[
t 4
i Specifically, the evacuation time estimates are provided to public l
officials as an aid in making decisions regarding protective actions for the plume Emergency Planning Zone. During a radiological emergency, public officials may be required to recommend the implementation of either sheltering or evacuation to minimize the radiation exposure of the potentially affected population. Using the estimated time for evacuation of the public in the decision making process adjusted as i
appropriate, along with other information such as projected dose rate and release duration, public officials will deternine which protective t
action (sheltering or evacuation) is appropriate.
t It is impossible to predict in advance e.*at factors or combination of r
factors affecting evacuation will exist at the time of an incident.at i
Zinner which would require the taking of protective actions. Rather
[
-r._,.--,
r,,
(
s' than trying to predict evacuation times for every conceivable condition or combination of conditions, time estimates have been provided for two conditions, a best estimate and an estimate for adverse weather. Should conditions exist at the time of a potential evacuation that, in the judgment of the public officials, would significantly increase evacuation times, two actions could be taken. First, actions will be taken, as contemplated in the plans, to eliminate the condition (e.g. removal of disabled cars, prompt clearing of snow, designation of alternate evacuation routes) that hinders the evacuation. Second, local officials will modify the evacuation time estimates based on the conditions existing at the time of the evacuation, should these conditions, based on the judgment and experience of the planners, increase evacuation times. The modified evacuation times would then be used in the protective action decision-making process. Thus, the sole use of the current evacuation time estimates existing in the plan is n protective action decision making.
The times are provided as a guide to the time it would take the public to evacuate under the study conditions. To that end, the times are only estiwates and are not " mandatory time limits." There are no " mandatory time limits" for the evacuation of the public.
The following provides a specific response to each of the items in the enclosure to the subject NRC letter.
1 I.....
i
__,_______y
4 i'
Item 1.
Submit a map of principal evacuation roadways as shown in NUREG-0654. Using the map as a reference, accurate descriptions 1
of the roadway segments should be provided.
In developing the roadway network, it may be necessary to include portions of the roadway beyond the EPZ. For example, Persimmon Cove Rd.
l (CRil21) is considered a principal evacuation route. Its effectiveness is limited by its connection with SR-10.
It is not clear from CR1121 to US 27 properly accounts for the merging of these two routes. It should be noted that several alternate routings do exist (e.g., SR-824 to SR-9).
j A similar problem exists in the area of Felicity where three
)
i routes leave town. However, depending on the number of residents in Felicity (which is not presently delineated in the study),
the intown segment of SR-756/SR-222 may be a bottleneck.
Again, it is not clear from the analysis if this potential problem has been properly addressed.
l' o
Response
j A map of the Zimmer area with all roadways, including principal evacuation l
roadways, is provided as Figure 1 (attached)*. Tables 1 and 2 provide descriptions of the roadway segments indicated in Figure 1 including t
number of lanes, width of lanes, road type, and capacity.
i l
Roadways beyond 10 miles were considered in the evacuation time estimate 4
study. Specifically, the cited example of the first paragraph of this j
t' item was considered. No special capacity problems were noted.
i i
Felicity area roads and its population (929 by 1980 census) were also included in the study since the entire village and nearby roads are l
within the ten mile radius of Zimmer. Due to low traffic demand, no specific problems exist.
The concentric circles on the map are approximate in radius e.g., the i.
l 10 mile radius should be closer to Brown County.
I
TABLE 1
!dMOR C#CUATIG1 ROL7I'E ROAI%GY CHARA.OITJlSTICS IN KCTIUCICI Dracuation Routes
.W her of Width of Capacity 1
(Link I.D. - Nodeo)
Lanes Ianes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr)
A.
SR 8 West 201 - 701 2
9 1
1300 701 - 301 2
9 1
1400 301 - 302 2
9 1
1400 302 - 303 2
9 1
1400 303 - 304 2
10 1
1400 304 - 305 2
9 1
1400 305 - 831 2
9 1
1400 B.
SR 8 East 201 - 202 2
9 1
1300 202 - 101 2
9 1
1300 101 - 102 2
9 1
1300 102 - 103 2
9 1
1300 103 - 104 2
9 1
1300 104 - 105 2
10 1
1400 105 - 106 2
10 1
1400 106 - 107 2
10 1
1400 l
107 - 811 2
10 1
1400 l
C.
US 10 North 333 - 310 2
9 1
1300 310 - 311 2
8 1
1175 311 - 312 2
8 1
1175 312 - 339 2
9 1
1400 339 - 313 2
8 1
1175 313 - 314 2
9 1
1400 314 - 315 2
10 1
1400 315 - 316 2
10 1
1500 316 - 317 2
10 1
1500 317 - 318 2
10 2
1175 318 - 319 2
10 2
1350 319 - 320 4
12 3
1450 320 - 833 4
12 3
1525 1Road types are defined as:
1.
Rural, undivided highway; no parking 2.
Two-way; with parking 3.
Rural, divided highway; no parking 4
i I
1 P
P L
TABLE 1 i
(CONTINCED) i WJCF EVACUATICN ROUTE ROADWAY QGRACIERISTICS IN KENTUCK'I i
f Evacuation Routes Nurrber of Width of Capacity i
(Link I.D. - bedes)
Ianes Lanes (ft-)
Road Type (veh/hr) 2 I
D.
US 27 North l
609 - 321 2
10 1
1400 I
321 - 322 2
10 1
1400 322 - 323 2
12 1
1625
{
323 - 345 2
Il 1
1950 l
345 - 324 2
11 1
3500 324 - 325 2
11 1
1500 i
325 - 326 2
11 1
1625 326 - 327 2
11 1
1500 t
l 327 - 319 2
12 1
2000
[
t j
E.
Persimon Grove Road * (CR 1121) North r
1 334 - 335 2
8 1
1175
- l
?
335 - 336 2
8 1
1175 336 - 342 2
7 1
1175 342 - 337 2
7 1
1175 337 - 338 2
7 1
1300 338 - 316 2
7 1
1500 e
l l
4 4
f i
[
t r
i-i 1
5 i
6 TABLE 1 (continued)
MMOR EVACUATION RCtKE PGl7.GY 09RtM.STICS ri KEnUCKY Evacuation Routes Nrler of Width of Capacity (Link I.D. - Nodes)
Ianes Lanes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr)
F.
SR 10 South to SR 159 South 603-203 2
10 1
1400 203-219 2
9 1
1300 219-220 2
12 1
1625 220-221 2
8 1
1400 221-222 2
8 1
1400 222-223 2
8 1
1500 223-224 2
10 1
1400 224-225 2
10 1
1400 225-821 2
10 1
1400 G.
US 27 South 609-209 2
10 1
1625 209-208 2
10 1
1500 208-206 2
10 1
1625 206-216 2
10 1
1500 216-217 2
10 1
1500 217-215 2
10 1
1500 215-218 2
10 i
1500 218-822 2
10 1
1400
TABLE 1 (continued)
WJOR EVACUATION ROUIE PCIOGY CHAFJCIERISTICS IN KEWLM Evacuation Routes Ntrter of Width of Capncity (Link I.D. - Modes)
Lanes Lanes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr)
H.
CR 1019 South to SR 10 Soutn 108-129 2
7 1
1075 129-130 2
7 1
1300 130-119 2
9 1
1400 119-120 2
10 1
1400 120-121 2
10 1
1400 121-122 2
10 1
3 1.00 122-123 2
10 1
1400 123-814 2
10 1
1400 I.
CR 1951 East to CR 1159 South starting at intersection with CR 1019 108-109 2
7 1
1050 109-110 2
7 1
1050 110-111 2
7 1
1175 111-112 2
9 1
1300 112-113 2
8 1
1300 113-114 2
11 1
1400 114-813 2
10 1
1400 7
4 TABLE 2 MAJOR EVACUATICN POUTE ROADWAY CELMSTICS IN CLERONT ODCNTY Evacuation Routes Nurber of Width of Capacity y
l (Link I.D. - Nodes)
Ianes Lanes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr) i A. US 52 West 31 - 32 2
10 1
1400 32 - 53 2
10 1
1400
~
53 - 54 2
10 1
1400 54 - 80 2
12 1
1400 I
80 - 55 4
12 3
1475 55 - 56 4
12 3
1525 56 - 57 4
12 3
1525 57 - 58 4
12 3
1525 58 - 59 4
12 3
1525 59 - 805 4
12 3
1525 B. US 52 East 21 - 22
-2 9
1 1300 22 - 24 2
10 1
1400 24 - 2 2
10 1
1500 2-1 2
11 1
1500 1 - 806 2
11 1
1500 i
C. CR 743 North to SR 222 to SR 125 North 30 - 94 2
9 1
1300 94 - 14 2
9 1
1300 i
14 - 16 2
9 1
1400 16 - 17 2
10 1
1400 17 - 18 2
10 1
1500 18 - 38 2
9 1
1300 38 - 39 2
10 1
1400.
39 - 40 2
10 1
1400 40 - 42 2
10 1
1400 i
42 - 70 2
9 1
1500 I
I Boad types are defined as:
1.
Rural, undivided highway; no parking 1
2.
B o-way; with parking 3.
Rural, divided higbray; no parking t
l l
[
l.
1 e
w
-r-r-
V
~vv 7
l.
i l
l TABLE 2 (cent'd)
MAJOR EVICUATION BOUIE BOADWAY CHAPICIERISTICS IN CLEIMJNT COUNTY i-Nunber of Width of Capacity 1
Evacuation Routes Lanes Lanes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr)
D. 132 North 63 - 62 2
9 1
1300 62 - 50 2
9 1
1300 50 - 51 2
11 1
1625 51 - 74 2
11 1
1200 E. CR 756 North to SR 232 North to Laurel - Nicholsville Road to SR 222 North to SR 125 North 33 - 34 2
9 1
1400 34 - 81 2
9 1
1400 81 - 35 2
9 1
1300 35 - 36 2
9 1
1300 36 - 37 2
9 1
1400 37 - 38 2
11 1
1500 38 - 39 2
10 1
1400 39 - 40 2
10 1
1400 40 - 42 2
9 1
1500 l
l l
i 9
l I
l l
t I
l i
l TABLE 2 (cont'd) f I
MAJOR EVACUATION ROUTE RCAIEAY CHARACTERISTICS Hi CLEIBONT COUNTY j
t i
Evacuation Routes Number of Width of Capacity y
(Link I.D. - Nodes)
Lars Lanes (ft)
Road Type (veh/hr) t F. 743 North to SR 756 East to Felicity, then either (1) SR 756 i
or (2) SR 133 North to SR 774 East 22 - 23 2
9 1
130u i
23 - 30 2
9 1
1300 j
30 - 29 2
10 1
1400
[
i 29 - 28 2
10 1
1400 28 - 26 2
10 1
1400 26 - 27 2
10 1
1400 27 - 7 2
10 1
1400 i
7-6 2
10 2
1250 6 - 77 2
12 2
1500 (1) 77 - 807 2
10 1
1400 or 6 - 77 2
12 2
1500 (2) 77 - 8 2
10 1
1400 t
8 - 808 2
9 1
1300 l
l G. Jones Rd. to Donald Rd. to Sod m. Rod.
Data Not Available l
l 10
. -. - -. ~
4 Item 2.
The assumptions concerning automobile occupancy should be made l
more conservative.
1.3 autos per households is suggested.
Response
i 1
I The subject evacuation time estimate assumption of 1.0 evacuation vehicle
{
per household is consistent with current NRC and FEMA guidance (NUREG-I
' 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Appendix 4. Section Il-A, p.4-3) regarding the i
I preparation of evacuation time estimates, which states:
j
"... calculate the number of vehicles based on the number of i
households that own vehicles assuming one vehicle per household f
is used in evacuation."
f The assumption that each household would utilize only one vehicle for evacuation is further supported by natural disaster evacuation experience:
"Drabek in a study of sudden evacuation in the face of an I
h7 mediate flood threat in the Denver Metropolitan area ir 1965 i
i found that 92 per cent of f amily members lef t together, i
i confirming a hypothesis advanced sometime ago by Moore in Texas hurricanes that 'amilies moved as units and remained together..."
1
i
~
i i
References:
4 1.
Dynes, Quarantelli and Kreps, "A Perspective on Disaster' Planning, 3rd Edition", Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, May,1981.
I 2.
Dynes and Quarantelli, " Images of Disaster Behavior: Myths and Consequences", DRC, Ohio State University,1972.
4 i
i 11 5
9
,-y..,
e y-
.-r..
c. -..
y e
Thus, the use of one vehicle per household is supported both by current regulatory guidance and evacuation experience as reported in literature.
No change of assumption is therefore considered necessary for the subject time estimates.
