ML20245A706
| ML20245A706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1989 |
| From: | Callendrello A, Lieberman E KLD ASSOCIATES, INC., PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8784 OL, NUDOCS 8906220125 | |
| Download: ML20245A706 (59) | |
Text
t7 g'..
=(-
EELAIID @{ftRES.tO.6DT-D A
. CON'i >2 t? fx
. June ~13, 1989 T9J JUN 19 P3 32 -
CQ 9fiMT.$,,!j'..M',
- N l,"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.'50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
-)-
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
).
SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMOFY NO. 16 (INTERACTION OF COMMUTER TRAFFIC FIDW AND EVACUATION TRAFFIC FIDW WITHIN THE SEABROOK EPZ)
Panel Members:
Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager,-
i Emergency Preparedness Licensing, New Hampshire Yankee' j
Edward B.
Lieberman, President, KLD Associates, Inc..
l 1
l l
8906220125 890613 ADOCK 0 % g 3 PDR T
.lPTINTER.NB 3 503 1
s-
]
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page j
f 1:
I.
INTRODUCTION II.
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL PATHS 1
f III. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC FLOWS-3 1
i A.
Evacuation Traffic Flows on the Critical Paths -
3 B.
Commuter Traffic Flow 4
IV.
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EXPLICIT MODELING OF l
COMMUTER TRAFFIC FLOWS 6
A '.
Modeling-of All Commuter Trips..
6
'12 V.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSES
'I A.
Town of Salisbury 13 j
B.
Town of Seabrook.
18-C.
Town of Hampton 19' D.
Summary 26 VI.
IMPACT OF EVACUEE MOBILIZATION TIME:ON ETEs.
.26 VII. SENSITIVITY STUDIES OF COMMUTER TRAFFIC.
.28 A.
Steps Necessary to Undertake Sensitivity Study 28' B.
Results of the Sensitivity Study.
35 VIII. REVIEW OF MAG DATA BASE 37 A.
Analysis of Employment ~ Data 38 B.
Qualitative Implications Relative to ETE'.
39
-i-
3 I
j o.
Attachment'A:- Table of Characteristics of Evacuation and
'. Commuting Traffic. Flow Attachment B:
NHRERP Volume 6, p. 5-7 Attachment C:
Commuter Return Trip Table to Residential Locations
~j Attachment D:
Map of Evacuation and Commuter Routes in Salisbury Equare' Area Attachment E:
Map of Hampton Evacuation and Commuter Routes Attachment F:
MAG Data Base Attachment'G:
Comparison of KLD to MAG Data Sets 1
{
y I.
INTRODUCTION 1
This testimony responds to the concern expressed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board) pertaining to the effect of commuters on Evacuation Time-Estimates (ETEs) discussed at pages 251-256 of the Partial Initial Decision (PID) issued in this proceeding on December 30,'1988.1 Therein, the Board raised.the question of whether those q
commuter trips which originate near~the center.of.the Emergency Planning Zone'(EPZ) and pass through certain critical or. constraining roadway' sections in the same l
direction as the evacuating summer beach traffic flow have been properly accounted for in the KLD analysis which produced ETEs for Seabrook Station.2 4
f II.
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL PATHS The discussion herein focuses on." critical naths".
A critical path is one which takes the longest time (or close l
to the longest time) to clear evacuees and therefore' dictates the ETE.
While other roadway sections service commuter traffic, they will not influence the ETE for the summer scenarios and thus need not be considered.
1 Public Service Comoany of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 787-789 (1988).
2 As the Board reiterated in its Memorandum and order of May 5, 1989, it has asked for further. testimony on "the effect of commuters whose trips originate within the EPZ and l
terminate at home (before evacuating)-within the EPZ upon evacuation of the summertime beach population."
Memorandum and Order (Returnino Commuters Issue) at'8 (May 5, 1989).
i
_ i
'I
There are only a limited number of evacuation paths for the beach areas.
Specifically, there are two paths from Hampton Beach:
one is Route 51 which services traffic moving westbound from the beach; the other is Route 1A servicing northbound traffic fron Hampton Beach towards the City of Portsmouth.
For discussion purposes, Routes 1 and 1A can be l
l regarded as a single " northern" evacuation route since much of the traffic leaving iampton Beach via Route 1A travels west to Route 1, then north towards Portsmouth.
Another 1
critical path is from Seabrook Beach westbound along Route 286 and thence onto Route I-95 southbound.
The last evacuation path servicing a major beach area is from l
Salisbury Beach and is comprised of westbound Routes 1A and 110 which service traffic onto either I-95 southbound or I-j 1
495 westbound.
1 The number of origins in the beach areas which supply evacuation traffic serviced on these paths is limited to j
those on the three ceaches:
Hampton Beach, Seabrook Beach and Salisbury Beach.
The evacuation path from Plum Island, which is to the south of the Merrimac River, is not considered herein since it does not service sufficient evacuation traffic volume to be a critical path.
Therefore, there are three beach areas of interest which supply evacuation traffic to the potentially critical paths within the EPZ.
-2
The number of destinations for evacuation traffic are those which are defined by the intersections of these critical paths with the EPZ boundary.
Again, there are only a limited number of these:. specifically, the intersection of I-95 with the southerr boundary of the EPZr the intersection of I-495 with the southwestern boundary of the EPZr the intersection of Route 51/101 with the western boundary of the EPZ: and the intersections of %-95, Spaulding Turnpike, Route 1 and Route 1 Bypass-with the northern boundary of the EPZ.
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC FLOWS In discussing this topic, it is essential at the outset to recognize the characteristics of evacuation traffic flow (consisting of residents, transients and commuters who live outside the EPZ) and those of " internal commuter" traffic flow (consisting of commuters who live within the EPZ) so that the intrinsic differences between them can'be identified.
An understanding of these characteristics yields the necessary insight into any interaction between the two traffic streams.
The Table of Characteristics of Evacuation and Commuting Traffic Flow, Attachment A hereto, is a listing of there characteristics for each of these traffic streams.
The following discussion addresses these characteristics.
A.
Evacuation Traffic Flows on the Critical Paths There is only one direction oil travel along these evacuation routes for the evacuatir.g traffic stream and that is in the outbound direction.
The demand volume at the _
origins (i.e., at the beach areas)'would be very heavy if an emergency were to occuc at toe time when the beach area.
population is at its peak.
It.is for this reason that the time ~to evacuate the entire EPZ on a summer weekend is in excess of seven hours.
The temporal extent of this demand (i.e., the time frame over which this evacuation demand'for service persists) is almost the entire duration of the evacuation. time, namely, in excesa of six hours.
The persistence in demand reflects the fact that the large inventory of vehicles in the beach areas cannot be serviced any faster.
B.
Commuter Traffic Flow For internal commuter traffic (i.e.,.those commuters whose place of employment is in one community within the EPZ, and whose residence is in another EPZ community) there are as many origins throughout the EPZ as there are places of 1
employment.
Likewise, the immediate destinations of these commuters are their respective homes which are also widely l
dispersed.
The routes available to the aggregation.of-1 returning (i.e., work-to-home) internal commuters include gli the routes in gli directions of the roadway network which service their travel to their respective residences.
Consequently, internal commuters can use secondary and tertiary roads of limited length to travel home; they are not restricted to evacuation paths which must extend in the i
outbound direction, only, all the way to the EPZ boundary. - _ - _ _ _ _
In many cases, those who work and live in the same town can confine their travel, for the most part, to local roads and streets within that town that are not used by beach area evacuees.
As discussed above, the pattern of internal commuter travel is from widely-dispersed origins to other widely-dispersed destinations within the EPZ, resulting in these vehicles moving in many directions over all available routes.
The temporal extent of commuter demand according to distribution B on Page 4-16 of the evacuation plan (NHRERP Vol. 6) extends essentially over a period of two hours and then ends.
This is the length of time it takes for all commuters (those whose trips home originate both within, and outside, the EPZ) to initiate their trips and travel home.
Clearly, most of those commuters who take the longest to travel home are those who originate their trips far from the EPZ.
