-55-

WORKSHEET _10 ROUTE _B_ SHEET _1_ of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE and EVACUATION
COMPARISON FACTORS (Area in 0 - 5 Mile Band)

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALCULATIONS

Route Weighted
Land Use Type Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight’ Total
Rural 2900 + +. + = 2900 0.91 x 12 = _10.92
Suburban? 103. + + + = _103 0.03 x _10 == _0.30
Urban? 77+ +, + = _77 0.02 x 7 = _0.14
Commercial/ 120. + +, + = _120 0.04 x 6 = _0.24
Industrial

(Total)

Comparison Factor = 11.60

EVACUATION CALCULATIONS

Route Weighted
Land Use Type Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight? _Total
Rural 2900 + +, + = 2900 0.91 x 11 = _10.01
Suburban 103 + +. + = 103 0.03. x 13. = _0.39
Urban 7+ +. + = 77 0.02. x __28 = _0.56
Commercial/ 120 + +. + = 120 0.04 x _17_ = _0.68
Industrial

(Total)

Comparison Factor = 11.64

1 Based on Sample Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-4)
2 Includes Parks and Public Areas

3 Based on Sample Evacuation Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-5)


-21-

If a radioactive material is released in a transportation accident, it
will generally be dispersed downwind. The typical consequences from such a
release are the exposure of the people in an approximately 25 square mile area
of land to low levels of radioactivity. Because radioactive materials can
disperse over relatively large distances, it is necessary to examine the
population along alternative routes to distances of about 10 miles. A

suggested method for accomplishing this is summarized in Table 3.2-2.

TABLE 3.2-2

Release Consequence Measure

Population Band Health Consequences
Boundary Band Multipliers
0-5 mi 0.75
5-10 mi 0.25

The health consequences multipliers were developed from atmospheric
dispersion calculations for radioactive material releases (see Appendix B).
They take account of the fact that concentrations of radioactive materials in

the air will be higher near the accident site, resulting in a somewhat higher

radiation dose to persons nearer the highway.

To apply this method, the number of persons within each of the
population bands in the table is determined from maps, census data, or other
available information. Counting by thousands or tens of thousands will not
affect the results provided each of the routes under consideration is counted
in the same way. Note that the bands cover the indicated distance on either

side of the highway, i.e., the first band, the 0-5 mile band, is 10 miles wide

and centered on the highway. The




A-6

between routes. A value of 1.4 passengers/vehicle was selected. This is a
national average for vehicles on freeways. Converting v and L to more

convenient units, equation (3) then becomes:
ID, = 2.4 x 10% LE 1,(y)
vi

where L is in miles, T in vehicles/hr and v in mph. 1,(y) has the units of
meter’! and the constant, 2.4 x 10°* has the units of

mR ® people @ meter*/(vehicle @ hour).

The dose to travelers in the same direction as the radioactive material

shipment (ID;) is given by the expression:
ID; = 2kLT? F(s) (4)
yw

where k, L, N, T and v are defined as before and F(s) is a function F that
estimates the dose to passengers in all vehicles near the truck carrying the
radioactive cargo. F is a function of the average vehicle separation distance
(s) on the route segment. The vehicle separation distance, s, is equal to the
average vehicle speed on the route, divided by the traffic count. F(s) is
plotted as a function of s in Figure A-3. Substituting for N and k, and again

converting units, equation (4) becomes:
ID; = 3 x 10° LT? F(s)
we

where L is in miles, T is in vehicle/hr and v is in mph. The constant,
3.0 x 10°, has the units of mR @ people @ mile?/(hour @ vehicle) and F(s) has

the units vehicleTM!.
The dose to the truck crew (ID,) is given by the following equation:
ID, = 2R, L (5)
Vv
where L and v are defined as before, and R, is the dose rate (mR/hr) in the
truck cab. It has been assumed that there are 2 drivers in the truck. A

representative value of R, of 1 mR/hr has been used in this analysis because

R, will not change from one route to another. (The maximum dose permitted in


B-7

factor to. the welghted popula



-11-

for the prospective routes. In this event, it may be appropriate to consider
one or more of the secondary factors to distinguish between the routes. This
is an important decision to be made by the State officials conducting the

analysis based upon the particular circumstances involved.


B-2

Isopleth 1
Isopleth 2

Isopleth 3

Transportation
Pathway .
Wind Direction
————__
Figure B.1

Dispersion Isopleths


-28-
TABLE 3.2-5

Sample Evacuation Parameter Scaling System

Manpower and Land Use

Population Egress Equipment Evacuation Evacuation Evacuation
Land Use T Density Availability Availability Lime Impacts Weight Factor
Rural 1 3 3 3 1 11
Suburban 5 2 2 2 2 13
Urban 20 1 1 1 5 28
Commercial/
Industrial 9 2 2 1 3 17

3.2.6 Special Facilities Comparison Factor

Certain localized areas have sufficient economic or public safety
importance to require special consideration in the route selection process.
These facilities or areas could be unique and vital to local economies.
Examples would be a factory employing a large fraction of the local
population. Other facilities have enhanced potential for public health
consequences. These facilities contain populations that are either large,
sensitive to radiation, or difficult to evacuate. For example, an occupied
stadium would be difficult to evacuate quickly. Experts in radiation health
effects believe children are more sensitive to radiation than adults (BEIR
Report 1972). Schools would therefore be considered special facilities for
route selection purposes. Hospitals and nursing homes are examples of

populations that are difficult to move without threat of injury.

