ML20073S628
| ML20073S628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1983 |
| From: | HMM ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071H255 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-557, FOIA-83-21 NUDOCS 8305090614 | |
| Download: ML20073S628 (56) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:[ y' -
+ . \
ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION TIME FOR THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION PREPARED BY HMM ASSOCIATES FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC SERVICE 1 l \ l kgg50gl4830310 SHOTWEL82-557 PDR l
c ( .. TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
- 2. STUDY AREA
- 3. THE EVACUATION NETWORK
- 4. POPULATION AND AUTOMOBILE DATA USED FOR CLEAR ESTIMATES
- 5. ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION TIMES
- 6. INSTITUTIONAL EVACUATION TIMES APPENDIX A THE EVAC MODEL APPENDIX B PERMANENT POPULATION AND DAILY TRANSIENT POPULATION AUTOMOBILE DEMAND ESTIMATES; SUMMER
( AND.0FF-SEASON ( APPENDIX C COMMENTS BT-THE MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL DEFENSE nGENCY t
s a ' ( l. INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide estimates of evacuation times around Seabrook Sta tion. Evacua tion time estimates were pre-pared for Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) within the two, five, and ten mile radii per Appendix 3 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-RER-1 and Reference b). Figures 1 through 10 (in Section 2) indicate the areas for which evacuation time estimates were made. Time estimates for three area conditions were developed. First, estimates are made for the f air weather summer weekend during which the peak population condition for the area is experienced. Second, estimates are made for an off-season, typical weekday popula tion condi tion. Thi rd , estimates are made for the off-season, typical weekday condition and an assumed reduction in the capacity of the 'evacua tion road netowrk of 30%, { which is intended to represent impediments to traffic flow during adverse weather such as fog, rain, or snow. Estimates of the number of vehicles associated with an evacuation of the permanent and tran-s,ient population were developed assuming a general evacuation by private passenger vehicle. A summary of the time estimates for the evacua tion cases con-sidered is presented in Table 4. These estimates assumed no formal traffic control measures would be in effect, existing traffic patterns would prevail, and no specified evacuation routings would be enforced (I). These clear time calculations were undertaken using available data (1) As area evacua tion plans are developed, additional analyses can be performed to account for and actually assist in specifying ( emergency evacua tion control measures.
s a od a traf fic simula tion model , EVAC. This model is described in (- an appendix to this report. (
s
- 2. STUDY AREA 2.1 Communities Within 2, S, and 10 Miles The area within a 10 mile radius of Seabrook Station includes portions of both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Areas within approximately two, five an'd ten miles of Seabrook Sta tion were analyzed:
e 2 Mile Radius The two mile radius f alls entirely within New Hampshire. I It includes portions of three communities: Hampton , Hamp ton Falls and Seabrook. e S Mile Radius The town of Seabrook is entirely within this radius , as are portions of five other New Hampshire com. unities including North Hampton, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, and South Hampton. In addition, portions of two Massachusetts communities, Ame'sbury and Salisbury, are within the five mile radius. l-l e 10 Mile Radius I In addition to the above noted communities, East Kingston and portions of Newton, Kingston, Brentwood, Exeter, Newfields, Stratham, Greenland, Portsmouth a nd Rye (New Hampshire) and, portions of Merrimac, Haverhill, West Newbury, Newbu ry-port and Newbury (Ma ssachusetts) are wi thin the 10 mile radius of Seabrook Station. k
,7 . - - - - . - . - .
- v c 2.2 Sector Analyses Figures 1 to 10 show the geographical bounds of the cases for which evacuation clear time estimates have been compiled. The f ollowing is a brief description of these study areas. The areas are roughly _ based upon the 2, 5 and 10 mile radii and various 90 and 180 sectors. The precise bounds of the analysis areas, however, largely follow town boundaries and major geographic landmarks such !
as the coastal beaches or major highways. This should be noted as l l it produces slightly modified and expanded geographical areas for evacuation estimate than requested by the NRC in Reference b). Fiaure Sectors / Distance Boundaries 1 1800 North, Hampton Falls, Hampton 0 to 2 miles 2 180 South, Seabrook k- 0 to 2 miles 3 90 ' Northeast, North Hampton, Hampton, and 0 to 5 miles Hampton Falls east of I-95 4 900 Southeast, Seabrook and Salisbury 0 to 5 miles 5 900 Southwest, South Hampton, Amesbury, and western 0 to 5 miles portions of Salisbury and Seabrook 6 900 Northwest, Hampton Falls, Kenginston 0 to 5 miles 7 900 Northeast, North Hampton, Hampton, Hampton Falls 0 to 10 miles eas t of I-95, and portions of Green-land and Rye within 10 mile radius 8 900 Southeast, Seabrook, Salisbury, Newburyport, 0 to 10 miles and Newbury 9 900 Southwest, South Hampton, Amesbury, Merrimac, 0 to 10 miles Wes t Newbury , and portions of Newton and Seabrook ( 10 90 Northwest, O to 10 miles Seabrook, Hampton Falls, Kensington, South Hampton and portions of Newton, Exeter and Stratham and Seabrook
-4_
g - - , -. .r--- - - - ,---y__ .-,,.-,..--,.,n- - . , -
l I lx \, G,~ m I /* s'* %,,*- I f %g ,b
~~'~ Q _t~ - - * ~~T %
s y 1
\ ; /~ ~ '
J
~~
g 2 .._h,j,/ d
~T~~~~~~~ \
l
' " ' 4
-* I , -
, \, ~ <
\ ,L ~~.Le i
- / b l \ '%
\, ==a i 4'x ,
-- f f -- - :o: s:DN
, s
(,' I
;f " -
.s.~%
!!!'!},ih!!! .:!ffff s
l , g g em .a sso F ':s ::i5.4 5:
. .:ggi:i1
'\ rat
. sm. = 'e
/g I
.: srw 8k .. g:. ..: . . . . .[!;!:. ..... ;;\::i8-/,]
- s. .. 5 \
- i$
\
w-Q,.f{\lI I
,/' 'k &q+ g ,,l {~\
3-n .- ,
)
, \
g Gp' , i
) l Ie
/ y/ ,\ .t \ x
, \ ~ \ .
I ., , q C i T f g'W /,/ s 4 s _\.,.. ~x 1 1 --
\ / 'w x s
/
- f. x ss ,c-as_ _./ s
\
c
.,,y,ji s'r \ ~
,' sw .w v.,
5
/* ~ , ~~~
f-l Y I \
~% \
s' l \
,/ ' ' s, s, ,
N -
/ % .
l ' s~ /
, sl j ,**',, '
~m \;t A osmam
/
,/
, .~,
,Y"** _ b,-
g l s s ,- - l
\ %
,s s
N
\ e'-
\. t's\s p'.
1 \ FIGURE 1 - 180 North, 0 to 2 Miles
I / f i ,. _ p ' ( ,/ 's
~m\
--2_,--____-
1
,<, s s
N
,,Q
,e I_
* * * * -') ~ \
s
~'
\ Z c .n- 4
- ------ J '
\
. n.. .
l} , l \n \ &~~. - l r' l
\
i
! *t
/s l I
, y
, =., .
~~s s
N
-,,n,---- -- -
-f -~~'
~~~_
s- i 4 ... i ., ss
/
;\ j.__ j i
..-~-
y ( ,:,!
/ / \\
~
's s Aw e
\\ 1 r T i \
\
/ tse s ~~ \\ / f- ,
/
\~ 7
's s y
\ j
,,, s4 N,/ q
=,,,fI [ \ ' " '
_ ,' sw -w - - f l
s s
/ \
j N,f, u l i " "
,/,
,% , y A,Q s\ \ ne j
1 m, .
,' %,s, ',/ /
~ s .nu, n
~ N\ A u-a-s j
,rn-o f',
\ \ / ,~ s'
\ \
., / /
g % ' s r ( \. $ '~ /s t FIGURE 2 - 180 South, O to 2 "iles
e
, Ax \
l s
\ , . . , _ x=u C ~ Kr ~~~~ -7 fs ~
g b,s_ 1 l&-
- set u.
y
/
I i
, Ji
\
\
/
g [\ )
.. ~ .
% ~~ ~/
/
n
/
E g t \r l MR. 9 .,,,, '
' NE I
I l omarwoos , g eMi: N s ,. ....g: ::c s!!i*g . s t':i::i:jiji :::K'.**'P.i$ .s f
' 7,7 NM .