Other commuters who travel home along the evacuation routes servicing beach area evacuees may also be delayed.
l But the " internal" commuters of interest, those who originate 1
i their trips home from employment locations within the EPZ will, for the nrst part, arrive home within less than two hours.
l i L___ _ _ __
q l
=
i IV.
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EXPLICIT MODELING OF COMMUTER i
TRAFFIC FLOWS l
Explicit modeling of commuter traffic flow is an i
intensive and difficult undertaking.
A.
Modelina of All Commuter Trins To represent the diversity of commuter traffic flow, as discussed in Section III of this testimony, it would be necessary to represent all roadways in both directions, thus l
virtually doubling the present number of roadway network links.
It would also be necessary to define additional origins and destinations within the EPZ representing, respectively, employment centers and residential areas, and to specify trips generated outside the EPZ representing those commuters who elect to return to the EPZ to unite,with their families.
The effects of such explicit representation would i
be to:
1 Roughly double the number of roadway network links needed to define the commuter and evacuation paths for the IDYNEV model, from about 400 presently.
Create about 100 internal centroids which represent origins (employment centroids) and destinations for internal commuters travelling between EPZ communities.
i l
Create about 20 external entry links.
Require the generation of a work-to-home trip table for all commuters. )
Require the execution'of the traffic assignment program to separately compute the approximate network loading of the commuter work-to-home-travel.
Integrate the commuter' assignment.results with the evacuation simulation results to. compute turn-movements on all links during,the-first two hours.
of evacuation after the order.to evacuate-(OTE) when commuter traffic is on the network.
1
. Calculate and specify roadway capacities over the first two hours, then modify these-capacities after most commuters have reached home.
Change the turn movements, capacity and. splits after two hours to reflect the absence of most commuter flow.
l
{
Total computer costs for each set of computer runs will 1
roughly double.
Not only will the computer simulation model-run longer, but an additional traffic assignment run is' required.
Even more costly is the labor needed to prepare the more numerous and much larger IDYNEV input streams and to l
~
I perform the integration of these input. streams described i
above.
Also, the origin-destination.(trip) table for
]
returning commuter trips would be far larger than that needed I
l for evacuation patterns alone, due to the addition of a.large j
number of internal origin and destination centroids l
1 1 l
representing employment locations and residences,.
respectively.
B.
The Use of a Capacity Reduction Factor Throughout the ETE analysis, KLD has applied a capacity reduction factor of 0.85 (15 percent reduction) for gli network links experiencing congestion -- those representing limited access highways and those representing at-grade roadways.
The capacity reduction for limited-access highways, characterized by " continuum flow" was based on the l
observation that the onset of congested conditions, independent of other considerations, could reduce capacity on these facilities, as discussed on page 6-7 of the 1985 i
)
Highway capacity Manual (HCM).
This phenomenon does not l
apply to " interrupted flow" facilities such as roadways which I
intersect at-grade.
The capacity reduction assigned to at-l I
grade roadways reflects other factors.
As stated on pages l
4 61-62 of Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
7, ff. Tr. 5622, "The justification for such [ capacity) reduction on non-freeway segments is based on the reasonable expectation that i
driver uncertainty during an evacuation and short-term disruptions can reduce capacity."
Allegations that the 15 percent capacity reduction is used to " approximate the effect of congested flow.
" and l
that it cannot be used to account for any delays experienced l
l by evacuating traffic due to returning commuters are therefore incorrect.
As discussed in Section V.A.6 (pages 9, L____________________
4-.
=s, 10, 11)-of Applicants' Rebuttal-Testimony Number 16, the
"(cjapacity. reduction ~ factor represents the potential.for 1 inefficient traffic operations due.to a variety-of factors
. including driver uncertainty under_ emergency' conditions in a congeste'd traffic environment."
~ (By definition, if; traffic demand is less than highway, capacity, then there ils no congestion _and the issue ofEa capacity; reduction factor is-l moot.
That is,' capacity reduction can only'influcnce ETE.
when the demand exceeds-that capacity.)- TheLfactors:whichi can effectively reduce 1 capacity'can take;many forms,;
including the effects of' disabled vehicles which have to.~be f
moved to the side of the road, uncertain behavior on the part:
of motorists which produce erratic maneuvers, as well as the movements of non-evacuating traffic that is'not represented explicitly.
The discussion in Section V.A.6'also. states'that the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual:(HCM) guidelines do.DQ1 recommend a capacity reduction for at-grade roadways due'to
~
congested conditions.
The ETE calculations also use roadway. capacity estimates based'on the assumption that all two-lane roads can be described as " rolling terrain".
This is~an' apt description for almost all roads west of I-95, and a portion ofLthe roads east of I-95.
However, many of the roads east of I-95 are on level terrain, including the east-west roads-servicing beach area traffic. L
Specifically, the maximum elevation east of I-95 is about 70 feet above sea level.
A rise of 70 feet over a distance of some 3 miles is an average grade of less than 0.5 percent.
This. grade is classified as " level terrain".
The capacity of the major beach access roads, if estimated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures for level terrain, would be about 10 percent greater than that used to calculate the ETE.
The uso of the lower " rolling terrain" capacities for all roads again reflected a conservative posture in representing the congested traffic operations on the roadways servicing the beach areas where congestion extends over many hours.
This was a prudent approach in the face of uncertainty.
However, uncertainty is not properly accounted for by superimposing still more levels of conservatism.
Commuter traffic which, has never been explicitly considered in ETE studies, has a rather small impact.
This impact accounts for a portion of the capacity reduction utilized in the KLD ETE studies for Scabrook.
It should be noted that capacity is defined as the
" maximum hourly rate at which.
. Vehicles.
. traverse a coint or uniform section of a lane or roadway.
[ emphasis added] on page 1-3 of of the HCM.
Thus, assuming capacity is reduced at one point (e.a., at an intersection) l due to crossing or with-flow commuting vehicles, such l
l i
\\
capacity reduction at this point does not influence'the j
i capacity at another point, somewhat removed._
As an example, consider a roadway,section that has a j
i disabled vehicle at the side of the road which reduces
-j capacity there byL6 percent; an intersection-which services cross traffic on a local street which reduces capacity there by 8 percent averaged over the evacuation time frame; another intersection where cross' traffic' reduces capacity by.5 percent over the-evacuation. time' frame; a vehicle break-down during evacuation which is pushed to the side and affects capacity at that point by 2 percent averaged over'the evacuation time frame; and with-flow commuter traffic which increases the evacuation volume by 7 percent and which is not accounted for explicitly in the simulation.
The net effect on evacuating flow for this section of roadway, assuming that none of the with-flow commuters leaves this roadway, is:
Percent Capacity Reduction = 7 + max (6,8,5,2) = 15.
This example demonstrates some of the ways that factors which are not -- and in many cases cannot be -- explicitly accounted for, could reduce capacity and thereby influence ETE.
While few, if any, other ETE studies consider the 1
effects of these factors, it is realistic and prudent to
]
represent the resulting capacity reductions through the application of a " capacity reduction factor".
In the'next section it will be shown that inter-town commuting traffic is i
well covered by the " umbrella" of the 15 percent capacity
)
reduction applied to at-grade roadways and.that the further 10 percent reduction in capacity for_the beach area " level terrain" service roads provide ample " security" for all'of l
the uncertain factors which must~be accounted.for when-analyzing an. emergency evacuation environment.
V.
PRELIMINARY ANALXEEE This section analyzes the work-to-home travel of
" internal commuters" (i.e., those who commute.from one town within the EPZ to another within the EPZ) to and from those-towns adjoining the beach areas.
This analysis:
Demonstrates an approach which does not require the large investment required to perform'a full-scale IDYNEV analysis including commuter traffic.
Addresses the concerns of the Board on the remanded issue.
Demonstrates that commuter traffic affects ETE by l
an amount that is well below the allowance of a 15 l
percent reduction in' capacity.
i Initially, it is necessary to estimate the number of I
internal commuter trips which cross evacuating traffic streams at grade and those commuter trips which travel with-evacuating traffic streams.
To estimate these internal commuter trips it is necessary to consider, for every town:
1.
Those who work in town X and travel on the work-to-home (w-h) trip from X.
I '
w---_-_-_____-.
I
- 2L.
