ML19343D526: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:'
{{#Wiki_filter:'
  .-    .
            .
    "%
V                                                                                                              .
V                                                                                                              .
.
THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STAT 10N TEXAS 77063 TMNSPORT CPFMTCNS PM                                                                  (713)eas.sety March 4, 1981 Tom McKenna                                                                              i Emergency Preparedness Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STAT 10N TEXAS 77063 TMNSPORT CPFMTCNS PM                                                                  (713)eas.sety March 4, 1981
                                                                                                                    ,
Tom McKenna                                                                              i Emergency Preparedness Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555


==Dear,==
==Dear,==
Tom:                                                                              j            ;
Tom:                                                                              j            ;
In reviewing the Pilgrim Station evacuation roadway network, it appears                      ,
In reviewing the Pilgrim Station evacuation roadway network, it appears                      ,
that the only items of note pending Battelle's running of the EVACCC model are                      l relative to traffic control during an evacuation. It would be especially
that the only items of note pending Battelle's running of the EVACCC model are                      l relative to traffic control during an evacuation. It would be especially important to control traffic beyond the EPZ so that other traffic, e.g., on Route 3, did not add to evacuation traffic congestion.
                                                                                                                    '
important to control traffic beyond the EPZ so that other traffic, e.g., on Route 3, did not add to evacuation traffic congestion.
l Two notable points are Route 3 at Route 128 and Route 3 at the Sagamore                      ,
l Two notable points are Route 3 at Route 128 and Route 3 at the Sagamore                      ,
Bridge. Southbound Route 3 should be closed at 128 as no detour routes exist                        i between that point and Plymouth. Similarly, the Sagamore Bridge northbound should be closed so that evacuating traffic is net inpeded at the rotary just north of the bridge. Cape Cod traffic could use the Bourne Bridge to Route 25.
Bridge. Southbound Route 3 should be closed at 128 as no detour routes exist                        i between that point and Plymouth. Similarly, the Sagamore Bridge northbound should be closed so that evacuating traffic is net inpeded at the rotary just north of the bridge. Cape Cod traffic could use the Bourne Bridge to Route 25.
Other traffic control may also be necessary in the area ia order to effec-tively use available capacity, otherwise it is possible that Route 3 northbound would be needlessly overloaded. In summary, thare .is a need for an effective traffic management plan.      Please let me know if you have any questions.
Other traffic control may also be necessary in the area ia order to effec-tively use available capacity, otherwise it is possible that Route 3 northbound would be needlessly overloaded. In summary, thare .is a need for an effective traffic management plan.      Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Q!n        W' Thomas Urbanik II Assistant Research Engir.eer TU:jem cc:    Art Desrosier Battelle FNL P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352
Sincerely, Q!n        W' Thomas Urbanik II Assistant Research Engir.eer TU:jem cc:    Art Desrosier Battelle FNL P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 8105050/32 s                              L -r - - .no o,-c~,                                                  a}}
                                                                                                                '
8105050/32 s                              L -r - - .no o,-c~,                                                  a}}

Latest revision as of 07:48, 31 January 2020

Advises of Review of Evacuation Roadway Network Re Facility. Traffic Control Beyond Emergency Planning Zone Will Avoid Congestion within Zone.Effective Traffic Mgt Plan Is Needed
ML19343D526
Person / Time
Site: 05000471
Issue date: 03/04/1981
From: Urbanik T
TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
To: Mckenna T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19343D523 List:
References
NUDOCS 8105050132
Download: ML19343D526 (1)
v • d • e


Text

'

V .

THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STAT 10N TEXAS 77063 TMNSPORT CPFMTCNS PM (713)eas.sety March 4, 1981 Tom McKenna i Emergency Preparedness Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear,

Tom: j  ;

In reviewing the Pilgrim Station evacuation roadway network, it appears ,

that the only items of note pending Battelle's running of the EVACCC model are l relative to traffic control during an evacuation. It would be especially important to control traffic beyond the EPZ so that other traffic, e.g., on Route 3, did not add to evacuation traffic congestion.

l Two notable points are Route 3 at Route 128 and Route 3 at the Sagamore ,

Bridge. Southbound Route 3 should be closed at 128 as no detour routes exist i between that point and Plymouth. Similarly, the Sagamore Bridge northbound should be closed so that evacuating traffic is net inpeded at the rotary just north of the bridge. Cape Cod traffic could use the Bourne Bridge to Route 25.

Other traffic control may also be necessary in the area ia order to effec-tively use available capacity, otherwise it is possible that Route 3 northbound would be needlessly overloaded. In summary, thare .is a need for an effective traffic management plan. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Q!n W' Thomas Urbanik II Assistant Research Engir.eer TU:jem cc: Art Desrosier Battelle FNL P. O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 8105050/32 s L -r - - .no o,-c~, a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19343D526&oldid=2350064"