However, should 1.3 vehicles per household be assumed, the effect on the existing time estimates is there would be no increase in evacuation time estimates with the single exception of one sector, that which includes New Richmond, would see an approximately 25% increase in its evacuation t ime. This is due to the f act that only in this one sector are evacuation times af fected by limited highway capacities in comparison to vehicle d emand.
5 - _ _ _ _.
4 Item 3.
Determine the volume of traf fic on each roadway segment to isolate any bottlenecks.
Response
The traffic volumes on each roadway segment during an evacuation have been calculated as part of the subject time estimate study. Therefore no other calculation is required nor is any change in time estimates expected from further study.
" Bottlenecks", as used in the context of the NRC letter, are interpreted to be roadway segments where highway capacity is exceeded by vehicle demand. Road restrictions such as one-lane bridges, narrowed sections, sharp turns, or intersections are not " bottlenecks" unless the highway capacity of the segment, where these conditions occur, is less than the vehicle deaand.
The roadway segment analysis of the study identified only one area within the study area in which the roadway segments are capacity limited -
that is, the volume of traffic on the road is greater than the calculated capacity, resulting in a " bottleneck" or delay. The identified capacity limited roadway segment is that portion of Route 52 located in New Richmond, Ohio. It is expected that the traffic volume resulting from evacuees traveling out of the area along Route 52 combined with the addition of the local New Richmond population will experience a limited delay or that segment of Route 52 controlled by three traffic signals.
The extent of this delay will be minimal due to the expansion of Route 52 from 2 lanes to 4 lanes just before these signals. It should be I
noted that this capacity limited roadway segment is approximately 7 to 8 miles from Zi=mer Station.
Af ter the study was completed in 1980, further analysis of each roadway i
i segment was made to check the highw-f capacity assumptions of the time i
estimate study. All key roads were field checked to identify factors affecting highway capacity such as lane width, shoulder widths, sight distances, roadway type, posted speeds, and potential restrictions (i.e., one-lane bridges, sharp turns, narrowed sections, or intersections).
Highway capacities were then calculated and compared to the study's l
i earlier assumptions. Aside from Route 52, no additional roads with vehi%le demand in excess of highway capacity were found. Therefore, it is concluded that adequate attention has been given to the identification d
of bottlenecks".
r a
Item 4.
Use 1980 census data in performing the anaylsis and provide the population data in a rose format as indicated in liUREG-0654
Response
Data from the 1980 census gives a 35% increase in population within 10 miles of Zimmer above the 1980 estimate used in the study. The effect of this population increase on the results of the study is no increase in evacuation tbne estimates with the exception of one sector, that which includes New Richmond, which would see an approximately 25% increase in its evacuation time.
This is due to the fact that only in this one sector are evacuation times affected by limited highway capacities in comparison to vehicle demand.
The population data in a rose format is provided in Figure 2 attached -
l5033l l4802l N
l4781}
NNE NFW l2953l NE l2248l 10 MILES ENE l2577l WNW 5
N I
l1653l I-)
2 E
l1268]
W l1207]-
ESE l211^ ~
WSW l1177l SE U207l l 675~ l_
l 775-l l 859 l i
l34.277l TOT AL SEGMENT POPULATION 0 TO 10 MILES POPULATION TOTALS TOTAL MILES RING. MILES POP ION 0-2 1039 0-2 l
1039 2-5 3319 0-5 j
4358 5-10 29 919 0-10 l 34.277 FIGURE 2 16-17
k Iten 5.
Discuss refueling cr other activities that might increase the plant's population and their inpact on the evacuation thes.
Resconse:
Refueling or other outages were considered at the the of preparatien of the time estimate study. It is estimated that fran two to four hundred additional s
personnel cculd be exped on-site during these periods, depending upcn the exact scope of work to be accanplished. During such work the reactor is in cold shutdcwn and the potential fcr any serious accident requiring evacuation of the general population is greatly mininized. Also, accidents during cold shutdown are during a period of time when the core inventory of radioisotopes is lower than during operation, making the affected portion of the plume e. posure r
zone likely to be of smaller radius than the full plume erergency planning zone.
Should an accident occur it is intended that the majority of the non-essential people would be released fran the plant in the early stage of an emergency, most likely prior to the need for implerentation of a protective action for the general population.