Those who live-in town X,-work elsewhere within the i
-EPZ, and travel'.on the'w-hLtriP:
1 12 X ~.
The sources of data' utilized;to estimate the. quantity 1
.and pattern offcommuter traffic flow were Table.5-3'of the l
i KLD ETE. study, NHRERP, (App.'Ex.-5), Volume 6, p.ES-7.
(Attachment B hereto), and the telephone survey conducted;for-j KLD by First Market ' Research of Boston' in October,. :1985 (see-l AppendiceszE, itemf17, F-and:G'of VolumeL6 of th'a NHRERP).
g 1
These two data sets were used.to produce the trip; table 1 f
representing returning commuter traffic, Attachment C hereto.
A.
Town of Salisbury The data in Table 5-3Lindicate that of the 3,252 mid-week ~ employees in Salisbury, 641 reside in the town.
These commuters will, to~a major extent, use: local streets to travel home, most of them in advance of evacuating traffic.-
i Since 1,850 employees reside outside'the EPZ, and are already
]
I counted as evacuees, then the number of employees'who live in other EPZ towns is 3, 2 52 - 641 - l,' 8 50 = 761.
Dividing by 1.16 employees per vehicle yields 656 inter-town trips during l
i, mid-week.
For weekends 70 percent'of mid-week employment.is assumed, which-translates into 460 inter-town commuter-trips.
It was assumed.that 10 percent of Salisbury amployees are in:
the beach area.
Thus, the number of off-beach' inter-town trips for mid-week and weekend summer days are, respectively, 590 and 414.
j
) >
l l
l I
.O d..
The critical' intersection along the' major beachfaccess road.from Salisbury Beach is Salisbury Square, the-intersection of-Route 1 with Beach Road (Route.1A).. Egg Attachment.D hereto. LA portion of.off-beach Salisbury commuter trips originating in' Salisbury and. travelling home:
to other towns can be expected to pass through this intersection:
all those that originate to the~ east of the Square; those that originate to the north and travel ~
southward and westward; and those that originate-to the south of.the Square and travel northward'and westward.
The I
remaining commuter trips will travel in directions away from f
the Square.
There are no data at this level of specificity, I
but certain reasonable assumptions can be made in providing reasonable estimates:
Off-beach employment locations are assumed to be symmetrically distributed about the Square, i.e.,
25 percent are located to.the east, west, north and south of the Square, respectively.
Based on the KLD telephone survey, the percentages
)
of inter-town commuters who work in Salisbury and live in other EPZ communities are distributed as follows:
7, 60 and 33 are from the north, south and west, respectively.
Thus, the number of inter-town off-beach commuter trips returning home from Salisbury that pass l
through Salisbury Square on a mid-week day are:
' I L_______=__________________________-____-_-__---_
^-'
(0.25 x (0.60 + 0.33)) x 590 = 137 vehicles travelling southbound on Route-l'from the north of the Square then either turn right onto Route:110 westbound or proceed south along Route 1.
(0.25 x 1.0) x 590 = 148 vehicles. travelling westbound along Route 1A-(Beach Road) from
-locations east of the Square.
-(0.25 x-(0.07 + 0.33)) x 590 = 59 vehicles travelling northbound along Route 1 from the south-of the Square.
Additionally, it is necessary to consider internal commuters returning home 12 Salisbury from other towns who
)
1 l
may travel along Route 1 through Salisbury Square.
These
{
commuters would originate in Seabrook to the north and Newburyport to the south.
It can also be assumed that half'
'i i
of the commuters who travel between Seabrook and Newburyport' will use Route 1; the others will travel on I-95.
Commuters travel 2ing longer distances in the north or south' directions j
would use I-95.
Based on the results of the KLD telephone survey, about 15 percent of inter-town commuters who work in Newburyport 1
travel from Salisbury and 7 percent travel from Seabrook.
I l
Also, of the inter-town commuters who work in Seabrook, 1
7 percent travel from Salisbury and 6 percent from Newburyport.
It is assumed'that these commuters will return home in an emergency.
Consistent'with the assumption that 25 percent of all residences in Salisbury are located in each i
direction relative to the Square, it follows that 75 percent of all w-h commuters 12 Salisbury plus all those who travel
J j
n 1
throuch Salisbury will pass through the Square; the others will reach their homes before arriving at.the Square.
There are (9,477 - 3,543 - 4,206)/1.16.= 1,490 work-to -
J home inter-town commuter trips originating in Newburyport, l
and about [(7,579 - 4000)/7,579] x (7,579 - 1,623:-
l 4,221)/1.16 = 706 such trips originating in Seabrook, j
90 percent (636) off the beach.. Thus, there are
]
I approximately (0.75 x 0.15-+ 0.07/2) x 1,490 = 220 trips
{
l through Salisbury Square from the south and (0.75 x 0.07 +-
~
0.06/2) x 636 = 52 trips from-the north. -The'w-h trips from_.
the west account for 10 percent of the 590 Salisbury-based l
)
trips to other' communities.
Of these eastbound w-h trips, 25 percent will turn north at the Square, thus impeding evacuating traffic, or 0.10 x 0.25 x 590 = 15 vehicles.
The other eastbound vehicles will not impede evacuees.
To obtain all commuter trips from the north, sum 52 + 137 = 189, and 1
l from the south, 59 + 220 + 15 = 294.
In estimating the loss in capacity associated with this commuter traffic impeding the westbound evacuation traffic stream at the Square, the maximum of the north-south and
]
south-north trips (294) is utilized, since these two traffic streams time-share the traffic lanes within the Square.
The crossing vehicles would have average headways of about i
i 2.4 seconds; startup lost time and clearance time would reduce capacity further by approximately 7 percent.
- Thus, the total time used by vehicles travelling north and south !
through the Square would be 294 vehicles x 2.4 x 1.07 = 755-
'f i
seconds.
This is 10.5 percent of the available' capacity i
(i.e.,.
(755/7200) x 100) ' at Salisbury Square-over two hours q
i (7200 seconds) and.is equivalent to a. capacity reduction for i
1 evacuees-there of 3.0 percent over seven hours.
1 The westbound off-beach inter-town commuter traffic of 148 vehicles travels through-Salisbury! Square.over one lane for 1.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> (until the traffic, guides arrive there), then over two lanes.
Nominal capacity per lane is 1333 veh/hr.
Commuter traffic thus consumes about 4.6 percent.of available capacity over two hours:
(148/(1.6 x 1333 + 0.4 x 2666)) x 100 = 4.6.
This capacity reduction is 0.9 percent over seven l
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />s:
(14 8/ (1. 6 x 13 3 3 + 5. 4 x 2 666) ) x 100 = 0. 9.
When
]
added to the 3.0 percent lost to crossing. flow, the total capacity reduction is 3.9 percent'.
This estimated capacity. reduction of 3.9 percent is 1
amply covered by the 15 percent reduction in capacity applied l
to the IDYNEV calculations to all two-lane, two-way roads over the entire evacuation timo frame, when traffic is congested.
The total westbound flow of commuters on Route 110 west of Salisbury Center consists of all those trips that originate west of the Square plus all those who travel to the i
west from the other parts of Salisbury:
0.25.(0.33 + 1 +
0.33 + 0.33) x 590 = 294 vehicles.
This accounts for (294/(1.6 x 1333 + 0.4 x 2666)) x 100 = 9.2 percent reduction _.-_______ -_ _ - _
e in capacity over two hours,. 4or:about 1.8. percent over the' entire evacuation time frame.
Another location of interest is the intersection of Route 286 with Route l.
Route 286 services evacuees travelling westbound,.primarily;from Seabrook Beach, toward the entry ramp onto southbound I-95.. This' intersection is near the State border, at the northern edge of theLtown.
Using.the figures cited above, the total number of' southbound w-h trips through this intersection is (0.07 +-0.06/2) x 636 1
i
= 64.
About 7 percent of internal commuters who work in Salisbury travel there from Seabrook; as noted earlier, 7 percent of internal commuters who work in Newburyport travel there from Seabrook.
Assuming that all: internal commutars from Salisbury and half.from Newburyport use Route 1 to travel home to Seabrook, then the number.of northbound i
returning commuter trips through the intersection is (0.07 x 590 + 0.07/2 x 1,490) = 93.