"""-- /1 7
's- -
-r
i %::;. iilbd..g-hi:i .. :i:-i:i:M:;A t' j ' I L . g:j.
%..... ij. i! '
jji,!!!! ti ~ \
. *'t l 1 t
\- .- ,! ;. .,.m twc
-~
1/
~~
j) j j /sl .. /-~~ .ll.a
;.:.\:;:s a:.::: g.j:
. 5.,%
/I / *.: ...
if i g ' ~ ; 3
- l f l i, ,j :P $
W 'o T'
, g.11.,2.e-T ---
J'; j i) W~~p-).p hi'~-' 'lR '
} i b
E l)
,I..
\ !
c - (%, e.\.)' ,(},q , / ' s% 4 .
\ 4x -
u t*a M \ jm y + \s / -
]
= '
-, r I \
s's' f
\
zg %'
~ ~,( %
-#y
/%" g-l '
j ;
/
_ , .m n ~ e i v I \
/
/s'% s% x' .. ! \
/ %
s/ 35 f 53g I ~~
,/
/,-3 's ~
- ,A, a s 13 i #_,', v,
/
s(-
.=~oa. %
s\%
- , , s'
...a, i
d%
$ s' I ,,,e. N' '
\ I '
- g. _, ,/ y'
\
'N'y ,/
l s
\ p'
. N /g FIGURE 3 - 90 Northeast, O to 5 Miles l
l l L
. i A * . 't 7 g ....-r, ,f' \ t t:. f.7 y
( l
;-- u---___ y
,q' N, sg ~/)
s
\
< .;~m
>,s_
,i s }-
~~~~ k, '"" A
_______J g >,
\ # s._,,
I \d n
\ ,L ~~ !
\ -
-l I
l . , _ . 1
~fx , g
'pl.
=&s .
s
'~
x
--- nww--_,{p __ _ ,
g 's y ~ ~ 'l I
~~~ ,
/ \
3
\ ( / g . . .
s,,,
/ / \ \ l twc s .mo
- ' - "~~ ~\ I A//(;'~ b l. , \ ,
., _i ' . ,. _t . . , - _ _I ,%. ., . .. ,.... .. s_. ?' l '>
j f
'Lq$ ' l IM:5 - -. '
i e g G s -{ q. W..... .: i j I
)
p% /
/ n
- k * "V,=* ,\ * ' .
na i
,,, /
\,*g hii..i::W : .
tii!" sd::.!: ..si:: '
's \\ 8 N ! "" ~'** .N!!!$!h!!!
f#g.
. ~
g * . . . . . Sfss
- ss si- s:Yj-!;fs. jd f,, 'N Nts'
- N _-
**=y,I ,
s % @-w - __ ( / s I- _ / .w - f~ j
~
d
/ \
N r,,,
, / l
\
- f *='"
's . ,( -
s / ,4 \ m Y /s _sy '-1 s_- sl s',s % y
'- '/
s ,e . . . , ,-
""*"*'2 N,,;) "'**
/ f _ $
% \
l
's -- ' ~c,/ /,
g N /y s
, ,h N. $ /s l
FIGURE 4 - 90 Southeast 0 to 5 Miles
t / I i ./-- e = - ~. n s' \ \
- s' i W~~u
( ! ,x ~ ~m, m.n - t
, y,w
,n - 1 _,- - -
y ' s ,. n
! -- ' \4,..~ % s',ic [- \
7--- -
>k___~~~~
\ -) ...... \ y> p~__, s ,
,I \, - ,
\l- J. ,
! - s ,o
.--r-==
's.
l I {
~%
, -aA-0 I c'N %
-- h ,__ - ,, W ~s f~~~
(- i i l i s
'J
\ ..
/
zu
.-.- ,, /.
i\ l._, i
.. -~- 1 x
11 ( l ft j b Al ' ' ' N,9 *yg[@:e :.:\.l W;..f :.p '
*, i ' -
W * ?' T .
* - i ,
f ; i
.o . ::.
) j
(
,j .; i.
',.8.g 8 "'""
.. #" h j.{jjj '8'
- .: Mi g i:isiii g7g ti:iJ: :s j
s ?!s::.
c,fcig s ,
-dk:l:ig.Y -
~.. p 'tr % , \' ,21. . A,;. j-1 ,
' ( /' ;
sw ,, _ /% -
/
/
/
I's,. s / I
/ %
g
, \.
's ,' SS '
f[ -- ;, ,3;- k SSE
/ ,/ 's s V ,/
.-~ 1 - / _,/' '
' ~
~ s, ; ~ na '
, .o. -
/ ,s g h, /
" *'O'
\s \ /
e' /v p g '
\ 'N's p/
g sy s f *' s t
\. \ 'N% /,\
FIGURE 5 - 90 Southwest, O to 5 Miles
i e i
.. l . ~ _ .., / 's i M, p -?
C
,F--
,'s ,
%~4, -
m f, y,s-[ t, _r ---- - 7 N s. g l ' # "#'
) N \ /
\ cars =W /
t ,' g
\ s at j '(\' ,
\? I s ,,i ,,
l \~ '
\. l - - k ..
8
- -- / \
~/Xs
,y.,, \ = ,. li's s
^! 0 l w- ,9 .l p.g#.. -
~~ ~ ~/
~ . ,_
\
t,,' [.g ?: . ;::+-
;:j:i:
.; ;3 ,
a**
'f '
l , .3:::: +:::: i ENE g ...: . - :: :::: . ...
. ..:.s..%
- e' (
= ' - " =
'"" /}lll::l: ' "p0 i! i:i:li4-
.N iiii ikljlf: iii:"01. i: ]
ff :! i d~ ' M i W'ob $ 1 s a' 'vAM:!!i. D'2A- '~ C-- i I t E ( $** \Y f
/ *
\ ,. -s -
# \ \
\ \ j'<T \ /
s
* ~~
\ \ \ &' \ .
/ 'sc N g&,[, s
, y/
/
\s 1 . -
[938 ) 'N_ S i
..),/f 4 \ -
'},
_ ,' ,sw .es, - 5 P ~-
!e ,
I V \ / t / \
/s's /
/ \s ,
* \
,/
i "" 'N/[ 55 f h sst
,,' ,, KN
/ , , g ,,, ,,, /
-,,-s/s - '/ \/, -
/ . ,ui J-%
c~~a
's \4 un j ,/
s / **=ca 5 N N \ / '
/ N/
s \ _ __ , / ,/'
\ %
,s' s
\ .e
( \. $,~s , '\ FIGURE 6 - 90 Northwest, O to 5 Miles 1
l / .
\ ./~~
jMg
- l . . . . . ,
\
C l
- - 1 ,_ _ _ _ _ - ,, 4sa.. y m q ..,_ SEifP[
= g: ..e A_-
a;. 1
- w. q-j;:.
l _____ai k ~~~ a,4,1 . . . . di{.fWns.!ii !s.i i w!: e Jjii" f..s ....... l 1
\ u fE :.:.i.i.'l[l' Ms 1.f igi..: -
\
- j ,DSQ: [;:
l == N
.s 4.s-5
.":.g_ .?
j "*""*
$ \
3 .
. :!P4 . i;if s is; [. ~ !!!M.iji N:ksi::.
-l
-- men--/'7
[ {
- ,i h
9% Nh "a - s#- j. . .
!! !!! .i!/si
" .?.'.'
\
\
}w #-
\
g us, g [
.=s====
t s.S jus.l.E[.....
. . -: s: ;;i;: SE
-- : w 8:g y'~~fl~ l' /I ./\ " ~ g;;A yf;; \p "m'i=#'s W t
WufSh.*;'_.?:]\lIVyin g "-Wl'
/ '
,K - , 1
( t
\ / ~\ V
.9 ~
'I )E Il
( _I
/
a 7'.\,.4~ f N
-t
\"
\ ,
l\ g V-ss we 3 t -- I
\
E or= w
/u t s
'f' -
/ \ l /
'f/s as Iss %'N,N. e 'N _/
.\
t ) - ff s s - Ns
. ~~
C i f _ / .a, w /% ~~ f
/
l%, s' l
/
s%s s \ e \'s "
] s, _s5'-
[ /',/ 'N
,,s
%-{~ %z st z
~ j
.nu, I
s#s% ,/ ' n.e., y
-- ysy p/,/
/
'x g
\
\ p' t* %
h .
