ML20054E734

Testimony of Ms Della Rocca,Be Podwal & Rl Rosenblatt Re Commission Questions 3 & 4.Demonstrates Adequacy of Evacuation Components of Radiological Emergency Response Plans.Related Correspondence

ML20054E734
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	06/07/1982
From:	Della Rocca M, Podwal B, Podwall B, Rosenblat R, Rosenblatt R CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20054E727	List: ML20054E726 ML20054E731 ML20054E734 ML20054E748
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206140120
Download: ML20054E734 (57)

Text

.

s RELATED CORRESPONDENCE 6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

Louis J.

Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris

---

x In the Matter of

)

Docket Nos.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

)

50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) 50-286 SP

)

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK June 7, 1982 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)

)

---

x LICENSEES' TESTIMONY OF PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.

ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:

Charles Morgan, Jr.

Brent L. Brandenburg MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY 1899 L Street, N.W.

OF NEW YORK, INC.

Washington, D.C.

20036 4 Irving Place (202) 466-7000 New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4600 l

8206140120 820607 5

PDR ADOCK 05000247 T

PDR ll

l I

i e

i' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

I.

INTRODUCTION 3

II.

OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN III.

HISTORY OF THE EVACUATION PLAN 7

IV.

EVACUATION PLAN............................

9

'V EVACUATION TRAVEL TIME ESTIMATES...........

19 I.

39 lv1.

CONCtuSION.................................

i l

t, I

l I

i i

1 i

1 I

s I

L

f TESTIMONY WITNESSES:

Michael S.

Della Rocca Bruce E. Podwal Peggy L.

Rosenblatt I.

INTRODUCTION Purpose of Testimony This testimony has been prepared in response to commission Questions 3 and 4 and relates to Board Conten-tions 3.1, 3.3, 3.9 and 4.4.

It provides information which I

demonstrates the adequacy of the evacuation components

• of the Radiological Emergency Response Plans ("RERP's") of the four counties (Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange) within an approximate 10-mile radius of the Indian Point nuclear power plants.

The information provided herein also demonstrates that the evacuation plan, the evacuation time estimates included in I

llthe plan, and the methodology used to prepare the plan and these estimates are in compliance with NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP.1, Rev. 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological l Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0654), and that the evacuation time estimates are reasonable.

We emphasize that this testimony and the Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. involvement have been limited to evacu-ation topics, which are but a portion of overall radiological emergency planning.

(See p. 6, below.)

o s

f Professional Qualifications The witnesses have extensive experience in the i

disciplines that are fundamental to evacuation planning.

These are transportation planning and demographic analysis, two disciplines which figure in a wide range of projects typically undertaken by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. (" Parsons Brinckerhoff") and participated in and managed I

by these witnesses.

As indicated in the resumes annexed to this testimony, Bruce E. Podwal (Civil Engineer), Peggy L. Rosenblatt (Urban

! Planner), and Michael S. Della Rocca (Transportation Planning filEngineer) have the professional qualifications required to e

! develop evacuation plans and procedures that are responsive to l

the NUREG-0654 guidelines.

Further, they had the resources of i

I a large, multi-disciplinary engineering / urban planning staff htoconductthestudiesandanalysesrequiredasinputtoplan l

development and to evacuation time estimate development.

l f

In addition to the Indian Point evacuation studies, Parsons Brinckerhoff has developed evacuation plans and l

time estimates for the James A. FitzPatrick/Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station (New York); and evacuation time estimates for the Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) and Salem / Hope j

l 1.

l l-Creek (New Jersey, Delaware) nuclear power plant emergency planning zones.

The three witnesses have been involved to I

varying degrees in all of these studies.

II.

OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN The four county RERP's present the emergency prepared-ness, response and recovery activities to be enacted in the event of an incident at the Indian Point nuclear power plant site.

The plans delineate graduated levels of government and agency responsibility and interaction recommended to implement the various protective response options corresponding _to the

'possible stages of an emergency.

i The evacuation portions of the RERP's, prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, describe the scope of activities and the agencies that would be involved in an evacuation in response to an emergency at Indian Point.

This informa-tion is contained in Plan Appendices A, G, H, and K and I

l in Attachment 1 (" General Evacuation Procedures") of each l

county agency's procedures in the four County RERP's.

Other l

supporting dccumentation prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff includes the draft documents: " Methodology to Estimate Roadway Travel Times During Evacuation," January 1981 (draft January 1981 document); " Methodology to Calculate Evacuation t,

L

i f

Travel Time Estimates for the Indian Point Emergency Planning Zone," November 1981 (draft November 1981 document); and

" Guidelines for Updating the Evacuation Portions of tha Radio-logical Emergency Response Plans and Procedures," April 1982 (draft update guidelines).

The evacuation portions of the RERP's contain informa-

~,..tion and agency procedures, which are presented as follows:

Appendix A prest.ts a general description of the county's evacuation plan, addressing the following l

specific elements:

1) scenarios for evacuation planning; 2) traffic control; 3) evacuation of the transit-dependent populations; 4) reception centers, congregate care centers, and school reception centers; i

and 5) evacuation plans for special facilities.

l Appendix G displays population data for the plume and ingestion Emergency Planning Zones, disaggregated into sectors of the full 50-mile area.

l l

\\

Appendix H is a comprehensive listing of special facilities, including institutions or locations which have either a residential population of j

fifteen or more persons, or have a sizable albeit l

l l

' l'

}

i I

temporary attendance at predictable times.

Such facilities are hospitals, nursing homes; schools, including nursery schools and day care centers, and universities; convents, monasteries, and group homes; resident and day summer camps; correctional facilities and prison lockups; and parks.

Appendix K defines the boundaries of the 46 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA's), subdivisions of the l

plume emergency planning zone ("EPZ"), which were

{

created to achieve greater flexibility in mobilizing t

local resources and the population.

To the degree i

possible, ERPA boundaries were delineated to coincide i

i i

with political and geographical boundaries familiar I

i i

i to the public.

l

. of each Agency's Procedures sets forth the procedures for the general evacuation response to an emergency, listing for each agency the activities it should enact, either alone or in coordination with other agencies.

Attachment 1 includes tables of data showing detailed informa-l tion related to the implementation of the operations of the particular agency.

Evacuation constitutes only a part of the comprehen-sive emergency preparedness plan.

Evacuation should not be considered as an isolated response; it is one of several emergency response options which together comprise the RERP.

The RERP's serve to integrate the off-site responsibilities of the state and county governmental agencies, and private agencies f and companies.

l Because planning is a dynamic process, changes I

in existing political, organizational and geographic factors j

which will occur from time to time would affect the RERP's and require modifications to them.

School closings, population I shifts, roadway improvements, organizational changes of respon-sibility and philosophy are examples of occurrences which would 1

llikely require changes ranging from relatively minor updating to rewriting or modifying some of the plan's appendices or agencies' procedures.

I In addition, the plans have been subject to review j

since their initial development.

Periodic reviews by federal, l

I State and county authorities serve to keep the RERP's current, l

Changes which are recommended by official reviewers are also considered for incorporation into the RERP's.

1 l

l.

f f

t An evacuation plan, therefore, must reflect changes from different sources and of varying degrees of complexity; it should never be considered final.

An effective plan must be l

l flexible enough to accommodate changes over the course of time i

within its basic framework.

1 i,

Further, the plans incorporate generally accepted principles of emergency planning, as set forth in the accompany-l

'ing direct testimony of Dr. Russell Dynes.

1 III. HISTORY OF THE EVACUATION PLAN Parsons Brinckerhoff consulted extensively with county and State officials during the development of the lRERP's,whichcommencedinDecember1979.

Although compensated I

by the utilities, Parsons Brinckerhoff in effect acted as l

t consultant for the State and the counties.

In this capacity, I

Parsons Brinckerhoff attended meetings with Civil Defense, Law Enforcement, Health, School, Public Works / Highway, Fire and Rescue, Ambulance Corps, Social Services, and Transportation f officials and responded to their concerns.

Many meetings were held with the highest county official available with authority to coordinate county-wide activities within a given area of reponsibility.

o 3 l

f e

Initial meetings were held with county officials, on an individual basis, to introduce the background and purpose of the RERP's and to elicit input to evacuation-related concepts and procedures.

Subsequent meetings were also held to review the RERP's development and to provide further opportunity to county officials to comment on their contents.

Comments were also requested via letters; draft copies of procedures were sent to officials for review.