Proceeding as before, the reduction in service time for i
evacuating vehicles along Route 286 is (93 x 2.4 x 1.07)~='
1 239 seconds, or 3.3 percent over the first two hours and about 1 percent over the 7-hour extent of the evacuation.
j B.
Town of Seabrook With construction completed at Seabrook Station, the I
number of commuters to the town (and therefore, the number of work-to-home trips from the town) is greatly reduced relative 1
i,
i
O to the data collected in 1985.
This reduction was estimated at approximately (4,000/7,579) x 100 = 52.8 percent.
The number of internal commuters is estimated at (7,579 - 1,623 -
4,221) x (1 - 0.528) = 819.
Most internal commuters in Seabrook will follow Route 107 onto I-95, either northbound or southbound.
The balance that travel southbound on Route 1 (64 trips as previously discussed) have been accounted for in the Salisbury analysis.
l The number of internal commuters traveling westward 1
along Route 286 is roughly estimated to be one-third of the total, or 273 vehicles (819/3 = 273).
Proceeding as before,
]
l the time used to service these vehicles is (273 x 2.4) = 655 1
seconds or 9.1 percent of capacity over the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and l
l 2.6 percent over 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.
Adding the 1 percent of capacity lost to crossing internal commuters yields a total reduction j
l in capacity available to evacuees of 3.6 percent over 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.
C.
Town of Hamoton j
Of the 4,109 employees who work in the Town of Hampton during a typical mid-week day nearly half, 1,908, reside in the town.
These commuters will, to a major extent, use local streets to travel home, most of them in advance of evacuating beach area traffic.
A total of 1,560 enployees reside outside the EPZ; these are included in the estimate of evacuees.
Therefore, the number of employees who work in Hampton but live elsewhere within the EPZ is 4109-1908-1560 = t 1
641.
Using an auto occupancy of 1.16 persons per vehicle, the number of inter-town internal commuter trips 1EEE Hampton is 553.
It is assumed (page 5-6, Vol. 6 of' the. NHRERP) Lthat '
weekend employment in Hampton is 70 percent that of weekday employment.
Thus, on the. weekend, the number of w-h trips from Hampton is 387.
Some of.these inter-town trips would assuredly originate in the-beach areas; it was. assumed in Volume 6, NHRERP, that 25 percent of Hampton employees work in the beach area.
Since employees within the beach area are included in the' estimate of beach area population,.the estimates of w-h trips originating from Hampton' locations outside the beach areas are 75 percent of those given above.
Calculation yields 290 and 415 w-h trips from locations off the beach for weekends and weekdays, respectively.
These trips can be to the north, west or south.
Travel to the north can be serviced by Mill Road and Woodland Road.
Travel to the west can be serviced by.High Street /Hampton Road (Route 101C) and by South Road / Route 101D.
(Egg Attachment E hereto for map.)
Commuters who live in Hampton l
Falls and Seabrook can travel south using Route i southbound, i
which is not an evacuation route within Hampton.
Route 1 provides direct at grade access to roads servicing residential areas in those towns.
Allegations that Route 101C is a critical path are incorrect.
Examination of the IDYNEV output for Region 13, _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _. _ _
4 Scenario 3, reveals 1that' Route 101C clears almost'an hour' before the'EPZ clears.
Furthermore, delays experienced by) s evacuees on RouteJ101C are due, not to'the~ capacity Lconstraint.of that roadp but mainly'to the "spillback" effects of congestion on-Route:1 northbound;whichfacts asia
" collector" of evacuating traffic:from. North Hampton, Rye'and-j Portsmouth.
It can readily be'seen.that there is.no imperative for i
commuters originating in Hampton toisolelyfuse Route 151[to-travel westbound;- Commuters would have:to drive toward l
Seabrook Station in order to use Route 51 since it' traverses the southern. edge of Hampton.' The other east-west routes (Routes 101C and 101D).are. nore readily accessible 'to central Hampton.
Their use avoids the need for commuters ~to travel toward Seabrook Station, or to use a congested roadway servicing beach area. evacuees.
Routes 101C.and 101D provide a
access to other roads which service traffic to all towns west q
of Hampton.
.Since commuters both work and reside in the area, they would have a1 consummate knowledge of theiroads available to them.
If an emergency were declared, it~is
. reasonable to expect that westbound commuters would elect to travel on less congested-routes, rather than solely' relying
'i c
on Route 51 which would service beach area evacuees.-
i It has been suggested that commuter trips " magically"-
?
travelled from Hampton to Exeter.
In fact, there is nothing
" magic" about such trips -- routes exist to service such l
.-1'
__m_
N 4
trips without the need to use Route 51 westbound.
According to the KLD telephone survey results, approximately 12 percent of internal commuters who work in Hampton travel from Exeter.
Thus (0.12 x 415) = 50 of the off-beach mid-week inter-town W-h trips would travel to Exeter.
Assuming that one-third of the off-beach commuter trips elect
- .o use Route 51 rather than the other two more attractive westbound-routes, then a total of 17 Exeter-bound vehicles will be added to the evacuation traffic through the Hampton Interchange (Route 51 and I-95).
.This number would not materially influence the j
ETE.
(Applying this approach to the MAG data yields some 52 l
additional vehicles to Exeter on Route 51, which also would not materially influence ETE.)
Consideration of all internal commuter trips travelling westbound from Hampton yields the following:
approximately 31 percent of internal w-h commuter trips will travel west, or 0.31 x 415 = 129 weekday trips from locations other than the beach area (i.e., off-beach).
Again assuming one-third of these westbound trips use Route 51 yields 43. trips.
It is
]
likely that commuters who live within the EPZ but to the south of Seabrook will access southbound Route I-95 via Route 101C and the Route 51 overpass of I-95.
There are approximately 36 off-beach commuters, according to the telephone survey results, who will travel to towns in Massachusetts within the EPZ.
Assuming that all will travel !
a i
on the Route 51 overpass to I-95, then the total number of inter-town commuters using Route 51 is 43 +'36 = 79.
Link (233i 230).as shown in Figure 1-3 of the-KLD ETE 1
Study, EHREEE Vol.
6, p. 1-13 which represents Route 51 through the interchange has an' estimated nominal capacity of 1440 vehicles per hour.
Thus, the addition'of 79 off-beach-l commuter vehiclas would effectively reduce the capacity available to evacuees on Route 51 over the two hours that' commuter traffic is present on the roadway by 2.7 percent.-
]
~
over the full extent of the evacuation, this reduction in capacity is about 0.8 percent, well below the 15 percent reduction which allows for all types of flow inefficiencies.-
1 It may be assumed that half of all internal commuter w-h a
]
trips from Hampton (208) will originate on Route 101C east of Route 1 and travel west to the intersection of Route 1.-
These are internal commuters who originate their w-h trips.
from locations adjoining Route 101C and who do D21 travel i
north on Mill or Woodland Roads.
Other internal commuters from Hampton will originate their trips on Route 101E, on Route 1 or elsewhere.
Thus, evacuees on this section of westbound Route 101C will be denied (2.4 x 208) = 499 seconds l
i of service over the first two hours, due to commuters i
travelling westward.
l' It is also necessary to consider w-h trips 12 Hampton from other EPZ towns.
These trips will travel along Route 1 from the north and south, along Route 101C from the west and _ _ _ _ - _ - _
1 3
along Mill and Woodland Roads'from the north.. According to i
i the results of the KLD telephone survey, approximately 40 i
percent of the population in Hampton~ commute ~to work,_or (0.4 l
i x 13,234) = 5,294 commuters.
Of these, 44 percent travel.to other EPZ towns, or (0.44 x'5,294)/1.16 ='2,008; internal 1
commuter trips which:will-become work-to-home trips 12 Hampton in the event.of an emergency. 'These are subdivided by' direction as follows:
33' percent, or 663 trips travel to.
.j l
the north to go to work and will travel from the north to
)
return home; 61 percent, or 1,225 trips travel to work to the south; 6 percent, or 120 trips travel to work to the l
west.
I
)
The vast majority.of those returning home from the south on Route 1 will turn aast onto Routes 101E and 101C and not conflict with westbound svacuating traffic flows along Route 101C.
