ML20237L451
| ML20237L451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1987 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-5-I-SC-022, OL-5-I-SC-22, NUDOCS 8708280108 | |
| Download: ML20237L451 (4) | |
Text
kW h)(
N 3
gg T-3 0 - Z. 2--
87 E 21 P4 :15 SECTION V - TIME ESTIMATES Innumerable conditions can impact an evacuaEion, some adversely, others favorably.
For this reason, such influential factors must be considered and addressed in the development of an evacuation plan in order to produce a consummate plan--one which will remain operable under the wide variety of given circumstances which could materialize over the course of an incident.
It is impossible, however, to accommodate every conceivable eventuality.
In light of this, some of the determining factors to be considered in the plan were the type and magnitude of the incident itself and the meteorological conditions present at the time, all of which are subject to continual change throughout an incident.
Other considerations involve the impact of adverse weather; the duration of the evacuation trip-generation activity; the impact of summer population compared with winter population.
After tabulating the most detrimental factors which could affect an evacuation, a hypothetical worst case scenario was developed upon which this evacuation plan was based.
It was felt that a plan capable of maintaining its operability under the worst possible conditions could accommodate lesser challenges with little modification.
Therefore, this plan was developed to accommodate the following conditions:
a population in residence equivalent to the 1985 projected summer population (approximately 160,000 people);
school in full se_;sion at the time of an incident, regardless of the use of sumaer population figures; vehicles generated by major employers superimposed on evacuation routes; for residents without bus service established access to private automobiles; and specialized
)
transportation for handicapped individuals and nursing / adult home facilities.
There is an apparent contradiction of considering school in session concurrent with the use of summer population estimates.
This hypothesis takes into account the possibility that the population within the EPZ eould increase during certain days when schools are in session.
For example, vacationers and visitors could occupy the EP2 on days preceding and following such; holidays as Mothers Day, Columbus Day, Memorial Day, P::esident!r Day', as well as the longer holidayc of Christmas and Easter.
",$ y Ae discussed later, whether or not school'is[insessionat the onset of an accident should not signifiesntly influence
-vacuation travel times.
Specifically, schodl being in session
)uld serve to extend tho trip generation time sacewhat
- s t
r Children are asst.med to be released froa school to x
che home concurrently with Che commuter trips from work to,home.
The departura of the family from home tp initiate the evacuation trip-s is, in general, de Layed due the children retms home later than t he ^ commuter.to schotF being in session, o s
y.1 0709280108 B70313
]
PDR ADOCK 05000322 s
Rem 3 g
POR s,.
4 s
O 6
0 5
.g
~
t s
,m' -
k th 5
%,.9, * *g **
s..,
fp /
3 l
This effect, however, if moderate, will not influence the overall evacuat ion t imes (see lat er discussion of Scenario 21).
S inc e t he dominant f act o rs influencing evacuac ion t' ravel t imes are the t o:al vehicle demand, evacuac ion rout ing and cont rol, and roadsaf t raf fic ope ra: ion s, no separate time estimates are presen:ed for differences in t ime-of-day o r daf-of-week.
In summary, t his plan was designed t o accommodat e c he following as sumpt ions :
o Summer populat ibn, 1985.
o School is in session:
evacuacion t rips are genera:ed over a two-hour period in most locacions.
i o
Network is servicing moderace c raffic volumes at the outse: of t he evacua: ion process.
Required personnel to cont rol t raffic are mobilized and o
in place at outset of evacua:Lon process or soon t hereaft er.
All evacuees are aware of their respective evacuat ion o
rout e s.
No major vehicle breakdown (or other types of o
incident s) occur which block major rou:es for an f
ex: ended t ime.
All members of the public who are requested to evacua e o
comply wic h t he request.
The sc udy t o obt ain evacuation time es imat es does not explicit ly consider the provision of bus service, ambulances or ot her spec ialized vehic les.
The escimaces of capaci:f, however, do t ake into account the presence of such vehicles.
As indicat ed in Table II, a tot al of 21 cases was investigated.
Case 12 is considered as the " basic" case:
a simult aneous evacuat ion of the ent ire EPZ during " normal" weac her c o ndit ions.
The iterative procedure-described in Appendix D was applied to t his case t o opt imize cont rol t reatment s and evacuation l
routes.
The evacuat ion t ime est imat es presented in c nis seccion and in Appendix E, which follows, were produced using che con:rol t reatment s and evacuation routes described in Revision 4 co tnis Plan.
The cont rol t reatment s and evacuat ion rouces have been slightly modified in Revision 5 to improve evacuat ion time es:imaces for some of the various keyhole configurac ions which serve as ne basis for protective act ion recommendat ions.
See OPIP 3.6.1.
These L
new cont rol t reatment s and evacuation routes are present ed in Appendix A and the OPIPs.
The new evacuation time escimates are presented in OPIP 3.6.1.
V-2 Rev. 5
l "My
-},7 e
\\
l 1
l I
Since the new evacuat ion time est imat es are not significan:1y dif ferent f rom t he esc imat es report ed in t nis section, and since t he est ima: e's in this section are based on NUREG-0654 requirement s that are not entirely consiscen: wi h tne Kef oles used h
for p rot ec: Lve act ion recommendac ions, it was declared t hat i: was ine f fic ient and not cost beneficial t o rerun cae 21 evac uat ica scenarios reported in this section and presen:ed in detail in Appendix E.
As par: of the annual review process this plan will undergo, these evacuation time estimaces are reviewed, and when appropriate, revised.
All of the other cases were analyzed on the premise t hat these t reatment s were in ef fect and that t he evacua: ion rout es were invariant.
This posture is justified for the following reasons:
o It is not credible for an evacuation plan to specify dif f e rent rou:es for different evacuat ion scenarios.
Evacuees must have the assurance that tne assigned routes are applicable and ef fective for all condicions.
l l
+
i V-2a Rev. 5
- - - _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _