ML19321A336: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
y | y | ||
. . . People will not evacuate an area, regardless of the da nger, I if'their family group is separated, unless they know that members | . . . People will not evacuate an area, regardless of the da nger, I if'their family group is separated, unless they know that members | ||
!N of their f amily are safe, accounted for, and that arrangerents It was felt that this hh have been made for them to evacuate." | !N of their f amily are safe, accounted for, and that arrangerents It was felt that this hh have been made for them to evacuate." (( | ||
psychological pressure is so prevalent and strong that the above assumption appears to be justified. | psychological pressure is so prevalent and strong that the above assumption appears to be justified. | ||
In addition, to assure that segments of the f amily are safe and accounted for would have h?- | In addition, to assure that segments of the f amily are safe and accounted for would have h?- | ||
Latest revision as of 04:12, 16 March 2020
| ML19321A336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1980 |
| From: | Thompson W WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A112 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007230195 | |
| Download: ML19321A336 (42) | |
Text
.-
~1
. a VO!UNE X 2] . .
1 AN l INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT l OF EVACUAT!ON TIMES
] FOR l l
3 l 1 TH REE M!LE ;8L AND l 1
.; NUCLEAR POWER P!_ ANT y
.a .
's 4 Prepared for l
.*y J FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1
e
'5
.x l Wi!Nin $mi/b and Jd66cciale6
.}
JUNE,1980
$ " ~~
If0 07 9 3 ot9 f
t . !
I s' I I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT l' The independent assessment of the evacuation times contained j
in this report was performe d under the technical direction of I John C. Cosby. Mr. William V. Sheppard, Vice President, was tha Principal-in-Charge of the Project. The principal contributors to the individual volumes of the report were:
- Program Report - John C. Cosby Volume I
- Bailly - James R. Bancroft Volume II
- Beaver Valley - Richard A. Day Volume III Volura IV - Enrico Fermi - Elbert L. Waters Volume V - Limerick ,
, - George S. Coulter, Jr.
Volume VI - Maine Yankee - Robert P. Jurasin Volume VII - Midland - James R. Bancroft and Elbert L. Waters e
I - Frank LaMagna Volume VIII - Millstone
- Shoreham - H. Dean Browner Volume IX Volume X - Titree Mile Island - Welbourne E. Thompson All reports were revised and edited by John C. .Cosby and
< H. Dean Browner. All of the above personnel are permanent ,
employees of Wilbur Smith and Associates. i l
- 94
- 4
.,_ . _ _ - . - _ . , . . _ . . ~ . . _ . _ . . . ._
a ., ,
e f I
- j. -
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
.2 Evacuation Time Assessment Versus Evacuation Plan General Assumptions 3 6
Description of the Site 7
Licensee 7
Type of Plant 7
Emergency Planning Area 8
General Regional Characteristics 10
! Support Organizations Summary'of Emergency Planning 10 11 AREA CHARACTERISTICS Meteorological Characteristics 11 Planning Characteristics 12 Special Problem Areas 15 20 f CONCEPT OF EVACUATION 20 Notification of Evacuation -
Public Resporse Time 21, Evacuation Link / Node Network 23 Special Transportation Requirements 37 39 EVACUATION TIME ASSESSMENT Normal Work Day 39 Nighttime Conditions 42
'f 42 Summertime Recreation Peak
^
Adverse Conditions 42 l
)
Sector Evacuation 42-1
.I 5
,,.~e.
t,
).,
9 ILLUSTRATIONS FOLLOWE FIGURE PAGE ~
1 Study Site' Location 7 2 Evacuation Network 23 3 Evacuation Network -
23 4 Evacuation Network 23
~
5 Evacuation-Network 23 i
i
. TABULATIONS
, j, TABLE / PAGE
- 1 Jurisdictions Within 10-Mile EPZ 13
> 2 Education. Facilities, Three Mile Island EPZ 16 3 Hospitals, Three Mile Island EPZ 17
.4 Nursing Homes, Dauphin and Lancaster Counties 19 5 Network Description 24 6 Vehicle on Each Link, Normal Workday 30
! 7 Evacuation Route Link Node Description, 33 l .g By Centroid .
l 3 8 Evacuation Times, By Centroid 40
. 5 i
l i
am I
i 4
l
(' 4 4
, . * . =
L. -
.c
T. ,.
,- 1 r
s .. -i
~ -
1:
F' t
INTRODUCTION '.
t E.
i An independent assessment of evacuation times around nine f
nuclear power plant sites was made for the Federal Emergency -
Management Agency.
The results of this three-month study are b I contained in ten volumes, as follows: h' Volume I - Program Report - Evacuation Time Assessment t of Nine Nuclear Power Plant Emergency ;.
Planning Zones (EPZ 's)
Volume II ;Bailly Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time 3 Assessment :
i:
Volume III - Beaver Valley Nuclear Pcwer Plant Evacuation I!
Time Assessment :l Volume IV - Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Pkant Evacuation .
Time Assessment .
- Limerick Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Voltme V :.
^ Time Assessment -
i.
Volume VI - Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Assessment '
Volume VII - Midland Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Assessment Volume VIII - Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Assessment Volume IX - Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation. Time ;
' Assessment Volume X - Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Evacuation Time Assessment r
In addition , an Executive Summary is also available.
This volume contains the evacuation time assessment for the f
Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant. The evaluation of four scenarios and the discussion of evacuation of special problem
t
. p
),
d i,
The scenarios evaluated are those expected t areas are included. (the optimum time from ;.
when evacuation takes place at night 1:
the standpoint c" evacuation time) , during a normal workday, and, where during bad weathei- (the worst case condition),
applicable, the esacuation with summertime resident and transient population.
Evacuation Time Assessment' Versus Evacuation Plan The assessment employs available demographic data and trans-portation facility information to predict the public response
' time to an evacuation warning on the assumption -that such a warn-ing is made within 15 minutes of an on-site nuciear incident l warranting such emergency action.
The assessment must provide for estimates of public response l
I time to these warnings, assembly of family and other groups, preparation for departure , travel time on the network including consideration of capacity limitations on the network possibly forming queues which add to delays, and clearance of the 10-mile consider the evacuation of special radius around the site. It must 3 These would include schools, nurseries ,
problem areas and groups.
nursing and retirement homes, nospitals, penal facilities , beaches and recreational areas, and other activities which may provide Population groups periodic or seasonal concentrations of people.
without access to their own transportation or unable to provide
' the special transr
-tation facilities required for evacuation 4 must be included in the evacuation time assessment.
Evacuation time assessment methodology combines selected land use planning
- techniques of traf fic management and planning, and operational analysis. Because some conditions prevailing during an evacuation are not well documented, modifications to
E O
4
'e, some established principles may be required to meet evacua .s ion
) requirements . Assumptions may be required in lieu of well formu-lated relationships because of the highly specialized problems
,1 J being addressed. These assumptions must be founded on best pro-fessional judgement and/or extrapolation from existing knowledge.
The assumptions must be specifically identified. The bases upon which the assumptions are founded should be appropriately dis-cussed.
Evacuation time assessments contain basic methodology common to evacuation plan development. However, the assessment is not
^
an evacuation plan. The major distinction between the assessment and a plan is the extent to which the elements have been coordi-nated with all participant agencies and jurisdictions. For
, example, the assessment may assume that a specific traffic management element is established to optimize traffic operations at a specific location along an evacuation network. The feasi-j bility of such an element in the assessment would be based upon established technical principles. However, the element would not be coordinated with specific law enforcement agencies to establish what agency would exercise the element control and management nor identify the type and number of personnel to be required. The study time allotted makes such coordination im-possPile. The assessment must identify what is required for the evacuation time to be realized, and assume that such an element would be implemented.
General Assumptions J In the assessment of evacuation times, certain general y assumptions were mandatory. More important 'of these are summa-
, rized as follows:
- 1. Emergency evacuation of the general public from the EPZ
- will be performed largely from the home by the family as a united d -
~3- -
IJ i!!
ui 4,
t l -
group. This assumption is pref aced by the following quote: 'l h..
y
. . . People will not evacuate an area, regardless of the da nger, I if'their family group is separated, unless they know that members
!N of their f amily are safe, accounted for, and that arrangerents It was felt that this hh have been made for them to evacuate." ((
psychological pressure is so prevalent and strong that the above assumption appears to be justified.
In addition, to assure that segments of the f amily are safe and accounted for would have h?-
required the establishment of shelter locations and the develop- ?!
ment of a shelter support plan. In view of the next assumption '!
and due to the short time period of the study, this was not done. ik
- 2. Public use of shelters in previous mass "vacuation exper- ;
ience related to natural disasters appears to be . a very small .:
percentage of total evacuees. Examples cited in ' literature
)
include : (2) "In a California flood, only 9,260 out of 50,000 persons evacuated registered in the 38 Red Cross shelters; during Hurricane Carla, 75 percent of the evacuees went to other than '
public shelters; and during Hurricane Betsy, only 20 percent requested assistance. Generally, shelter centers are used only if nothing else is available or if one cannot financially care for himself. " In this evacuation time assessment study, it was assumed that the predominant traffic, af ter leaving the 10-mile EPZ, went diverse routes' rather than to a shelter destination.
Therefore, the evacuation time assessment ended at the EPZ boundary . An analysis of route capacities and service levels j
5 of highway facilities beyond that boundary was made to assure that delays or problens were unlikely to occur.
i 1
d EVACUATION RISKS - AN EVALUATION , U.S. Environmental Pro-(1) tection Agency, Of fice of Radia: ion Programs , EPA-520/6 a 002, June, 1974, p. 49.