Perhaps one-third (i.e.,
1,225/3 = 408 vehicles) will cross, or_ turn left onto, Route 101C, thus potentially impeding evacuation traffic.
These w-h internal trips from l
the north would be distributed among several roads as noted above.
Assuming that two-thirds trave' south on Route 1, and that 10 percent of these reach home north of Route 101C, then the number of these vehicles that impede weshbound evacuating traffic at the intersection of Routes 1 and 1010 is, approximately, (0.9 x 2/3 x 663) = 398.
Since those vehicles time-share the intersection with those from the sout0, the total time denied the evacuees over the first two hours is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
controlled by the'latter:
-(408 x 2.4 x-1.07). = 1,048:
seconds.
'Most of the 120.w-h trips from the~ west will either travel through 'the cited-intersection cnr turn right (south),-
therebyavoidinganyinterferencewith'westboundfevacueeson-Route:101C.. Assume 10 percent (12 vehicles) turn'left'-,
thereby denying access by westbound traffic to the extent of.
(12 x 2.4 x 1.07) = 31. seconds.
Adding the impedances associated.with;w-h internal commuter traffic to.and~from HamptonJat this location yields
.(1,048 + 499 +-31)/7,200 x 100 ='21.9' percent.reductioniin capacity over the first two hours or;6.3 percent reduction over the 7-hour extent of evacuation.
This 6.3 percent.
reduction in capacity is well below the.15. percent l capacity' reduction allotted.for the various factors contributing.to inefficiencies in the evacuating flow process.
1._ _ ___
t
- - l
'q
.{
D.-
Summarv j
For ease of~ reference,,theresults obtained by this preliminary' analysis are' compiled.ina.: tabular format:
..' Impedance by Caumm.ter -
fj Approach Intemal C-mter v-h Trina '
Traffic. in Pareent of Canacity Locat ion Direct Lon To & Thru Canummity From Commamity Over 2 Bours Over 7 Houra 3
Salisbury Southbound
'52.
137 Li
~ Square
' Northbound -
220 59-15.1-3.9 Eastbound 15-148 Westbound' Route 110 Westbound 294-9.2
- 1.5-
--~
Route 1 at Southbound 64 Route 286
.Northbcund 93 12.4 3.5 Westbound 273.
1 79 2.7 0.8
" I Route 51 Weatbound
~ ~ -
Route 101C Southbound 398 at Route 1 Northbound 408 21,9 6.3 Eastbound 120 Westbound 208
~-
.\\
l VI.
. IMPACT OF EVACUEE MOBILIZATION TIME ON ETEs j
It has been argued that it will'take returning commuters a longer time to arrive home during an" emergency because"ofL their potential interaction with beach area'avacuating flow I
than it does during normal time..To some extent, this is'a j
k valid argument.
Of course, for commuters.who work and live j
.1 in the same town,-and for those who travel between towns on-l 1
roads not used by evacuating traffic or are counterblow to
'l evacuating traffic on many non-congested' roads, this argument' does not apply.
However, for some commuters it'is certainly' reasonable to expect that they.will' experience more delays on l
i j i l
i m____.___.__..__._
()
s their w-h trips during an evacuation than they would during l
normal circumstances.
l The consequences of mobilization delays were explored in two. sensitivity' runs::
The first sensitivity run nearly. doubled'the average commuter travel time home in calculating a.
revised trip generation distribution curve.
1 Specifically, the trip distribution curve was 1
adjusted to represent an-increase of-20 minutes j) travel time on the'part of-All' returning commuters.
..1 The results of this sensitivity test. indicated no change whatever in ETE.
J l
The second sensitivity run was a repeat of the
]
1 l
first except that 40 minutes of travel time were j
l added to all commuters, nearly tripling the average travel time home of commuters under normal times.
Results were the same; no effect on ETE.-
The reason that this ETE is unaffected by these i
increases in mobilization time is well understood.
Specifically, as long as the mobilization time'is I
significantly less than the ETE, any change.in this mobilization time would have little or no effect on.the ETE.
If the mobilization time were to approach the ETE,.then gradually the ETE would be lengthened and mobilization time would have an effect.
For example, if the mobilization time l
were to approach six hours, then one should see some slight
! i
~
'l i
1 increase in the ETE assa consequence of this lengthening of mobilization time.
However, the mobilization time for i
Seabrook is on the. order of four hours.
Increasing this
-)
estimate by 40 minutes still produces a mobilization time well below the seven hour ETE during the summer.
.Since the lengthened mobilization time is still significantly below the ETE,.it should be. expected that there would be no material I
effect on the ETE by this. increase of mobilization. time.
This conclusion is. verified by the IDYNEV model when it was used to execute these sensitivity' tests.
VII. SENSITIVITY STUDIES OF. COMMUTER TRAFFIC 1
An intensive effort was launched.to perform a i.l sensitivity study using the IDYNEV model, which would l
1 explicitly represent commuter traffic travelling from work to j
)
home along critical evacuation paths during the early stages
)
I 1
of the evacuation.
Due to the extent of the effort, as i
described in Section IV, it was-necessary to limit the extended network to the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ that services beach area evacuees at first, and to include the Town of Hampton at a later stage.
-j A.
Steos Necessary to Undertake Sensitivity Study The activities undertaken to complete this sensitivity study included:
1.
Extend IDYNEV to accommodate the larger number of network links and nodes needed to represent the commuter paths of travel.
This involved resizing.
- _ - _ _ - _ _ - = _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. - _
s e
all of the data arrays.which would be influenced.by the larger network, recompiling the extended source code and testing the model with existing input streams.
2.
Locate " internal" centroids and.their associated entry and exit links within each. community to represent,. respectively, origins (workplaces)'and destinations'(residences) for.the w-h commuter trips.
3.
Design the commuter network adding links to service all paths between all' internal centroids in all communities servicing. beach area evacuees.
Code these new links and introduce'them into the IDYNEV input stream.
4.
Restructure existing links'in the evacuation network that are affected by the need to represent commuter hovements.
For example, The network representation of the interchange at Route 110 and I-95 had'to be restructured l
to represent commuter movements.
Nodes had to be introduced'in other links in' l
order to accommodate some of these new i
internal entry and exit links.
I i
5.
Develop a new trip table to represent work-to-home commuting trips.
This trip table is based on the results of the KLD telephone survey-and on the i,
.j
-employment;. data presented 11n' Table 5-3 of volume-6, 1
NHRERP.. The generated trips for'each communityL within the EPZ are distributed: uniformly to the
~
commuter entry and exit links within that.
community.
~
6..
Execute-the Traffic-Assignment' program'with'the A
commuter trip-table.
The output provides the:
commuter volumes on each link.of the enlarged network as well as all1 associated turning-movements.
This assignment cannotiinclude'.
evacuating traffic...The TRAD model is used to both' distribute-and assian evacuating traffic based on equilibrium principles; TRAD cannot be used for commuter traffic since that trip distribution must.
l be inout in the form of a trip table ~--~it cannot be computed by TRAD.
1 This separation of the commuter assignment from.
that for the evacuation flow has some potential for j
producing an ETE which may be slightly higher than would be the case in'the real world.
The reason for this result is that the natural tendency for commuters to avoid roads congested'with evacuation traffic on their work-to-home trips'is not i;
-j
(
represented by this separate traffic; assignment for i
commuters.
Thus, the congested roads may be j
i I
o.
6 somewhat more heavily loaded than would-be the case in the'realisituation.
While-it is. feasible to combine the two classes of traffic (commuters plus evacuees) in a traffic assignment, attainment of this' capability would require additional software development and more time and effort than was-available for this-exercise.
7.
Combine the results of the commuter traffic assignment and the prior (1232, evacuees only) simulation output to obtain the combined link-specific traffic volumes and turn movements over the two-hour period following the Order to Evacuate (OTE).
This was accomplished for each link.that 1
serviced both commuter traffic and evacuating traffic, by expressing both volumes, by direction, as an hourly figure, and then simply adding them.
With these combined volumes, stratified by turn-
]
movement, known for each link it was then'possible j
to calculate the combined turn movements, in the form of percentages.