During nonm1 station operation there are generally no on-site activities requiriry significant numbers of people to affect the evacuation of the general 3public.' Most of the essential on-site personnel would stay on-site to man energency response facilities or support response or recoverf efforts. As indicated above, if possible, non-essential personnel would be released prior to the need for implenentation of general Irpulation protective actions.
Therefore, during both refuelirg and operation, the evacuation of the gercral public would most likely be unaffected by the evacuation of any Zimner on-site personnel.
Item 6.
Problems of flooding or sliding have apparently been reported at isolated locations. These flood / sliding prone areas should be identified on a map so that alternative routings, if any, can be evaluated. Given the infrequent nature of such occurrences, they would not be the basis of the adverse weather scenario. However, their possible impact is an appropriate planning consideration.
Response
As indicated above, the infrequent nature of flooding /slidinng does not necessitate their consideration a-part of the adverse weather conditions assumed. Such conditions, therefore, have no i= pact on evacuation time es t imat es.
Flood and slide prone areas of the Zi=mer plume EPZ are well known by local officials. County officials have access to information such as flood plain studies which identify flood prone areas. The attached maps were obtained from one such " flood plain information" study performed by the U. S.
Army Corp of Engineers for the Clermont County Planning Commission and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. It should be noted that the original maps are in color and provide better definition than the attached black and white copies.
Sections of Route 8 in Kentucky are subject to sliding or slippages due to heavy rains, freezing and thawing, or flooding. These sections, as identified by county officials, are (1) between Oneonta and Dayton, (2) between Foster and Mentor and (3) south of California to Mentor. Other than clearing roads of debris, no remedial efforts are presently planned for these areas.
Despite these conditions, the road is in extensive everyday use by residents. The road capacity, taking these cenditions into account, is well above the proj ected vehicle demand and the road presents no special con-siderations for a normal, adverse, or any other evacuation scenario.
i e
h 4
i r
d I
t
(
I r
Item 7.
The evacuation time estinates should be reviewed by appropriate 1
State and local officials. The need for special traffic l
control measures should also be discussed.
i i
Response
i r
The evacuation time estimate study was reviewed by Kentucky and Ohio State and local officials and included in the radiological emergency
?
plans for Kentucky and the counties of Clermont, Campbell, Pendleton, and Bracken. The State of Ohio planners were also provided with a copy r
of the estimates.
r 1
It is CG&E's understanding that the inclusion of the study in the emergency I
plans implies that the state and county planners have found the study to be useful in providing the time estimates necessary in the protective action decision-making process. State and local planners recognize in j
t i
their methods for protective action decision selection that the utse j
f l
estimates used for evacuation of a segment of the population during an
{
actual emergency must take into account the specific situation at hand.
l i
?
i t
i State and local officials making protective action recommendations also 4
l i
have available to them the estinates they originally developed in response i
i to the NRC request of December 26, 1979 as forwarded to them by CG&E.
t F
Those estimates are also included within their plans as a part of the i
Stone & Webster study. Any of these can be used in an emergency.
P l
I I
, [
i 8
.c i
t P
i State and local planners intend to initiate both access control and j
1 traf fic control measures at variots locations af ter an evacuation recommen-dation is given to the public. Althcugh the prime function of access l
}
control personnel is keeping unauthorized people out of the evacuated area, they may also serve for traffic control when possible. Others may i
be dispatched for traf fic control where conditions develop indicating a l
need. The location of such points will be determined from both the current planning efforts and command decisions reached ar the time of an L
evacuation. While the use of traffic control measures may provide some
[
5 benefit at a few intersections, such measures are not considered mandatory j
i
]
nor are they expected to significantly affect evacuation times since the j
i 1
estimated traffic demands are generally well below roadway capacities.
1 L
j The only area where traffic control is indicated is in New Richmond, t
Ohio along Route 52 westbound at each of the three traffic lights to
'l ensure that the operation of the signals during an evacuation reflects i
the resulting traffic demands. Therefore, no recommendation has been-c i
provided for any special measures.
P I
s l
il 1
i l
i l
i' :
L i
I
t L
Item 8.
Provision for transportation of persons without automobiles should be discussed. What are their numbers and locations? What resources are available, how long does it take for mobilization, and will more than one trip be necessary? The results of the aralysis should be an estimate of the time required for this special population subgroup.
i.