(2) Ibid., p. 52.
a f -4_
D g
>w -eenw iu4 we r .h -
. (
=
- 3. Experience gained in a large range of evacuations indi-q$3
- cates that private vehicles (3) " . . . were the . predominant mode for evacuation (more than 99 percent) . Population density ranged
.. from approximately 15 persons per square mile to 20,000 persons per square mile. " It was assumed that this was applicable to this time assessment study. It was further assumed that persons without private vehicle transportation would be provided, at their telephone request, adequate transportation in high occu-pancy vehicles (HOV's) . The additional vehicle volumes ' on the network would therefore be small, could be affected during the general public evacuation time, and would not affect the computed
, evacuation times of the general population.
- 4. It has been observed that not all persons will evacuate
.' the EPZ. "In many cases, even when presented w1th a grave threat,
" people refuse to evacuate."(4) This source continues , "Results of this study indicate that approximately six percent of the total
.@ population refused to evacuate. Other reports indicate this figure can run as high as 50 percent. There is no reason to
[ believe that because the disaster agent is radiation rather than some other agent . . . will provide sufficient motivation to leave. Rather the opposite viewpoint should be taken--people will hesitate 'to leave. "(5) It is believed that a majora.ty of e this hesitance is based on fear of exposing their property to looting and vandalism. Notwithstanding this evidence, this time
,. assessment study assumed that all persons evacuate.
~'
- 5. It has been assumed that the traffic entwork within the
-c EPZ has been isolated so that no through traffic is permitted to enter it within 15 minutes after the evacuation warning has been
.. issued.
- (3) Ibid., p. 52.
. (4) Ibid., p. 48. !
~
(5) Loc. cit. )
-S-
- i. l
~- '
. l' i.
'3 il r
6.
Traffic management by appropriate law enforcement officers d
wil1 be performed at selected intersections where evacuation
~
li '
traffic flow is given priority. il h
- 7. All persons in the EPZ have been provided, in advance, w gj sufficient information regarding the assigned evacuation route y from their place of residence (referred to as the " centroid" in jf, F.
the report) .
l 3.
It was assumed that the public response to an evacuation if.,
order can be defined as a combination of up to four categories i.
receive warning, leave :d >
of statistically distributed responses: "I' work, travel home,'and evacuate home.
It was assumed that these p 1.-
responses are time-distributed following a normal distribution .t
.j s
curve. The det' ails and applications of this as. umption are more 1 fully discussed later in this report. !
j' Additional assumptions were made which are discussed in the body of this report.
Description of the Site The Three Mile Island nuclear power facility is located on the Susquiehanna River,11.22 miles southeast of Harrisburg, the capita;. of Pennsylvania.
The site is encompassed by portions of five counties:
~
Major popu-Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and York. I
> lation centers within the 10-mile radius include Swatara Town-ship, Derry Township, a portion of Harrisburg City, Middletown Borough and Steelton Borough in Dauphin County, New Cumberland l
Borough in Cumberland County, Elizabethtown Borough in Lancaster County and Fairview Township in York County.
124,013 residents or about 63
' Dauphin County represents 195,000 10-mile radius population.
a Percent of the estimated 1
d ,
l
_,5 . I' , ^
i o
d s i'
. (
Licensee The licensee for Three Mile Island is the Metropolitan a.
ij-The Edison Company and Jersey Central Power and Light Company.
NSSS Vendor is Babcock and Wilcox Company, and the Architects l{-
Inc.
r >-
and Engineers are Gilbert Associates, U..
N. ,
li Type of Plant C
The system at Three Mile Island consists of two pressurized .
b water reactors with a capacity of 1,706 megawatts, Unit One commenced operation in 1974 with a capacity of 800 megawatts
]
i,:.
and Unit Two started in 1978, with 906 megawatts.
r Emergency Planning Area I:
p A 10-mile radius surrounding a nuclear power plant is recom-(EPZ). h mended for the delineation of the emergency planning zone
}
The 10-mile radius surrounding Three Mile Island encompasses all of, or portions of, 38 Boroughs or Townships in five counties.
{
10-mile h The planning area was established to adhere to the :
radius as much as possible. Boundaries were delineated to coin- t-l cide with readily identifiable landmarks such as rivers , j uris- :
dictional boundaries,- major roadways , and other well known topo-The peripheral boundaries will assist the f graphical features.
local agencies implementing the plan and the people affected by '
evacuation to identify the .10-mile radius limit and avoid the possibility of evacuating people beyond the 10-mile radius.
For areas within the 10-mile radius , Tbwnships and Boroughs were used as planning zones. Figure 1 depicts the planning area boundaries, the 10-mile radius , the the townships and boroughs.
i The planning area boundary along the north generally follows U.S. Route 22, Legislative Route 22071, Township Route 407, and J
i the northern limits of South Hanover Township.
a gee
Ii
's.
, N
\/ g, ,
"$ G .. ,, 's i
/ 5,
'
- 0"T" '
I,t o W ,r k. I,
({'\
h ,
L E
, j-HANOVER .,,-f',- '
\a r O .x I ,
3
.... a , - .> .,.
-i % ." \ \ h m ,' ; ,.. ,{ ') \
d (}{p tJ Ms
. .g' ~~ ~ ,l
-w z T' /D E 3 R Y N N i
',,'~ Ej;
,--------.(',!}
2}^
s , ;
...~ ,; .
g a;
/ I, c.
ob
%. n, !.._____ - _ _ _'s U
,, ... 34 .
h t' -. h g \, ,
N
- C0N'*' O Q ,
- t. \ ,. .
g' N s .
T A k_A .. ,
4
\j' p '. .;
is
, j
. ,,L O N DO D E Y \, !
) 'T A I R v 1 E W .. >
7
't g' \ y ,,,.. u,s. e..
toi..o* V4 ,. 4
.i , s.i M O U T J C Y 6
, ~~. U' % \
s j . . . . .
r s
't.....,
- V .' , 2 R Y l n- 4 R \ ,
( \ \ **
'.,,,.....,-}
1 I D N E O A L L N,_ .,
l ,,'- A :. ;
,$ 's k', r- ,, i.. ) '
'\ / i
(, .,
f [, ,,/ \ )
C N O Y\ ,r' '
WAR NGTON ) ,,\a ,r' ' -. ,/
- . , . s
, 'y N- ) ,' ,
.Q ' I ,O ,Y
,.'. e
g 'l ,
l
'\* ' " ' *
- L
/
'T s
C 0 N W G
..-..a ,' N G A L I, l',,-
- e. ,, ) ^,
...h g)( '
.n...u... ,
t
(\ TER\
, ___) - - -j*="="* s e
\ MANCHE ,-)
i
' / %
\ ,
N / i
'"/ \ ,
[ E L L A M D 0 V E R ,/ \ f"~ ,' g
',v ' "
s
~,
./
>MA HE T R t --
. -J
. . Q= ,
Q
'Q , h/ .') \
l STUDY SITE LOCATION EVACUATION TIME ASSESSMENT i- THREE MILE ISLAND I
9 ///as. % id a ,ir( 4 = /,g ,3 FIGURE 1
- N l h
'I 5.
~ l i
i 1
i The eastern boundary generally parallels the western limits ,. }
of North Londonderry and Londonderry Townships, Township Route l
36068, 36124, 36069, and Township if 326, Legislative Routes 36117, I!
Route 827.
The southern limit generally follows Legislative Routes :
66089, 66019, 66086, Manchester Township southern boundary , and Legislative Route 66102. -
Along the western boundary, the planning area limit follows -
Township Route 823, State Routes 74 and 177, Legislative Route 66026 and Yellow Breeches Creek. *
.?
General Recional Characteristics f Three Mile Island is situated in the Great Valley formed It is in a by the eastern foothills of the Appalachian chain.
saucer-like bowl, south of Blue Mountain, which serves as a barrier to provide a modifying influence upon the severe winter climate _ experienced 50 to 100 miles to the north and ' west.
Because of the saucer-like bowl, cool air is frequently trapped, and f avors fog formation, which is removed only by a Fortunately, the air masses change vigorous change in air mass.
withLsome regularity, and any one condition does not persist for many days in succession.
4 i there Major Population Centers _ - Within the 10-mile radius ,
) are 13 urbanized areas representing an estir.ated resident popu-lation of approximately 85,000. Dauphin County has aboutThe 59,700
)
residents, or about 70. percent of the urban population.
largest concentration of residents is located in the portion of Harrisburg within the 10-mile radius and the area southeastThis
" along the river between Steelton and Middletown Borough.
area contains an estimated 52,300 residents.
A .
"l i 1
A' p ;
. 2 1;
i_ t
~
o F
u Swatara Township, located immediately east of Harrisburg, .
Other g is estimated to_ contain about 21,000 resident population.
I
. densely populated areas include: Derry Township and Hummelstown lk I Borough 'in Dauphin County, estimated to have about 21,400 resi- :
dent population; New Cumberland Borough, a population of about 10,300; and Elizabethtown Borough in York County, an estimated j
1, population of about 9,400. !
The total resident population within the 10-mile radius is J h.
estimated to be approximately 195,500. P p.
.p Major Transportation Facilities - Three interstate routes ..}
Interstate Route 76, '!
serve the area .within the 10-mile radius.