8.
The procedure to merge the turn-movement percentages for the evacuation. traffic flow with i
i those for the commuter traffic flow so as to i
! i
___.___.-m_.___;_
_.._.m.
e represent the traffic movements during the two hours following the OTE is described below:
The records containing the required link turn percentages for evacuating traffic that were
~
generated by the IDYNEV simulation model were applied to'those links which service only evacuation flow (i.e., no commuters).
The records containing link turn percentages generated by the Traffic Assignment model for.
the commuter traffic (step 6, above) were-applied to those links which service only commuter traffic.
The records contcining the combined turning percentages (step 7) were applied to those links which service both commuter and evacuation traffic.
9.
Introduce these records into the input stream for j
the IDYNEV traffic simulation model to be in effect at the outset of evacuation until two hours after the OTE.
10.
Modify the input records specifying signal splits, where necessary, to accommodate the combined commuter-evacuee traffic environment.
11.
Modify the traffic volume inputs to include both j
commuters and evacuees.
, I
12.
Revise link capacities to reflect the' directional split of traffic which includes both commuters and l
evacuees.
13.
The explicit consideration of commuters implies that the 15 percent capacity reduction previously l
applied to all. links when they. experience-congested
)
(
conditions (see Section IV.B) is now excessive.
This follows from the fact that there'is now one l
l less impedance factor to be compensated for,by a
')
)
capacity reduction factor.
consequently, it is j
necessary to reduce the size of this factor since it now " covers" one less impedance ~ factor.
Based upon the estimates of the effect of commuter
.I traffic on capacity developed in Section'V, the-i capacity reduction factor is increased from 85 percent to 90 percent.
14.
Introduce into the simulation input stream all.the input records which describe the pattern of i
evacuation traffic flow in the absence of traffic guides -- suitably revised to account for changes in network configuration -- after commuter flow has arrived home, two hours after the OTE.-
Modify.
other inputs as well at this point in time.
Note that traffic guides at some locations arrive within two hours of the OTE-and at other locations they arrive later than two hours after the OTE.
l _
a.
4 15.
At the point in the simulation model input stream which represents theiand of the two-hour. period l
following the OTE, it is necessary'to modify:
1 The turn movements for the links servicing.
e evacuating traffic to. represent the condition that the traffic stream consists of evacuating vehicles only.
The' blockage factors for the links servicing evacuating traffic..
Since there still may be some commuter-vehicles on the network at this time, the blockage factor for those links servicing commuters is retained.
Those commuters who'are on links servicing evacuees follow evacuation' paths out of the EPZ.
16.
As before, the arrival of traffic guides is treated by specifying the associated. turning movements and by removing those blockage factors which represented the absence of traffic guides.
To provide an indication of the level of effort required, the following statistics are presented:
Over 100 new links were added to the existing 400 and another 50 were revised.
Turn movement specifications were revised or i.
..+
I added.for about 200 links, Aneluding the new links.
About 30 new entry and exitflinks were created-for the new, internal' commuter centroids.
About 40 new nodes were created.
A commuter trip table roughly.30 x 30 was created.
The total computer 1 time for a case study,
' including the additional traffic assignment run, almost. doubled.
These statistics apply'for'the limited portion of the analysis network on which commuter traffic was explicitly _
considered.
B.
Results of the Sensitivity Study The firstisensitivity study treated commuter' traffic i
explicitly in the Massachusetts communities of Salisbury,.
Amesbury and Merrimac, which include the Route 1A/110 corridor servicing the Salisbury beach area and in i
Newburyport, that generates and attracts a substantial volume-
?
of commuter trips.
The trip table of returning commuter traffic is given in Attachment C.
The ETE for Region 13, Scenario 3 which includes-explicit consideration'~of commuters in Massachusetts but not~
n I
in Hampton was 6:05.
This compares eith an ETE of'6:00 (jsta
~
Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 16, page,79)'when i
l
! 1 l
)
1
1]
1 I
~
commuting traffic'was not considered' explicitly, a diff1rence of 1.4 percent.
It is seen that for this case there was no material difference in ETE between the original treatment, where the effects of commuter traffic were represented in part by,the 85 percent capacity reduction factor, and this sensitivity run which treats commuter traffic explicitly,-thereby removing it from the " umbrella" of the capacity reduction i
factor.
The next step was to explicitly represent commuters within the Town of Hampton in addition to those in Massachusetts..The resulting ETE for Region 13 was 6:05 which differs from the previous ETE of 6:00 by 1.4 percent.
It can therefore be concluded that the extensive effort and resources expended to treat commuter traffic explicitly cannot be justified on the basis of material improvements in ETE accuracy.
I i
)
1 i )
i
a VIII. REVIEW OF MAG DATA BASE A separate data base was acquired from a telephone survey performed for the MAG which describes employee distributions within the EPZ on a town-specific-basis.
The data is shown in Attachment F; the accompanying memo from Dr.
Adler is reproduced below:
" Work Place Table
==
Description:==
A table showing work place for residents of the EPZ who work within the EPZ.
The horizontal axis is work place and the. vertical axis is residence.
Methodology calculated the fraction of the workforce from.each EPZ town that' works in each other EPZ town based on information from the MAG survey.
multiplied the workplace fractions for each town by the number of commuters from that' town, as given in Vol.
6."
Thus, summing the columns should yield, for each town, the total number of employees in that town who travel there from EPZ towns, as projected for 1986.
Summing the rows yields the total number of commuters from each town who travel to towns within the EPZ.
There are, for example, 365 employees in Brentwood who travel'there from towns (Brentwood, Exeter and Portsmouth).within the EPZ, while there are 766 commuters from Brentwood who travel to towns (Brentwood, Exeter, Hampton, Portsmouth, Stratham) within the EPZ. _-______
j A.
Analysis of Emolovnent Data l
Attachment G summarizes and compares the employment data base in Table 5-3, volume 6; h'HRERP ' with ' that of Attachment F, for those communities which service evacuees from the major beach areas.
Reference to Attachment G yields the following observations:-
The MAG data exhibits 2,734 (16 percent) more internal commuters than does the KLD data overall (cols. (3a) and-(3b)).
l The MAG data exhibits 2,734 (17 percent) fewer external commuters (i.e., those who live outside the EPZ) than does'the KLD data, overall (cols.
(4a) and (4b)).
The greatest disparities between these two data l
1 sets exist in the two New Hampshire towns; with the exception of Merrimac, there is good agreement for l
the other communities in Massachusetts.
The estimates of commuters who work and live in the same community are comparable,.with the. MAG total about 8 percent more than that'of the ?KLD data
)
(cols. (Sa) and (5b)).
The estimates of the number of non-res.ident (i.e.,
non-home-based) employees (i.e., the sum of internal commuters and external commuters in cach community) are also comparable, with the MAG total,
1 about 4 percent less than that of the KLD data (cols. (6a) and (6b)).
B.
Qualitative Implications' Relative to ETE If the MAG data were used instead of the KLD data then:
1.
The higher number of internal commuters would tend to raise the ETE.
2.
The lower number of external commuters would tend to lower ETE.
3.
.The higher number of home-based employees would tend to lower ETE slightly, since the number of
' evacuating non-residents would be lower.
The effects of items 1 and 2 are eqpal in magnitude and' opposite in sense:
they tend to neutralize one another.
The I
effect of item 3 should be insignificant since it results in l
only a 4 percent difference in the. total number of non-home based commuter trips.
The associated difference of 876 vehicles is a fraction of 1 percent of the peak number of evacuation trips.
It can therefore be concluded that the differences in these two data bases would have no material effect on ETE.
1,s.
1 l
l l
l ATTACIDGDIT A' Table of Characteristics of Evacuation-and Commuting Traffic Flow l'
1 3
'l j
i J
l 4
i L
6 s..
Attachment A.
(page'l of.1)
Table of Characteristics of Evacuation
- and Commutina Traffic Flow
' Beach Area Characteristic ~
Evacuation Traffic Flow Commuter Traffic Flow Origins Limited Number. Supply LMany',' widely dis-Traffic to Critical persed within EPZ.