\. \ \ %/ \
k FIGURE 7 - 90 Northeast, O to 10 Miles
I
. t / i 7 I
s- -
/\ \
t W~ , one f l / s'~~~/m\ i ~. v J-i/./~~( y & -,I's s, I 1~r---
*a=
/,/
s N
\
\ /
/' \'*
l (' '
----E
c n. - J I
\
4
\$
s i l> ,, 'h l \~
\i~~ ~jl~, n l s A
.z.s/ c-
; . . _ ss
\ s l
s y (I A
'y,W 1
\
l s
~
-- m -,-(y __ -
-(- ~r s\ ~~~~j
~~~,,
(\ l g
\
\ ...
I . s% i ese g im u,.s-e = I p, I ..- ~ - y I {,9\/ ,\\l. W S "" Sal 8 a' s i 5*~"'*[ fl <..,..... \
~ WM3" - '?!?-J l E
' ~
i k v\ \ * \, . c.:! ij-. l
> :u.- .
e' .. . . \ - 5* * * *,\ ( ,/ N 4
\
,y,.\ 's
\'
si a.. M.i E5
.::45T5.8
.......!:f.:
- c . 3 \
/
isg..... . .:gj;! ;){ \ es:
's \
" " * " \\ tv.i sip i::gili
~~
's --
l c- ~
,, ,a .
l 's, .....
/ 's ' !!!)M_ .iii ii:". . !!!!b az
/ ~ ~ - /qji:gg *
*Qj. .N99W '-u
\ m-x j
',/ '
- ~\s -- '
,i .--,
=u ,-
~
,/ q
\ \ ,I ,f "'
N N's
,, / p g s -
\ p'y
\,
( Ns ,/$ FIGURE 8 - 90 Southeast, O to 10 ".iles
, l \
9 . . . . ,
,- 's \, m. ., _
( j e y '~,,
/
n A
\ /4 q(\-
(~ ~ ~__ g2'
, _ h's'
,------ 9 I \,
% ~-
\? hlk ~, , . .
l
\/i-~~.U e
*% i ,
l i
.. s
's , /q s s
l 7 >,K =q g s
< f-\
,7 ,
l f i s N
\ '~~1
/
j
~.
~~
1
) 14.51 . EMD l,\ ""g '
asam3 F1C88 ,% j I [ii: 5
+ ' . . . ... ii :i:!.i:!: : T./- i:lJ.ii;!!!%!: -pa
/.!!! ii!Fr 4!.!: !!!! . !!MM.
h:.d..y.j i ! .N.g!!!: :.%p['!!$i!i2;t.:.[.:i.dik. .i:- { /& /g 7
',e.I:. . . :.: !{':i!.p ~!!!
!N:.. .:. 4:.:
!!!:.f!;! ,
b.. .ir !.!:siii '!!!s. jiMl'.. ::s!!!!!!).. !!i[53[d! : g:i: *s.. i fRi: : 4g.:.:b.
.i:::.w S'
i:- - :!!:$ !!!::
.g.s s.
. s.:s.. .g'.:.:.
" i:!::::
- .: :/
siiiiii a vb g /
/ tst Je s!..ys: s . :.. ::-
- 1.1 g
(([ q( s
. ,p:si:issR:;,.[ N
~~lF a
, 4', ,
I . ., \
- iiN!' .
\
NQ+ .~.
/ Wss. . . gir.,~ ... ' l \
/ : \
/ /
l %% f., 7:.:. sy ss ti
-e m ~ [ g\ sst j . /,3 's '
, -, g i s m ,/
/
../~ % f 's \
' / )/
*s i
** ~ /
. u,
%s\ /
N I ,,,a g g
,/ ,/
'N
\
v[ ,/
's\ 'X
. \ /
\, t%'%
L \ % /,s FIGURE 9 - 90 Southwest, O to 10 Miles
I o
* /\
s t [
- 8 * == rv ,/
l ,- , , ,
, ,~ m.7 C j / \ =g g
l o f**======*'7
=s e'aus ais c:.:;;;;:5 A s i
,/
/ e-3'i:( O f L*umo ) /
.:.h ,, "^s
/
' dh!!!
,. ....:: .::fi
{!ji,,, , .~. %,/ l t
![ii0
/ ll!!f i
- :/ '
- s !!!f,!!!!b--
l0 / r
,%4.%
/ /-
/ g g t'.-
~~ . :: - _ /,%s s I t.:.:.: ...h::i::::
* - o,
's 1 i:i1
. . . - ~ I /
,3;;
-l ,,,, __ s:, sses
$,5
..,.m.p;;[igis.
- i::~ ~ Miliiilif g(S "i:
/
, '" isp-j!!!%::sisit!!:^.:.: [ \
- g. s:- iS.2
- g4:.: :+ :+ . g. 3;;;q::.q:isss^
++): ji --
g, 14:. ... ... ... ::y4:: q: .i:i:: .q::<!::.- ..:.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.. - .
.. m
[!g :..M.dsy::.!!jtjii ; !E !!!:M.. :
- li%jii:y;i;i. .s: :.55Es7mx$...
V [ !!!:ii::l!!)
.'.' ' ' " :s .ti: :i;;
k
!!! .!!![i![ ii[*^ .f-i!!!!!!!!hi)!!!!l!!h! i f. .
( 'I
*e:s.:. .s :
\ s S
- g Y
i g
\
\ j f '*
- N $3 "~
/
!#s 'n i
~,__.J
/ \
lll e [,.WP L
=.,ff! N (> s s .
\ n i
p,
/ ..
y ~I .
\, u'
/ sg # {
=v \
,/ s ,
,/
'sfs ss
/ N t
sst
' / N ,. _ sp.; .v
%-f
/
l,_,s's,, - s y'/ '** ' Nt um ,/ ,f~ , j / / .o
\
\--- ,
/ 7 s N ,/
\ r
/ \- t*%'
t s ,-T N. FIGURE 10 - 90 Northwest, O to 10 Miles
- 3. EVACUATION NETWORK An inventory of physical and operational characteristics of the traffic network likely to be used by departing persons was undertaken in order to estimate evacua tion times.
The transportation network elements considered in the modeling consist of major streets and intersections within the study area (I) . Figure 11 shows the major aspects of this road network. The major streets within the 10-mile study area include roadways of the follow-ing classifications: e Expressways. As characterized by high design standards, limited access, grade separation and primarily through ( traffic. Routes I-95, I-495 a nd the Hampton-Exeter Express-way, which is two lanes running east-west between Exeter anc beach area of Hampton, are the expressways found in the 10-mile radius of the site. e Arterial Streets. As characterized by continuity of travel; connec,ti ng busi nes s , population, or major recreation areas, and traffic controls and geumetric designs which enhance traffi.c flow and safety. Examples of main arterials in the evacuation area include U.S. Rou te 1, Mas sachusetts Rou te 110, New Hampshire 286, and Route 1A in New Hampshire and Massa-chusetts. (1) The s tudy area ha s been designed to be consistent with the plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ) suggested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The plume exposure EPZ as defined by NRC is the area within a p p r o x ima t e.ly 10 miles of the station site.
Collector Streets are links between residential areas served by local roads and arterial s tree ts . These are characterized by low design standards and frecuent stops at minor inter-sections. Examples of collector streets include Depot and Walton Roads in Seabrook, Woodland and Mill Roads in Seabrook, l and Congress Street in Amesbury and Salisbury. l i A total of 435 links, reoresenting actual road segments, are included in the evacuation road network. A total of 211 major inter-sections have been i ncluded in the network. For modeling purposes, certain intersections in tne network are designated as " entry nodes," or points where automobiles enter the network. These entry nodes act as surrogates for all the parking lots, driveways, etc. fr.om which the evacuating automobiles originate. In ( the Seabrook evacuation network, the number of vehicles enter at 136 entry nodes. Once in the network, vehicle volumes are modeled to travel along the network links and intersections as they evacuate the designa ted a rea (i .e. , analysis a reas as indica ted on Figures 1 to 10). At certain points just outside the study area, " exit nodes" are located. At these exit nodes, are used to record the number of vehicles leaving the evacua tion network. A description of the EVAC traffic simulation model and input requirements is included as Appendix A. J (; .
,- , vn. . , - - - , . . - - - - - r-,--t.a-.,w.-- - r , - , - - , - . . , , , . - - - , , - - - , - --
I s === ~ s' s's \ 1 W 7 s N m\, , C --1_,-___-,,Q 8 I s s~ i y
-,.~x -),
l . . . .