3 Pennsylvania Turnpike, generally serves the EPZ in an east-west 1 direction.
Interstate Route 283 serves She urban area north between State Route 283 and State Route 322 in Dauphin County. '
3 Interstate Route 83 serves the eastern segment of the EPZ {
E in' a north-south direction in York County , then crosses the i-N l
Susquehanna River easterly into Dauphin County .and proceeds northerly, east of Harrisburg, terminating at I-81 north of the .:
EPZ. -
D.I Several state routes serve Ehe EPZ as major links in the evacuation network. State Route 322, a four-lane divided f acility ,
j serves the northern portion of the EPZ in an east-west direction. }
State. Route 283'is a four-lane divided facility from I-283 east- ['
erly and southeasterly in Dauphin and Lancaster Counties.
j.
State Route 230 is basically a two-lane facility generally paralleling the Susquehanna River from I-83 south of Harrisburg ,
throughout the EPZ southeasterly. State Route 181, a two-lane facility, serves York County residents from York Haven southerly, terminating at I-83 south.of the EPZ limits.
em A
- e
ij!
hl P
c
. ~.
y!
g-hh Support Organizations
}
In case of an emergency, close coordination between Federal,
[]
S tate , and local agencies is imperative to provide the responsi- p bility necessary to encure orderly implementation of an evacua- a q
tion plan.
(I Support agencies expected to coordinate activities in the n?
ti:
Three Mile area are :
- 2. Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency
- 3. Cumberland County Emergency Management Agency Lancaster County Emergency Management Agency 4.
- 5. York County Emergency Management Agency
- 6. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 7. Bureau of Radiation Protection } l'
- 8. Local Municipalities , such as police , fire, and ij other public officials necessary to carry out _,
control of the plan .:
't Summary of Emergency Planning ,
To date, an evacuation plan han not been developed for Three '
Mile Island. However, the Pennsylvania Emergency Planning Agency has developed a planning estimate of evacuation times associated with Three bule Island for 2 , 5- and 10-mile evacuations. Since ll the initial' planning estimate for the 10-mile evacuation , a 20- t L
mile evacuation estimate has been prepared. !
These plans were prepared by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Transportation.
f!
. d.
?
?
- at s .
t
- i
].
1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS ]
t' * -
s
^
The area characteristics were obtained by fieli '#83D19"~
I
.. f i iL tions, discussions with State and Local Emergency Flar~"' - --a !!
Agencies, Local Planning Commissions, Pennsylvania 20?*~~'nt of 1 discussions with the Licensee, and a S*Li*i""#Y l'i Transportation, planning estimate of evacuation times prepared by t..e '#^3YiV""i"tania (j Emergency Planning Agency in conjunction with the Pe-yg l!
Department of Iransportation. q tt M
't.
Meteological Characteristics !I n
"8 C The area is favorably located to receive preciri;2i is produced when warm, maritime air from the Atlantic Ceg.:2e annual forced upslope to cross the Blue Ridge Mountains. 75? recording
- precipitation for the region is 38.12 inches with AucP:
a mean rainfall of 3.72 inches. Prolonged dry spells N'=##
occasionally.
I.:
The annual mean snow 'all is 35.5 inches with J**ary and February having a mean snowfall of 9.6 inches each. t]aximum of 21 inches fell in a 24-hour period in January of ' E'-'
f
{
l Norr.al monthly 'terperatures average from 30.1 'x:ses in i
l January to 76.1 degrees in July. [
l i
.wcurs on Flooding - Flood stage on the Susquehanna Riv01 I'r: serious the average of about every three years in Harrisbur 2, '
ds flooding is much less' frequent. About one-third of ,0 1
l have occured during March. The Flood of 1972 was tha : ghest on 3""*
record, . cresting at 32. 57 feet at 10 :00 a.m. on Satm' * !
2 4 th . This was 15.57 feet above flood stage and 3. p feet above a
. ed
- 1 1.:.
. i
- f, s
d, .
~ the- March 19, 1936 crest. Rain from Hurricane Agnes'was j!
b associated with this flood. b h:-'
Wind Conditions - The predominant direction of the wind is y west-nc rth-wes t. This condition prevails during eight months of UI the year mostly during the winter and spring months. The summer %os i months have prevailing westerly winds. During the summer months ]
wind ranges between six and seven miles per hour with February, s j
March and April recording wind between nine and ten miles per :
hour. The mean for the year is 7.7 miles per hour.
o P
Planning Characteristics .
Demographic data were co lected for the EPZ by Township U and Borough to identify population and other pertinent factors which affect evaluation. Townships and Boroughs were used as 4
q
- planning zones; however in many instances the planning zones j were subdivided to facilitate centroid loadings to the evacuation
< network. .
II Subzones were delineated to represent population densities i determined from U.S.G.S. maps, major industrial areas, subdivisions .
where applicable, and where possible, limit the population in' each subzone to reasonable population estimates to avoid over-loading the' evacuation network. For example, Derry Township which has an estimated resident population of 21,000 was sub-divided into five subzones F-1 through F-5, thereby-facilitating l' I
assignment to three interchanges along I-283 and I-83. When this :
l occured, the subzones were divided by some casily identifiable basis to permit the assignment of persons residing in these areas f to a logical and definite evacuation route. Table 1 resents the 1
population to be evacuated by county and political jurisdiction within-each county.
. , ~ ~
~~ ~ - . .
- ;i.
ii:
I 151 4!
^
Table 1 !i JURISDICTIONS WITHIN 10-MILE EPZ !.
4 Three Mile Island i II 1980 .
JURISDICTION POPULATION .;
Doughin County ):
Conewago Township 2,630 l!
16,290 !
Derry Township 4,779 e Londonderry Township 6,292 ! .
Lower Paxton Township Lower Swatara Township 7,155 ,
3,292 i Susquehanna Township 21,000 "
Swatara Township South Hanover Township 2,843 i Harrisburg City 29,137 4];
2,840 Hirespiral Borough Hummeistown Borough 5,150 :p Middletown Borough 10,970 y Paxtano Borough 2,285 ij Royalton Borough. 1,050 '!
8,300 Steelton Borough 124,013 !jii TOTAL Y
Curberland County p Lower Allen Township 640 New Cumberland Borough 10,295 TOTAL 10,935 l 1
Lancaster County g 2,470 !!
Conoy Township 2,100 ji East Donegal Township 2,980 Mount Joy Township t West Donegal Township 3,670 ';
it Elizabethtown Borough 9,400 TOTAL 20,620 .l l i:,
Lebanon County South Londonderry Township 1,176 j!
ll, ,
York County fi Conewago Township 4,539 Dover Township 600 East Manchester Township 3,440 l
1
Table 1 (Continued)
" 1980
_c JURISDICTION _ POPULATION York County (Continued)
' Fairview Township 12,000 Hellam Township 75 4
' Manchester Township 2,850
-Mount Wolf Borough 1,900 Newberry Township 9,365 Springettsbury Township 50 Goldsboro Borough 547 Lewisberry Borough 650 Manchester Borough 1,700 Warrington Township 300
- York Haven Borough 703 TOTAL 38,419 GRAND TOTAL 195,463 1
e 4
i O ess
i
. y' Special Problem Areas Several assumptions were made regarding the evacuation of facilities such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, steel mills and other synthetic production type plants. An illustration depicting the location of these special problem areas has not
~
been included since the necessary school information was not m received in time for printing.
Schools - Table 2 presents a list of school districts by enrollment in Dauphin County that are within the 10-mile radius and a list of schools for Lancaster, York, and Cumberland Co unties .
. In evacuating schools dhe assumption was made that students would be distributed home or to a nearby pick-up point and evacuate from home.
Hospitals - It is assumed that all patients of a hospital will not be evacuated. Most ambulatory patients would be dis-charged, picked up by relatives and returned home for evacuation with their families. .This activity would occur during the first three activity periods. Confined patients, with exception 'of those in intensive care wards, would be evacuated to other hospitals outside the EPZ by ambulance; beginning shortly after notification and ' limited by travel to and from these two
, facilities. Impact on network traffic volumes would be small, as a large portion of the activity would occur during the mobilication time for the general public.
There are four hospitals within the EPZ, three in Dauphin
, County and one in Lancaster County (Table 3 ).
Prisons and Detention Homes - One county prison is located in the 10-mile radius with an estimated 230 inmates. The one detention home has about 18-20 persons.
. 3 1
)
. ? ,
1
$1-Table 2 .ll EDUCATION FACILITIES !
t I
- ENROLLMENT l COUNTY L.!
Dauphin County _ ;}
2,500 Derry School District t-3,768 Lower Dauphin School District. i 3,231 .
Middletown School District !j i
1,385 Steelton-Highspire School District 1 5,150_ J .
Central Dauphin School District TOTAL ,
16,034 Qli i .
I na tt' Lancaster Ccunty_
NA Bainbridga Elementary School NA ,
Elizabethtown Area Senior High .
NA 1 Elizabethtown Area Middle School NA East High Street Elementary School NA ,
Elizabethtown Elementary School NA Fairview Elementary School NA
?
Full Road Elementary School NA Theems Elementary School NA Maytown Elementary School .-
York County :
NA York Haven-Newberry Schoo'._ >. NA Northeastern High NA Township School NA Fishing Creek School .
l Cumberland County NA ;
Manor School NA i St. Theresa School NA j Highland School NA l Cedar Cliff High l
(1) Dauphin' County Emergency Planning Agency fi l
.% %d
. . . . . =
. . t-
- i
- I
. ?