Parsons i Brinckerhoff maintained an "open-door" policy, encouraging officials to comment at any time.

l Consultation with New York State officials was also an on-going process.

In particular, these officials provided 1

input to and critiques of the methodology to calculate evacua-(

l

,jtiontraveltimeestimates, the requirements for host facilities, i

land various traffic control and other operational concepts.

Draft copies of evacuation components of the RERP's were sent periodically to the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group I

and the Office of Disaster Preparedness for review and comment.

, Ultimately, the RERP's were approved by the State Disaster l

l Preparedness Commission.

Parsons Brinckerhoff continued its consultation with the State and the counties through several revisions of the RERP's.

The documents have thus been updated and improved, considering county and State officials' comments, as appropriate.

i i

I i

l i

i IV.

EVACUATION PLAN A.

Development of the Plan l

The evacuation portions of the RERP's were developed l

l after careful study of the EPZ.

As the first step in the l

planning process involves the identification (i.e., number land location) of the population to be evacuated for the various scenarios, extensive efforts were made to identify potential This group was defined as including the resident evacuees.

population, special facilities' populations, and the transient Ipopulation.

The resident population was identified using data consisting primarily of estimates of 1980 population I

which were prepared by each of the four counties included in lthe EPZ.

I The category of "special facilities" includes:

i i

! schools (public/ private elementary, middle and high; nursery j

and day care); colleges; nursing homes, hospitals and other l

l health care facilities; convents and monasteries; group 1ihomes; correctional facilities and police lockups; and camps.

These facilities were inventoried through state, county and local directories and were then contacted by letter followed by a telephone interview to obtain the information required for the plan.

t

• 1 1

i I

I

The " transient" population includes people employed within the EPZ, people staying at hotels and motels in the EPZ, and visitors to parks and recreation areas.

Employment estimates for the EPZ were based on data provided by the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission and by information obtained from telephone interviews with major employers.

Hotels and motels in the EPZ were inventoried through state and local directories, and occupancy figures

'were obtained through telephone interviews.

Data on park attendance for major parks and recreation areas in the EPZ were obtained from the Palisades Interstate Park Commission, the Taconic State Park Commission, and various parks' officials.

Having estimated and located the various populations to be evacuated, the next step in the planning process was to determine how these people would be evacuated.

Because evacu-ation would be accomplished primarily by auto (see p. 22, below),

with buses providing assistance to transit-dependent evacuees, a field survey of the roadway system in the EPZ was performed.

The purpose of the survey was to observe the actual configura-tion of the roads in the EPZ that would be designated as either primary or back-up evacuation routes.

Information collected as part of the roadway field survey was used to establish the capacity of the roads during an evacuation.

l I

n The resulting capacity data was used to designate the recommended j routes for the different areas within the EPZ and to prepare the evacuation time estimates described in Section V of this testimony.

I I

In addition to the roadway survey, information i

q i

i concerning bus and train availability in and around the bEPZ was obtained from state records, directories, and interviews I

with bus operators and Conrail officials.

All routes designated for use by buses were driven to assess their adequacy for i

i accommodating bus traffic.

i t

I Planning for host facilities to provide congregate I care services to evacuees was done in coordination with l

l;the American Red Cross

(" ARC").

The American Red Cross was j

Hllprovidedwithinfarmationdetailingthenumberofpotential I

l evacaees, the identification of acceptable host areas (i.e.,

i I

areas at least 15 and preferably 20 miles from Indian Point),

and recommendations for schools that could serve as congregate I care centers in the appropriate host areas.

Using the informa-tion provided, the ARC began developing its own planning for an emergency of this nature.

Facilities designated as reception and school reception enters were identified based on their locations i

in appropriate host areas (i.e., areas 15 and 20 miles from i

Indian Point, respectively), and particularly in the o

i i j

case of reception centers, on their accessibility and physical ability to accommodate the evacuees directed to them.

All schools and other facilities identified were contacted by let'ter to advise them of their designation in the plan and describe the function of reception and school reception centers.

In addition to the contacts with facilities and agencies to collect the information required to develop the plan, Parsons Brinckerhoff also attended numerous meetings with the various facilities and groups.

The purpose of these meetings was to describe to them the plan contents and, more specifically, their role in the plan.

Parsons Brinckerhoff also participated in several public meetings that were forums for discussion of the plan.

Overall, the plan was developed to provide a rational l

means for evacuating either sub-areas within the plume EPZ or the full plume EPZ.

Because the plan was devised in a modular fas-t hion, it provides emergency managers with the flexibility needed

!llshould a partial or staged evacuation evolve into a full plume l

EPZ evacuation.

The plan also provides an organizational frame-work and approach for responding to emergencies outside the EPZ.

The flexibility of the plan is further evidenced in that it accounts for time-based differences (day, season, O.

l

etc.) that exist within the EPZ.

It reflects the fact that a wide range of activities occur within the area and that area residents are similarly engaged.

As such, the plan provides various means to re-unite households that have been separated.

The plan also reflects the impact these activities will have on an evacuation by incorporating their impacts into the time estimates.

For example, the different time estimates for the six scenarios presented in Appendix A of the RERP's take into account varying populations at recreational facilities and places of employment as well as other factors such as applicable school sessions and staffing variations at residential institu-tions.

Because a plan which is too specific may become i

difficult to use, the plan does not try to address every possible situation that can exist.

However, during the development of the plan, it was recognized that certain I

types of people within the plume EPZ might require special assistance in the event of an emergency.

In order to respond to these specific problems, residents within the EPZ were asked to advise the Four County Nuclear Safety Committee ("FCNSC") of any special assistance they might require.

To facilitate transmitting this information, residents were provided with l

self-addressed, stamped postcards that were included in the l

l public information brochures distributed to residents within l

l 1

e 1,

I

the plume EPZ.

Once the postcards are received, the appropriate agencies in each county will be able to make plans to respond to the indicated problems.

This information can be updated by area residents each time the brochures are distributed.

In the in-terim, area residents can contact the New York State Department of Health or the Four County Nuclear Safety Committee.

As the special needs of certain types of individuals will change over time, so will other factors that affect the plan.

In order for the plan to continue to be workable, it must be updated to reflect changes in the EPZ.

The New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group ("REPG")

has assumed the responsibility for overseeing the updating of the plans.

To assist REPG, Parsons Brinckerhoff has provided it with guidelines for updating the evacuation portions of the county RERP's.

l As a result of the development of the RERP's, the counties now have the essential information presented in lacomprehensivemannerneededtoimplementanevacuation.

While much of this information certainly existed prior to the development of the RERP's, the state of emergency preparedness l

l in the EPZ has been significantly improved as a result of these plans.

In addition to organizing the necessary data, the l

P anning effort increased the awareness of county agencies of l

l the general issues of emergency preparedness.

O I

_14_

l

B.

Description of the Plan The evacuation plan is based on the identification of both the population to be evacuated and the transportation facilities required to accomplish this evacuation.

These l are the essential data around which the plan and detailed procedures are built.

In order to identify the population, the first step was to define the EPZ.

Parsons Brinckerhoff i

four counties, the licensees n consultation with the State, and other consultants determined that for the area surrounding Indian Point, a circular EPZ defined uniformly by a ten-mile l

radius from the plant should not be used.

Rather, the EPZ was modified to:

preserve or group major population areas; j

simplify boundary definitions as much as possible (by using I

I political divisions or major roads) for purposes of e.g.,

l clarity; and recognize important topographic features, such j

as rivers, hills and valleys, and utilize them as boundaries when practical.

The resulting irregularly-shaped EPZ, which lgenerallyencompassesanareagreaterthanaten-mileradius, reflects the consideration and inclusion of these various I factors.

Because the population in the EPZ can vary with the time of day, the day of the week, and the season, a set of six time-based scenarios was developed as a means of characterizing the population shifts.

These scenarios,

{

l,

which address variations in both the general population distribution and the special facilities, include:

(1) night; (2) weekday, school in session; (3) weekday, school not in session; (4) evening; (5) weekend / holiday-summer daytime; and (6) weekend / holiday-winter daytime.

The population of the EPZ has also been grouped in

,a geographic manner.

To provide the plan with the flexibility to evacuate sub-areas of the EPZ in the event that a full eva-cuation would not be necessary, the EPZ has been divided into 46 ERPA's.