Response
J Based upon evacuation experience as detailed in current lit 2rature and the intended usage of the time estimates, no separate estimate has been provided i
for those without automobiles, i
In an emergency, it is common for evacuating people to assist others, eipecially those whom they know do not have transportation. Studies have shown that:
"The evidence in fact is rather strong that far from seeking and being dependent on formal disaster organizations, these are the last sources that victims turn to for help. There is actually a-hierarchy of assistance seeking that runs from more informal groups to formal, less f amiliar organizations. Thus, people first esek help from family and intimates; then they turn to larger membership groups to which they belong (e.g., churches, work places, etc.).
they look next to other individual members of the community. Only r
if these pources prove unresponding or unavailable do they seek assistance from the more impersonal formal organizations, such as police and welfare departments. Last to be sought are the special disaster agencies such as civil defense and the Red Cross." 1,2 t
i
- Also,
" Flight from a threatening situation involves playing traditional social roles including the taking care of others... Even in very l
precipitous flight, fleeing groups often make attempts to assist.
ctrangers in getting away from a seemingly L: mediately dangerous situation. Mutual aid rather than panicky abandonment of others is i
a very manifesg characteristic of withdrawal behavior in the presence of danger." l' i
1, 2 Dynes, op cit.
l,
l i
P There is no reason to expect different behavicr in the Zimmer area. This conclusion is confirmed by the experience of Kentucky state planners with extensive experience in evacuations. Thus it may be expected that the
{
persons without transportation will not wait for the availability of ' transportation provided by public and disaster agencies.
(
i.
L Thur, since few people are expected to require publicly-provided I
L transportation in a Zimmer-related emergency (or any other), an evacuation time estimate that included this group would not be cepresentative of the proper estimate for the majority of the people and would not be appropriate i
for its intended use.
l The purpose of state and local emergency plans is to provide for the greatest c
dose savings during an emergency., In accordance with this goal, protective i
. action decision-making procedures have been developed for Zimmer which take into account evacuation tine estimates that must be representative of the response of the population.
l Since (1) relatively f ew evacuees will requira public transportation and (2) estimates are needed which represent the response of the population, it is proper to use in protective action decision making the existing l
time estimate which does not separately consider the public without trans-portation. Considering this, no separate estimate has been provided for this portion of the population.
s In any event, significant planning provision is made for people with public 4
transportation needs. Persons without other transportation will be identified i
either prior to or during emergencies in the same manner as other transportation dependent persons, such as the handicapped or elderly. The primary m'ethods, as
. {
t
l.-
l
.l described in the State and local plans, consist of a paid-reply post card distributed at an appropriate time prior to Zi=mer operation and annually thereaf ter, and door-to-door verification at the cine of an emergency.
The paid-reply post card will be attached to the " Circle of Safety" public information pamphlet. This may be completed by the public and returned l
to county officials.
In this manner the non-auto. owning,' handicapped, and l
i elderly members of the public will be identified as to name, numbers and l -
location prior to an emergency.
i During an emergency, the " Circle of Safety," as well as EBS and NOAA i
l t
radio broadcasts, will instruct the public to signal that they have been notified and need no assistance by placing the green card distributed with the " Circle of Safety" in their window, or by tying a towel to their door or mailbox so that it is visible from the road.
Emergency workers will I
visit each residence which has not cisplayed a signal to determine what, if any, assistance is required.
As noted above, it has been the experience of State and local disaster f
officials that evacuees first seek transportation from relatives, friends and
[
1 i
neighbors rather than from public transportation sources. However, y
\\
I t
should evacuees require transportation, su'fficient resources are available to remove them from the affected area. In Clermont County, the Clermont Authority for Rural Transportation (CART) has approximately 20 radio.
t equipped vehicles in its fleet. Additional transportation sources in 5
the county are available. In Campbell County, the Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK), Northern Kentucky University and the Community t
i i
l t
i I l
.i S
. ~,..
Action Commission and the School Districts have transportation resources such as buses, vans, and vehicles for the handicapped to assist in the transportation of residents. Additional transportation resources in Bracken and Pendleton County consist primarily of school buses.
In Kentucky and Ohio some emergency transportation can also be provided by local police and f tre departments. For Kentucky, the State National Guard and State Police resources can be made available.
l t
t f
I,
Item 9.
Specify the positive means for traffic control at all identified bottlenecks.
Resconse:
See resm nse to item 7.