,, - s g,_ i, f
/
-r------ - it
(_'
~
ek .r .= s lROUTt 5 i* i
\ j
- ). <
I 6 i i
< ~~e .
l 1 1 A
/
I i xa m TE 1 t i stun I " ,
~~
,, s ennessma j /
I a.r.oaa g / I I y
**"f" 4~,'s g /
s I , s
~ ----- -1 -r ' g N .~- >
7_ - I ~~. s { \ I i 1 . -o., i 5 ( N
.. e=. sva. I I g
g ;'a"o= m \ l sont to7 I I i I I i
\
La h
\
uy f - m i
~
l , '(
..k- , + T t
i ++. \
- j
+#* =wrr
,I . . ~
t f Y 4.. s..... {
\ 1
[s , p \ g 'touTE IA s . s
.an e s'O'f '
ju s's f ~~*,_ i % / f t 9
.. di ', 'y . - /%
/
a e s' ***'===r' \ ,K, '~ ' I f
/ s
! /
/ ' ,,
'e
,/
**" ~
s's/s h!
/
,I s',,- ^
s s '
\ /s s
,,,, m j
j' ~%, K\ ' - m sawaam., \ s A / ,f==
\ \ ,/ 0
' 4
\ \- ,/
\
\ 's #'
\ p **
\ DN, g FIGURE 11 l
MAJOR ROUTES IN 10 ung c rii nu _ .n _ - - _ . _ , , . , _- - . _ ,
- 4. POPULATION AND AUTOMOBILE DATA USED FOR CLEAR TIME ESTIMATES In order to estimate the evacua tion times,1983 summer and off-season vehicle demands were developed for areas within the 10-mile EPZ. Far Seabrook the total vehicle demands were developed based on a review of three components of population: permanent resident, sea-sonal resident, and dialy transient population. These data provided the basis for estimating the potential number of vehicles involved in a general evacuation.
Since the study area has a significant influx of population in the beach area during the summer period, a vehicle demand estimate for a summer weekend condition was made and used for this evacuation (, time analysis. This estimate is representative of peak total population in the study area. A second vehicle demand estimate was made for a winter weekday condition. This second demand estimate was used to evaluate evacuation times under both typical and adverse weather con-ditions. The vehicle demand estimates are described below for both the summer and off-season periods. Summer Vehicle Demand Estimate Permanent Population Table 1 provides a summary of the projected 1983 permanent population for communities in the vicinity of the site. Appendix B , includes a figure indicating the general distribution of this permanent ( population (note Figure B-1). This distribution of population for the y . . .- . - - -- , ,- .-
area within the five mile radius of Seabrook Station was based on the number of year-round electric meters in 1979. Equal area allocation and review of local USG maps provided the basis for distributing the population between the 5 and 10 mile radii (I) . Vehicle demand esti-mates for the permanent population by an average automobile occupancy factor of 3.0 persons (2). Figure 12 shows the resulting estimate of automobiles and their distribution. Seasonal Residents The seasonal resident vehicle demand was estimated from the number of seasonal residences in the area. Several sources of data were reviewed in order to develop this estimate. These sources included: (1) 1961 general highway maps of Rockingham County, NH; (2) 1970 U.S. Census o f Hous i ng ,' (3) 1978-79 electric meter use data and a 1978 weekday-weekend occupancy survey. The distribution and number of automobiles associated with the summer weekend seasonal resident population is shown on Figure 13, which assumes two vehicles per seasonal unit. Daily Transient Population In addition to the permanent and seasonal resident populations a large influx of daily transients to the beach area can be observed (1) 1.e. population was assigned proportional to the size of the area to which it was assigned, or distributed evenly over each town. (2) 1970 U.S. Census of Housing, persons per occupied dwelling: New Hampshire - 3.5, Massa chusetts - 3.1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire - 3.3.
- k. .
. . , - - s__.- _ _ _ . . - . _ . . , , _ . , _ _ . . , , _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ - -___..____,,,______m._ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . .
during the summer period. This i nfl ux is greatest on a fair wea ther ( weekend or holiday. Estimates of daily transient visitor vehicle demand are included as Figures in Appendix B. Automobiles associa ted with the daily transient component were estimated as follows: e Overnight Accommoda tions - 1 vehicle per unit (Hotels & Motels) (Figure B-2) e Campgrounds - 1 vehicle per campsite (Figure B-2) e Beaches and B'each Area - Capacity estimate of fee and Facilities free parking lots available to the general public and estimate of on-street parking (Figure B-3) e Seabrook Greyhound Park - Capacity estimate of lot (Figure B-4) e Seabrook Station - Estima te of 2000 vehicles (Figure B-4) e Route 1 - Capacity estimate of major ( shopping facilities
~(Figure B-5)
Table 2 provides a summary of vehicle demand estimates associated with the summer transient population (seasonal residents, overnight visitors and daily transients). Figure 14 shows the distribution of this estimated vehicle demand. These estimates were combined with the automobile demand related for the permanent population to obtain the estimated total number of vehicles which would be evacuated. Off-Season Vehicle Demand Estimate A similar approach to estimate vehicle demand during an off-season period was used. The off-season automobile estimate included - considera tion of the same components of population as noted above for L .
4 the summer case. Au tomobile demand f or the permanent popula tion was estimated in the same manner as for the summer case. However, a smaller seasonal resident component was also included to account for some off-season rentals and general use. This was estimated at one vehicle per unit associated with 10% of the total seasonal units (Figure B-6). The off-season daily transient automobile demand estimated also included: o Overnight Accommodations - 1 vehicle per unit for units open year-round (Figure B-7) o Seabrook Greyhound Park, - Same as estimate for summer periods Seabrook Station and (Figure B-4 and B-5) Route 1 Major Shopping o Major Employers - Estimated a t i vehicle per employee for major manufacturers (Figure B-8) k Table 3 provides 'a summary of the estimated vehicle demand for the seasonal resident and daily transient population components. Figure 15 shows the distribution of this of f-season automobile demand. These estimates were combined with those for the permanent resident population to obtain the total number of automobiles to be evacuated ! for the off-season case modeled in this report. t ? l
TABLE 1 h POPULATIONS OF MUNICIPALITIES WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE SITE 1970(l) 1980(2) 1983 New Hampshire Brentwood(5) 1,468 2,170 2,668 East Kingston 838 1,190 1,376 Exeter ' 8,892 10,720 11,230 Greenland 1,784 2,210 2,564 Hampton 8,011 10,820 12,278 Hampton Fa11s 1,254 1.500 1,602 Kensingt n 1,044 1.350 1,518 Kingston 5) 2,882 4,640 5,018 Newfields(5) 843 1,000 1,060 Newton 1,920 4,060 4,678 North Hamptog 3,259 4,910 5,888 Portsmouth P/ 25,717 28,430 28,580 Rye 4,083 5,23 0 6,034 Seabrook 3,053 6,000 6,672 South Hampton 558 800 920 Stratham 1 ,51 2 2,500 3,040 Massachusetts k Amesbury 11,388 16,560(3) 17,000 Haverhill (5) 46,120 46,340 47,300 Merrimac 4,245 4,710 4,800 Newbury 3,804 4,920 5,01 0 , Newburyport 15,807 16,740 . 17,000 Salisbury 4,179 5,150 5,250 West Newbury 2,254 2,690 2,750 (1) U.S. Census of Population,1970. (2) Interim Revision, New Hampshire Population Projections for Towns and Cities to the Year 2000. August, 1977. NH Office of Comprehensive' Planning. Pro-jected 1980 populations for East Kingston, Exeter, Seabrook, and Stratham are less than 1978 population estimates for the same comunities, Rockingham and Stratford County Poonlation Data- 1978 Estimates - Rockingham Stratford Census Project. This is also noted for these same comunities and Portsmouth in the 1978 Population Estimates of N.H. Cities and Towns prepared by the NH Office of Comprehensive Planning, August 1979. Population Projections 1980-1985, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Office of State Health Planning, August,1978. (4) Estimates based on same sources indicated on footnotes (2) and (3) and inter-polated for 1983. . l Permanent population of these municipalities not included in clear time estimates because only small portions lie within the 10' mile EPZ.
..c .