In compliance with NUREG-0654, the ERPA's were delineated in terms of factors such as those described above used to delineate the EPZ.

i l

If general evacuation would ever be necessary, and it i

were to be decided that any given portion of an ERPA should evacuate, then the entire ERPA should evacuate.

For each ERPA within the EPZ, primary evacuation routes have been identified.

The ERPA's have been further subdivided into traffic zones.

Each traffic zone is assigned an evacuation route for each mode of travel.

As part of the public education program associated with the implementation of the RERP, the general public has been provided with materials to identify their residential locations within a given traffic I

I l

zone in the appropriate ERPA, the recommended evacuation route i

and their reception center.

The evacuation plan comprises four major phases; mobilization, egress, maintenance and re-entry.

As a response action, the first activity which could precede an evacuation --

mobilization -- may be initiated for an incident classified as i

an Alert, a Site Emergency or a General Emergency.

The decision I

l to proceed with the second phase of the plan -- egress -- would be made as the status of the incident was assessed.

The final l phases of the plan -- maintenance and re-entry -- would be appli-

! cable only after an evacuation occurred.

Mobilization would consist of several major types af li activities, which could occur concurrently.

For example, traffic j j

control would be instituted; buses and special vehicles would be i

I mobilized; special facilities would begin preparations for

.l l evacuation; and host facilities would be notified and prepared I

l l for use.

I i

i l

i The actual egress phase of the evacuation would be the j

continuation and implementation of those activities initiated during mobilization to move the affected population out of the EPZ.

lgress would include:

(1) activation of the traffic control system; (2) activation of the bus system for evacuation; (3) activation of the special vehicles for evacuation; (4) activation h

i of reception and congregate care centers, and, if schools were in session, school reception centers; (5) evacuation of the special facilities; and (6) evacuation of the general population.

l During the maintenance phase of the evacuation, the activities that would occur can be classified as those taking place inside the EPZ and those occurring outside the EPZ, primarily at the congregate care centers in the host areas.

Maintenance phase activities include:

traffic control and security in the affected portions of the EPZ; restoration of transit operations outside the evacuated areas; and congregate 8

l care center operations.

il Re-entry into the evacuated areas would be phased by ERPA's to minimize traffic congestion and to help maintain order.

To provide transit-dependent evacuees residing in l

icongregate care centers with transportation back to the evacuated area, congregate care center managers would compile information pon the numbers of people (by original traffic zone) needing lItransportationtotheirhomeareas.

This information would be provided to coordinate the necessary return bus service with participating bus operators.

A partial evacuation (some but not all ERPA's) would be conducted in the same manner as a full evacuation; the l

I l

l I

evacuation plan and procedures for each ERPA are essen-I tially the same for either a partial or total evacuation.

To this end, the information and data required by each agency to implement a partial evacuation of the EPZ are provided in the procedures, where appropriate.

IV.

EVACUATION TRAVEL TIME ESTIMATES I

l A.

Overview j

i Evacuation travel time estimates were prepared for h! the EPZ surrounding the Indian Point site.

The purpose of I

l

!I these time estimates is to aid State and local officials in i

the selection of an appropriate protective response option i

in the event of an incident e.t Indian Point.

(See NUREG-0654, l Appendix 4.)

The estimates provide information on how long l

) it. would take to evacuate a given area under many dif ferent-circumstances.

l Parsons Brinckerhoff has conducted four evacuation h

i. time estimate studies for use by officials in the Indian i

l l

Point area.

The first, entitled " Evacuation Time Estimates l

for Areas near the Site of Indian Point Power Plants" (January l

t 31, 1980), was prepared in response to the November 29, 1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission request.

The second and I

third time estimate studies were included in Rev. O and Rev. 1, I

l

[

{

I i

i

)

respectively, of each county RERP.

The fourth time estimate study was prepared to supplescent Rev. 1 of the county RERP's, and was entitled " Methodology to Calculate Evacuation Travel Time Estimates for the Indian Point Emergency Planning Zone" (Draft, November 1981).

This fourth study provided additional evacuation travel time estimates for quadrants within the EPZ (as well as for the entire 10-mile plume EPZ), as specified in f

jAppendix 4 of NUREG-0654.

The travel time estimates in Rev. 1

'of the RERP's and in the draft November 1981 document utilized Ithe same data.

The three most recent time estimates were studies of the roadway travel time portion of the overall evacuation l

8 i

l time.

Evacuation travel time estimates were determined for l

l both normal and adverse weather conditions.

For normal weather conditions, the evacuation travel time estimates are presented l

as a range of travel times, depending on the stat'as of mobili-zation efforts, in addition to other factors such as capacity restrictions and public awareness.

l I

[

B.

Methodology l

The approawh to estimate evacuation travel times is detailed in the draft November 1981 document.

Generally accepted transportation planning principles currently

'followed by transportation professionals in the public and

private sectors were utilized, but modified to reflect evacua-tion conditions, where necessary.

Standard traffic engineering documents, such as the Highway Capacity Manual (Highway Research Board, Special Report 87, 1965) were used as the basis for the computations included in the time estimate analyses.

The process to estimate evacuation travel times required four basic steps, each of which is discussed below.

nit is noted that the process to estimate evacuation travel lltimesisiterativeinnature;thefollowingfourstepsare

' interrelated, and frequently overlaps 1.

Population Identification and Demand Estimation -

l A study of the population in the Indian Point EPZ was conducted.

l Data was gathered about the number and locations of the i

resident general population (with and without privately-owned vehicles available for evacuation), special facility residents, I

and the transient population.

For each of the above population categories, estimates were made of the number and location of the population groups under six distinct time-based scenarios.

These scenarios, which were chosen to represent all significantly different variations in population distribution are listed below:

o Nighttime o

Evening o

Weekday, school in session o

Weekday, school not in session o

Weekend / holiday-summer daytime o

Weekend / holiday-winter daytime A more detailed description of these scenarios is found in Attachment 1 of Appendix A in each county RERP (Rev. 1).

Each population category was estimated by scenario for each traffic zone in the plume EPZ.

Population data, sources, and collection methods are presented in Section II (Demand Estimation) in the draft November 1981 document.

2.

Modal Split - Modal split refers to the mix of travel modes by which individuals exit from the plume EPZ.

In the Indian Point area, evacuation would occur via privately owned transportation, buses, vans, ambulances, and/or trains.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff estimate of the number of people that would evacuate via privately owned vehicles was based on three sources of information.

These data sources were the United States Census, a survey conducted by Yankelovich, Skelly and White during Spring 1980, and conversations with officials in the four-county area.

Based on these sources, it

was determined that approximately 90% of all people would evacuate via private automobiles, except when school is in session, when all schoolchildren would evacuate via bus.

For this " school-in-session" scenario the percentage of people evacuating by private auto would be approximately 76%.

A summary of the modal split data for each county is found in Table A-3 of each county RERP.

t i

For each population category described earlier, the l number of people able to evacuate with privately owned vehicles was estimated.

Data about vehicle availability and transport-I ation needs of the resident general population was obtained from sources such as the United States Census; for special facility and transient population groups, this data was obtained from administrators of hospitals, parks, nursing homes, and other l

l lisuchfacilities.

For the population determined to be without 6

' private transportation, the appropriate travel mode (e.g., buses for transit-dependent resident population) was assigned.

I l

A study was performed of the bus, van, ambulance, and train availability in the Indian Point vicinity.

Based on this study, the plan assigns resources to evacuate the popula-tion identified as unable to evacuate itself.

In discussions held to date with public, private, and school district bus operators, a willingness to participate on an on-going basis in t.

l l

I

the response planning for an incident at Indian Point was I

indicated.

Based on these meetings and available data on the number of buses and other vehicles in the Indian Point vicinity, it is considered that adequate vehicles exist to evacuate those persons requiring transportation.

Information about the transportation resources available for an Indian Point EPZ evacuation is available in several sources.

The methodology to estimate and match j the number of people requiring each type of transportation

.iiis provided in Section II (Demand Estimation) and Section

'III.B-F (Transportation Facilities) in the draft November l

l 1981 document.

Data on the number and type of vehicles l

to be providad is found in Attachment 1 of the Transportation and Ambulance Procedures in each county RERP.

The number l

uof special facility-owned vehicles is found in Attachment 1 paf the Special Facilities Procedure in each county RERP.

i I

3.

Roadway Evacuation Capacity Analysis - The I

f third basic step to estimate evacuation travel times in the i"

l Indian Point EPZ was to calculate evacuation capacities for l

l the roadway network in the area.