I l
i?-
t;
,ti ii
!I Table 3 if!-
HOSPITALS
- 1 li
- I i
4
'l l NAME AVERAGE CENSUS l
'l 350 4 Hershey Medical Center i:
ff 175 ji Community Osteopathic Hospital il l: 479 . Harrisburg Hospital !! ,
;9 i
Elizabethtown Childrens Hospital N/A .-
- t d
3 k', e I o-
.. =
.-~ -
w i4 The assumption made for these facilities is that prisoners to ji can be transported by high occupancy vehicles from the EPZ The other similar detention f acilities outside the EPZ. ll addit.onal vehicle load dn the network for this activity would 3 be insign! Acant in evacuation time assessments. Nursing Homes - Table 4 lists the nursing homes in Dauphin and Lancaster Counties and the estimated population. .; the same as The assumption for evacuating nursing homes !.: 'i i described for evacuating hospitals. I
. Steel Mills and Other Synthetic Production Plants _ - For the b majority of employees, evacuatiod is assumed that the fou* g..
activities: Receive Warning, Leave Work, Travel Home and However, the actual closing Evacuate Home will be the same. of the facility will require that a skeleton crew remain to f acilitate the actual closing. From information determined f rom other evacuation time assessments or plans indicate that . about seven to ten percent of the labor force will be required to remain at the plant. i b l t 9 h 1 i i i
.w_m
.re' y.t p s-; l. i r ih 1*
- ,. I. i '
. S t .'
ib2 Table 4 j;;.. j.! NURSING HOMES
- l. n' i.
Dauphin and Lancaster Counties 3 p-1 84
' AVERAGE CENSUS- Ih NAME if 240 17 Frey Village Retirement Center IE 131 jy Odd Fellows Home .r 521 l[;
Dauphin County Home and Hospital 't h 183 d2 Alpine Retirement Center 't 57 hi Colonial Pines Golden Age Home :;! ir a.c 112 Leader Nursing and Rehabilitation Center t: l 22 ;lg Helen O. Sn avely Memorial Home f:, i Villa Teresa Nursing Home 178 fd. 60 ['n, Beistline House i.. 30 p '. Child Day Care Center if 66 ]U Blue Ridge Haven East it . Is 76 4 Lehman Guest Home - 1' Masonic Home 'N' i i t L
^$
i I i f a If . i l 1 L.
~
'l 1
t
. ' t.
i - CONCEPT OF EVACUATION
- 1 1,-
il a j The concept of evacuation in this assessment of the Three Mile Island evacuation times assumes that everyone in the ten- h) ten-mile radius. - mile radius will be. evacuated outside of the h ~ There is no assessment of the time to evacuate within t e two- ) or five-mile radius. It is assumed that all people that live within the ten-mile radius will be evacuated along a specified h. route known to them. The evacuation time will include the time c f' from notification until the last vehicle crosses the ten-mile ,, radius. c , I'
' < h Notification of Evacuation d i Si There are two distinct events which are necessary to !
initiate the evacuation. One event is the direct notification 3 4 of public agencies, schools, major employees and other ' locations of large population concentrations. The second . event is the dissemination of the evacuation warning to the i li general population. Both of these events must include il g instructions regarding the sectors to be evacuated. The d first event is assumed to be accomplished by telephone from the " Emergency Operating Center to the affected group. Ideally the second event would be implemented by a public warning . system, which would combine an acoustical warning system ., by sirens or horns, supplemented by instructions over selected radio and T.V. Broadcast stations. In the particular site, no advanced system of this type is in place. Therefore, the predominant mode of this notification is by use of vehicles and helicopters with mounted loudspeakers. A specified message frc.c these vehicles would indicate that an evacuation has been recommended and to turn on their radios for t
l 2 Y-y, additional information. Radio stations must be provided with gj complete, accurate and current information. They should have N prior zone descriptions and repeat recommended routing {! information. They should have phone numbers people can call vl should these peopic-require special evacuation assistance or l additional informatic,. n ! Public Resconse Time : There can be up to four activities preceding the evacuation from the home which can be statistically distributed in time: , (1) Receive warning; (2) Leave work;~(3) Travel home; and, (4) Evacuate home. Each of the response times may have different distributions, depending upon the particular i scenario being assessed. 1 Recciot of Notification - Receipt of notification is { t assumed to approach a normal distribution in time; therefore, i, ;. the accumulated probability approaches an "S" curve. This y distribution can be approximated by three straight lines. jj
.t one line, passing thro, ugh the 16 percent, 50 percent and 84 l1 '
One percent distributions, represents two time increments. straight line from zero to 16 percent represents one time ..
~
increment. The third straight line from 84 to 100 percent ' represents one time increment. It is assumed that the time I increments are five minutes, so the total time for receipt '- of notification is 20 minutes. - Y i This distribution means that 16 percent will have been notified within the first five minutes, 50 percent will have f E been notified in ten minutes, 84 percent will have been I i notified in 15 minutes, and 100 cercent will have been (See Volume I for more detail.) f notified in 20 minutes. ? l (l j
~
gl
, l f-L e,e ' " "
i - 4 s' ! ; e j i Departure From Placa of Work - Departure from the place > of work is assumed to approach a normal distribution curve in the same manner as receipt of n,otification. Distribution is ' 9 approximated by three straight lines and four five-minute time increments. The distribution assumes that 16 percent will 11 depart from their place of work in five minutes, 50 percent ji will depart in ten minutes, 84 percent will depart in 15 minutes, and 100 percent will depart in 20 minutes (see F i Volume I for more detail.) . Lt Travel From Work to Home - The time of travel to tre $ home approaches normal distribution of time in the same 4 manner as the two previous responses. Ur. der normal conditions l this distribution assumes that 16 percent will' travel to I i home in five minutes, 50 percent in 10 minutes, 84 percent j in 15 minutes, and 100 parcent will travel to home in 20 f l minutes. This distribution is expanded in certain scenarios, , specifically that of the adverse weather scenario (see Volume j, I for more detail). , , Departure From Home - Departure from home also approaches a normal distribution in time and the accumulated probability approaches and "S" curve. The distribution is approximated , by three straight lines in the same manner as the above three f ' responses. The activity is distributed over eight five-minute '
)
periods for a total of 40 minutes. The distribution indicates ,. that eight percent will depart from home in the first five minutes, 16 percent _in ten minutes, 33 percent in 15 minutes, , ; 50 percent in 20 minutes, 67 percent in 25 minutes, 84 percent in 30 minutes, 92 percent in 35 minutes, and 100 percent will have departed home within 40 minutes (see volume I for further details.) ., e
*g [
ti~' I i
- h t
Evacuation Link / Node Network The evacuation routes for each centroid has been manually 'hl l established and coded for computer evaluation. Figures 2-5 , indicate the coded netw'ork and the evacuation route for each ) centroid. ) 1 Table 5 contains the network descriptions. The table .. h! contains two node numbers for each end of a given link, the "! i distance between nodes in miles, the assumed speed for that ;l) link, its total capacity in vehicles per hour in the direction jls of evacuation, and the identity of.the roadway. For example, J{>< the first link in the table is from Node 10 to Node .00.2 The a' 14 i distance is 0.50 miles, the assigned speed is 20 miles per pi hour, the capacity is 1,000 vpd, and the roadway segment is !, on State Route 230. The valueu assigned to each link represen ;[ the best judgement of these fac' ors considering roadway geo- j [j metry, width, terrain and other factors. ']! Many of the evacuation zones are rather large and may p have several centroids. These centroids associated with population li centers and are located to provide for a logical evacuation of p! [- the zone., J .I The capacit.ies established for each link are not the . j capacities that could be expected under normal circumstances. .l The evacuation of a ten-mile area has all the vehicles headed in ti the same direction, with the possible exception of emergency vehicles coming into the area. Because of the directional flow ' and controlled routings, lane capacities are generally larger g Another I than could be erpected under ncrmal circumstances. important factor that contributes to smoother flow and greater fI t capacities is that all drivers of vehicles on any roadway l segment are of one accord and are headed for the same location. ly Generally, they are probably the most seasoned, experienced '
.I of the drivers in a household. All drivers know that they must .
evacuate the area and cross'the ten-mile zone. [ J
. i.I I
$l 3
- Ac t a .
88, t is ~ 5 DD1 [ % 2r c e] e ll l DE2 - M + n
.bg"-hC$L i jjj 8 M" oc-i ,
\ I:*n t
- +[G \
03 , ;i if ~
~
f3a ]d{ O
/ 'I 743 l'"3 f
l
\
33 g]\ J 6 9l1 7 ^ -- I-2 3 is - 39 , ;p e ., ,
' \
h,
.(H c:f
\(
x 1'1a '~ _y y t un f* g
- 's
, a, i\W;;?l* s,, ) N H3Q i =d '
_ \\ t s_2
\/'
Q I's O 48 h' Hs . [t ' f 4s c .. J a It"*"
? N t._ c Q b\x, ,
l l-x , $7 58 - Hh, 55 -l M 1,
,6
-l M-3
[ L-3D
/ kAN ,
,m LEGEND:
I!Ni
~-..t ; g O 4-i ceurno,D Ano nuassa
.I~
- ~ A
' i
- 84 NODE AND NVMBER QUAon4ereaors y ' t ;
/
' .1
""'* EV ACU ATION ROUTE un.es I
EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Evacuation Time Assessment Study
'#"* YmnYAand rf m , s FIGURL: 2 op
. 'ty
**SO
,j v.-.. y 3 s-::Im > 59 j l} ; .p '
f
/ l i *
't / '
L-3D f it l / /g,/ h # , e p'
- k. ,'*
y i? )g &k,zabethtown
\, % 72.'