TABLE 2 - {
SUMMARY
- ESTIMATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH SUMMER TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Station Sec- Population Oistance (in miles) from Seabrook Station tar Type 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 N Seasonal 0 10 24 22 8 76 16 16 16 30 Overnignt Accommodations 0 0 92 23 61 0 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area Parxing Lots and on-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 125 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 Total 0 10 241 45 69 266 16 16 16 30 NNw Seasonal 0 26 16 14 10 46 30 30 22 22 Overnight Accommocations 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area (k Parking Lots, ana an-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total O 56 16 14 10 46 30 30 22 22 NW Seasonal 0 14 20 16 14 8 16 60 60 8 Overnignt Accommodations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 55 0
, Beacn Area
- Parking Lots anc an-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 148 0 0 Total 0 14 20 16 314 8 16 243 115 8 l WNW Seasonal 0 2 10 4 22 22 26 30 34 38 Overnignt Accommocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area Parking Lots ,
and on-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 2 10 4 22 22 26 30 34 38
. TABLE 2 (Continued)
~
SUMMARY
- ESTIMATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCI ATED WITH SUMMER TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Station Sec- Population Distance (in miles) from Seabrook Station tor Tvoe 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 83 9-10 W Seasonal 2 20 6 8 22 16 30 30 38 38 Overnignt Accommocations 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area Parking Lots anc on-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camogrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seacrook Grey-nounc Park 0 0 }077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook Station 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2002 100 3083 8 22 16 30 30 38 38 wSn Seasonal 0 28 30 8 30 38 10 10 20 20 Overnight
( Accommocations Beacn Area 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Lots
' anc on-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .244 0 0 Total 0 73 30 8 30 38 10 254 20 20 SW Seasonal 2 26 12 4 72 28 2 2 2 2 Overnignt Accommodations 0 28 0 0 60 28 0 0 0 0 deach Area Parxing Lots ana on-street Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 54 12 4 132 56 2 2 2 2 SSw Seasonal 4 8 14 16 14 150 150 38 18 18 Overnight Accommocations 0 0 23 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area Parxing Lots ano on-street
(, Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CaTogrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 8 37 16 14 161 150 38 18 18
l 1 { TABLE 2 (Continued)
SUMMARY
- ESTIMATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH SUMMER TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Station Sec- Population Distance (in miles) from Seabrook Station tor Type 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 S Seasonal 4 10 36 30 64 26 412 26 26 26 Overnignt Accommocations 0 0 0 5 208 0 29 0 0 0 Beacn Area Parking Lots and on-street Parxing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 75 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 Totai 4 85 36 35 352 26 441 26 26 26 SSE Seasonal 0 6 172 514 604 0 560 560 0 0 Overnight Accommodations 0 0 0 40 196 8 0 29 0 0 Beacn Area >
f' Parking Lots (. anc on-street Parking 0 0 0 1280 1813 2029 514 599 71 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 485 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 6 172 1834 3098 2037 1074 1188 71 0 SE Seasonal 0 22 440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnignt Accommocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seacn Area Parking Lots and on-street Parking 0 0 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 22 1138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE Seasonal 0 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnight Accommocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beacn Area 0 Parking Lots and on-street Parxing 0 966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- ,--r,m- , -, ... --
, ~ _ - , - - .
y- . _ - - . , , , - . - - - , - - - - - - , ,
] . TABLE 2 (Continued)
SUMMARY
- ESTIMATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH SUMMER TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Station i sec- Population Distance (in miles) from Seabrook Station tor Tvoe 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 E Seasonal O 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnight Accommocations 0 429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Area l Parking Lots and on-street Parking 0 2808 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 3927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE Seasonal 0 948 1102 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnight Accommodations 0 1156 849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beach Area
- Parking Lots
( anc on-streft Parxing 0 2439 870 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campgrounos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 4543 2821 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE Seasonal 0 122 162 1088 492 24 72 72 48 24 Overnignt Accommocations 0 0 82 250 22 0 0 108 32 26 i Beach Area i Parxing Lots and on-street Parking O O O 982 664 179 0 587 409 180 Campgrounds 0 0 0 190 0 0- 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 122 244 2510 1178 203 72 767 489 230 NNE Seasonal 0 0 64 56 2 22 26 30 34 38 l Overnignt Accommodations 0 0 44 12 0 0 0 19 21 0 Beach Area Parking Lots ano on-street -- Parxing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camgrounds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 108 68 2 22 26 49 55 38
TABLE 3 SUM 1ARY - ESTId! ATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH OFF SEASON TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Stacion Sec- Peculation tor Tvoe Distance (in miles) from Seacrcck Station 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 N Seasonal (10%) with 1 Veh/04 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 Overnignt 1 1 3 Acccmmodaticns O O 75 23 30 0 0 0 Major Employers 0 0 0 26 0 280 125 0 0 0 0 74 Route 1 0 58 0 0 792 148 0 0 0 0 Total O 85 76 304 822 152 1 1 1 77 M4W Sessenal (10%) with 1 Veh/0w 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 Overnight 2 1 1 Accommccations 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Employers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 Route 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 45 1 1 1 3 2 402 1 1 N'# Seascnal (10%) witn 1 Ven/0W 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 overnight 1 3 0 Acccmmocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 55 0 Major Employers 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 508 Route 1 394 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 53 1 1 1 0 546
- 1 452 0 WNw Seasonal (10%) 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 Overnight Acccanocaticns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major E.m loyers 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reute 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 35 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 w Seasonal (10%) 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 Overnignt 2 2 Acccmmocations 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 Major Errelayers 0 0 0 0 44 12 0 0 0 0 0 Route 1 0 0 , 710 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrook 0 0 Greyncunc Park 0 0 3077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seabrock l ( Station 2000 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l Total 2710 138 3089 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 { l
( TABLE 3 (Continued) SUSOiARY - ESTIMATE OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED NITH OFF SEASON TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) - 1983 Seabrook Station Sec- Pcpulation tar Tyce 0-1 Distance (in miles) from Seacrock Station 1- 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-9 8-9 9-10 wSW Seasonal (10%) 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 Overnignt 1 Accommodations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major FLmloyers 0 0 0 0 950 95 0 194 15 0 0 188 Ro' - 0 1 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
!c tal 0 988 97 1 196 17 1 1 189 1 SW Seasonal (10%) 0 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Overnignt Accomeccaticns 0 0 0 0 60 28 0 0 0 0 Major Emcloyers O 93 0 0 938 396 302 Route 1 0 0 0 0 976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
( Total 0 ~ 1075 1 0 942. 425 302 0 0 0 SSW Seasonal (10%) 0 1 1 1 1 8 8 2 1 Overnignt 1 Accomaccaticns 0 0 20 0 0 11 O O O O Major Empicyers 0 0 5 0 20 1409 497 Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 26 1 21 1417 505 2 1 1 S Seasonal (10%) 0 1 2 2 3 1 21 1 1 Overnight 1 Accceenocations 0 0 0 0 13 0 29 Major Em loyers 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 54 0 279 Route 1 72 0 0 0 0 0 76 17 264 530 0 0 0 Total O 81 2 78 87 265 859 73 1 1 SSE Seasonal (IC%) 0 0 9 26 30 0 28 29 0 0 Overnight Acccmmocations 0 0 0 8 38 0 Major Employers 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reute 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 9 26 68 0 28 35 0 0
, TABLE 3 (Continued)
' SU:C%RY - ESTI.1 ATE OF VE'-iICLES ASSOCIATED 'JITH OFF SEASON TRANSIENT POPULATION (Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) -
1983 Se a'o r oo k Station Sec- Poculation Oistance (in miles) from Seabrcok Station tor Tvce 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 SE Seasonal (10%) 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnignt Accommocations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Emolayers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE Season 0D> (10%) O 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnignt Acccmmodations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Employers' O O O O O O O O O O Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Seasonal (10%) O 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( Overnicht ( Acccm5ccaticns. O 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Employers O O O O O O O O O O Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENE Seasonal (10%) C 47 55 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Overnignt Accommocations O 246 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Employers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Route 1 O O O O O O O O O O Total O 246 340 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE Seasonal (10%) O 6 8 54 24 1 4 4 2 1 Overnight Accommocations 0 0 32 18 0 0 0 0 7 19 Major Empicyers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 6 40 72 24 1 4 4 9 20 NNE Seasonal (10%) 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 2 2 Overnignt ' Accommocations C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Emolayers 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 ( Route 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 3 3 46 1 1 2 2 2
/ N g \ 8012 f b=
Y
1f -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '/ 16 0 }s N g j 259 115 201 l =='' 177 /
12I y M /
.________3) *8 v%-='3 .
f
), 853 201
% 49 37 7 "='=/
2 \ N \ I , * *"2 '~~ / g
\ 343 ~.
