ML20065C147

Sumbits Results & Discussion of Both Vehicle Demand Estimates Used as Input Data & Evacuation Time Estimates for Off Season Scenario Using Clear Model

ML20065C147
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/20/1982
From:	Desrosiers A Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	Solberg M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8209230239
Download: ML20065C147 (10)

Text

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

I a

• l I

4 OBaHelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Bos 9'/3 Rkhland, Washington U.S.A. 99352 Telephone (509; Telen 13-2874 August 20, 1982 Mitzie Solberg Emergency Preparedness Development Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission q

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mitzie:

As requested by NRC, evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for an off-season scenario in the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant EPZ were calculated by PNL using the CLEAR model. Following are the results and a discussion of both the vehicle demand estimates used as input data and the ETEs.

i Most of the demand data used for the ETE calculations were taken from the NRC's draft demand estimate.1 The vehicle demand estimates for the off-season scenario include contributions from permanent resident, schools, employment sources, recreation, shopping centers, seasonal housing and overnight acommodations.- Table 1 shows the off-season vehicle demand estimates for seasonal housing and for rooms in yearly overnight accommodations. Estimates from seasonal housing refer to units (houses, apartments, etc.) that are normally occupied during the summer season which are occasionally occupied during the off-season (non-summer) either by owners or renters. Rooms in yearly overnight accomodations refer to hotels, motels, and guest houses that are open during the entire year. In both instances, an estimate of 1 vehicle per unit was assumed. (Note that no data radii was available for distances greater than 10 miles.)

1. Demographic and Vechicular Demand Estimates for An Evacuation Analysis of the Seabrook Station. February 1982. Michael Kaltman, Siting Analysis Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. -

g -3) 8209230239 820820 PDR ADOCK 05000443 F pDa

Mitzie Solberg August 20, 1982 Page 2 Table 2 shows the off-season vehicle demand estimates for U.S. Highway 1, manufacturing and industrial employment, and educational facilities. U.S.

Highway 1 is a major north-south artery in the Seabrook EPZ. The vehicle demand estimates are based on 100 percent occupancy of the parking capacity of shopping centers, restaurants, municipal parking lots, and large stores found along it. An assumption of one auto per employee was used in.determinng the vehicle demand estimates for employment. In addition, an estimate of 2,000 vehicles on the Seabrook station site was included in the employment category. A vehicle demand estimate factor of 20 students per vehicle was used for educational facilities. This factor is based upon the assumptions that these facilities would be evacuated by bus, with 40 students per bus, and one bus being equivalent to two vehicles. (This is the assumption used for non-auto owning residents.2)

Table 3 shows the vehicle demand estimates for the permanent resident population of the Seabrook EPZ. These demand estimates are identified to those for a peak population scenario (summer weekend case).2 Table 3 contains data for the auto owning and non-auto owning population categories.

Table 4 shows the total vechicle demand estimates that were used to calculate ETEs for an off-season scenario in the Seabrook EPZ. Included in this table are demand estimates for the Seabrook Greyhound Park. Note that the demand estimates for the Greyhound Park differ from the NRC's draft. The NRC's report stated that the estimate of 3100 vehicles (which was for a 100 percent 4

occupancy of the parking lot) could occur during a summer or a nan-summer day. Instead an estimate of 873 vehicles is used in the present ETE i

2. An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Time Estimates for a Peak Population Scenerio in the EPZ of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station. M.P.

Moeller, et. al . ,1982. (PNL-4290).

l I

Mitzi Solberg August 20, 1982 Page 3 calculations. This is based upon attendance data received from the Greyhound Park and an assumption of one vehicle per two people. Following is a ,

i description of this attendance data.

Seabrook Greyhound Park Demand Estimate Yearly average attendance = 1813 people / performance June thru October average attendance = 1905 people / performance 8 performances per week at 52 weeks per year equals 416 performances / year

. June thru October equals 22 weeks times 8 performances per week equals 176 performances 1905 people x 176 performances = 335,280 people for June thru performance October 1813 people x (416) performances = 754,208 people for year performance j

754,208

- 335,280 418,928 people for November thru May i- 418,928 people + (416 - 176 =) 240 performances for November thru May Equals 1746 people / performance for November thru May.

It is assumed November thru May is equivalent to the off-season and therefore:

1746 people

• 2 people = 873 vehicles / performance performance vehicl e

{

i

Mitzie Solberg -

August 20, 1982 Page 4 Table 5 shows the ETEs calculated by the CLEAR model for each evacuatio'n tree

-in the Seabrook EPZ. Table 6 shows comparison between the off-season and. peak population scenarios in the Seabrook EPZ, using NRC's vehicle demand estimates as input data. The major results are large reductions in ETEs for evacuation trees no. 1, 28, and 78. These three trees include the main evacuation routes for the transient beach population of the peak population scenario. These results were expected since the vehicle demand estimates for the off-season scenario are significantly less than the peak population estimates for these evacuating trees. There was little or no reduction in ETEs of the remaining evacuation trees for the off-season scenario, mainly because the increase in vehicle demand estimates from the manuafacturing and industrial employment category offset decreases in transient population estimates.