\g o
f.' -) M
~/
73
'\]<% % .
t.2 rs g 77 , p:n AA -\m 7,/ f., 1
\
3 L'l N-j'93.
,g,g
[ 7:
$ 'N K ~
j
,'~ ,
PQ
/ Mauetio.e '
l:j
,l 2iv r ,,\ ' \ a.n y \ / i 126 i,
S., s yg k '- ~ f.
' y.7
, 2- O ss /- -' ld
'g:2 79
.7 %a l - 6 i o ii
/ N-1 4
,/
jj g . i f , x .' I sagi k - s
'[4 N2C
{f' "'" lh };[ 12
%._ u s i
i\ 8 3:*--- C R-3 g ,, O'I rN m " K4i ' q
\ /. l
': /, ,
o
, hD u . wr13 ite 1
\ 124---00-1 '% \ -i
/
7'ZT LEGEND: '; O a-i cenraoio Ano nuusen ' ::db=
- 14 2 NODE AND NUMBER
=W 2
QUADRANTthDEX o 2 3
-*****
- E V A C U A TIO N R O U T E
' ' i MILES EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND Evacuation Time Assessment Study S'YS"' Om*YA andalsseciales y,ay9g g
m t
'C
' ,,,% [ /6 .'5-E -
Y l , Cold sb or o ,y , , et04 , i / ,10 2
\
k 'l N l \ t
\
- DV5 10 7
-\-m'r)g .2. . . . , , , N) s . e pN- _ y A g' 2 )1 \ a, l
! d '>>x ((\ 'y j
_w. ,** ..!W ! l0
.Ov s N /xb, o 1
i 3
) }1 l ,s' !
' %., L .9 _ Y?,f,h, .% .
~.
i
~
r"-"Nl'
\
}!
ji
/2T 0 ;!
' l'; :} 1, *
?
\ s.3 1
, y.y l
..J Q$
g?*jj p U ,~i k98,/ ,
\
- 00 h , ;
i T t
%y x
> ,2.
s4 $3'x 4 tec ys.;-..y,- ' n u
'l
[ I ' /
'N . ..
/ ,.N.- .
g s> 22> /' ,
\
a,
': pI \\ $
pl e--O P 2 ' #f Pl -,1 92 , s
$7f _
'238
/
LEGEND: y O 4-: csNrnoio ANo Nuusen ::::dh' :=.
- i+ 2 NooE ANo NUMBER i q
,8 " '"
- 9 1 2 ___3 EV ACUATION ROUTC M:LES EVACUATION NETWORK THREE MILE ISLAND ,
I Evacuation Time Assessment Study
,,gu,g ,
Wild *** .%i/4 ami d>uca'alos ,l
. c.
. j ..
sa
. 'q/j/ \ n
?~) .,
\ '
i 22 il 3 y!]
\ ,. )
g' y '3-
/ / .
M m2'03 v 8. t y f , 3* a A -- =.2, j,1 n
,) '
Harris g Ca gh ( (
- s L-p.3 Q -426 tgh ')
i t
%s
~4 3 ,
,,0 ",
n , _ _- ~. ,;h . CFl / a 3{
'g MY </ jl p 3 4 ,, . .,
sx d - 22 I i t ,e 23 2 'N d / V 3 24(4Qg o' ,- et a i Q"ih's \ S ealto / A / - 33 <j pj ; 3, \\ ,/f\ -A 34 # f
' XL *l35 N \ \ // 17 ,
Ss s ', ,,,C W-4 g \ ~
\fgggg
'g3: - 11 6 . g / 05-3 j',
., < ,DH4 j
/ g3
\
y N 20 C'
\ '
d dla tow 1,
,5
;i
-\ '\ of.usfC0 SY q A.E D A3 f H-5 o
N flor W-3 \ 'N\* - 8 s
,.. f,[4 W5 - 1 w '
,. 22 , !!2 jll! l" \.
?'
,1 - - , ,
109 ,
\ .
.- I
( [. l /
# ,/ '
y.3 108 ,
/ ,f _3 I- ) *
/ ato4 Goldaooro; I'
! f* h ,[ '05'\\ [ Il !I [f!! li I !.EG EN D: i:
- II- ~
#9 I, '.
l O 4-i ceninO:o Ano woussa ::iiy::( l
- i4: NOos Ano nuussa N_. J l " " ' " " 0 ' ' 3
== EV ACU ATION ROUTE I -
MILE S EVACUATION NETWORK , :. , THREE MILE ISLAND , Evacuation Time Assessment Study 12 h, o.
*]Io'llue fmu'/4 anef elssc<ialeb FtGURs 5 t'." '
l
., r
?
L .
'IABLE 5 ,
NETWORK DESCRIPTION h lf:i GP ROADWAY IDENTITY , AN0DE' NODE DIST SPEED f.i a ij-000 0.50 35 0 7:00 State Route 230 i 10 12 0.90 35 0 1500 Legislative Route 139 Uj. 11 t I-83 12 13 0.40 35 0 i!00 I-83 f 15 1 30 20.0 4000 13 14 15 0 20 202 0 50 20 0 19.0 1500 JM0 Ramp. I-83 lh t,
'j 15 Legislative Route 22015 16 204 0.70 ti 0 80 30.0 35.0 1000 1500 Legislative Route 22021 lQh 17 35 0 1500 State Route 39 p d *;5 0.!0 Legislative Route 22008 i3 9 1.00 35 0 1500 U. S. 322 L
2; 35.0 1500 5 ;' 200 0.30 U. S. 422
- 1 207 0.70 15 0 1%0 Legislative Route 618 I;'
22 23 0.50 15.0 -1500 Ramp lp 23 24 0 20 00 1500 I-83 j' 24 M 1.30 50.0 4000 *; 27 1.70 35 0 1500 U. S. 322 25 26 17 0 80 35.0 1500 Legislative Route 22021 f:k iS 9.20 1500 Ramp R 20.0 h 13 0.20 50.0 4000 I-83 18 F! 3 53 2.60 35.0 1500 State Route 230 b 30 23 1 90 15.0 1500 State Route 441 Il 33 1.90 1500 State Route 441 32 35.0 State Route 441 b 33 34 0.50 35.0 1500 Ramp f: I4 35 0.20 20.0 1500 State Route 283 J! 35 43 2.60 %.0 ' 4 00 1000 T 325 h 38 N9 0 60 20.0 3' 13 1.70 33.0 1000 T 325 ' 40 2:0 3 20 J5.0 1500 State Route 34] ['v. 41 40 0 30 35.0 150i State Route 743 State Route 341 f 42 5o 2.20 15 0 1500 I-43 53 2.70 50.0 4000 State Route 283 1500 Ramp h 44 43 0.20 20.0 F 45 44 0 20 20.0 1500 Ramp b 4 -5 2 20 35.0 1500 State Route .41 I da 0.60 35.0 1500~ State Route 441 47 4000 Turnpike h
- 9 212 10.00 50.0 E 50 0.20 20.0 !$00 Ramp 47 Ramp Turnpike I 50 51 0.20 20.0- 1500 51 115 5.30 50.0 3000 Turnpike 52 53 0.40 35 0 1500 State Route 230 53 , 49 0.50 35.0 1500 Legislative Route 22019 [i 54 119 2.30 30.0 1000 T-969 I 55 56 4.00 30.0 1000 Legislative Route 2202? k 1
i* b I
.A I .
N3
/ C j i
?
% l ,gP e, l e
A :~ OBk #$ - ('Q i Harris rg O gh [ F 30 2s [
\ N
/. .
~
g s 24 , F-1
=
Q'
~
F-4 Qpl f~ 232 sy, dY-2' k.5 g@ \ ,9 32' r jI kN 'kS i' 2 0 -i "' -
---33 A '
ri. o / j- ] w a 9lI
\ ~
sa
.. %i 34'\ {.
x.L. 135 \ . , 7 :( q4
' I e \' 18 g g', y2
% pir, 48; -
g
,f '
J)H 4 g j 23 d dle to * / $
/ .' .' -
x _. p\ 4
\ otuSTED Aln, OE BAS # g.$ (
llo r 3 W5 - P * -' O i
/
/ W I o
ia
% , 22_ ll,2 jill . ,
a 109_ g :4 g( s i Q i 1.EGEND: O A-l CENTROID AND NUMBER
/me -
'$jj IL Z4 bV-3 3
-u 1
- T 1 (k.'
e 642 NODE AND NUMBER u s--- le OUADRANTINDEX o 2 ?