Parameters that affect the importance of special facilities in the route
selection process include the radiation dose sensitivity of the people
normally occupying the facility, the economic importance of the facility to
the local community, and difficulty associated with evacuating people from the
facility. Relative ranking scales are suggested for evaluating special
facilities in relation to these parameters. Each facility is evaluated on all
criteria. Points are assigned for each factor and facility type. They are
then combined into an overall facility factor. Table 3.2-6 illustrates the
use of relative scales to rank each factor. In this example, an arbitrary
scale of 1 to 5 was chosen to indicate relative degrees of impact for the
listed facilities. Higher values were assigned to facilities with higher

potential impacts. Scale size and values assigned to each factor could vary


F-1

APPENDIX F

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

A listing of reference materials that may be useful to state officials
in applying the guidelines and in presenting the results of the route
selection process to the public is presented below. Most reports contained in
this list are available through the National Technical Information Services

(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151.

GENERAL RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL INFORMATION

PNL-SA-7072. A.M. Platt, J.L. McElroy. Management of High-Level Nuclear

Wastes. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, September 1979.

J. Kastner. Nature’s Invisible Rays. U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C., 1973.

Department of Energy. How to Find Information on Nuclear Waste Isolation.

Office of Waste Management, Division of Waste Isolation, Washington, D.C.,
1980.

U.S. Department of Energy. Nuclear Power from Fission Reactors - An

Introduction. Office of Nuclear Energy Programs, Washington, D.C.,
November 1979.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radioactive Wastes. Office of Public
Affairs (A-107), Washington, D.C.

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION

DOE/EV-003. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Shipping High Level

Nuclear Wastes. U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Environmental Control

Technology, Washington, D.C., January 1978.


-35-

Segment 1 of Route A is a six-lane rural highway, segments 2 and 4 are four-
lane rural highways, and segment 3 is a six-lane urban highway. All segments
are limited access highway. There are twelve population centers along Route A
and the land is divided among urban, suburban, commercial, and rural uses.
Undeveloped land is considered the same as farmland. Route B is primarily
two-lane with opposing traffic flow. Because of the consistent road type the
route is not broken into segments. If local data on population, accident
rates, etc. were available, then segmentation of the route might have been

desirable. Land uses are divided into the same categories as for Route A.

Much of the information needed to compute the route comparison factors
is presented in the tables. This includes population counts within the two
highway bands, average truck speeds, traffic volume for both general and truck
traffic, and accident information pertaining to each route segment. The basic
accident unit of measure chosen for the sample case is the truck driver
fatality rate (measured in accidents per million truck miles). This is
converted into truck accidents per thousand shipments as will be discussed

further.

The remainder of this section consists of a sample evaluation package
for this route selection case. Worksheets have been filled out for each route
in accordance with the discussions in Section 3. (Blank worksheets are
furnished in Appendix E.) The filled-in worksheets form part of the official

documentation of the route selection process.

4.1 Calculation of Primary Route Comparison Factors

The first six worksheets (see pages 35-43) show evaluation of the

primary comparison factors for both Routes A and B.

Worksheet 1 examines normal transport exposure for Route A. Several
pieces of information are needed for this evaluation. If a route is divided
into segments, the data must be developed for each segment. The comparison
factor for the route will be the sum of the factors for each segment. The
first piece of data necessary for this evaluation is the average population

density (P) along the route. This is found by determining the number of


A-2

where the summation is over the number of segments that the route has been
divided into for purposes of the analysis. Route segments are generally
selected to correspond to significant changes in population densities. Other

factors in the equation are defined as follows:

P= population density (people/m?)
Le route segment length (m)
k= dose conversion factor (mR @ m@/hr)
v= truck velocity (m/hr)
I,(d4) = an integral that estimates the dose at a given point froma

moving source.
Note unit abbreviations: mR = millirems; m = meters

The dose factor, k, is dependent on the characteristics of the material being
shipped and the particular shipping container being used. For route
comparison purposes, a representative value can be used for this parameter
because it will not change from one route to another. A value of

28 mR @ m@/hr was used, corresponding to the dose factor for a shipment of
one-year-old spent fuel in a current generation legal-weight truck cask
(Greenborg et al., 1980, Table B.2).

1,(d) is a function of the distance (d) from the truck carrying the
radioactive shipment to the area along the route normally occupied by people.
It corresponds roughly to the right of way for the highway segment being
analyzed. 1,(d) is plotted as a function of d in Figure A.1. The plot shows
that I,(d) is a slowly varying function of d. For purposes of this analysis,
a representative value of I,(4), 4, was chosen, corresponding to a distance of
10 meters (about 40 ft) from the vehicle traffic lane to the edge of the

normally-populated zone along the road.