If you have any further questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.

1 Sincerely yours, AE.Deskosiers Staff Scientist Health Physics Technology Section Attachments (tables)

MAM/aer cc: TJ ficKenna

TABLE 1 0FF-SEASON VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR SEASONAL H)USING AND FOR ROOMS IN YEARLY OkERNIGHT ACCOMKl0ATIONS 0-2 Mile 2-5 Mile 5-10 Mile 10-EPZ 0-EPZ Seasonal 1ernight: Seasonal Overnight: Seasonal Overnight: Seasonal Overnight: Seasonal Ov ernight:

Sector Wusing Year Round musing Year Round Wusing Year Round Wusinq Year Round Wusing Yea: Round N 1 0 5 196 17 0 0 0 23 196 NNW 3 36 4 0 15 0 0 0 s22 36 NW 1 0 5 0 16 90 0 0 22 90 WNW 0 0 3 0 15 0 0 0 18 0 W 2 136 4 0 16 0 0 0 22 136 WSW 3 46 7 0 10 0 0 0 20 46 SW 3 44 8 88 3 0 0 0 14 132 SSW 1 0 4 36 38 11 0 0 43 47 S 1 0 13 32 53 25 0 0 67 57 SSE 1 0 128 202 112 7 0 0 241 209 SE 3 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 ESE 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 E 69 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 208 ENE 95 740 120 540 0 0 0 0 215 1,280 NE 12 0 174 168 23 88 0 0 209 256 NNE D 0 12 0 15 77 0 0 27 77 Total 267 1,210 531 1,262 333 298 0 0 1,131 2,770

. n

. o 2 6 4 4 9 8 6 6 5 L. 7 i

t 1 3 8 6 3 9 1 5 7 O 0 O 0 O P 7 7 a 2 1 9 1 9 3 1 1 7 7 c 2 1 1 1

[1 0, u

d 1 E

Z P - s E y 4 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 3 O 0 O 0 O 0 4 4

- ot 0 0 2 8 0 8 4 3 '

R 5 0 l p e n 5 5 6, 5, 4, 9, 0, 5 2,

mm 1 2 1 1 3 2 E 1 1

8 4 3 5 3 7 5 0 6 O 0 O 0 0 7 0 8

. 9 2 4 3 0 3 7 5 8 9 4 9 8 9 8 2, 1, S.

1 1 1 5 n

o i

t a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 c

u d

E Z

P -

E y S - ot E n 0 0 I 0 l p e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 1

T n r m

,IL E 1 I C 0 Y A 1 0 A F 0

. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 2 H L l

S. r C A U a I N e H O y I

. T n A o 2 6 5 3 3 9 9 6 2 7 2 e S. C i h U U t 1 3 7 8 2 5 2 5 8 O 0 O 0 0 0 8 4 t D a 2 1 8 6 1 1 0 4 8 r

R E c 2 1 1 1 7 O u f

o F D d N E S A e e l t E i - i T

A T M y 7 0 6 0 0 0 4 5 5 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 7 s 2 M N ot 8 0 1 2 6 2 9 0 0 l n 5 6, 2 8 0, 3 7, t E T 1

H_ 1 p e n L S Y -

E mm 1 3 6 a B E O 5 l A L P T D r N W 1 e ME E L .

8 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

4 9

O 0 O 0 0 1 3

0 3 2

w o

D A 1 7 0, 0, P I

S.

U 1 2 r E R a L T e C S n l I U o 1 6 9 7 0 0 5 c H D i . u E N t 0 0 0 8 1 3 8 0 4 O 0 O 0 0 0 1 7 N

\ I a 3 1 3 5 4 N & c 1 2 k o

O u S G d o r

A N E E I e b S R l a

- U i M

- e F T y 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 4 O 0 O 0 0 0 4 7 S ot 8 2 5 7 1 6 8 9 F C n e 0 A 5 l

p e 3 2 9 7, h F

t 2 mm 1 t N E A m M Li o 1 2 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9

O O O<0 0 6 6

0 0 5 f r

. 7 2 1, e S. 1 t U v a m

i

_ n t o s

- i 9 3 2 e t

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5

O 0 O 0 0 O 0 6 d c 1 4 u a d m E e

'd e

l ) ' e i - a l M y ( ,

c ot 0 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 5 O G O 0 0 O 0 0 i 2 l p e n 3 6 3 2 7 5 h e

0 n

r m 5, 9 1 7, v E 2 / 3 e

h I

t 8 4 3 5 3 7 5 0 0 O D O O O O 0 5 s

S.