- i. '.;i,
' ' ~
ww EVACUATION ROUTE uiL E s EVACUATION NETWORK 1:1 1 THREE MILE ISLAND 5.;. Evacuation Time Assessment Study :;
- I y,cune s I{~
Siek $moV4 an<f Asscciales 1
} l l
l
- e. -
- TABLE 5 (Cont'd)
; M00E r.00E DIST IFEED CAP ROADWAY IDENTITY
'6
- 40 0.80 35 0 1E0 State Route 341 57 58 020 20 0 1500 Ramp
~]~ t3 73 3.40 50.0 4000 State Route 283 Si 57 0.30 35.0 1500 State Route 743 di 0.80 State Route 743 7.)I :0
$1 !!5 3.50 35.0 35.0 1500 1500 State Route 230 16 213 7.00 35.0 1500 Legislative Route 36001
- 72 0.ou 30.9 1090 Legislative Route 36004 7 ' Ramp
-4 73 0,:0 10..) . :!00
?! 214 1.10 50..y . 40ao State Route 283
'2 123 0.50 35.0 IMO State Route 230 75 121 1.i0 30.0 */ 1000 Legislative Route 36001 ls ;22 1.20 35.0 1500 State Route 241 77 la 2.1G 35.0 1500 State Route 441
?S .24 2 50 35.0 1500 State Route 441
-] 77 ~;o .:.33 30.0 1000 Legislative Route 36002 do 2:~ 0.N !0.0 . 00 State Route 743 31 219 1. 0 10.0 i&> Legislative Route 66102 -
3 Legislative Route 66040
.1 12 IT 50 0 h00
!? 54 1.10 15 0 1500 State Route 24 54 125 (.20 i$.4 .500 State Route 24 35 34 1.40 .5.9 1500 State Route 181
] - ?e 87 's ;
.5.0 .:;0 State Route 181 ~
57 93 .20 35. < !!. 6 State Route 181 33 39 0.20 35.v :7. State Route 181
- l. 39 ?! 2.e0 35.0- ;? M State Route 181 .
?O 127 :.30 !!. . .500 State Route 24 il 221 2.?0 35.0 .50) State Route 181 12 223 0 50 !0.0 1*.0 Legislative Route 66003 *1:
b ::8 1.30 10 0 100 Legislative Route 66112 04 129.70 34.0 ;000 Legislative Route 66003
} 4
'5 226 1.?0 227 .:0 10.0
; 0.;
;006
;)'O Legislative State Route Route 177 66033 77 137 : 70 35.0 :50 '
Scate Route 385 79 % 0.30 5.0 !!00 State Route 295 1
.} 59 100 0.20 I.0.0 t!0.: Ramp i
'00 222 5.10 50... . 4000 U. S. Route 83 ;
% 10: 99 1.70 35.0 1500 T 950 - State Route 295 h 102 132 1.$0 35.0- 1%0 Legislative Route 66003 l 103 104 1.60 ?!.0 154) State Route 392
_, 104 105 0.:0 .00 if00 kmp j 105 133 1.50 50.0 4000 U. S. Route 83 State Route 385 106 130 0. 0 35.0 1500 1 TABLE 5 (Cont'd) 440LE s0DE DIST 3 FEE 3 'AP
~ '
ROADWAY IDENTITY 35 0 1500 State Route 385
';07 223 1 40 State Route 262 134 2 50 '50 !'M
- .3 i'.0 i5v0 State Route 262 '
- 09 1:e 3.70
- T 970 35 0 5.;0 110 .13 1 00 State Route 114 ;
- 11 0 70 35 0 15M i v) State Route lli j
- 12 2;? ).50 !5 0 U. S. 83 u' .
- 11 1.;0 30 0 a .r,0 *
.13 Ramp
- !5 0.20 N.0 WO 3:4 Turnpike
;;" 23) 1.oo 50.o. i.p..
State Route 262
.:: 135 0 57 $.0 .'00 5.0 t300 State Route 441
..7 :19 1.-)0 4 0.;6 35.0 :5 0 State Route 441
.:3 4' 35.0 ;!00 State Route 341
;to O.60 State Ruute 341 (
.;0 2:t ).50 n.0 1. .:0 122 0.30 35.0 1500 State Route 230 j 121 215 4.00 35.0 !!00 State Route 230
- 22
- 21 !.90 35.0 150u State Route 230 I 123 218 2.70 35.0 15CO State Route 441 I.
124 220 0 60 35.0 !!00 State Route 24 A;5 10 .30 30.0 1000 Legislative Route 66153 h 126 63 : .0 e 35.0 !0o State Route 24 j 127 2:4 . 90 30.0 :000 State Route 921 ;
- s T 883
- 29 :25 0.00 15.c 0 00 :
- 67 1 30 45." 1500 State Route 385 )' '
i30 Ramp
;3: 1;4 s. :(' 20.0 1509 j Ramp
- 3 :33 1. 0 20. - :'/0 8 O,0 U. S. Route 33
.33 :y, ,3.;0 50.r.
State Route 262 (99 ;.7) ft.) ,. a.
.34 t31 :.ca 05.0 :500 State Route 114 *
.35 Local Road j
.34 : 11 :.X - Fr.o .900 Legislative Route 21022 e
;3 233 0.M.
- 34 '.50 30.,
35.
- ts.k.
M00 T 250 [ i33 Ramp 1
- 39 133 a.20 d.0 ;!00 1.
Local Road
.31 32 2 00
- 0 0 50 00
- 5.9 IX0
?50a Centroid Connector - I W: l; t02 : '1.30 :5.0 tW Centroid Connector ti
' .' 1 201 0 'A 15.(- 15w Centroid Connector
- 04 203 0 5e 15.0 ;500 Centroid Connector h Centroid Connector ti 505 26 0.50 ;5.0 le00 1 506 :5 0 50 15.0 t!00 Centroid Connector j 507 20 1 00 15.0 1500 Centroid Connector
$09 2: 0.50 15 0 3500 Centroid Connector '!
Centroid Connector l. 509 22 }.50 :5.0 1500 ti
.i 1
I' 1
- l
. TABLE 5 8 (Cont'd) e WEED CW RCADWAY IDENTITY d. g ANODE h0DE DIST
- 5M Centroid Connector I[
25 5 00 ff.0 510 24 0.!C !.4 liN Centroid Connector . H: 511 10 040 :50 !!N Centroid Connector 11:
$12 d.0 ifv0 Centroid Connector !!
27 0.50 Centroid Connector 513 f14 J2 040 15 0 ' '00 Centroid Connector ll 515 117 0.70 15 0 ::40 Centroid Connector h 55 0.50 .5 0 On f! 516
.!.C t.3i Centroid Connector 3!
517 54 0.40 Centroid Connector 42 0.50 ;5.i M40 f S:8 41 0.50 15.0 :M0 Centroid Connector l-5:9
- 5 0 - ;;'M Centroid Connector ll
$20 37 0.50 Centroid Connector 120 0.50 15.0 IM4 k 521 15 0 :000 '. Centroid Cr>nnect.or 4 522 70 0.50 Centroid Connector 71 040 15d 1000 )
523 60 0.20 15 0 2 iM Centroid Connector 'd 524 61 9 30 :5.1 ' iM Centroid Connector i 525
$3 if 0 40 15.0 ;5H Centroid Connector [E
- '6 0.:'O :5.0 1501 Centroid Connector $
527 15 :.00 15 4 iX" Centroid Connector ' 520 74 0.5a iL 150 Centroid Connector ' 527 77 :.00 50 IMO Centroid Connector l 530 73 050 15.0 1500 Centroid Connector . 531 t!.C ;000 Centroid Connector i f32 91 1.00 Centroi' -'7 nnec to r
- 15.0 1500 in 125 0.50 Centrois onnector '
15.0 1000 - 54 12s ).10 Centroid u'onnector 10 ;.3) 15.; 1500
!!5 Centroid Connector J2 0.20 !$.0 . 20
- 53a
.5G 15 0 1 5 '80 Centroid Connector .
53? SS
- 5 0 fE Centroid Connector i33 di . .M Centroid Connector 72 :.4 :5.a :M 537
- 5.; 15M Centroid Connector 90 91 0.50 Centroid Connector 33 :.00 15 0 .500 541 M Centroid Connector 92 H :.00 15.
Centroir*. Connector
- 4 1.4 . 5.' !M0 93' Centroid Connector r3 0.50 :f.0 4 00 f24
' 5.i- IGVu Centroid Connector 95 75 05? Centroid Connector 95 440 15 0 t u.0
' 9$ ;f*. Centroid Connector U 1.00 .5.0 547
;50 15 0 Centroid Connector 548 106 ).20 Centroid Connuctor 103 1.n 15.0 13N 549 15.0 6G0 Centroid Connector
$50 102 1 00 15.: 1500 Centroid Connector 551 101 0 50 Centroid Connector 108 MO 15.0 1500 552 i .
1
.;
- j I
TABLE 5 (Cont'd) b. M cE W DIST . SPEED C,9 ROADWAY IDENTITY k! Centroid Connector l;
'a53 109' 1.00 15.0 t!.0 1500 Centroid Connector j' 554 116 ' 00 1500 Centroid Connector 555 !!0 1.00 15. 1 1500 !?
556 107 1.50 15 0 1500 Centroid Connector !. 5!7 !!! 1 50 15.0' !!00 Centroid Connector ' i 558 176 0.10 15.0 1000 Centroid Connector
- 137 0.50 20.0 '. 1000 Centroid Connector 557 Centroid Connector !!
560 133 0.50 35.0 . 1!00 l' 561 52 0.50 15.0 .1500 Centroid Connector ( i 562 77 1.00 15.0 l:000 Centroid Connector 563 90 1.00 15.0 1400 Centroid Connector ! 564 47 0.50 15.0 :1500 Centroid Connector N 565 46 5.00 15A ;500 Centroid Connector l 566 26 0.50 15.0 1500. Centroid Connector ! 557 85 0.50 15.0 1500 Centroid Connector 1: O a o H
-;l s
F h 5' k e (- t& . I t. {- e b 1 ,. i
- I E f' a
{ 1 : i I
~.