-31-

3.3 Selection of Preferred Route

The route comparison factors provide the technical basis for selecting
the shipping route that minimizes the impacts from shipments of highway route
controlled quantity radioactive materials. The selection of a preferred route
is based on the primary route comparison factors - public health risks from
accidents, economic risks from accidents and normal radiation exposure. If
all three of the primary factors clearly favor one route, that route would be
selected as the preferred route. If one primary factor favors one route,
while the other primary factors favor other alternatives, an overall figure of
merit for each route can be developed. The route selection is then based on a
comparison of the figures of merit for the routes. The figure of merit is
developed by normalizing each comparison factor. The normalization is
accomplished by dividing each comparison factor by the sum of the values for
that factor for all the routes being considered. For example, in a route
selection case comparing three alternative routes, the normal exposure factor
might be .25 for Route A, 1.5 for Route B and 6.5 for Route C. The total of
these values is 8.3. The normalized comparison factors then become .03 for
Route A, .18 for Route B and .79 for Route C. This factor is then added to
the normalized comparison factors for public health accident risks and
economic accident risks for that route to obtain the overall figure of merit.

This will be more clearly shown in the sample case in Section 4.

Using this approach, the route with the lowest figure of merit will
produce the least impacts from transporting highway route controlled quantity
radioactive materials. In cases where the figures of merit are extremely
close, it may be desirable to examine secondary comparison factors to assist

in the route selection process.


I, (y)

1.0

0S

0.2

O01

05 =

02 4

O1 TT T mT 1 T T
T T q T T

Distance Between Opposing Traffic Lanes, y (in feet)

Figure A-2. I,(y) as a function of y


F-2

BNWL-1846. T.I. McSweeney and J.R. Hall, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of

Transporting Plutonium Oxide and Liquid Plutonium Nitrate by Truck. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1975.

BNWL-1996. R.J. Hall, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting

Plutonium Dioxide and Liquid Plutonium Nitrate by Train. Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1977.

DOE-EIS-0046F. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Management of

Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., October 1980.

PNL-3261. J. Greenborg, et al. Application of ALARA Principles to Shipment
of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington,

1980.

NUREG/0170. Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of

Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C., 1977.

PNL-2030. T.I. McSweeney and J.F. Johnson. An Assessment of the Risk of

Transporting Plutonium Dioxide by Cargo Aircraft. Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1977.

PNL-2211. C.A. Geffen, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting
Uranium Hexafluoride by Truck and Train. Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, Washington, 1978.

PNL-2888. H.K. Elder, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Spent
Nuclear Fuel by Truck. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington,
1978.

PNL-3208. A.L. Franklin. TREC II: A Computer Program for Transportation
Risk Assessment. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1980.


-41-

The lowest figure of merit identifies the route that

is most likely to minimize the impacts from transporting highway route
controlled quantity radioactive materials using the criteria developed in this
guidebook; hence Route B is considered to be the preferred route for highway
route controlled shipments of radioactive materials. Once again, if the
figures of merit computed for alternative routes are essentially the same,
secondary factors may be considered in making the final choice of a preferred

route,

NOTE ON WEIGHTING OF THE COMPARISON FACTORS

Underlying this method of combining the comparison factors to select a
route is the assumption that the three primary factors are of equal importance
in reducing impacts and are therefore weighted the same. The figure of merit
can be simply characterized as a number which is representative of the
relative risk from transportation between Route A and Route B, given that the

three primary factors contribute equally to that risk.

Past risk studies indicate that normal exposure often contributes a
greater share of the health risks from transportation of radioactive materials
than accidents resulting in public health impacts. This may suggest a greater
weighting factor for normal exposure to recognize the difference in magnitude
of impacts when it is compared with public health risks resulting from
accidents. However, the primary purpose of these studies was to assess the
actual risk in transportation, not to develop comparative risk figures for the
narrower purpose of assessing routing alternatives. As demonstrated by
NUREG-0170, a great deal of specific information is needed to develop actual
risk numbers for both normal exposure and accident risks. If such numbers are
developed, actual risk estimates could then be converted into comparable units
to determine a weighting factor. If a State has the resources and capability
to conduct a true risk assessment, and believes weighting factors should be
assigned based on the risk figures developed during that assessment, they are

encouraged to do so.

However, weighting factors would be difficult, if not impossible, to
quantify for general use in a generic route selection guidebook such as this

document. They could vary significantly depending on data such as population


E-3

result is the Economic Risk for each segment. These are all summed to obtain

the Economie Risk Comparison Factor for the Route in question.

Emergency Response and Evacuation Comparison Factors - These two

comparison factors are combined on one worksheet, for most of the calculations
are the same for the two factors. First, the Band areas for the land use
types for the 0-5 Mile Band only are entered for every segment. These are
totaled to give a Route total. Then these are transposed into percentages of
the total area under consideration. Then the Route percentages are multiplied
by the route-specific Emergency Response Land Use Parameter and the Evacuation
Land Use Parameter from the Scaling Systems, to arrive at Land Use Totals.
Route-specific emergency response weighting factors and evacuation weighting
factors can be derived by completing the appended parameter scaling tables.
The land use totals are summed over the four land use categories to arrive at

the Route Totals.