All primary and backup l

I evacuation routes were traveled to assess their adequacy I

l for evacuation purposes, and to gather field data for use in I

the evacuation capacity calculations.

The choice of evacua-tion routes, and the capacity calculations, were based on l

i 1.

I i

l

I i

l the existing roadway network.

The data gathered for each t

I primary route included the number of lanes, lane width, shoulder width, location and, if applicable, timing of traffic controls, and posted speed limit.

In addition, all bus routes were field-checked to determine length, location of existing transit stops, adequacy of stops and coverage, locations of I

major concentrations of potential users, street names and signing, tight turns, narrow or congested streets, one-way streets, low clearance bridges, low weight limit bridges, and i

l!,.,other operating restrictions.

[

For each primary evacuation route in the EPZ, evacuation capacities were then calculated based on the actual physical roadway geometry.

Thus, traffic-inhibiting l

features on existing roadways, such as narrow lanes and no i

l shoulders, were accounted for in the evacuation capacity j

calculations, and included in the evacuation travel time j

analysis.

Evacuation capacities for all links in the primary evacuation network were calculated for both normal and adverse weather conditions.

Actual traffic volumes were obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation for roadway segments in the evacuation area, and were compared to the evacuation capacities at various locations.

The results of this comparison substantiated the capacities used to calculate evacuation travel times.

l l. i i

l

A description of the specific procedure to calculate evacuation capacities is found in the draft November 1981 document in Section III.A.1 (Evacuation Capacity Analysis) pnd Appendix E (Methodology to Calculate Evacuation Capacities).

fA listing of the upper-bound normal and lower-bound adverse weather capacities for the links in the primary evacuatica oute network is provided in Appendix D (Roadway Link Character-I'istics) of the same document.

4.

Traffic Assignment - The fourth step to determine i

1evacuation travel times (traffic assignment) combined the demand, Imodal split, and evacuation capacity information as input to ipalculate evacuation travel time estimates.

The calculations

were performed by a computer model developed by Parsons Brinck-

!'erhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. sps.cifically for evacuation time lestimation studies.

In the traffic assignment process, vehicles (such as l autos, ambulances, and buses) carrying passengers (such as the

!! resident general population, residents of special facilities, l,and visitors to parks) were " loaded" on to the primary evacuation ifroute network, as described in the county RERP's.

Evacuation travel times were then computed by the computer model for each evacuation trip type emanating from each traffic zone in the EPZ.

Travel times and delays due to the demand placed upon the roadway network during an evacuation were calculated.

The S

T '

l

I l

1 evacuation travel times were based on the number of vehicles exiting the EPZ over the designated evacuation routes, and the ability of the roadway system to accommodate the traffic flow.

I For vehicles required to make second trips (such as school buses during a school-in-session evacuation), manual calculations were performed to determine the round trip time.

g The round trip time represented the time to travel beyond the i

EPZ to a predesignated host facility or reception center (for all but the last trip), return to the evacuating area for as msny round trips as is required, and load and unload passengers i

I jat terminal points.

f l

The traffic assignment process is documented in fSectionIV.D (Traffic Assignment) and Appendix G (Methodology l

l to Estimate Roadway Travel Times During an Evacuation) in

! the draft November 1981 document.

The computer model used to calculate roadway travel I

I and delay times incorporated a " static" traffic assignment i

procedure which assumed instantaneous loading and concurrent l

l vehicular demand on all roadway segments in the evacuation network.

To verify the accuracy of this static model, static assignment results in Westchester and Rockland Counties were compared with those estimated by a complex, state-of-the-art I

" dynamic" traffic assignment model that is presently being l

i l.

m

~

i incorporated in the Federal Highway Administration transporta-

' tion planning computer programs.

The results of the comparative analysis indicated a 97% correlation on an aggregate basis for the test routes in Westchester County, and a 98% aggregate correlation in Rockland County.

This comparison, which is presented in the draf t January 1981 document, indicates that the static traffic assignment model can be applied to roadway networks to estimate evacuation roadway travel times with a high degree of confidence.

l l C.

Evacuation Travel Time Estimates for Various Situations I

The evacuation travel time estimates calculated l

l

!for the Indian Point EPZ are in accord with the implementation i

. procedures in each county RERP.

The implementation procedures include provisions such as predesignated evacuation routes i

for all traffic zones, prioritized traffic control locations, l

and bus routes with pickup points for the public.

The evacua-1 tion travel time estimates are based on these and other opera-tional strategies in the county RERP's.

i As mentioned earlier, evacuation capacities were l

calculated separately for normal and adverse weather conditions l

i for each route segment in the network.

Normal weather condi-tions were considered to be a clear sky and dry roadway pavement.

Adverse weather conditions were considered to be a slippery roadway surface (e.g., due to snow or ice) and/or reduced t

visibility (e.g., due to fog or heavy rain).

These capacities were then utilized in the calculation of normal and a( arse weather evacuation travel time estimates.

However, even under normal weather conditions, events may occur which would reduce the capability of roadways to accommodate evacuating traffic.

For example, some traffic control officers may be unable to fulfill their assignments.

Traffic flow, therefore, would not be maximized at certain locations.

To represent this condition, intermediate evacuation capacities (i.e., between the upper bound normal weather and lower bound adverse weather capacities) i

,were calculated to represent lower bound normal weather capaci-1ties, as suggested by the New York State Department of Trans-portation.

Thus, for a given time-of-day scenario, three i

evacuation travel time estimates were calculated and presented.

l i

L ll Therefore, under normal weather conditions, evacua-I I

I tion travel time estimates were presented as a range of travel Itimes.

Under normal weather conditions, the lower bound evacua-f I

tion travel times (shorter times) can be anticipated when:

j l

(a)

Unexpected long-term capacity restrictions on I

i key highway links owing to incidents such as accidents, vehicle breakdowns and highway I

construction do not occur; l

(b)

A high state of operational readiness (traffic control officers mobilized, traffic control

l l

devices operational, all buses stationed to begin their initial runs, etc.) is attained; (c)

An informed and cooperative public follow directions as instructed.

i l

The upper-bound evacuation travel times (longer il" times) for normal weather conditions are representative of I

l a situation where*

I I

l l

l (a)

Capacity restrictions adversely affect traffic ll ll flow, but not to the point where a breakdown in traffic flow would result; i

(b)

A low state of operational readiness results from minimal mobilization of the emergency workforce; i

l 4

h (c)

A low degree of cooperation from the public li i!

occurs.

il

\\'

Therefore, the difference in evacuation time estimates attributable to delayed mobilization and stationing of emergency l

l forces should not exceed the difference between the upper-and I

l lower-bound travel time estimates.

Confirmation of evacuation would be provided by emergency service personnel concurrent with their patrolling of the EPZ during an evacuation.

i I

i j i

i I

Six time-of-day scenarios were analyzed and included in each county RERP, as described earlier.

The travel time estimates included in each county RERP are for a simultaneous I

evacuation of the entire EPZ.

The land portion of the EPZ was subdivided into 41 ERPA's.

Thus, for each of these 41 areas, 18 evacuation travel time estimates were calculated, assuming a full scale EPZ evacuation.

In the county RERP's, each estimate was further subdivided into two population categories:

the general population, and the special facility-plus-transient population.

In the draft November 1981 document, additional These additional levacuationtraveltimeestimateswereprovided.

travel time estimates were for quadrants within the EPZ, specifically for the ERPA's comprising 90' sectors within 2,

'5

, and 10-mile radii of Indian Point.

The additional estimates l

l were prepared for the time-of-day scenarios on both ends of the range of travel times, i.e.,

nighttime scenario and the weekday, l

school in session scenario, under both normal and adverse weather conditions.

Thus, these evacuation travel time estimates l

provide information about the time required to evacuate only t

portions of the EPZ as required by NUREG-0654.

D.

Assumptions Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 provides guidelines for evacuation time estimates.

Parsons Brinckerhoff believes its

, l i

l methodology to estimate evacuation travel times in the Indian Point vicinity is a reasonable, professional, and technically sound approach, consistent with NUREG-0654 and present thinking and state-of-the-art in traffic engineering.

l The assumptions utilized to calculate the evacuation travel time estimates are provided in the draft November 1981 document.

Many of the assumptions and procedures used in i

the study are conservative, in that they tend to produce longer evacuation travel times.

The following list cites these conservative elements:

l l

o The evacuation travel times provided are for i

j the last person leaving the EPZ.

As discussed I

h in Section H (Distribution of the Evacuated

?

b'

}

Population by Time) of the draft November i

[

1981 document, significant portions of the population will have been evacuated well I

before the last person clears the EPZ boundary.

j o

Certain population groups (such as persons both residing and working in the EPZ) are double-counted in the time estimate calculations, thereby placing more vehicles on the road f

than would actually occur.

l I

t I

a q

o In determining bus requirements at schools, it was assumed that all students would be in attendance (i.e., no absentees), thereby requiring the maximum number of buses, o

For the weekend / holiday-summer daytime scenario, peak park attendance figures were used, thereby placing the maximum number of vehicles on the road.

Roadways were assumed to operate in their o

normal fashion; all lanes were not assigned to outbound flow, which would increase capacity.

o It was assumed that no ridesharing would occur (e.g., neighbors without cars), thereby requiring the maximum number of buses.

The i

Yankelovich, Skelly, and White survey indicated that approximately three-quarters of those persons driving their own cars would be willing to pick up other persons as necessary.

l o

For two-lane, two-way roads, 80% of the roadway capacity was assigned to the outbound i

l flow, although it was anticipated that i

traffic demand would approximate 90% of the outbound direction.

o Not all buses and ambulances in the area were assumed to be available at the time of an evacuation.

For buses, 10% were assumed unavailable because of mechanical difficulty, and 10% more were held in reserve; for ambulances, only 50% of those in the area were assumed to participate in the evacuation.

Every road in the area was not included in o

the evacuation travel time estimate analysis.

Thus, to the extent that EPZ evacuees travel l

I on local roads not identified as primary evacuation routes, potential congestion will be lessened on designated routes.

o It was planned to transport 40 adults per bus.

Since the adult capacity of a school bus is 40 to 44 passengers, and the adult capacity of transit buses varies from 42 to 53 passengers, and standing room further increases these capacities by roughly 50 percent, a margin of safety was incorporated.

E.

Assessment of Travel Time Estimates The evacuation travel time estimates prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Indian Point EPZ are reasonable.

The methodology followed to prepare the estimates has been reviewed by the New York State Department of Transportation, I

the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Police, and the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group.

These agencies concurred with the methodological approach used.

In a May 12, 1980 letter from Brian K. Grimes (Program Director, Emergency Preparedness Program Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation) to Dr. Donald F. Knuth (President, KMC Inc.), the evacuation time estimates prepared in 1980 by Parsons Brinckerhoff for both the Indian Point and Jcmes A. FitzPatrick/Nine Mile Point EPZ's were cited as "some of the best submittals."

I In a December 9, 1980 transmittal to all licensees of operating reactor plants, holders of construction permits, and applicants for construction permits, from Darrell G.

Eisenhut (Director, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation), the January 1980 estimates prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Indian Point were reported as one of five in the nation with an overall evaluation of " excellent."

i

[ i

Thus, the methodology utilized by Parsons Brinckerhoff has been reviewed at both the State and federal levels, and was found to be acceptable in both instances.

In addition, the most recent travel time c3timates prepared for the Indian Point EPZ by Parsons Brinckerhoff were compared with those done independently for the Federal l

l Emergency Management Agency by CONSAD Research Corporation.

The results of this comparison indicate no significant differences between the two sets of travel time estimates i

for six of the eight scenarios analyzed by CONSAD.

In the case 1 of the two estimates for which differences did exist, the Parsons Brinckerhoff time estimates were longer.

l I

l F.

Summary of Evacuation Time Estimates

. i.

As stated earlier, evacuation time estimates were

prepared as a tool to aid decision makers in the selection of h

an appropriate protective response option in the event of an dincidentatIndianPoint.

These estimates provide information b

j on the time required to evacuate under a wide range of circum-l l

stances.

l r

The evacuation travel time estimates are presented in tabular form in Appendix A of each county RERP, and in the draft November 1981 document.

The tables provide evacuation I

l

time information as modified by different factors, including various scenarios, weather conditions, population groups, geographic areas, and operational readiness.

These tables enable the decision maker to reasonably estimate the time required to evacuate the population utilizing different com-binations of the above factors.

Several examples will illustrate the use of the time estimates in decision-making.

The time-of-day scenarios occurring most frequently are the evening and night scenarios, which together account for 50% of the hours in a year.

For example, assume that an incident began at 8 P.M.,

and by 2 A.M.

had escalated to the point where a general emergency had been declared, and an evacuation was being considered.

Further assume that the roads in the area were dry, that it was a cold, clear night, and that mobilization activities on the part of the emergency workforce were essentially complete.

A decision maker in Putnam County would refer to Table A-4 in the Putnam County RERP (see attached table entitled " General Population Evacuation Time Estimates By ERPA - Normal Weather Conditions")

I i

l to find the appropriate evacuation travel time information.

Under the column entitled " Night Scenario," it is seen that the longest evacuation travel time estimates for the general population in any Putnam County ERPA (in a full-EPZ evacuation) l

ranges between 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes and 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 45 minutes under the existing normal weather conditions.

Assuming reports received from the Sheriff, Transportation Coordinator, and other emergency personnel in the EOC indicated that the required l

emergency workers and resources were in place, the decision l

maker would lean toward the lower end of the range of travel times.

Thus, an evacuation travel time estimate of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes would be used when determining if evacuating the population were the preferred option in Putnam.

If instead, roads were slippery due to a heavy rain-storm and it was the Memorial Day weekend, a decision maker in Rockland County would consult Table A-6 in the Rockland County RERP (see attached table entitled " General Population Evacuation l

Time Estimates by ERPA - Adverse Weather Conditions").

This table indicates that the ERPA in Rockland County with the longest evacuation travel time estimate (again assuming all ERPA's were instructed to evacuate) is ERPA 38 under the Weekend /

f Holiday Summer scenario, with a travel time estimate of 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> 55 minutes for the general population.

As another example, assume an evacuation decision was being considered in Westchester County at 10 A.M. on a typical l

winter weekday when school was in session, normal weather con-j l

ditions existed, and the emergency workforce mobilization was

l 9

not fully complete.

Decisions makers in Westchester County could estimate that an evacuation of the schools could be accomplished in approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 40 minutes.

This infor-mation is contained in Table A-5 of the Westchester County RERP (see attached table entitled "Special Facility and Transient Population Evacuation Time Estimates By ERPA - Normal Weather Conditions).

The preceding examples and table references are appli-cable for a full EPZ evacuation.

If the Putnam County decision maker wanted to estimate how long it would take to evacuate all ERPA's within a ten-mile radius northeast of Indian Point under the conditions described in the previous paragraph, he or she would consult Figure 11 (see attached figure entitled " Sector I-90 Degrees NE-10 Mile Radius) and Table 13 (see attached table entitled " Evacuation Travel Time Estimates By Sector - School in Session Scenario - Normal Weather") in the draft November 1981 document.

Inspection of this table indicates that Sector I could be evacuated in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 40 minutes, using the l

higher end of the range of estimated travel times.

1 VI.

CONCLUSION From the information presented above, Parsons Brinckerhoff has concluded that the evacuation portions of the county RERP's both satisfy the requirements of NUREG-0654

[

and provide the counties with an adequate framework for imple~

menting an evacuation.

The evacuation plan and procedures include the data necessary for emergency managers to make decisions concerning the selection of protective actions as well as the operational strategies for carrying out evacuation-related activities.

The plan has been developed to respond to

.,a wide variety of situations while still maintaining an essen-tial degree of flexibility.

The evacuation travel time estimates contained in the RERP's and companion documents are reasonable representations of the time anticipated to evacuate some or all of the EPZ.

The estimates are based on accepted transportation engineering methods and a realistic analysis of the area's existing transport-ation facilities and population subgroups, and of the functional responsibilities of county and local agencies.

The RERP's flexi-bility will effectively accommodate future changes to any of these elements and, thereby, will remain an up-to-date plan for responding to an incident at the Indian Point site.

In regard to Board Contention 3.3, Parsons Brinckerhoff is of the view that the evacuation time estimates l

are reasonable as they are based on conservative assumptions, utilize standard transportation planning methodologies, and reflect the implementation procedures included in the actual

I emergency plans.