I g 490 201 1217 4 f f g 89 /on #'Z 201 l 585 dg 4,N I 1,,, y / s/ 20 ) ear N, 1st l 38 584 i g gg 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1,, a- __- -r5 ,%\
'" D '
244 // t ie a is g f s 2sa 3,3 ,s l 4t g\,, g, 37, [e 1 4, 25 174 512 I 112 og 27\ .
\ \ se O
' s5\ o H ,12 p! *l 2. f ,,, ,;4 _ 2a #
. '~ 4 '
.7 2
W 'o ?' 7*. '"% - S Q 8 =' E
/ U f 33 3 20 1 21 21 , gjeg 133 ,,
f
/
ga m** 24s OI 77 112 42
/ 82 # N' ' ' 1088 ( 171 11 0 Est
( 3
\ 320 169 I 192 N ISO d, 337 g% 320 112 /
232 s '%s ,g
,93, s o s ,,, -
'en g, e M 229
,4, ?.
)
E
/ ' 238 ' 'S,0~
/ SW /R .,,,s ~
\
f I8 9 72 434 j E 12 l% % 7.
/,
72 382
's N / 72
/ s SS 217
%[ '"
SE
/
[ s,s>s, i
,____ S -\ -
S j ',/ s's ,' m-x % ,\ /, , ,-
's\ l s T I
\
\
\
/
/.%/
s \ m__,,'s
\\ ,
's /,/-
s - ( % Ns. FIGURE 12 ESTIMATED AUTOMOBILE DEMAND - 1983 RESIDENT POPULATION (1 Vehicle per Occupied Unit, 3 Persons per Household)
bI NE 22 2. 22 34 N 16 8 30 30 E 16 24 60 30 24 4g 80 78 de 22 72 te ,
?2 WNW 10 2
- 5 38 24
'8 492 30 2- ,. - ~
,, ,, i 24 / .4 ... 0 22 20 182 4 20 l to 0 0 l l f.,,s / / i 10 2
l' 12 2 i W = = ,,$ = 3 ,e w 7.. s.
,,4., ,2 ,2 ,
,,, , e ".
, , , i , , , ,
28 4 724 k g 28 0 { 22 30 I. 8 m6 0 35 440 0 1 2 10 38 0 0 wsw 8" o ese 20
,, {
~ '
2 2 150
\~ 0 28 0 2
150 54 0 2 412 SW 8 560 0 2.
\ <
,. 2.
\
26 sg S TOTAL: 11,30g FIGURE 13 ESTIMATED VEHICLE DEMAND OF SEASONAL RESIDENTS (2 venicles/D.U.) ( -
~
l
i NN 30 NE 22 18 38 22 gg N 18 8 0 48 240 16 115 30 2g 489 243 264 48 BP 22 18 SS 72 W NW/ 10 g 2
/ 34 45 gga g4 g7, O
28 ENE 18 ,, 241 2510 22 108 22 20 / 244 4 SS
/ l 10[0 12 gg3 10 2821 I 0 0 (y10 m.
l 9 m. s ma 7 m, I 6 mi S ma 4 ma f 3 2 0 43,3 p M927 l E l I ( ( ,
, 2 10 4 37 3, 172 20 WSW 35 3,
2 352 2 '*8 2037 28 180 1074 , 2 441 SW 3e 2e E 18 yg 14 28 2s SSE S FIGURE 14 ESTIMATE OF SUMMER, 1983 TRANSIENT VEHICLE DEMAND (Composite: Includes Seasonal Residents, Overnight Visitors, and Daily Transients) k
NN O NE O 2 0 \ / 2 0 0
- 2 e 20 452 0 1 g 0 1 1
792 e WNW g g 2 g 0 3 g 2 I ENE 1 0 0 72 3 0 1 1 40 [ W'o- 2 5 f / j j j
, e -i , 7-, , e - , s - , 4-.
*/1
, 2-i,27 i
=
22 20 0 M 0 0 0 0 E
\\ ~ % , 2.
i ( ,
,, , 0 )
I 3g 81 0 0 gy 1 22 O I O 24 ' 2 O O 188 942 1 2s 0 ESE WSW 425 2, . 0 M2 87 0 0 0 0 0 50 28 0 0 ** 5 2 33 73 E 1 0 1 0 SS y g S TOTAL
- 28.944 FIGURE 15 0FF-SEASON TRANSIENT 1983 VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATE
( - l l l -
i C 5. ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION TIMES An analysis has been performed to estimate the time that might elapse for completing a public evacuation of each of the sector configurations shown in Figures 1 through 10. These times are from the start of the evacua tion to the point when evacuation of the last automobile has been c ompl eted . Additional time for notification, evacuation of special facilities and persons with special needs, and for confirmation that an evacuation has been completed is not included ' in the estimates provided. These considerations will be developed in detail as the arrangements for Seabrook Station are established. The results of the evacuation clear time calculations are summar-ized in Table 4 for the various 900 and 1800 areas within 2, 5, and 10 miles of the site. These cases correspond to thos.e for which the NRC requests clear time estima tes in Appendix 3, NUREG-0654 and Reference b). For each geographical configuration, thrie different area conditions were evaluated. The first represents a fair weather summer weekend which corresponds to the peak population condition for the area. The second represents a f air weather, off-season, weekday population condition. The third is for the off-season, week-day population condition with an assumed 30% reduction in the capacity of the road network to represent adverse weather conditions such as fog, rain, or snow. It should be noted that these cases were simulated with the road network opera ting in its normal mode, with no special traffic controls km .
-_ _. _ _ .,_-__. ._..n_ -
in piace. These preliminary analyses, therefore, assumed existing
. traffic patterns (i.e., one-way, two-way operation) prevail; emergency planning personnel / traffic controllers are not available; and no specified evacuation routings are enforced.
The estimates for the off-season, fair weather cases are shorter or equal to the corresponding off-season, adverse weather cases. For most cases, the difference between adverse and f air weather con-dition is within 20 minutes. This happens in evacuation sectors which have low vehicle demand and good evacuation road networks, where, in fair weather, the road network is not used to capaci ty. Therefore, during adverse weather, the reduced capacity of the roadway does not affect clear times significantly. There are two cases which have significant (approximately 1 hour) differences between the fair ( and adverse weather. -These are the Southeast 0-10 mile and Northeast 0-10 mile. These two sectors have large populations in proportion to the available roadway capacities in the area which causes the significant difference. Within the Southeast 0-10 mile sector, is the city of Newburyport, which contains a large permanent population and is densely settled. The Northeast 0-10 mile sector contains several major employers and shopping centers on Route 1, in addition to the permanent resident population. b s .
( TABLE 4 ESTIMATES OF EVACUATION CLEAR TIMES BY EPZ ANALYSIS AREAS TO CLEAR TOWN B0ut.0ARY (Hours / Minutes) Off-Season Off-Season Summer Weekday Weekday Weekend Fair Weather Adverse Weather Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min. Hrs. Min.
- 1. 1800 North, O to 2 miles 4 20 2 30 2 30
- 2. 180 South, O to 2 miles 3 10 2 50 2 50
- 3. 90 Northeast, O to 5 miles 4 20 1 50 2 00
- 4. 90U Southeast, 0 to 5 miles 3 50 3 00 3 00
- 5. 900 Southwest, O to 5 miles 3 40 3 10 3 10
- 6. 900 Northwest, O to 5 miles 3e 20 3 00 3 00
. 7. 900 Northeast, O to 10 miles 4 30 2 00 2 50
- 8. 900 Southeast, O to 10 miles 3 50 3 00 4 10
- 9. 900 Southwest, O to 10 miles 3 45 3 10 3 20
- 10. 90 Northwest, 0 to 10 miles 3 40 3 00 3 10 i
e O
( 6. INSTITUTIONAL EVACUATION TIMES The matter of planning arrangements for evacuation of the various institutions within the Seabrook Station EPZ is somewhat premature at this stage of station construction and overall emergency plan development. As state and local emergency planning considera-tions specific to the Seabrook area are developed, arrangements for such elements as institutions and special f acility notification and evacuation will be specified. Some indication about institutional evacuation can be gained from contact that has been made for two specific facilities and some comparison analysis offered by the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. { The Seacoast Health Center, located between 3 and 4 miles NNE from the site, is an intermediate care facility with a 76 bed capacity. It currently has an emergency plan and will have a radiological specific annex to include with the Town of Hampton plan. According to the Center's administrator, the estimated time to evacuate the , facility in a situation where the area-is evacuating is 2 to 3 hours. This facility experienced an actual evacuation of all its residents r ec en tly . The situation arose without prior warning at night while the residents were in bed. Upon notice, thirty minutes were taken to call emergency personnel, open a reception center, call ambulances (12) and a bus, and evaluate the situation. When the order to i evacuate was given, i t took 29 minutes to transf er all the patients to the reception center; 30% by bus and the remainder in ambulances, k - 13-
-,w- --- - . - - , , ~ ~ - - - , - , - , ,--,~n--
4
.he Exeter Hospital, located between 7 and 8 miles NW of the
( site, is.a major care facility with a 100 bed capacity. It currently
! has an emergency plan and will have a radiological specific annex to include with the Town of Exeter plan. According to the Hospital's administrator, the estimated time to evacuate the facility in a situation where the area is evacuating is 6 to 8 hours.