Special Facilities Comparison Factor - The number of different special
facilities within the 0-5 Mile Band is entered and multiplied by the Special
Facility Factor which can be determined from the route-specific special
facilities scaling system table. The results are summed to obtain the Special

Facilities Comparison Factor for the Route.

Traffic Fatalities/Injuries Comparison Factor - For each segment, the

segment length and accident rate are entered and multiplied. These products

are summed up to give the Traffic Fatalities/Injuries Comparison Factor.

Route Comparison Worksheets - The Route Comparison Worksheets should be
filled in with the respective Route Comparison Factors for every Route. The
Route Comparison Factors are normalized and the total of the three Primary
Route Comparison Factors, known as the "figure of merit," is calculated.
Normalized values must be used to prevent attempting to arrive at decisions
when comparing large numbers with small numbers. The normalized values allow
the decision-making to be carried out on equal scale, where % differences are
compared. (Normalizing involves dividing the Comparison Factor for one Route
by the total for all Routes of that Route Comparison Factor. Summing the
Normalized Route Comparison Factor for all routes should total 1). More

specific comparative effects (e.g., the percentage increase in normal


-4-

The manner of consultation with local governments as well as public
participation is left to the discretion of the State government. However, DOT
encourages the State to provide public notice, opportunity to comment and a
hearing if justified. The State should consider making individual
notifications to appropriate local jurisdictions. One possible procedure to
ensure adequate local consultation would be to establish a State advisory
group composed largely of city and county officials. The purpose of this
group would be to provide oversight of the route designation process to ensure

meaningful State/local cooperation.

Coordination with other State routing authorities may be a crucial

factor in selecting highway routes for large quantity radioactive materials.
Obviously it is essential that designated routes match up at State borders.
It is DOT’s opinion that interstate or regional coalitions for the designation
of routes may be the most effective way of ensuring continuity. Also, States
may want to enter into an agreement designating as a portion of the preferred
route a ferry route for the transport of motor vehicles on waters within the

jurisdictions of those States.


FOREWORD

This document presents guidelines for use by State officials in
selecting preferred routes for highway route controlled quantity shipments of
radioactive materials. A methodology for analyzing and comparing safety
factors of alternative routes is described. Technical information on the
impacts of radioactive material transportation needed to apply the methodology
is also presented. Application of this methodology will identify the route
(or set of routes) that minimizes the radiological impacts from shipments of
these radioactive materials within a given State. Emphasis in this document
is on practical application of the methodology. Some details of the
derivation of the methods and data are presented in the appendices. All
references in the body of this report can be found listed in the Bibliography
(Appendix F).

e pry

gle ace

PRR

fered fe pectdene

“of the length lor the isement?



-38-
Worksheet 3 tabulates the weighted totals for each band and for each segment.
. if

deneeny: 20 produc : fe Gonsequ This is multiplied by the

segment accident rate to obtain the segment economic risk factors. Finally,
the segment factors are summed to obtain the route total. This total is

entered in the appropriate location on the route comparison worksheet.

The next three worksheets show calculations of the primary comparison
factors for Route B. All the variables in the Route B calculations must have
the same units as the Route A calculations. If truck accident rates were
described as the number of accidents per thousand shipments for Route A, then
Route B rates must be described as accidents per thousand shipments. Data for

these calculations will come primarily from Table 4.2.

Once all of the primary comparison factors have been computed for each
alternative route, the route selection process can proceed, However, before
the primary factors are evaluated and compared for the purpose of route
selection, several secondary factors will be computed to illustrate the

process.
4.2 Estimation of Secondary Route Comparison Factors

Worksheets 7 and 10 illustrate the use of the arbitrary scaling systems
for the purpose of quantifying the very subjective secondary factors relating

2 As emphasized previously, these

to emergency response and evacuation.
estimates amount to nothing more than approximations which could be useful if
the primary comparison factors for alternative routes are computed to be

essentially the same. Also included in this analysis is the traffic fatality
factor (Worksheet 9 and 12) which is directly dependent on available accident

rates and therefore less judgmental in nature than other secondary factors.

Worksheet 7 evaluates the emergency response and evacuation factors for
Route A. Completion of this worksheet is similar to the economic risk

worksheet. The land areas (in square miles) for the categories shown are

2 Worksheets 8 and 11 illustrate a method for considering special
facilities in the route selection process.


B-1

APPENDIX B

DERIVATION OF RELEASE CONSEQUENCE ESTIMATE

Release Consequences

In this analysis, the estimation of the consequence of an accidental
release of radioactive material is based upon a linear relationship between
dose and health effects. The health effects estimated in this analysis are
latent cancer fatalities due to short duration exposure to airborne
radionuclides. A reasonable estimate of health effects can be made by
determining the inhalation dose received over the duration of the release
(A.L, Franklin, 1980). Estimates of the inhalation dose can be made by
applying a standard atmospheric dispersion model to various atmospheric
conditions and radioactive material release rates (D.B. Turner, 1970).
Because this routing decision analysis is concerned with identifying a route
preference, exact determination of the health effects is not necessary. This
allows the methodology to be generalized somewhat. It will not be necessary
to identify the specific material being shipped and which organs are most
sensitive to that material. Also the conversion of dose to health effect will
not be necessary since the same material will be shipped over each route and
no physical differences are expected in the populations along the pathway.
With these simplifying assumptions, exact calculation of health effects can be
reduced to calculating the dose to the general public. The dose to the
general public will be directly related to the quantity of material inhaled.
The quantity of material that can be inhaled by a group of individuals will
primarily depend upon their orientation with respect to the release site and
wind direction. Figure B.1 shows several possible orientations for

individuals near a release of radioactive material.