Parsons Brinckerhoff has also concluded in response to Board Contention 3.9 that the road system in the vicinity of Indian Point is adequate for evacuation within the estimated times, since these time estimates were prepared on b

the. basis of the existing roadway system.

i i

i l

l-I ll n

!i a

ll:

l t

l t;

l I

4 l

l l

l l :

I

~

WESTCHESTER COUNTY REV.1 RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 8/1;81 TABLE A-5 SPECIAL FACILITY AND TRANSIENT PCPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES BY ERPA NORMAL WEATHER CONDITIONS School in Session School Not in Session Weekend / Holiday Weekend / Holiday ERPA Scenario Scenario Summer Scenario Winter Scenario Evenino Scenario Night Scenario From - To.

From - To From - To From - To From - To From - To 1

5:35 - 8:30 5:20 - 7:55 2:45 - 3:15 2:40 - 3:10 2

6:05 - 10:30 5:50 - 9:40 5:05 - 8:20 3:35 - 5:45 4:25 - 7:15 3:30 - 5:35 3

5:40 - 6:35 5:20 - 6:15 3:25 - 4:00 2:55 - 3:25 2:50 - 3:15 2:45 - 3:15 4

7:20 - 8:25 5:30 - 8:05 3:35 - 4:45 3:05 - 4:25 2:55 - 4:16 2:55 4:10 5

5:30 - 6:25 5:30 - 6:25 3:35 - 4:10 3:00 - 3:30 2:55 - 3:20 2:50 - 3:20 6

7:15 - 8:15 5:35 - 6:25 3:35 - 4:10 3:05 - 3:30 2:55 - 3:25 2:55 - 3:20 7

3:35 - 5:50 3:25 - 5:35 0:45 - 0:50 0:45 - 0:50 0:45 - 0:50 0:40 - 0:50 8

l 8:20 - 12:401 5.25 - 9:10 3:45 - 6:05 3:40 - 5:55 4:40 - 7:35 3:45 - 6:00 9

7:20 - 11:05 5:45 - 9:35 3:35 - 5:50 3:30 - 5:40 4:20 - 7:10 3:25 - 5:30 10 7:50 12:05 5.45 - 9:35 3:35 - 5:45 3:30 - 5:40 4:20 - 7:05 3:25 - 5:30 11 G:10 - 10:20 5:30 - 9:20 4:55 - 8:05 2:55 - 4:35 2:55 4:40 2:35 - 4:00 12 6:35 - 9:40 4:20 - 7:10 4:50 - 8:00 2:50 - 4:30 2:50 - 4:35 2:30 - 3:55 13 6:40 - 9:45 4:15 - 7:05 4:45 - 7:55 2:45 - 4:25 3:05 - 5:10 2:25 - 3:50 14 6:10 - 10:00 5:25 - 9:15 15 5:10 - 8:25 3:55 - 6:40 1:30 - 2:25 1:30 - 2:25 3:15 - 5:25 1:30 - 2:25 21 2:40 - 3:05 2:15 - 3:05 0:10 - 0:50 0:45 - 0:50 0:45 - 0:50 0:45 - 0:50 0

22 6:40 - 10:10 5:35 - 7:55 3:35 - 4:10 3:05 - 3:35 3:00 - 3:30 2:55 - 3:30 l

Notes:

(1) The evacuation time ranges presented in this Table are based on operational strategies indicated in the evacuation implementaC.sn procedures. Lower bound evacuation times (shorter times) can be anticipated when:

(a) Unexpected long term capacity restrictions on key highway links owing to incidents such as accidents, vehicle breakdowns, and highway construction, do not ocrur; l

• (b) A high state of operational readiness (traffic control officers mobilized, traffic control devices operational, all buses stationed to begin their initial runs, etc.) is attained:

(c) An informed and cooperative public follow directions as instructed.

Upper bound evacuation times (longer times) are representative of a situation where:

(a) Cacacity restrictions adversely affect traffic flow, but not to the point where a breakdown in traffic flow would result:

(b) A low state of operational readiness results from minimal mobilization of the emergency workforce; (c) A low degree of cooperation from the public occurs.

(2) The evacuation time ranges are indicated as hours: minutes.

l (3) The evacuation time ranges assume a simultaneous evacuation of the entire EPZ. The evacuation time for any inoividual SRPA in a staged evacuation will not exceed the time range indicated in this Table.

(4) The population subgroups included in this Table are schools, colleges, nursing homes, hosoitals, other health care facilities, residential facilities such as group homes, convents and monasteries, parks, resident and day camps, hotels, motels, and employees.

Evacuation time estimates for the general pooulation are shown in Table A-4 for normal weather conditions.

(5) Normal weather conditions are considered to be clear sky and dry roadway pavement for the above scenarios.

(6) Gaos in this Table for a given ERPA indicate that there is no scecial facility or transient coculation for the soprocriate sce ario.

A-74

ROCKLAND COUNTY REV.1

.d.-

RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPCNSE PLAN 8/1/81 TABLE A 6 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES BY ERPA ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS Schoolin Session. School Not in Session Weekend / Holiday Weekend / Holiday ERPA Scenario Scenario Summer Scenario Winter Scenario Evenino Scenario Night Scenario 29 14:30 14:20 8:10 12:15 7:05 7:05 30 14:50 t 4:40 8:40 12:30 7:20 7:20 31 14:30 14:20 8:10 12:15 7:00 7:00 32 11:55 12:20 8:05 12:10 5:40 5:40 33 11:50 12:15 8:05 12:05 5:35 5:55 34 12:50 12:40 7:45 7:45 7:45 7:45 35 12:40 12:30 7:35 7:35 7:35 7:35 36 8:15 5:05 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 37 10:40 8:40 5:55 5:45 5:00 5:00 38 12:05 15:40 l 13:55

'7:25 6:00 5:55 39 40 41 Notes:

(1) The evacuation time estimates presented in this Table are based on operational strategies indicated in the evacuation implementation procedures.

(2) The evacuation times are indicated as hours: minutes.

(3) The evacuation times assume a simultaneous evacuation of the entire EPZ. The evacuation time for any individual ERPA in a staged evacuation will not exceed the time inddted in this Table.

(4) The population subgroups included in tnis Table are the general public with and without autos. Evacuation time c

estimates for special facilities and transient population are shown in Table A 7 uncer adverse weather conoitions.

(5) Adverse weather conditions are considered to be a slippery roadway surface (e.g., due to snow or ice) and/or reduced visibility (e.g., due to fog or heavy rain) for tne above scenarios.

O A-69

?U TN,* *.i COUNTY rey,1 RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN a/1/31 TABLE A-4 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES BY ERPA NORMAL WEATHER CONDITIONS School in Session School Not in Session Weekend / Holiday Weekend / Holiday ERPA Scenario Scenario Summer Scenario Winter Scenario Evening Scenario Night Scenario From - To From - To From - To From - To From - To Frem - To 16 5:10 - 7:35 3:30 - 5:40 1:55 - 2:55 2:00 - 3:05 1:50 - 2:50 1:50 - 2:50 17 5:15 - 7:40 3:30 - 5:40 1:55 - 2:55 2:00 - 3:00 1:50 - 2:50 1:50 - 2:40 18 6:20 - 9:15 4:20 - 7:05 3:30,5:40 3:30 - 5:40 4:15 - 7:10 3:30 - 5:35 19 6:25 - 9:15 4:20 - 7:05 3:35 - 5:50 3:30 - 5:45 4:30 - 7:25

} 3:30 - 5:45 l 20 6:05 - 8:55 0:25 - 0:25 0:25 - 0:25 0:25 - 0:25 0:25 - 0:25 0:25 - 0:25 23 4:15 - 6:35 3:15 - 5:25 1:40 - 2:35 1:45 - 2:45 1:35 - 2:30 1:35 - 2:30 O

l Nat:s:

f (1) The evacuation time ranges presen:ed in this Table are based on operational s procedures. Lower bound evacuation times (shorter times) can be anticipated wnen:

(

(a) Unexpected long-term capacity restrictions on key highway links owing to incidents such as accidanu, vehicle breakdowns, l

and highway construction, do not occur; (b) A high state of operational readiness (traffic control officers mobilized, traffic control devices operational, all buses stationed i

to begin their initial runs, etc.) is attained; (c) An informed and cooperative public follow directions as instructed.

Upper bound evacuation times (longer times) are representative of a situation where:

(a) Capacity restrictions adversely affect traffic flow, but not to the point where a breakdown in traffic flow would result; (b) A low state of operational readiness results from minimal mobilization of the emergency workforce; (c) A low degree of cooperation from the public occurs.