Table 6 indicates the vehicles on each link. The number cf vehicles is determined by the population to be evacuated and L is based upon the assumption that each vehicle will evacuate 3.0 people. It has been observed in other actual evacuations that about 99 percent of the evacuees leave by private automobile. 1 Therefore, this is a conservative assumption that all people are to be evacuated by automobile. The number of vehicles on each link is a summation of all the vehicles'from the different centroids ; that use any specific link of roadway. 3 i~ Table 7 describes the evacuation route with a link-node il description by centroid. This table gives the numbers of each
!1 Table i node through which each evacuation route passes. ]
describes each link in this evacuation route and Table li indicates the number of vehicles on each link. !! n-d Directional' Flow - All network routing ; will operate as i two-way facilities. In the case of a two-lane roadway, the { outbound lane is for evacuation with the inbound lane used for h emergency vehicles. A three-lane facility assumes two evacuation i[ lanes and one inbound lane. A four-lane facility assumes two h-A evacuation lanes and two emergency lanes. D a Travel Speeds - Speeds were assigned to each link depending h on the character of the roadway. Freeway speeds were assigned [ d at 50 m.p.h. with ramp speeds at 20 m.p.h. For two-lane roadways , r State Highways were assigned at 35 m.p.h. and 30 m.p.h. for g roadways of lesser quality. Centroid connectors were considered g as local streets and assigned a speed of 15 m.p.h. f
- b. .
Capacities - Capacities were assigned to the evacuation $ i network to reflect emergency conditions with traffic flowing in .{ l i i E h
TABLE 6 VEHICLES ON EACH LINK NORMAL WOR 2< DAY A NODE B NODE VEHICLE A NODE B NODE VEllICLE 1593 56 40 ' d 2<0 9712 - 0 !3 1906
- 1 12 761 !
59 73 5101 . 2 13 '61 I 59 57 1904 il ;5 5261 ;573 60 59
'5
;4 2500 1573 61 215
;5 202 7761 993
- 70 213 5 ??4 473 * [
1 12 333 17 19 2500 72 73 333 16 205 474- L
/3 214 5434 17 14 2500 :
74 123 223 9 20 209 2715 75 121 500 21 207 2715 - 76 122 20 22 23 1000 - 77 78 617 1 23 24 ~2500 - 78 124 823 24 28 2500 79 2!6 233 25 27 2000 9 80 217 466 26 17 2500 h 31 219 25 27 28 2000 > c2 127 200 28 13 4500 j 93 d4 1099 29 53 2766 94 125 1099 30 23 1500 ' 35 34 234 32 33 1192 .c 1192 86 '97 900
!3 34 900 37 as 34 35 1192 pi 38 89 1464 35 43 1192 7
- 19 91 2144 .
209 438 33 70 127 679 3 37 38 _ 433 j 91 221 2346 40 210 2031 750 0; 92 223 41 40 433 f 93 129 643 J2 56 1060 7 74 129 643 43 58 3175 44 43- 2003 45 226 200 h 100 45 44 2003- 76 227
;39 788 -
p?; v7 46 45 2003 ;-
?9 ?? 693 47 48 2003 99 100 693 0 48 212 3:95 2681
(; 1M 222 49 50 3712
- E.
dl ?8 464 50 .51 1712 l02 132 600 h.
!! 115 3712 !
til 104 600 52 53 946 -
;04 505 600 .
53 49 3712 .i
-05 133 600 54 119 530 .
8' 106 130 214 55 . 56 533 I.1
- tl i1 t 1 i l
t TABLE 6 (Cont'd) A NODE B NODE VEHICLE A NODE B NODE VEHICLE 107~ 223 132 511 26 ' 2!00 103 34 132 512 30 1500 573 513 29 2766 109 !!i 110 113 359 5:4 32 1192 L11 112 *573
. f:5 t17 1192 112 229 1578 516 55 533 413 .31 6:S 517 54 530 115 H36 513 42 530 114
- 30 5!i3 519 41 433 1:5 116 135 1029 !20 3' 438
- 117 :19 :192 521 120 392
!!B 43 1192 522 70 973 1:7 42 530 523 71 333 120 211 392 524 30 1573 121 :22 723 525 61 1573 122 215 723 !26 59 333 123 121 .:23 527 76 500 124 213 323 529 75 500 t*5 220 ::15 529 74 223 ,
124 ?0 66 530 77 617 j
.27 E3 670 231 73 206 129 224 :43 g32 91 25 ~
129 225 143 233 125 16 I 130 07 216 534 126 66
- 31 ::4 :M6 13: 70 433
- 32 *!3 600 !33 92 200 ,
*33
. 100 Lii3 :37 38 566 134 :Ci :52 533 89 $50 35 til 3 29 137 i2 750 136 231 213 540 ?! 200 137 233 1431 54! 33 200 133 234 2000 I42 93 643 ,
di 133 '759 I43 94 643 , 231 232 213 544 43 227 501 '0
. 7712 !45 95 200 502 11 761 546 96 100 ,.
503 201 .:097 !47 97 768 ;. 216 : 504 203 2097 !43 106 505 16 473 549 103 600 506 19 474 150 02 600 507 20 2715 !!! 101 466 i 508 21 2715 552 03 192 6
!09 22 *000 109 416
~ 553 510 25 2000 554 !!6 430 8
TABLE 6 (Cont'd) 1 l 1 A NODE B NODE VEHICLE
~' ;
555 !!0 658 f
'56 107 716 557 til 1579 213 (
558 136 .~ 559 137 1431. , 560 138 2000 561 52 146 ,l i 562 79 233 543 90 456 (: i 564 47' 2003 ' 565 46 2003 - 566 36 - 656 l 567 35 234 !
'i
'i t'
n. I '. -
.i l
- r
't.
[ Ys w I.. o I e I i t 5 i i I t s n-.
. . \
t. I P Table 7 i 1-EVACUATION ROUTE [. 8 LINK NODE DESCRIPTION + BY CENTROID L
- t,
. ;-E CE* 100E 2 400E 3 W E 4 W E 5 S !E 6 NODE 7 NCCE 3 E CE 7 i
- n. ,,1
., . .,0 4 S2 11 12 13 15 202
.:. e. v. - .s..
; .. ... .4 e..., .
.6 -4
~
! l'2 5N 19 205 L .- gg 4 .. r. 7 .??. .Sti.2 C !03 21 207 r
,07 ,,
.3
.,. .3 .2 .s . 0,.
e f.. .
- - r,ig ar -, ,
.3 .-
.a '5 '. O'.
I-
. . .s s . ,.
,e ...
- <,, .. , 4 .s.
- 2. ... .5 .. .9 ..
- . r. ,. e- I.s . 3
.,. ,9
,3
. .. 3C,.
- r. e..2. . ..
.a 4, .en et
. ,.., e. 430 9
I M f14 32 33 34 35 43 58 73 2** i 3.'. 515 (17 :18 48 212 3 I 0:0
+
il !:6 55 54 40 . d.' 517 !4 '? 42 56 40 :*C
.l.
'3 d '19 d2 !! -C 210 1
s
!! 319 4: 40 2:0
. I2 520 39 39 207 J1 521 120 211~
l - 7 -
-4 F ^*ap5,-'m m."r- # L
- c i
4 Table 7 - (cont'd) LIE NOM 1 NOK 2 N0X 3 NOK 4 NOM 5 h00E 4 NOM 7 NOM 8
?! 322 73 213
*2 523 11 72 73 214 13 5' 4 40 59 57 53 73 214 l
,4 525 s1 215
- l 45 523 57 57 53 73 214 .
L1- 527 73 122 215 g. i L2 523 73 121 122 i L3 !29 74 123 121 122 215 j i 41 530 77 73 124 219 { 219 (2 531 73 124 t. 11 132 di 219 I' t.
- 533 125 220 R1 534 *25 10 127 33 34 125 220 4 535 90 127 33 34 125 220 I E
t R 536 32 127 33 34 125 220 M 537 38 39 91 221 46 Sia 37 ~1 221 e P1 539 *2 223
- l P2 540 91 221 If.
m R3 541 83 94 125 220 . F I S1 542 93 123 224 7 i F
- - l"-
,P
. . ~
. l* .
P P.
.k k
E. ' e. Table 7 4 (cont' d) r NOTE 7 WE S NC0E ? NC:E 10 CNE NCE 1 SEE : CE 3 'CE 4 $%E5.WEi
. . . . *at
.. .*3
. gI.*
f* .Ar ..J
!.1 h
t *r
*t r.*o r. f. .$9. $
t ..
.s,
.r . +*O g$ - n7 ..
(
**4 q7 .A.0 ....
g4;, . .. *29 .23 9 .
.f, .-s r.. .4 a ..G 3 A1 .% 3 .JW a* 4. ,4 199
.At a J;. J
.* .vJ 4= .4
.v .v4 .
et r.4 7s 4 f.V e
- T. 9
.1;, e..v*A ...
) . r. ter. .a
; .s pg A. ...
- o. , r. r ... .m
. J3 . .
..r **r
.; 2.
g I, . ..* .
*r ...
.- ..g -4g t. . 3 ;4 9. *J & h
.4-Tr.*
sv .2 .. 2 I-174 ! gg4 .s.;r. .4t. .. .4
.. . t.c
.J .V
-r tre .A3 ..- 1
<wJ .v-e.
... .n. e l ... 4 ,. e.
- e. r.4 ..5..
.a .a ..*
44 e
.,. .5
.. 2.
h- c.s.:r. 1,0. ..a .,1 J'
.. ,r.
..a 07 .5
.4
- s. .