The isopleths, shown in Figure B.1, are lines of constant atmospheric
concentration. Isopleth 1 identifies a line of higher concentration than
isopleths 2 or 3. Isopleth 3 is a lower concentration than isopleth 2 and may
represent the lower limit of exposure consideration. Past isopleth 3 the

material may be considered as totally dispersed (below hazardous


c-3
TABLE C-3

Economic Consequence Multipliers

Land Use Types Q - 5 Mile Band 5 - 10 Mile Band

Farmland 0.002 0.0002
Residential
Single-Family 0.1 0.04
Multi-Family 2.0 0.2
Commercial 0.2 0.01
Parks 0.03 0.02
Public Areas 0.5 0.05

Renée ~— ‘This renee ‘the simplified: eRpEees ion:

ERS [CQveignted Cokals of Land use Eyp:
| of Land Gse typeseny)) = (segment lenecu) | x (nun
accidents/segment).



Q

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Research and
Special Programs
Administration

August 1992

DOT/RSPA/HMS/92-02

Guidelines for Selecting
Preferred Highway Routes
for Highway Route Controlled
Quantity Shipments of
Radioactive Materials





-26-

factor of 11.6 (which is generated from .05 x 7 + .03 x 10 + .90 x 12 + .02 x
6).

It should be emphasized that the parameter ranking system presented in
Table 3.2-4 is intended only as a starting point for any particular route
selection case. Of necessity, the scaling system is arbitrary in nature. It
is expected that the scales and ranking of the land development types may need

to be adjusted to best describe local conditions.

TABLE 3.2-4

Sample Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System

Land Use
Hazardous Emergency
Equipment Material Manpower Response Weight
Response Time Availability Training Availability Factor
Land Use Type
Rural 3 3 3 3 12
‘Suburban 1 3 3 3 10
Urban 2 2 2 1 7
Conmercial/
Industrial 2 1 1 2 6

3.2.5 Evacuation Comparison Factor

Public exposure to radiation during a transportation accident is not
likely to result in immediate fatalities because the radiation dose received
by any individual would be relatively low. Public dose can be further
reduced, however, through evacuation of persons in the affected areas. A
method for considering evacuation in route selection is summarized below.

Further details are presented in Appendix D.

Factors affecting the promptness of an evacuation include the type of
area to be evacuated (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.); means of egress;
level of pre-accident planning; effectiveness of implementing these plans by
responsible authorities; and the nature of the threat. Radioactivity is not
detectable by human senses. Large amounts of manpower may be required to
communicate the need for evacuation in the absence of an apparent threat.
Communication is more difficult in areas of low population density and results
in longer evacuation times. The most common means of evacuation is the

private automobile. Routes away from the accident site are required for its


WORKSHEETS FOR APPLYING ROUTING GUIDELINES

Route Identification Chart

Normal Radiation Exposure Comparison Factor

Public Health Risk Comparison Factor

Economic Risk Comparison Factor

Route Specific Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System
Route Specific Evacuation Parameter Scaling System
Emergency Response and Evacuation Comparison Factors
Route-Specific Special Facility Scaling System

Special Facilities Comparison Factor

Traffic Fatalities/Injuries Comparison Factor

Route Comparison Worksheet


D-2

to evacuate. Much higher refusal rates were observed for situations where the
threat was not apparent. Radioactivity is not detectable by human senses,
hence evacuations to avoid exposure may be met with resistance without

adequate communication from officials.

Persons who refuse to evacuate should be encouraged to take measures to
improve the protection afforded by their homes. Studies of toxic gas
infiltration for typical homes in the Netherlands (Directorate-General of
Labour, Netherlands) indicate that concentrations inside are about 1/3 of
those outside for 0.5 hours following gas contact with the house. When

makeshift seals were installed, this time was extended to 2.5 hours.

Data from Hans and Sell was used in a study of chlorine risks (Andrews
et al., 1980) to predict evacuation times as a function of population
density. Descriptions of evacuations for nine transportation accidents were

used to develop the following relationship:
log (evacuation time in hours) = -0.16 log (persons/km?) + 0.94
Rural areas averaging 50 persons/km® are predicted by this relationship to

require 5 hours for evacuation. Evacuation times are reduced to 3 hours for

urban areas with population densities of 1000 persons/km?.


-8-

consistent methods for evaluating these factors be developed. It is also
expected that some of the secondary factors identified above may not be
important in all applications. These factors may be deleted from the analysis

when appropriate.

A brief discussion of each of the route comparison factors follow.