I t
I E
o h
t 1
Y' I
e i
j l
t I
t h
1 t
t
[
t e
f i
s e
d-i l
Item 10.
Submit a copy of the Clermont Disaster Services Agency Study along with a discussion of how the t Laes in this study compare with those in the CG&E study.
Response
A copy of the Clermont County Disaster Services Agency (CCDSA) study is i
attached. It is noted that a copy was sent directly to the NRC upon its original issuance on April 1, 1980.
The CCDSA evacuation time estimates were developed using assumptions which are vastly different from those used in developing the CG&E evacuation time study.
For example, the CCDSA study was developed prior to the time that requirements for prompt notification had been finalized. Therefore, the notification system assumed by CCDSA entailed door-to-door nocification. This method is a very l
time consuming process requiring the mobilization of a significant number of personnel. The prompt notification system now required was assumed 3
to exist in the CG&E study.
l i
In addition, the adverse weather assumed by CCDSA consists of heavy snowfall combined with severe flooding. Such a very infrequent combination of condi-tions, resulting in numerous impassable roads, would very likely result in relatively long evacuation times as in the CCDSA estimates such that evacuation would generally not be the immediately recommended protective action. The j
~ CG&E study leaves such severe and infrequent adverse weather conditions to be l
considered by officials at the time of an emergency. This is consistent with I
i NRC's own statements in item 6 of the subject letter (i.e. "Given the infrequent i
nature of such occurrences, they would not be the basis of the adverse weather
~
l l
scenario.").
I,
i L
l l
v-
=
w
t n
-Item 11. _ Address the impact of adverse weather on evacuation.
1
Response
No specific adverse weather conditions were identified in the NRC letter i
requesting this study. However, the subject evacuation time estimate
-considers the effects of adverse weather on evacuation times by reducing the roadway capacities within the study area and the vehicle speed by 50%.
Clearly, a wide range of weather conditions is possible in the study area l
with normal or slightly degraded conditions being the most likely. The adverse weather cime presented in the study represents the ef fects of the most common adverse weather conditions that can be reasonably expected in the study area rather than extremes of weather.
The normal and adverse weather time estinates are for the sole purpose of assiseing public officials in selecting appropriate protective actions. These officials, in the course of selecting protective actions, may adjust these time estimates to reflect existing weather conditions at the time of the emergency as well as other conditions affecting evacuation times. Weather conditions which can be described as severe may preclude hmnediate evacuation; i
in these circunstances other protective actions would be selected for l
t i
implementation.
?
f I
i f
i I
+
1 I
I l
l F
c Item 12. liscuss the inpact of the Clermont County plans not to evacuate into t
Brown County on the evacuation times.
i k
l i
Response
?
Y r
Evacuation times in the CG&E study are based on the assumption that resi-l dents in the Clermont County areas generally adjacent to Brown County.
will use roads that lead into Brown county. If all people in the Clermont j
t' County areas generally south and east of Zimmer were to use the routes nearest to them as suggested in the current Clermont County plans, i
the time estimate for that one area (the zone consisting of Sectors I, i
IV, VIII in the study) out to 10 miles would increase approximately 15%. The time estinate for all other zones would remain the same.
l l
Considering that it is unlikely that every resident will follow the suggested routing contained in the Clernont County Plan it is not expected.that a
~
significant effect on evacuation ttnes will be encountered. Recognizing that y
t changes of 15% are not very significant when considering the use of the study,
{
and that the detual affect is likely. to be less, no change to the time estimate l
is warranted.
i l
l I
l 1
I t
i h
i i
i
R-A m'p CLEAMONT COUNTY su il M
3 CIVIL CEf:ENSE
'M M CISA:::= 1 t=A SEAVICES AGENCY
- =atavia Chio 45103-
' - -~.. - _,.
April 1,
1980 m o i g,
,b/
4 kinV WDV Mr. James D. Flynn, Manager l
Licensing and Eviromental Affairs 6MC l C i n c i ntia t i Gas & Electric Comoany Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 I
anua rn RE:
Information of population distribution and' estimated evackatten time * -M '
for the (10 mi'e) plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone surrounding the Wm. H. ZIrrner Nuclear Power Station.
Dear Mr. Flynn:
Attached, please find the information with regards to the aforementioned, per your earlier request dated 11 February, 1980.
I am sorry for the delay in providing you tnis information but I am hopeful that it will be ;seful.