Paths
' Destination Limited Number: Inter-Many, widely' dis-sections of Critical persed within EPZ:
Paths with EPZ Boundary Home Residences.
Routes.
Limited Number of Many, including Critical Paths secondary and' tertiary routes,'and-local streets Direction of Travel-Outbound, only'
-All possible directions Demand Volume at Heavy, for critical.
Light, representing Origins paths
.many employment.
.I centers-q Temporal Extent of Throughout evacuation About 2. hours
(
Demand j
Knowledge of Limited Consummate Roadway System I
i i
l j
i JP U B LE.NH l-l
' )
1
s l
ATTACHMENT B l
l NHRERP Volume 6, p. S-7 4
.I 1
l l
\\
l
\\
\\
l l
l l
JPTTABLE.NH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
^
Attachment B (page 1 of 1) J l
Table 5-3.
Estimates of Evacuating Employees 1986 Pii 1986 Employees External Evac.
Population (pet)
Empl.
from Town Emp1.
Empi.
l El Ni NEi Vehicles a Community Ri New Hameshigg Brentwood 2,039 10*
170 91 56 48 East Kingston 1,262 10*
89 56 23 20 Exeter 11,744 51.1 5,430 2,671 1,956 1,686 Greenland 2,225 40 718 396 228 197
~j Hampton 13,234 32.4 4,109 1,908 1,560
_ 1,345 l
Hampton Falls 1,474 25*
387 164 158 136 l
Kensington 1,385 10*
103 62 29 -
25 j
Kingston 5,085 24.7 885 559 231 199 l
New Castle 621 10*
43 28' 11 9
Newfisids 868 40*
908 155 534 460
'l Newton 3,744 8.3 145 138 5
4 North Hampton 3,638 16.5 1,218 267 674 581 Ports, mouth 26,881 61.2 16,570 7,321 6,556 5,652 Rye 5,099 19.1 728 433 209 180 Seabrook 8,158 44.7 7,579 1,623 4,221 3,640
)
South Hampton 699 25*
377 78 212 183 Stratham 3,445 21.1 1,290 339 674 581 i
i Massachusetts Amesbury 14,258 38.3 7,880 2,430 3,863 3,330 Merrimac 4,420 22.4 2,543 441 1,490 1,2S4 Newbury 5,479 16.6 2,580 405 1,542 1,329 Newburyport 16,414 48.5 9,477 3,543 4,206 3,626 Salisbury 6,726 21.4 3,252 641 1,850 1,595 West Newbury 3,296 12.2 1,603 179 1,009 870 TOTAL in EPZ 142,194 68,084 23,928 31,298 26,980
- 7. Nyi = 0.582 x 63,206 - 23,928 = 12,858 iN = 68,084 - 0.582 x 63,206 = 31,298 E
r = 12,858/31,298 = 0.411 Average vehicle occupancy:
1.16 employees l;
- Estimated.
Thess estimates are based on the need to obtain a reasonable relationship between the resulting values of Ni and E.
i r
5-7
-l 4
1 l
1 J
1 i
j 3
l 1
ll l
l ATTACHMENT C Commuter Return Trip Table to i
Residential Locations l
)
I
.iPTTABLE NH _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ -
.iu 4.
u
=.
8 i
t 5
G i
s s
. s E
4 8
t t
i u n.
u u.
u u
u u u
- n.. m, s
i u a
I ir
.r j
.m u uu u
m a ua u u
.n uuu uu
.m u uu uu u
o
.m uaua u Ta u.
e uau aa
%m co I'
a
.m I
a e
T u
a u
ua s
u p
= a Ts u
a u
g o
u.
u u
. u 5
a 6i 5
g s
i..
. u O
%m.u a
s
.. i u
I a
li i
n q
u u
s e
. i a u
i L
n u
1 n
S d
u u
a
.. u u
mt.
i..
T 2
u 1
u u-u si u u a
a u
l a
a a
s s.
a i
m:
n u
a a
a w-a a
u 6
u u 2
u M..
a n
a J
u u
a 4
u u 3
a a
an n
m.
u o
m.
a R
u a u
o.
u 4
a a
s u
u u
eD u u u.
6.
+
u s
wm u
u 4E uu u.
a a
_.m a
s s
u.w.~
n.
.r 2
s s
s a
a w
u u.
. u r.
=
on i.
u n
.u
%.m6 m m.a s
s
.,.m w u
w s.
m 4
u
. u 1
un u.
- u.,..
4 u
u...
4
.u u.
.u.u 6
_i u u
_n
.s
.o
{l1
J l
i i.,
-l
- i l
ATTACfDODIT D '
Map-of Evacuation and Comunuter' Routes in Salisbury Square Area' 1
- 4 I
i 0
l 1
}
t l
i JPTTABLE.NE !
-(r - -,,,,.._....-..-.-
cale Q an gaan.
BEp ", "
l as 4
,fs..s, s..i!y\\ s
, x.
t.
.(.
'/.,.;./ ~ :q ':'
t.: ;
\\ !!
e t
s.
- \\f<.
- i. %
.-J
's.,
N..I s
3 C
\\
\\
3 a
\\.
Q m
C 2
- s.
Y Y
w i
m E '-
g*
e e
=&s
,/
/
@f
$g w
a Ov0B
,smac10 ST 4
- k.?g 00 O
a,8 O
$* ?
kg 5
~
0-5 Ar.
S g
LU y
5 m
O p
\\1 Wgd.
J'4<
'*+,
/
/
/
[o y
- +
>=
, r ',
N
!i
&g 4)(
%g *0
?)
e 2
- IS IS0301 ON s
l i.
l'/.
1 S
- //
!\\
II :
m 3.
- oe useva
! :t w*
M q
I
' ~ ~
i s/
o
+,A
~ ~.. *.
5 K ~~ ~ \\*i 3
y
's' m
4 wo
\\
s e s
/ s ',
<>U+<
\\, l.\\
biiO y
J 8
n h
'i ST
\\
g\\9% nog /,/,/
+
ou "k,e,p Q
a
'i s
Do
/
g
/
y 1
N.'
/ p
]%
.i,.,-'
e f,-
h k
N S
\\.
[S38DNO3 xs s,,.s z.
M,y
.i N..'. \\ '1'.
tw 1
^o, i
1--
qr
p e
.)
ATTACIDODfT E
.]
- l Map of Hampton Evacuation'and'Comanuter and Commuter Routes
\\
s l
.I
'l
- l
')
'I I
I
.a I
'l i
)
l
.i l '
l l
i l
l
{
l l
JPTTABLE.NH i i i
l i
e
/
l f
W of 1)
~~#
~J_
/
f
. _ ~.
109 h
I i
1 o
7 i-1
,? %
/
i u-o-l
\\,
/-
2 1
M s
2L S
. _ _ _ _ _.g g y, 3l, HAMP, TON s
Ne%'
o, 3
y e
j
- 6,.
/
p I I
~
e oll /u g4 e y
g j
, je"J";, $ly o
a o
2 e
l0 wai.suf AVE
{/
{
8
,, I
~ss"= "tgf~
l 3
~%c Jr I
d p#
/s%
I k
'$ l
<xto
- g c@
+
soum no l
L_
MPTO ~4 /.-
ss, a,
-__ 14
".HA s
~-
p
+y m,
fr yg s
%;N,
e&
l NORTH $HQRE
=
re 1
4
,s l
4~
N gotC c.ie iosc 1
+ 1 s
s,-
- 1
/ 4 g
s _ _ s,.s,
/,,y.,
e
~.,
l f
s +,p
\\
> A
,,it ce o,'e,+o e'p
\\
l
>~~ew HAMP1.ON
+g lt ALLS
/
e J
4c s
sl es l
x,
/*K n
g W
f N--
CHURCH ST Q
i 9
w 5
--+
O
,3u; 33H h
31 g
eA op6,
g g
's I
z (9
+o
\\
p O
N l\\'.