PRIMARY RISK FACTORS

. Normal radiation exposure. Shipping packages containing
radioactive materials emit radiation during transport. Sufficient

shielding must be contained in the package to reduce this
radiation to safe levels as specified in DOT regulations. These
levels still result in exposure of people along the route to small
amounts of radiation. Although these levels of radiation are not
expected to adversely affect the exposed population, it is still
prudent to minimize the exposure. Exposure could vary
significantly among available routes and therefore is one impact

to consider for route selection.

. Public health risks from accidents. Highway route controlled

quantity shipments contain amounts of radioactive materials that
are potentially harmful to the public if released. For this
reason, these materials may only be transported in shipping
packages designed to isolate the materials from the public, even
in severe transportation accidents. It is theoretically possible,
however, that a truck carrying one of these packages could be
involved in an accident that creates forces beyond the package
design standards. Principal differences affecting public health
risk from one route to another are: (1) the frequency of severe
transportation accidents, and (2) the number of people that could

be affected by a release of radioactive material in an accident.

. Economic risk from accidents. A very severe transportation

accident could also result in contamination of nearby property.
If contamination exceeds safe levels, it would have to be removed

or otherwise reduced to safe levels before that property could be


-50-

I

WORKSHEET _6 ROUTE _B_ SHEET _1_ of _2_

WORKSHEET FOR ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR
(0-5 Mile Band)

Segment _1_ Segment ___
Weighted Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight! Total Area Weight’ Total
Farmland 2900 x 0.002 = 5.8 x 0.002 =
Single Family
Residential 120 x 0.10 = 12.0 x 0.10 =
Multi-Family
Residential 10 x 2.0 = 20.0 x 2.0 =
Commercial 120 x 0.20 = 24.0 x 0.20 =
Parks 20 x 0.03 = 0.6 x 0.03
Public Areas 30 x 0.50 = 15.0 x 0.50 =
WEIGHTED TOTAL = 77.4 WEIGHTED TOTAL =
Segment Segment
Weighted Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight" Total Area Weight" Total
Farmland x 0.002 = x 0.002 =
Single Family
Residential x 0.10 = x 0.10 =
Multi-Family
Residential x 2.0 = x 2.0 =
Commercial x 0.20 = x 0.20 =
Parks x 0.03 = x 0.03 =
Public Areas x 0.50 = x 0.50 =
WEIGHTED TOTAL = WEIGHTED TOTAL =
Economic Risk calculations
Econ. Seg.
0-5 Mile 5-10 Mile Segment Conseq. Econ. Prob. Econ.
Segment Wt. Tot. Wt, Tot. Length Factor (Ac. Rate) Risk
1 (21.4 + 5.0)
2 ¢ + )
3 ( + )
4 ¢ + )

1 Based on Economic Consequence Measure Weight Table (Table 3.2-3)


ROUTE __ SHEET ___ of __

WORKSHEET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE and EVACUATION
COMPARISON FACTORS (Area in 0 - 5 Mile Band

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALCULATIONS

Route Weighted
Land Use Type Segl Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight’ Total

Rural + +. + = x =
Suburban? + +. + - x =
Urban? + + + = x -
Commercial/ + +. + = x =
Industrial
(Total)
Comparison Factor =

EVACUATION CALCULATIONS

Route. Weighted
Land Use Type Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight? Total

Rural + +, + = x =
Suburban + +, + x =
Urban + +, + = x =
Commercial/ + +. + = x =
Industrial
(Total)
Comparison Factor =

1 Based on Sample Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-4)
2 Includes Parks and Public Areas

3 Based on Sample Evacuation Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-5)


B-3

concentrations). Four individuals, A, B, C, and D, are presented in

Figure B.1. Individual A is standing directly downwind from the release and
will receive an inhalation dose proportional to the airborne concentration of
radioactive material at that point. Individual B is also standing directly
downwind but will receive a smaller dose than A because his distance from the
release location is greater. This allows the material to disperse more before
reaching B. Individual C is closer to the release location than B but will
receive a dose similar to B because he is not standing directly downwind.
Finally, individual D is closer to the release location than any of the other
individuals but will receive essentially no exposure because the isopleths
converge on the release location. This person is not standing in the

dispersion pattern.

Figure B.2 demonstrates that the determination of inhalation dose is
highly dependent upon the wind direction and the distance from the release
location. To apply this dispersion pattern to a general population along a
transportation pathway, the position dependent concentrations need to be
combined with the number of persons at each position. This was done by
dividing the isopleths into a grid pattern. The average airborne
concentration in each cell is multiplied by the area of the cell to yield a
two-dimensional exposure parameter. This parameter is summed along the
crosswind direction of the isopleths to produce an exposure parameter that is
a function of downwind distance alone. Possible wind direction orientations
with respect to the pathway are accounted for by repeating this process for 16
evenly spaced wind directions. Each direction is considered to be equally
probable. These 16 calculations are then combined to yield a
probabilistically weighted parameter that is proportional to the anticipated
inhalation dose at any point along the transportation route. This curve is

shown in Figure B.3.

The data in Figure B.3 have been normalized to show the fraction of the
total inhalation dose received by the public as a function of distance from
the pathway. The data on the curve is cumulative along the downwind distance
so that eventually, as x increases, 100% of the inhalation dose is accounted
for. The curve stops at 10 miles and 0% of the total dose lies beyond this

distance.