. 5 2 4 3 3 8

3 7 9

1 7

9, l e -

U 1 r to o l l t a c

e W

N W W

N W

S W W S

E S E E

S E

N E E

N t

o

)

a S N N N W W W S S 5 S S E E E N N T (

_ L  : !

(

TABLE 3 VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION 0'2 Mile 2-5 Mile 5-10 Mile 10-EPZ 0-EPZ Auto s Non-auto Tuto Non-auto Auto Non-auto Auto Non-auto Auto Non-auto Total Sector Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Own Residert N 22 0.3 571 4.4 1,144 10.1 1,868.6 39.3 3,605.6 54.1 3,659.7 -

NNW 76 1.1 227 2.0 920 12.2 306.9 4.5 1,529.9 19.8 1,549.7 NW 64 0.9 109 1.7 3,541 84.8 278.1 4.5 3,992.1 91.9 4,084 WNW 21 0.3 235 3.5 520 7.2 749.2 9.7 1,525.2 20.7 1,545.9 W 306 4.0 363 5.2 792 11.5 824.2 8.8 2,285.2 29.5 2,314.7 Ww 248 3.3 1,262 34.9 3,566 93.8 183.5 3.4 5,259.5 135.4 5,394.9 SW 276 3.7 1,141 35.1 1,835 52.8 118.0 4.6 3,370 96.2 3,466.2 SSW 160 2.1 455 14.0 3,155 91.0 273.1 3.0 4,043.1 110.1 4,153.2 S 149 2.0 731 20.1 2,459 55.4 0 0 3,339 77.5 3,416.5 SSE 35 0.5 380 11.2 473 11.5 0 0 888 23.2 911.2 SE 20 0.3 191 4.3 0 0 0 0 211 4.6 215.6 ESE 350 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 4.2 354.2 E 184 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 1.5 185.5 ENE 172 1.4 360 2.9 0 0 0 0 532 4.3 536.3 NE 25 0.2 1,135 8.8 821 2.8 174.6 0.6 2,155.6 12.4 2,168 NNE O 0 1,533 11.8 2,299 35.1 6,063.9 134.6 9,895.9 181.5 10,077.4 Total 2,108 25.8 8,693 159.9 21,525 468.2 10,840.1 213 43,166.1 866.9 44,033 1

1

TABLE 4 VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR AN OFF-SEASON SCENARIO IN THE SEABROOK EPZ 0-2 Mile 2-5 Mile 5-10 Mile 10-EPZ 0-EPZ Sector Total Total Total Total Total N 111 1,955 1,427 1,908 5,401 NNW 140 233 1,461 311 2,145 NW 129 116 5,635 283 6,163 WNW SG 250 551 759 1,616 W 3,811 1,267(a) 822 833 6,733 WSW 1,267 1,595 3,956 187 7,005 SW 1,448 2,261 2,868 123 6,700 SSW 163 524 6,486 276 7,449 S 262 986 3,890 0 5,138 SSE 37 721 603 0 1,361 SE 23 239 0 0 262 ESE 426 0 0 0 426 E 463 0 0 0 463 ENE 1,009 1,023 0 0 2,032 NE 37 1,752 1,966 175 3,930 NNE 0 1,792 2,475 6,198 10,465 TOTAL 9,382 14,714 32,140 11,053 67,289 (a) Includes the vehicle demand estinate of 873 for the Seabrook Greyhound Park.

TABLE 5 Calculation of Evacuation Time Estimates Using the CLEAR Model for an Off-Season population scenario in the Seabrook EPZ. (NRCData)

Evacuation Evacuation Time Estimates

• Tree (Hours: Minutes) (Minutes) 1 6:45 405 2B 3:20 200 3 2:35 155 4 6:10 370 5 2:30 150 6 3:55 235 7B 2:55 175 8 4:25 265

• Includes 15 minute notification time.

TABLE 6 Comparison of Evacuation Time Estimates as Calculated by the CLEAR Model for a Peak Population and an Off-Season Population Scenario in the Seabrook EPZ.

(NRC Data)

Evacuation Peak Population ETE* Off-Season Population ETE*

Tree (Hours: Minutes) (Hours: Minutes) 1 9:40 6:45 2B 11:40 3:20 3 2:20 2:35 4 6:15 6:10 5 2:45 2:30 6 3:40 3:55 7R 10:25 2:55 8 6:25 4:25 Includes 15 minute notification time.

__