,, ' N g
9 c
g
'~'
's
\\
! \\
w
~#"'*
t y
8"Sta
\\
d i
q}
e f
o, t
r
\\
>~
% tou f $e
\\
\\
m 5 " *" *
\\v p8
~
e"%.-
AMPftET, \\
,b p
4 1
g a\\ jl~~~'~b
\\ f**
SE ABRO 1
.y a9d so
a ATTACHMENT F MAG Data Base l
-I l
l
.!PTTAB:2,NH
- 5 0.-
\\
Attachment F 4
(page 1 of 1) j l
gr. i JJ 6
,g EE 5 n! ?j EE M'i?Fjalj i
i
- 3 BI !.!! I E
l.E l
. 1 m
p i
3, g
.g I
1
- -3 ;': = - - -.;; 5-a,; a ac - [_
- b-.u -sivuussisuussigun gu a g =3
=
E l
l
.x..
E_
I gggs,aus:sjg3e g,a-aa E *
=
z s,
I
.r I
a.
I a,-as s-
===-
se
- gggggy g
=
y I
- j
- -la g
- x:
- :335 s=
.- g-,
I
.......... 3 I
5
.8 M.
~St-I
.g-
_ __.........___.ause.
1
{
I g.g.........
g a
a i
E"EK E W,' Ei. -
m.s E ",3 t,
z.
t I
ATTACHMENT G COMPARISON OF KLD and MAG DATA SETS l
I 1 - - _____________
I l
I j
l
- j r
>$$gCg g 3$
Q,,
]
)t s
0 9
0 6
'8 2
5 0
e a
e bn nG 1
4 6
6 8
3 0
1 h
h l
s 6e wA 2
2 1
2 8
3 3
4 t
t o
e c"
h (dsoM iet 2
2 5
2 1
6 2
2 e
m T
se 2
)
c o
g eyg 4
i r
n ron v
f i
)
li
(
r t
)
a n pt 1
3 0
2 5
4 1
6 e
3 c
b 6omaD 0
1 5
0 7
3 1
8 s
a a
5 neuL 2
8 4
1 1
9 6
2 5
r t
(
(
cK h
P t
a l
a 2
2 5
2 5
2 3
c R
e b
d a
v 2
i E
u l
t e
h R
b' s
G
-)
o w
H A
a.
2 T
N T
y M
(
k 2
5 7
0 re a
b rn
'9 0
0 7
t m
f o w 9
3 2
7 9
4 4
1 i
6 a
d o
d w oG 8
3 2
6 1
9 0
h o d e
r n
tA 7,
s e
n f
a bo M
1 1
2 3
1 p
m 6 G i
5 n
(h 1
m u
A a
n
)
)
a l
nM t
e a
wi 9
H o
m b
k S
(
s e.
+
V um o
a r v
(
w lo t
i e
8 6
0 1
5 3
1 4
e f
or
)
t l D 0
6 3
4 0
4 4
3 N
o cf b
)
L 9
7 4
4 4
5 6
1 4
b u
)
mdnK
)
n 1
nn
(
5 2
s a
t 5m 2
3 0
i ie
(
(
o a 1
5 k
n e
(C e
sa m
n s
S s
e et u
m n
o l
e l
u m
a t
Z h
b y) o l
u a
P 5
9 3
0 7
8 8
0 t
a ob C
o l
D E G 8
8 6
0 9
8 4
7 T
l3 C
o 9,
7, d
'n m
5 p(
c s
A 3
5 d
1 2
)
G beeM n
M yi 1
7
'en 6
A 4ed 3
2 1
3 3
3
)
a i
f m
6 o
(
t os 1
s d
" u d
lt t
e l l n
l n
pu 0
3 3
0 2
6 0
4
(
t t
ao o
l y
em m o 6
9 6
9 4
0 5
0 e
s nC v.
V e
o l
a h
.E D
5 9
8 4
5 2
8 5
s i
r mL u
l c
)
D a
e.
f v
a L
oK 1
1 3
1 1
4 1
6 h
f i
t o
t 4
K r
1 c
n x6 o
t
(
t
' f a
o E
c.
3 A
s i
3 e s s
t "l
pe f
o a
c e o 5
5 s e Z
4 0
7 3
3 0
4 0
M e
h V ey n
e e
ro P
2 9
1 4
8 8
0 5
j t l
l l
o sE GA 7,
9, 7
6 n
o 0
4 2
4 s
)
b b
,p i
r g3 a
a s m be 3enM i
p n-3 2
4 1
5 1
9
)
r yi 1
6 e
5 T
T m e m
a
(
i oh 1
s 6
t u
p lt
+
o 8
c e sd m
pi 9
6 7
3 8
1 2
6
(
h 9
l 6
4 e
a oC mwd 4
8 1
5 3
7 0
1 t
1 rb e s 5
5 0
0 0
2 4
a n'
n a
)E mL t
h b T m
m b
e m
a oK u
u t-2 1
4 1
1 5
1 6
r o
3 a
r u,
l l
e r
1
(
s f
)
f 4
o o
e m r
t
's c
c o
(
e n
yn a h a
i e
bm m
m t
t k
u o
o
) n d) a i
a dl r
r bo m
le6 9
9 0
3 0
7 2
0 D
n t
e o f
f 6n ay 0
7 8
4 8
7 5
2 u.
n c
(
)
)to.
1 5
8 5
5 4
2 4
D ms s
i n2 n
f l
L ma i
a, e(
e do 2ol (Tpo mV 4
3 7
2 2
9 3
3 K
oe ts k
k n
3 cr d
be a.
a ar E(
o a
e o e tl t
e t
d y
y o
)b am
) o
) c A
eh o
)
M e
tc l
al a
a 6u A
v ca p 3p 4m S
( n m
( o
(
m M
i ee m
(
H A
A s
H N
M M
A t
t lb e
e r
se L
a e
n nf n
nh e
N M
r o
y A l
sr l
ml m
m mt i
p r
T e
o a
ua u) u u
k y
c dt ei n
o r
a y
y u
O r
ej t lt lb l
l e
)
ha o
oo o3 o
or 1
tn o
o u
m r
r b
T
(
cu t
r b
i u
u s
s Tm T
Ct C(
C Ca em p b s
r b
b i
f e
la m
a e
r w
w l
f t
ec a
e m
e e
e a
i o
SC H
S A
M N
N S
D N
1 2
3 4
5 6
3 IODII[]..
m er 19 JUN 19;P3u52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
?ae I, Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorney!)KTop the Applicants
. ~ ~
s herein, hereby certify that on June 13, 1989,-I made" service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by
. depositing in:the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Adjudicatory. File-Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board.
Board Panel-Docket-(2 copies)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway '
4350. East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Rchert R.: Pierce, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory 4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814
. East. West Towers Building
{
4350 East West. Highway l
Bethesda, MD 20814 l
Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Sherwin E.1 Turk, Esquire-
]
i McCollom Office of General Counsel i
1107 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission.
One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
11555 Rockville Pike 1
Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Attorney General Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire
.j George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Tousley i
Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20009 I
Concord, NH 03301-6397
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire i
Appeal Board 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 l
rh l1
^
pv
. -O
-Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau.
Assistant. Attorney General Selectmen's' Office-Department of the Attorney 10 Central-Road.
General" Rye, NH. 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 PaulLMcEachern, Esquire =
. John Traficonte,. Esquire-Shaines & McEachern
' Assistant' Attorney General 25 Maplewcod Avenue Department of the Attorney-P.O.. Box 360 General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place,,19th Fl.
Boston, MA -02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin:A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel. Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &J Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street l
Newburyport, MA. 01950
- Senator.Gordon J. Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507; Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301,
77 Franklin Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Boston, MA'. 02110-Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III-Mr. William S.-Lord Town Manager Board'of Selectmen.
Town-of Exeter
-Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham,' Esquire Office of General Counsel Murphy _and Graham' Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950.
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes &' Ells Hampe'and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _
- 8
.l W'
-.o Mr.-Richard R. Donovan Judith H.'Mizner, Esquire Federal Emergency Management-79 State: Street,:2nd Floor I
' Agency Newburyport,;MA.- 01950 Federal Regional. Canter 130 228th Street, S.W.
Bothell,. Washington 98021-9796 s
Ashod N. Amirian,' Esquire
'1 145 South Main Street l
P.O. Box-38 1
Bradford, MAL-01835-1 l
i 7
y O t;t f! I l}nN Jiffra P. Trout ~
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail)
I' 1
I
'I 1
i I <
,