-32-

4. SAMPLE CASE

A sample case has been constructed to demonstrate the analysis presented
in these guidelines. Two hypothetical routes have been assumed between points
x and y, as shown in Figure 4.1. The routes are represented in the figures as
light and heavy solid lines. A corridor 10 miles to either side of each route
is shown by dashed lines. Areas common to both routes inside the 10-mile
bands exist near the ends of each route. Analysis of the impacts in these
areas will not contribute to the differentiation between routes unless

substantial differences exist in accident rates for the two routes at their

end points.

In this sample case, Route A is an Interstate highway 490 miles long.
Route B is a two-lane U.S. highway with a total length of 320 miles. Because
Route A is an Interstate highway, it would be a preferred route under the DOT
routing requirements. In this sample case, the analysis is undertaken because
the shorter length and lower population along Route B may result in lower

overall impacts from radioactive material shipments.

For this sample case, a number of secondary route selection factors will
be analyzed in addition to the three primary factors. This will illustrate
the analysis of these factors and their use in the route selection process.

The factors analyzed in the sample case include:

. Normal radiation exposure

. Public health risk

. Economic risk

. Emergency response

. Evacuation

. Special facilities along routes
° Traffic fatalities

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 present a summary of data used to describe the two
routes considered in the analysis. Route A is divided into four segments to

provide better accuracy by accounting for differences in accident statistics.


-44-

WORKSHEET _1_ ROUTE _A_ SHEET _2_ of _2_

WORKSHEET FOR NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARTSON FACTOR

D = (PL/v)*C, + (LT/v?)*C, + (LT? v3) *C, + L/v

Segment 4 (0-5 Mile Band)

P = 15/sq. mi. = (15,000/1,000) c, = 6.8 x 10%
L = 100 mi. Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes = 40 ft.
v = 50 mph Cy (Table 3.2-1) = 1.1 x 103
T = 1250 veh. / hr. = (30,000/24) Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. = 211 ft.
C, (Table 3.2-1) = 1.3 x 10°
D= 2.07
Segment ___ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P= c, = 6.8 x 10°
L= Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
v= C, (Table 3,2-1) =
T= Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =
Cs (Table 3.2-1) =
D=
Segment __ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P= C, = 6.8 x 105
L = Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
v= Cy (Table 3.2-1) =
T= Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =
C, (Table 3.2-1) =
D=

ROUTE TOTAL = 11.01



WORKSHEET _5_

-49-

ROUTE _B_

SHEET _1_ of _1

WORKSHEET FOR PUBLIC HEALTH RISK COMPARISON FACTOR

Segment Release Consequences

Segment __
1
2
3

_—_4 _

(O - 5 Mile Band)

Health Risk Calculations

Segment

(5 - 10 Mile Band)

Pop. Count Multiplier Total Pop. Count Multiplier Total
28 x .75 = _21_ 7 x -25 = 1.75
x 75 = x 25 =
x 75 = _ x 25 = __
x 75 = x 25 = __
Pub. Hlth. Seg.
0-5 Mile 10 Mile Segment Conseq. Acc. Prob. Health
Total Total Length Factor (Ac. Rate) Risk
(21 + 1.75) +
( + d+
(_ + d+



-45-

WORKSHEET 2 ROUTE A SHEET 1 of 1

WORKSHEET FOR PUBLIC HEALTH RISK COMPARISON FACTOR

Segment Release Consequences

(0 - 5 Mile Band) (5 - 10 Mile Band)

Segment Pop.Count Multiplier Total Pop. Count Multiplier Total

1 40 x 75 = _30 _30_ x .25 = 7.5

2 180 x75 = _135 50 x .25 = _12,5_

3 _360_ x .75 = _270 70 x .25 = _17.5.

4 —1s_ x .75 = _11.25 —iL x .25 0 = 2.75
Health Risk Calculations

Pub. Hith. Seg.
0-5 Mile 5-10 Mile Segment Conseq. Acc. Prob. Health

Segment Total Total Length Factor c, Rate Risk

1 (30 + 7.5)

2 (135 + 12.5)

3 (270 + 17.5)

—_4_ (11.25 + 2.75)



B-6

The boundary, dividing the 10 mi. exposure distance into two bands, is
chosen to be at 5 mi. This distance is relatively small yet represents the
75% point on the exposure curve. The band boundaries and their incremental
contributions to public dose are given in Table B.1. The incremental
contributions can be used as multipliers to produce a figure of merit that
will be proportional to the anticipated public health consequence of an

accidental release of radioactive material.

TABLE B.1

Health Consequence Band Multipliers

Population Band Health Consequences
Boundary Band Multipliers
0-5 mi 0.75
5 - 10 mi 0.25

To apply this consequence evaluation method, the number of persons within each
of the population bands in the table is determined from maps, census data, or
other available information. Counting by thousands or tens of thousands will
not affect the results provided each of the routes under consideration is
counted in the same way. (Note that the bands cover the indicated distance on
either side of the highway, i.e., the first band is 10 miles wide, centered on
the highway.) In many applications of the route selection methodology, the
number of people in each band can be determined by adding the population of
cities, towns, and villages that lie within the band. The population in rural
areas would be neglected, but this is not expected to significantly affect the
results of the route comparison. This method will usually be appropriate when
relatively long routes are being compared that pass through or near a number
of population centers of various sizes. More detailed data, using census
districts, for example, may be required when comparing shorter routes. This

type of analysis would generally be associated with comparisons of through

routes with possible bypass routes for a major city.