. (2) The evacuation time ranges are indicated as hours: minutes.

(3) The evacuation time ranges assume a simultaneous evacuation of the entire EPZ. The evacuation time for any individual ERPA

(

in a staged evacuation will not exceed the time range indicated in this Table.

(4) The pooulation subgroups included in this Table are the general public with and without autos. Evacuation time estimates for special facilities and transient population are shown in Table A.5 for normal weather conditions.

(5) Normal weatner conditions are cons: cered to be clear sky and cry roadway pavement for he above scenarios.

A-60

Table 13 EVACUATION TRAVEL TIME ESTIMATES BY SECTOR SCHOOL IN SESSION S'CENARIO ~

~

NORMAL WEATHER Resident Pooulation Soecial Facilities Transients 1

With Autos Without Autos From - To From - To From - To From - To g

1 2 Mile Radius A

5:10 - 8:45 5:10 - 8:45 5:25 - 9:00 5:10 - 8:45 8

4:45 - 8:05 6:50 - 10:15 4:55 - 8:20 4:45 - 8:05 C

1:15 - 2:05 1:20 - 2:05 1:30 - 2:20 1:15 - 2:05 D

1:15 - 2:05 1:20 - 2:05 1:30 - 2:20 1:15 - 2:05 5-Mile Radius E

5:15 - 8:50 5:15 - 8:50 7:00 - 10:25 5:15 - 8:50 F

4:50 - 8:10 7:10 - 10:35 5:15 - 8:20 4:50 - 8:10 G

6:50 - 11:30 7:10 - 11:50 7:05 - 11:45 6:50 - 11:30 H

1:40,- 2:10 3:15 - 3:35 1:55 - 2:25 1:40 - 2:10 10 Mile Radius i

I 6:05 - 10:15 6:50 - 10:15 18:20 - 12:40 l 6:05 - 10:15 J

5:10 - 8:15 7:40 - 10:40 7:15 - 9:45 5:10 - 8:15 K

6:55 - 11:40 7:15 - 12:00 7:55 - 12:15 6:55 - 11:40 L

5:30 - 9:25 6:00 - 9:50 5:50 - 9:40 5:45 - 9:40 0

360 EPZ M

6:55 - 11:40 7:40 - 12:00 8:20 - 12:40 6:55 - 11:40 8

Notes:

(1) The evacuation travel time ranges presented in this Table are based on operational strategies indicated in the evacuation implementation procaduras. Lower bound evacuation times (shorter times) can be anticipated when:

l (a) Unexpected long-term capacity restrictions on key highway links owing to_ incidents sueh,

as accidents, vehicle breakdowns, and highway construction, do not occur:

(b) A high state of operational reai: lines(traffic control oNicers mobilized, traffic control s

devices operational, all buses stationed to begin their initial runs, etc.) is attained; (c) An informed and cooperative public follow directions as instructed.

l Upper bound evacuation travel times (longer times) are representative of a situation where:

(a) Capacity restrictions adversely affect traffic flow, but not to the point where a breakdown in traffic flow would result; (b) A low state of operational readiness results from minimal mobilization of the emergency workforce; (c) A low degree of cooperation from the public occurs.

(2) The evacuation travel time ranges are indicated as hours: minutes.

l (3) Normal weather conditions are considered to be clear sky and dry roadway pavement for the above acenario.

(4) The population subgroups included in this Table are:

I (a) resident population (with and without automobiles);

(b) special facilities (schools, colleges, nursing homes, hospitals, other health care facilities, residential facihties such as group homes, convents, and monasteries, and military installations);

(c) transients (employees, visitors to parks, resident and day camps, hotels. and motels).

j

.. z -. -

,r,__.,-,.

)

~~Q.,$

(.........g;

.... (

4

... '. \\

hJ; 6'l::::'

j l

,1

-w-N 23

~

g g

,,,,,, (

gj /. )

sf i

p

~hN dlt ~

~

1. 7 I

i :,U 17 h

\\

l l

'{

'r i

//

p

,e i

e s'

.U /. \\........

l' i.20 l

T N.f /

• ~

\\

16

. 3 w,

,./

/

p:.y 5

G,.w x

\\

r 18-

's

.i

/fI 2 34 m

=

N 4

' g, 5 E.

N 8

10.

11

\\ {,

j........, A,n #'

a

/

'N [.

2[<

>h 7

/

's i

1. .,f

>,xi7

=

-2 V,p g-g m-.w

~/.

p f'

,rM 4

, Q

' 'I

,,i/

dt'/ ' Q

,y x /.

3 g

~

13 44'x E

', m.- '15 p/

C

\\

/

f

~

,r

% 7*. /+, t 5 Y.. i W'~ j f

sp%

yf, Q ~ (f........ 4

~~

s

/

) V f

==-1;L la

,/

J

/

l',l l

{(i l

J

,N (V

~

\\

~

/

]? l al t

j ',9 1

j,.......

i ' /ter, /, MJA/

1

- %.,,, N.,

/ /

P i-y

\\7; I;t..

l fY\\

II l

t

s l

).

- f............ a

.; 3

,........ p3 l

3

,7 p.

, g.

,3 c%

r

~.

e \\.

c L J*:.

l e

a..

[

(

~

• "' : c. _&,,.,

@ to Mu.i A

Fig. ii Sector 1-90 Degrees NE io Miie Radius indion Po t

in 55= -

Nuclear Power Station b

BRUCE E.

PODWAL Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Senior Professional Associate Deputy Technical Director-Civil / Highways Education College of the City of New York, B.C.E.,

1959 Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, M.S.C.E.,

1963 Societies American Society of Civil Engineers American Road & Transportation Builders Association, i

Energy Advisory Committee Licenses Connecticut, New Jersey, New York l

l l

l l

Mr. Podwal, deputy technical director of the firm's Civil / Highways Department, is responsible for maintaining igh-quality technical performance for firm-wide activities in m

that area.

Since joining the firm in 1961, Mr. Podwal's activi-l ties on public works projects have included all phases of design and studies, and liaison between the firm and federal, I

state, and municipal agencies, other consultants, railroads, private utility companies, and contractors.

In addition, Mr. Podwal has participated, for more I

than 20 years, in the administration and management of major multidisciplinary projects involving planning, design, technical inspection of contruction, environmental impact assessment, and public participation.

j Mr. Podwal has been principal-in-charge or project l

manager for the following projects:

o Responsible for quality control and management of technical advisory efforts for the development of evacuation time estimates for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Pennsylvania and the Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generat-ing Stations, New Jersey (and Delaware).

Provided testimony before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on evacuation time estimates for the plume exposure pathway emer-gency planning zone at Three Mile Island.

Reponsible for quality control and management of technical advisory efforts for the acoustical evaluation of alert and notification systems l

4 for the Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania) and the Oyster Creek (New Jersey) Nuclear Generating Stations.

o Responsible for all aspects of management for the development of evacuation time estimates, evacuation plans and procedures for the Indian Point Nuclear Power Stations, New York and the Nine Mile Point-J.A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Stations, l

New York.

Efforts involved development of detailed implementing procedures for five counties for use during a general evacuation.

Participated in numerous presentations before public, local and state governmental agencies.

o Responsible for quality control management for engineering planning services in the development of public information programs in support of emergency planning ef forts at the following nucleer power station sites in New York:

Indian Point, Nine Mile Point-J.A. FitzPatrick and R.E. Ginna.

o Proposed rehabilitation of the Great Falls hydro-i electric power plant, Paterson, New Jersey.

Efforts involve licensing and general technical services; coordination with federal, state and local government agencies; assistance with the preparation of federal funding applications and with power l

purchase contract negotiations; and final design.

i o Technical services on the terrestrial, aquatic and l

water resource impacts of the Power Authority of the State of l

New York's proposed Prattsville Pumped Storage Power Project.

l Also, the study of project-related local water supply system and sewerage system improvements and bridge replacements.

o Power plant proposed by the New York State Electric l

and Gas Corporation.

Responsibilities include conducting traf fic investigations at two proposed locations for a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant.

o Transportation planning studies and related environ-mental impact assessments at various proposed nuclear and fossil-fueled power plant sites for the Power Authority of the State of New York.

o Design and/or construction inspection of major highway and bridge projects such as I-787 in Albany New York and the over S1 billion West Side Highway Project in New York City.

o Other major responsibilities included extensive experience as an expert witness at quasi-judicial licensing and

environmental hearings such as those before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (proposed Greene County, New York, nuclear power plant); the New York State Public Service Commission (proposed Interstate Route 787 and the relocation of Penn Central and Delaware & Hudson railroad facilities); and the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (proposed coal-fired power plant on Staten Island, New York).