I ... tr,
.o 1.,.. 145
..r e
1 *T?
=J.
14 CES w w 'J #. T. U 4. T. f.
.' s FCS 419 .24 5,. es T .e q
?! 115 IIO
- 13 47 iC G3 ffi 32 S2 77 016 N1 Se3 30 217 N2 W
*A , ] --.m..A..,e.
G.
. . . . . . , , . - .2
[
=
, a...- --. . .--.a .--au ...- .._ ..,_m.~ ----y _ - - - _ . - . . . . . _ _ . ._ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . - , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i j , . 9 l gj . - . _. W Table 7 . (Cont 8d) as m , s:o ma m . ma m , m z o ,
- 3 l
a m o u g$ i .9 i' -
# . -!oi !6 57 33 29 71 ::1 .
i. 3
*
- O h fh $I fk .)[
- . 4. .- -
l A* f 1 t 7 O S I . 4 f i I l s l s v.
~36-
[ i f l _p.~. -
- - - . . ~ , , . ,, , , . . . - _ , . , , . _ - ..,y.. ,.w. -
. - ~ -,,-i. ~..,..m._-_...,,mm.--..,.._-, ~....%,-
F one direction, occasional emergency vehicles opposing the traf fic flow and problem areas controlled by special traffic features. Under these. conditions the following capacities were assigned:
- 1. Freeway - 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour; therefore, two evacuation lanes would be 4,000 per hour.
2.- Two-lane Facilities - A capacity of 1,500 vehicles per lane per hour was assigned to State Highways and other high type roadways and 1,000 vehicles per lane per hour for a roadway of lesser quality.
- 3. Interchcnges and Ramps - 1,500 vehicles per hour.
Special Traffic Control Stratagies - In order to attain maximum capacity on the network, controlled critical intersection - - movements and control for complex evacuation routings, special traffic control strategies are imperative. i i In some instances major population centers were split to j avoid overloads to the network and produce abnommally long delays. t Y These locations will require special handling to insure that r. t i: motorists utilize their assigned routing for evacuation. T Interchanges and ramps which affect the capacity that can . h be loaded to the main line will need special control strategies. [ Special Transportation Requirements Transportation requirements for special problem groups, p. such as non-car owning families, hospitals, schools, j ails , etc. , (.
~
were not .. included in the evacuation time assessment. The assump- ' tion was tha all families would evacuate as a unit from home. f l
t L .g . I - This would preclude the requirement for evacuating school students h; f rom school to outside the risk area. t i. d 4 i
.t I
4-I b i I i 9 d
. I h . t I
l l i
'l l'.
L I i a l 1 a y .
.s_ . . _ ,
+ . - .- L W
.- . I, f.
EVACUATION TIME ASSESSMENT F ke k As previoucly stated, the evacuation time assessment has ' C ' . assumed that all of 'the f amily will leave home in one car as a ! E g unit. M The assessment tine includes mobilization time and travel time to evacuate the 10-m114 radius. Mobilization time includes ; notification, leaves work or ser :'o t , travel home, and evacuate home. l
'Four condit. ions were measured in assessing evacuation time:
1.. Normal workday .iorkers at work, children in school; E
- 2. Nichttime - most everyone at home;
- 3. Summertine recreation peak; and, I
- 4. Adverse conditions - ice. .
The assessment was performed by computer to a process P described in sace deceil in Volume I. Table lists the evacu-ation times by centroid for the four scenarios shown above.
).
I Normal Workdag i. Eable 8 pre. .ncs the travel times for each centroid to [ f y ovacuate the 10-mile radius. The most critical area relative *h dt to length of evacuation time occurs in subzone F-5, Steelton H( Borough. A total evacuation time of three hours is required to .. 58' evacuate the estimated 8,300 Steelton residents . This is attri- l buted Lto the network routing which requires motorists to travel f-E; south on State Route 230, proceed via Legislative Route 22019 to c.
' the Pennsylvania Turnpike and proceed westerly to leave the EPZ. fv The actual travel time incurred is 17 minutes; however, the delay ,t I
y tima caused by queuing due. to lack of capacity at ramps, etc., is 88 minutes, with the remaining 75 minutes attributed to mobi- { f,_ lization. k i The portion of Harrisburg within the EPZ was dhe largest E L-populated zone. with an estimated 29,100 residents, To facilitate h a logical evacuation, four roadways were used as evacuation routes. ! s t-3
?
i L. _
t I* - TABLE 8 EVACUATION TIMES
- BY CENTROID l
ADVERSE NORMAL WORKDAY NIGHTTTME
;g:p:2:5 TI::E fisrR0iD *:.E
, .:I W 3ID !!-E
'! 11 i ;g is Al .;4
; A2 .24 42 ::y; g 51 /7 ~ :t ;2 B1 .i4 p; 117 3
!! 102 ;;
C1
' 51 - 73 3 DI M7 01 LI 76 !2 :3 02 1% i.
1
.~4 il 43
- :29 C: '
l E! {2 ::2 22 140
; 127 Fl ! 117 F1 ;5.i 138 . .
.c- ) ,41
, .s7
... c ., ..rc l :24 F3 j F3 F4
- 37
- 4 3
127 F4 153 144 c5 ;30 c5 :15 - f5 102 l 31 ;3 ::
;3 Gi 137 1 62 - ,
2.3 sa4 n1 135 M1' !!2 :.1 97
' .s n 42 ;37 -
~2 114 -
n3 .;7
- MJ 103 .43 93
.;o ;; :;5 II ;p 11 I2 8: ;3 6: I2 :13
; i)7
}
J! 75 .: 43 J1
*1 94 ; 32 31 ;3)
-2 a.s ov
.. ., x. .e. .t.
, .- . .y
'3 : ,,) .- 3 55 ..
; ~2 '
o s14
'4 59
,4 35 ;;;
35 93 ::t 75
~
I *!
- 37 .1 .2 L1 .24
*2 L2 i? L2 1;7
- 64 .
L3 !0 3 75 '3
. 129 79 t,1 :34 -: \I 33 si
< t .a 2 37
. .n. .(.> ..s a 6:5 31 52 :, t? 01 01 :3 ]1 .Jo 78 r.1
;25
} 41 88' ::.
73 R I f4 33 R4 its
' 33 4 49 12 ;;6 52 - 39 12 5:5 117 A5 :02 65 III R$ 118 R6 *03 R6 132 P1 30 pg $5 pt 110 F2 3/ P2 72 P2. 1:5 t
k _40- .
-} .
s oj-p .
% >+g.- - - -m. ==
1 - 1 , 1 TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
} !
NIGHTTIME ADVERSE i NORMAL WORKDAY .
~
TI.-E :Di'0It ;ttE .:.v.qD . .g
- E MID 13 JJ 43 37 !*I *;$
63 S1 73 !f 31 57 f :, b2
.- -- 73 ., .
33 35 53 70 '15 .. i-
'I 79 11 14 :# ;
J1 j
$:. 79 * ;i 64 ]f
} 7.
*'l
.;3 3 :.
! v.1 1 . .
(2 30 ' . ~.'2 55 #I 'M V3 36 13 31 *}
, ' .)
~"
) e5 94 .5 77 ve
.s 3
26 83 :
-)-
V4 112 *i4 97 V4 .4I s .32 j d5 107 25 '2 w5 8 '44 101 *4
, 06 kJ 1.7 23 *01
. *43 86 W3 120 W2 .;7 ..
92 53 .,2 ss
)
3
'1 4 90 ;,1 7e bl .16 41 31 u 36 X1 .13
, '1 103 ; 7 11 .9 ;.
'2 33 2 H ?! .;4 i
~
33 .53 :
- 3 126 .2
, i.<
.. i 51 .;7
,1' !a ,; 3p l
$2 ' So < 65 N2 111 M4 112 -: ?9 14 40 l-
;77
.H5 .31 .45 its H5 V7 120 - .;7 ;05 v7 .33 ;
4 123 sg , 108 V8 H5 i l' r 1-1 1 bm- -
-_ _ - , .,_a. --7 ae*e
iL
.s 1
State Route 230 utilized two lanes northbound, with 13th,17th ! i and 19th Streets utilizing one northbound lane each. Inbound : emergency vehicles would be _ accommodated by U.S. Route 322. 1 Nighttime Conditions This condition assumes that most people are at home; there-
. fore, only notification tirs and the time to evacuate home pre-vail under this assessment. Because the leave work or school
- and the travel time to home do not have to be considered, the tire to evacuate the EPZ for each zone centroid is reduced by approiximately 15 minutes (Table 8).
; Summertime Recreation Peak Since no major recreation areas are within the EPZ and summertime population is the same as other seasons, the evacu-ation times do not change during the summer.
1 i Adverse Conditions I This' assessment assumes icing conditions as the most probable situation which would have an adverse effect on evacuation time. The assumptions made for these conditions are: reduce the travel speed 50 percent and increase the travel time from home to work 3
. 100 percent. Travel time increases approximately 20 minutes j under this assessment (Table 8 ). ;_
[ t
, L 8
Sector Evacuation Evacuation Plans are usually set up on a sector or quadrant f basis. This assessment has not been concerned with segmenting { the 10-mile radius. The assessment looked at total evacuation f, s i from the EPZ. However, this does not preclude evacuation by
~
[ g quadrants. Quadrants can be examined from the data in this } { report. - Sector evacuation can be approximated by the selection j' of- appropriate planning zones. l
, 1
. . j l
--.a -___ _ _ _.}}