Additional information on the question of institutional evacua-tions is given in the letter from the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency, included as Appendix C. 4 k e k_ .
E 4 APPENDIX A THE EVAC MODEL k l l 1 l
( APPENDIX A - THE EVAC MODEL The EVAC model is a numerical transportation network simulation model. It was developed specifically to provide evacuation clear time estimates and related information for use in emergency planning. As an initial step, the transportation network is defined as a series of links and nodes, with entry nodes used to input the demand volumes and exit nodes used as network links. Links are coded directionally, from A-mode to B-node. Required geometric and operational inputs include: e Link length; , e Lane width and number of lanes; e Roadway type (urban, rural; one-way, two-way; parking, no parking); e Location within metropolitan area (central business district, fringe, outer business district, residential); e Free flow speed; s Intersection approach width; e Special turning lanes; e Traffic control (stop sign, fixed-time signal, actuated signal); and e Intersection approach green times (for signalized intersections), Given the evacuation highway network data and time-dependent load-ing rates and points, the model calculates flow moved from each link-(- A-1 . r -
leading into an intersection, to each link moving out of an inter-( section, based on:
- 1) User preferences regarding movement along each outbound link;
- 2) The capacities of both the inbound and outbound links; and
- 3) A linear rela tionship between speed and densityl .
Route choices are dynamically determined at each intersection as a function of predetermined preference factors and traffic conditions on the downstream link. The most ' direct route out of the evacuation area is generally given a higher preference f actor; alternative routes are given lower preference' factors. When congestion develops and traf fic speeds for preferred routes decline, traffic is routed to alternative routes with higher travel speeds. The EVAC model applies the principles of the Highway Research Board (HRB) Hiohway Capacity { Manual in evaluating traffic operations and capacity restrictions during the evacuation. The EVAC model updates statistics on the entire network and on each link at the end of each specified time increment. The statistics reported include capacity, flow, queues, current and total volumes, speeds, network occupancy, and cumulative link departures. From these data, the magnitude and impact of network flows can be traced through the term of the evacuation. 1 Greenshield 's relationship, refer to Traffic Flow Theory, Trans-portation Research Board Special Report 165, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1975. k A-2
. --~ , , - - - - ,
APPENDIX B AUTOMOBILE DEMAND ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT AND DAILY TRANSIENT POPULATION (SUMMER AND OFF-SEASON ESTIMATES)
I ,6 1 - g, 8
/ N ~s n,i .-
l . u l---z_,____.._____'<'s g ( ,
~
2 5 J-s
+
'\ ..,(
- is v'
- 2. =a wi i
,/'-s-
/
= ,"
s[i s. mi
\ , ;; ,,
e
/ o .cs /=
, t ia m 4,>,~m .
~.i
\~
l q \j' -[- ..l4 ***
~
l ,f, =
~
ao W - - s
.:/,,\ =>
/
l=l'~s" s.
=
,I t yg T,5 15 4 r.,_--o #'
,. 4. ---2 -Io, ' ==
\
-? "
- m, I t
a 2'
- I
, - \ m l .c., ' '=I'-
\
m l ( a el ot t =.c
\ j li
~,,, =
f \ " na p .= d =
}o ,
=
= ,=, . n m
=
= 0, m ? m ha -l ' f ." ** /a. ,$'tih){$\ -
8m < \ l ' \ 3 ) - s~ *M W, '_o St 7~ ,,.2 i~ n.'a-
~ .:.
--_u,.4={.5-iag:'{u
- < ,as 2 E
g .
/,,,i m 'p= l e \ '" ., w= , " 'r = 1 1
i ) ;
/ }
= ,#, t M l k 3 22 \ -lM m
\ \. =";(Q.c \ a +j#
.~i
,s.
, \, x ,.,. ~. %o\,, / i e. , 7, ~r" v C
s A ,,, oY-
< ~ =
\-
x- \, s.\__ 8\
%~ % 940 1- I -* S
/ _,
l saoy * * **% sn,
- ee nyg s s O
de , 3539 17C.= -
\%
eas l
/5 ~. > --el
//$W n.
84 # ~t " i =v vl
- - \~ -
%
- m,' ~ l \,
y f ( ,ce
\
/ \ ' o e' m
/ ss' O sse
< s</ .
) , >y
I a __, -s IG-
/ - % /
i- '" / t- '~~ - s - t ,J '
% s\ g
% 1 1
\ \ ,
~
~.s N l-- .,, /
g
'ss ,,
s s N .
's . f... .-
k FIGURE B-1 ESTIMATED 1983 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPUI.ATION
=
\ ,.
0
\
2, N'
, o se E o 2.
35 0 \ 0 32
. \- s, WNw 0 0
\ '
a O O sco 0 12 22
*
- ex.
. \ " f .. ***
ff
* .. . l . * ,
j , jog ,,,, , t W 'o~ , 5= , 87 7 ~ , * ~ , 8 -* ,4 ,87' .2~ . i ~ ,, , , a:* ) o o . . , E I h o R * ' b 1 i *
- h
, , . ,3{ o .
. -f.
( o
- l , \ .o o sst l . \ ... .
0 0 [ 0 0 0 29 sw * , 2e
\ -
0 0 \ 0 0 E S Torn : ea. FIGURE B-2 ESTIdATE OF VEHICLE DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS AND CAMPING FACILITIES
N NMW Mh5 409 N \ / - 0
\ ,,,
\ l...
92 ENE SS 470 "EI f f f 2sCS 1 I w ,0_. ,_. . . , _ . L. .- . 1 , l E
^ ... '
t i
\\\\\\ ,
i
. 1280 1813 UE WSW 202S Sie j \
I \ 0 SW g
\
SSw 3E j S
- tese leased spacee ,
FIGURE B-3 ESTIMATE OF BEACH AREA LOTS AND ON-STREET P RKING L
N
\ j ,
\ l
~
\ s
\
A I www
\/
\
W:c~\ *-' sad 7 l f e l
') '
b E l
} l Q l\
wsw '88 I \ sw
\ -
\
se S FIGURE B-4 VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR SEABROOK GREYHOUND RACING PARK AND SEABROOK STATION
I N N" [ sne
~c
$4s
_ \ '"
/ / .,+
\
k tas
/
h $ I \ W'e~ **2~
' n'-- -
l
\\ \
as X ' t ; E i 8
.r.
) ;
I\ ( .s. -
/ >s "'
" I"\
j .\ l -\
\ n
\
ss'
\ s, S
FIGURE B-5 ESTIMATED ROUTE 1 VEHICLE DEMAND, MAJOR PARKING LOTS - W
4 N NN 3 te h g 1 7, - 1 1 403
, 4 2 0 4 WNW
=
3 1 2
\1 l. ..
1 1 thE gg 3 M 1 0 p 1 1 8 0 0 3 es l 1 , s of S 1 l
, W 'c a' , 'a' , e-. , 7-. , s,I , s-. . as l 0 s l :-aI 4 -.
$(I] e m m.
0 0 0 0 E se 1 j 2 1 3 3 0 1 q 0 0
, 1 22 0 1
0 1 2 1 O O wsw\'1 , i j I * \ g as O esE 0 3 0 O e l ,
\' as O I SW 2 28 i
, /
t 1 0 1 0 35 1 .5E S Torm.: ian FIGURE B-6 ESTIMATE OF OFF-SEASON SEASONAL RESIDENT VEHICLE DEMAND (Assumes 10% of Total Seasonal Units X 1 Vehicle l per Seasonal Unit) k
N "h
') [ wme
\ l
\ l ,,
\
we.w as
\,, ,.