Publications o Coauthor, " Highway Engineering," Chapter 16 of Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition.

o Coauthor, " Transportation Impacts of Large Power Projects," presented at the session on Socioeconomic Impacts of Large Power Projects, ASME/IEEE/ASCE Joint Power Generation Conference, September 1977.

o " Emergency Planning in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" presented at a session of the Committee on Nuclear Technology and Law of the New York City Bar Association, Feb.

1980.

f l

l l

l l

!~

t ~

i PEGGY L. ROSENBLATT I

Senior Urban / Environmental Planner Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas

- Education Northwestern University, B.A. Sociology, 1971 New York University, M.U.P.,

1978 l

Societies American Planning Association Ms. Rosenblatt is a senior planner in the firm's Department of Urban and Regional Planning.

Her areas of expertise include management of environmental studies and-impact assessments (EIA) for capital facilities, a well as preparation of social impact assessments and citizen par-ticipation programs.

Her recent work has included:

o Project manager for evacuation planning for the Indian Point (Westchester County, New York) and J.A. Fitz-I Patrick /Nine Mile Point (Oswego County, New York) nuclear power plant sites.

Evacuation plans and detailed procedures were developed for the areas within a 10-mile radius of each of these sites.

The plans and procedures are based on a thorough analysis of the people to be evacuated, the routes and trans-portation resources available for use during an evacuation, and the evacuees' temporary housing needs after an evacuation.

Completion of these plans and procedures required extensive coordination with local, county and state agencies.

The project also involved development of a public information program including prototypical pamphlets, informational adver-tjsements, and TV/ radio announcement scripts.

o Project manager of the firm's work on the New York City landfill study for the New York City Department of Sanita-tion.

The city's landfills currently receive well over 20,000 tons of garbage per day.

Project entails preparing recommenda-tions and cost estimates for achieving compliance with numerous applicable state and federal laws.

o Deputy project manager for the Fort McHenry Tunnel (Baltimore, Maryland) dredging and environmental studies.

Study will identify dredge disposal requirements for construc-tion of proposed sunken-tube tunnel and develop environmentally acceptable means for disposing of over 3 million cubic yards of dredge spoil.

)-

1 o Management of the preparation of the EIA of alterna-tive access improvements for a nuclear power plant proposed by the Power Authority of the State of New York in Greene County, New York.

The EIA included evaluation of the impacts on local socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural resources, ecology, and air, noise, and water quality.

As part of this project, Parsons Brinckerhoff provided expert testimony at Article VIII Hearings, presenting the EIA as a supporting exhibit.

o Task leader for the social impacts aspects of the socioeconomic analysis of railroad improvements for coal delivery to New York State Electric & Gas Corporation's pro-posed Somerset (New York) coal-fired power plant, o Chief researcher / interviewer in a track, bridge, and tunnel maintenance study for the Federal Railroad Administra-tion.

Ms. Rosenblatt interviewed railroad officials of the Class-1 lines about railroad maintenance problems.

o Deputy project manager and research specialist in a study for the Federal Highway Administration to survey success-ful citizen participation programs in metropolitan regional transportation planning in six cities across the country.

The study culminated in the preparation of a handbook on public participation in transportation planning.

o Participated in the preparation of the Wyoming valley Flood Control environmental impact statement.

Ms. Rosenblatt j

prepared the socioeconomic analysis of probable project impacts, including those related to aesthetics, transportation facilities, l

tax revenues, property values, and employment.

She conducted l

an extensive series of interviews with local public officials i

and residents to determine community concerns.

o Project manager of the environmental baseline studies in Fairfax County, Virginia, as part of the countywide drair; age I

master planning effort.

Baseline evaluation included studies

(

of socioeconomic and land development trends, physiography, water quality, streamflow, channel conditions, erosions, flora, and fauna.

Ms. Rosenblatt also prepared descriptions of exist-ing socioeconomic conditions including demographic features, land uses, and development trends.

l o Participated in the Newark Subway Extension Feasi-bility Study and the New Jersey V/STOLport Site Selection project.

For the Newark study, Ms. Rosenblatt was involved in

, )-

(

the socioeconomic analyses of primary impact areas and par-ticipated in the formulation and implementation of the com-munity participation program which included the " Planning Balance Sheet" methodology.

Publications o Coauthor, " Socioeconomic Impacts of Large Power Plants; Impact on Transportation Facilities," presented at the Joint (American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical Engineers) Powe r Generation Conference, September 1977.

o Coauthor, " Impact of Construction and Urban Develop-men't on the Aquatic Environment; The Fairf ax County Experience,"

presented at the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin's Symposium: Biological Resources of the Potomac Estuary

- Trends and Options, June 1975.

o Participated in a presentation on evacuation planning and the development of evacuation time estimates at the Insti-tute of Transportation Engineers Annual District 1 Meeting, May 1981.

. l l'

t O

MICHAEL S.

DELLA ROCCA Transportation Planning Engineeer Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Education Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, B.S. Civil Engineering, 1977 M.Eng. Transportation Engineering, 1978 UTPS Training Session, FHWA/UMTA, 1979 Planning and Operation of Small Transit Systems The Traffic Institute, 1982 Societies Institute of Transportation Engineers Chi Epsilon Mr. Della Rocca is deputy manager of the firm's Transportation Engineering Department based in New York.

He is currently serving as deputy project manager responsible for the preparation of a comprehensive evacuation plan for the popula-tion surrounding the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plants in Oswego County, New York.

He has coordinated the efforts of state and local agencies in the development of the plan and detailed implementation procedures which assign resources to move the 50,000 residents safely and efficiently from the county.

Mr. Della Rocca is also currently responsible for the traffic and transportation evacuation analyses at both the Oswego site and the Indian Point nuclear facilities north of New York City in Westchester County, New York.

In developing the trans-l portation elements of these evacuation plans, he performed the following tasks:

t l

l o Developed and validated a traffic assignment computer model to estimate evacuation travel times.

o Met with bus and rail operators and desic3 ' a co-ordinated transit system responsive to the needs of tea.

?.-

dependent evacuees.

o Developed an operational traffic control strategy which assigned personnel and equipment to key locations throughout the evacuation network.

f

^

o Mr. Della Rocca is presently task manager of the transportation impact analysis for the Merrimack River Bridge Crossing environmental impact statement in Lowell, Massachusetts.

He is supervising the development of future traf fic projections, identification of traffic and transit impacts due to the pro-posed facility, and development of remedial traffic engineering and TSM measures to mitigate the negative impacts.

Mr. Della Rocca 's other r esponsibilities in the transportation area have included the systems analysis and computer representation of transportation networks.

In addition to original software development, he has extensive experience with existing transportation program batteries such as UTPS, PLANPAC, UTCS, and Micro-Assignment.

He has utilized computer analyses in the following transportation projects:

o Traf fic assignments to the West Side Highway roadway network in New York City as input for air quality analysis.

o Demand analysis and ridership projections for a downtown people mover system in Jacksonville, Florida.

o Development of a proprietary computer package con-sisting of several interrelated programs to f urnish the traf fic data required to perform enviromental impact studies.

o Collection organization, and analysis of traffic and roadway data for the Virginia Route 288 environmental impact l

statement.

His additional assignments in the transportation area have included:

o Design and implementation of a patron traf fic survey for the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority.

o Assessment of traffic impacts to midtown Manhattan streets due to the New York Exposition and Convention Center.

o Annual revenue projections and forecasting of main-tenance and operating costs for the Fort McHenry Tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland.

o Analysis of traffic and transportation impacts during an evacuation of the areas surrounding the Salem / Hope Creek nuclear stations in New Jersey, and the Three Mile Island power plants in Pennsylvania.

, 9

m e

o Data collection and traffic projections as part of an access study for a proposed power plant site in New Haven, New York.

As part of his master's dagree project, Mr. Della Rocca developed and calibrated an econometric model to analyze fiscal and service policy alternatives for the Capital District Transportation Authority in Albany, New York.

Publications Participated in a presentation of a paper on evacua-tion planning and the development of evacuation time estimates at the Insti*.ute of Transportation Engineers Annual District 1 Meeting, May 1981.

l l

O