During the Month of March, this Agency conducted an in-depth survey in an effort to determine the estimated population distribution figures and estimated evacuation time requi rements per the.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comiss ion Format.
It should be noted that the attached information is based on best estimates.
Data base information used to arrive at these figures is as follows:
1).
Clermont County 701 Housing Element - as revised (prepared by the Clermont County Planning Commission).
2).
Clermont County Census tract and Enumberation District information - as revisee.
3).
Inventory and Analysis of Building Permits issued in clermont County from 1970 through December 1979.
4).
Clerment County Traffic Count & Highway Survey - as revised (preoared by the Clermont County Engineer).
5).
U.S. Geological Survey Maos of Clermont County.
6).
Clermont County Base Population Distribution Maps.
7).
Information and relative data bised on previous experiences during natural disaster and/or extra ordinary emergency operations (i.e., ficoding, severe winter storms, etc.).
w.
9:'
s
/
/
Should you have any questiens cencerning this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Sest personal regards.
1 i
Sincerely, 1-W
/
Kenneth W.
Conover DIRECTOR f
KWC/brp i
ENC 1.CSURE r
i CC: Office Files - Outgoing FY80 t
Office Files - ZNPS Copies to:
U.S.N.R.C. (Washington D.C.)
i 0.0.5.A. (J.R. Williams) i I
(
r i
h I
+
r t
d 1
r f
9 i
3 I
i e
r i
e s
+
r i
i
%ue i
)
f i
i i
. ~..
?
EVACtlATION TlHE / POPUL ATION ESTitiATES CD" 1,
2 tilLE RADillS:
OCCllPI E D 1511ttAT E D ISilitATill I V ACUAT iell 11stL5 AREA DWELL 1NG UNITS POP 6LAI10fl O PIlitlnt i A II: WEAIHER I.D V i I:', s l'eqr, ut f.ilig g 180" North 47 Est. Dwelling Units 168 Est. Population 1 ilour - 15 itin.
3 Hours - O lii n.
180' Sou t h 93 Est. Dwelling Units 680 Est. Population
? Ilour- - 30 stin.
(. sio... s
- 0 itin.
TOTALS:
140 Est. Dwelling Units 844 Est. Population 3 llours - 45 ttin.
9 Hours - O tiin, i
ll.
S tilL E SADIUS:
OCCUPIED ESilHATED ESTittATED EVAEUAllora Til1ES AREA DWELLlHG UNITS POPill ATION opt itturt FAIR WI ATli[R ADvi %L l'00ft Uf AlllIR.
NW 90' 73 Est. DweiIing Units 255 Est. Population 2 flours - 45 itin.
li liours - 30 ttin.
NE 90' 693 Est. Dwelling Units 2490 Est. Population 9 linors - 45 tlin.
15 liours - M ttin.
i SW 90*
0---------------------
0------------------
0------------------
0-------------
SE 90' hish Est Dwelling Units 1441 E *. t. Population 4 Ifours -
30 tlin.
4 lion e.
- 0 it i n.
TOTALS:
1210 Est. Dwelling Units 4186 Ist. Population 1/ trours - 0 Ili n.
?<1 lloui s - 0 it i n.
4
\\
N.,
.l' N
/
ln,.
3.
\\
?
l l' AttfAT 10tl IINE / POPllL ATION ESTlHATES Iaor 7
ilI.
_l_i_t_11l l IP. AD i llS :
LST IH41[D IVAf Ltt.T 10tl iINE S OECUPIED ES T lilATID fl>f A DuffLING Utills POPut AT10ft OPilltutt IIil: Ki,* Ilif P.
I.I@ E liS I P098: t!! Allif e
! Ilu 90' 1684 [st. NeiIing Units 6925 Est. Population 29 Ilours - 15 Hin.
58 Hours - 30 Hin.
I Il[ 90' 3928 Est. Ibelling Units 12570 Est. Population 48 llours - 45 Hin.
77 llours - 30 Hin.
0------------------
0-------------------
l
- SW 90' 0-----------------------
0--------------------
S[ 90' 2475 Est. Ibelling linits 8340 Est. Population 39 Ilours - 0 Hin.
68 Ilours - 0 Hin.
i TOTALS:
8087 Est. Owellipg Units 27790 Est. Population 117 Ilours - 0 Hin.
204 llour s.
- 0 Hin.
I i
a d
i s
_