~
- o' **
f w ie-. e-. s~ 7 lll
- e. s-4 4 -. s -.
- -a i-.
\ ...="
.,2sl
\ ' E
, \ I\ '
u
' i ;
1 t ;
/
c- -
*/ \
W5W 28
=
,1
/ .. \
l \
\
sw i i r l } t I \ \ = l .. S Tcras.: ,: FIGURE B-7 { ESTIMATED OFF-SEASON VEHICLE DEMAND - OVERNIGHT AC (1 Vehicle / Unit)
- - _ = _ , - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
O
- ~
\ ,.
\ l
- \ l .
.. \
n..
\ .
ww \12S 4-
\ '~ l j' \
w,o., lI l ,-I . I. 27. ,, 2 7.,,,-
. \ =-
\l ,
e
\ '~
l i i ; ; 1 it s.
,, \
q \,- ... l \ wsws ,,
- = -
/
302 34 im
.., \
SW \ T. E
~
\ ,
S Torx: 7.n FIGURE b-8 ESTIMATE OF VEHICLE DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH
~
i MAJOR MANUFACTURING EMPLOYERS l ( . 2 0
4 4
& a g
i APPENDIX C ( COMMENTS BY MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL DEFENSE AGENCY r i l l l k l l l l
m== G Q W ?f g h THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS C ~ R. p2 , EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENr
; *didWe= 5
? {t= : cme carcuse accucy ano orrict or cuenocucy encrancour.ss
[ aoo woncasica moao rnauthoMaM, Mass o3701 EDWARD J. KING August 4, 1980 PAUL J. CAHILL GOVERNOR oiRECToM Mr. James Mcdonald Yankee Atomic Electric Company 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
Dear Mr. Mcdonald:
Please accept this letter as the official commentary of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency on Yankee Atomic's submission to the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission entitled: Preliminarv Evacuation Clear Time Esti-mates for Areas Near Seabrook Station.
- 1. Evacuation Tiee Estimates The. calculated evacuation ti=e estimates are consistent with MCDA's estimates,- which were based upon experience, and upon some basic load-loading analyses using techni-ques developed in the context of the FEMA Crisis Reloca-tion Planning Program. More importantly, MCDA is familiar with the methodology used in generating the estimates, and with the EVAC model, from experience with work done in the Pilgrim NPS area. The Pilgrim area results have generated a high degree of confidence in both the EVAC model and in HMM's personnel.
Because planning for the Seabrook NPS is in a prototypical stage, the estimates vill be very useful in the route design and traffic management components of the actual evacuation plans, which will be developed over the coming months.
- 2. Special Facilities There are a nurber of similarities in demography, topography, and physical infrastructure between the Seabrook and Pilgrim NPS sites. Experience in planning for the Pilgrim site in-dicates that while specialized planning is critical for safe efficient evacuation of the school population, once these plans are in place, the schools can be readily evacuated in
( an orderly manner. In no case should evacuation of the school population exceed time estimates for the population in general. "
,.,y-_ -.
7 ---
Mr. James Mcdonald Augus t 4, 1980 There are sixteen hospitals and nursing homes in the Seabrook area in Massachusetts. Again, Pilgrim planning experience indicates that specialized plans for each such facility are needed. MCDA officials, and local officials queried to date generally feel that the nursing homes could be evacuated within the time estimates. Work with Jordan Hospital in Plymouth inidcates that total evacuation of the three hospitals (Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport, 6 miles south, Newburyport Manor Chronic Hospital, 6 miles south , and' Amesbury Hospital 5 miles southwest) could require more than the time estimated for the general population. The critical component here is in provision of life sustaining equipment while transporting patients from post-surgical, coronary care, and similar units, and in making the necessary decisions to proceed with evacuation of such patients. (There is a lack of guidance in this area, from NRC and from NIH.)
- 3. Confir=ation of Evacuation MCDA plans to provide for confirmation of evacuation through the use of local law enforcement officials, travelling pre-assigned routes. This is the only mechanism found effective in evacuation for other , purposes. Alternative suggestions seem to present more shortcomings than they resolve. Assign-( ment of 35-45 minute confir=ation times are reasonable, although it is important ot not* that confirmation of evacuatica would begin, and proceed, throughout the projected evacuation time period.
- 4. Notification Tires Notification time estimates (35 minutes good weather, 45 minutes bad weather) appropriately reflect MCDA estimates of the time necessary to complete notification to 100% of the public within 5 miles, and 90% of the public within ten miles, using existing local capabilities.
Addition of this notification time to computed evacuation times in all cases yields a conservative result. The reason for this is that a majority of residents within either 5 or 10 miles would receive notification within 15 minutes, at which time any recommended evacuation would begin. To the extent that route capacities constrain evacuation times, simple addition of the notification time is a conservative approach. The State, local governments , and the utility have been working on various " prompt alert" mechaniscs , and timely compliance with any future Federal regulations involving " prompt alert" provisions can be assured. The material in the proposed subedssion will prove a useful tool in determining the appropriateness of various protective -
Dy
,,w C '- Mr. Ja:nes Mcdonald ' August 4, 1980 actions in the event of an accident. MCDA will incorporate the results in the Massachusetts radiological emergency response plan, af ter Federal officials have had an opportunity to review them.
The results will be made available to local emergency response officials. Sincerely,
\
Paul J. Cahill l Director e L -
\
., /2'/W6/sM.:
[' h D h D i /, A C,R.5 R - 6? 37 [ , uA u est Eph1
~
f - UG 141979 W -
'w y --
- t. .
4 ME'40RANIX.M KR: Conmissioner Ahearne h - FROM: Max W. Carbon, G airman, ACRS -
SUBJECT:
QUANTITATIVE SAFf'IY GOALS i REFERDCE: Memo from Commissioner Ahearne to Max W. Carbon, j _
Subject:
Quantitative Safety Goals dated 6/11/79 5 In order to develop further the concept of establishing safety goals i for nuclear power reactors, the Committee has assigned this project 2 to our Subcmmittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Assessment. We
;t anticipate that up to a year nay be nee:!ed to arrive at the reccmen- ;8 dations we feel are appropriate.
b
,'- We wauld be pleased to discuss the topic on an interim basis as you P might wish.
k . l-
- i. ORIGIFAL SIGM BY W E.' 7 U. C!a!CN
- 3. . .
? ExW. Carbon l: Chairman .. . cc:
C Chairman Hendrie _ 1 Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy
.; Commissioner Bradford S. Gilk, Secretary of the Commission p.
ACRS Members i .< . X O A 2./ f
. .r
[i2: t ACRS ACRS
.me= > .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FRALEY CHM
. .u - a = > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RFF FOR ....
. . . . . . . ..... ....N............ . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d
.m > . 6/.13/.7.9... . .8/13H.9.. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
.../
.) . mc mu m me meu one / *.......--- - . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . .
~~
l ,th k, 29+%M'W,4 7 Ok~ .
1 A t rJ R - 0 8 31 S, 3 A P p A 57 (.fi f*p** "' coq [g UNITED STATES C, y ; . > 3 p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
- 7. 4:j ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
%. , WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i
***** May 16, 1979 ,
[ Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cocinission Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
REPORT ON QUANTITATIVE SAFETY GOALS
Dear Dr. Hendrie:
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards recomends that con-sideration be given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the establishment of quantitative safety goals for overall safety of nuclear power reactors. 'Ihis could be helpful, for example, in developing criteria for NRC actions concerning operating plants. The ACRS recognizes the difficulties and uncertainties in the C quantification of risk and understands that in m ny situations engineering judgment will be the only or the primary basis for a decision. Nevertheless, the ACRS believes that the existence of quantitative safety goals and criteria can provide important yard-sticks for such judgment. The ACRS believes that such NRC goals and criteria should be pro-posed for coment, not only by the public but by the Congress. Ultimately the Congress should be asked to express its views on the suitability of such goals and criteria in relation to other relevant aspects of our technological society, such as large dams, and mnufacturing, storage, or disposal facilities for hazardous chemicals. The ACRS believes that it is time to place the discussion of risk, l nuclear and nonnuclear, on as quantitative a basis as feasible. Sin rely, Max W. Carbon Chairman PW f,,/a/ p L9 . _ n -. - -
.}}