E-4

radiation exposure) resulting from selecting one route over another can be
determined by calculating the percentage difference between the specific

normalized route comparison factors (e.g., normal radiation dose).


-39-

determined for a band extending five miles on either side of the route. (Only
the 0-5 mile band is considered for these factors.) When a route consists of
more than one segment, the areas are summed across the segments for each land
development type. This is necessary because the weighting factors need to be
applied to the entire route at one time. The fraction of land area along the
route for each development type is then multiplied by the appropriate
weighting factor and these products are summed to arrive at the route’s
comparison factor. For this sample case, weighting factors for emergency
response and evacuation for both Routes A and B are drawn from Tables 3.2-4
and 3.2-5, respectively. For Route A, the emergency response comparison
factor is 10.77 and the evacuation comparison factor is 12.83. These values

are entered in the appropriate location on the route comparison worksheet.

Worksheet 8 shows the calculations for the special facilities comparison
factor for Route A. This comparison factor is determined by counting the
number of various special facilities along the 0-5 mile band of Route A, and
then multiplying them by their corresponding facility weight factors. (For
this sample case, the facility weight factors for all types of facilities
along Routes A and B were obtained from Table 3.2-6.) The sum of these
products is the route's special facilities comparison factor. For Route A,
this factor is 882. This value is then entered in the appropriate location on

the route comparison worksheet, Worksheet 13.

Calculations for the traffic fatalities comparison factor for Route A
are presented in worksheet 9. The accident unit of measure chosen for this
analysis is truck accidents resulting in a fatality (truck accident fatalities
per million truck miles). The emphasis in this comparison factor is on deaths
or injuries that could result from a normal truck accident with no release of
cargo. For this reason, any truck accident that results in death (either the
driver or persons in other vehicles) was chosen as a comparative measure. If
a route is broken into segments, each segment will have a separate accident
rate. The mileage in each of the segments is multiplied by the accident rate
to yield a segment comparison factor. The segment comparison factors are
summed to arrive at the route comparison factor. This value is entered onto

the route selection worksheet in the appropriate location.


Q

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Research and
Special Programs
Administration

DOT/RSPA/HMS/92-02

Guidelines for Selecting
Preferred Highway Routes
for Highway Route Controlled
Quantity Shipments of
Radioactive Materials*

*NOTE: This publication was formerly titled "Guidelines for
Selecting Preferred Highway Routes for Large Quantity
Shipments of Radioactive Materials (DOT/RSPA/MTB-81/5),
dated June 1981. This printing corrects errors found in the
previous versions of this document. The corrections are
highlighted.

August 1992




A-4
Substituting these values into equation (2), and assuming that only one

route segment is being analyzed,>

ID, = 448 PL
v

Converting P, L, and v to more convenient units for use in the route selection

process,
ID, = 1.7 x 10% PL
v

where P has units of people/mi?, L has units of miles, and v is given in mph.

The constant 1.7 x 104 has the units of mR @ mile?/hr.

The dose to travelers in the opposite direction to the radioactive

material shipment (ID,) is given by the expression:

ID, = keLeNnetT i,(y) G3)
Te
where k= dose conversion factor (mR @ m@/hr)
L= route length (m)
N= average number people/vehicle
T= traffic count (vehicle/hr)

v= truck velocity (m/hr)

Iy(y) = an integral that estimates the dose to a moving target from

a moving source.

I,(y) is a function of the distance (y) from the source to the target.
This distance corresponds to the distance from the center of one lane of
traffic to the center of the lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.

I,(y) is plotted as a function of y in Figure A-2.

The dose factor, k, in this equation (3) is identical to the dose factor
used in ID, and is again assigned a value of 28 mR @ m/hr’ A representative

value of N can also be used, because this tends to not vary significantly

3 This assumption will be adopted for the remainder of the derivation, in
the interest of simplicity and clarity.


WORKSHEET _4_

ROUTE _B_

-48-

SHEET 1 of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARISON FACTOR

D = (PL/v)*C, + (LT/v2)*C, + (LT@/v3)*C, + L/v

Segment _1_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P = 9/sq. mi. = (28,000/3,200)
L = 320 mi.
v = 40 mph

T = 1042 veh. / hr. = (25,000/24)

D= 8.27
Segment ___ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P=
Le=
ve
T=
D=
Segment ___ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P=
Le=
v=
T=
D=

C, = 6.8 x 105

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes = 50 ft.
C, (Table 3.2-1) = 9.4 x 10%

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. = 203 ft.

Cz (Table 3.2-1) = 1.3 x 105

C, = 6.8 x 105

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
C, (Table 3.2-1) =

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =

Cz (Table 3.2-1) =

C, = 6.8 x 105

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
Cc, (Table 3.2-1) =

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =

Cs (Table 3.2-1) =

ROUTE TOTAL = 8.27


PRIMARY FACTORS

Normal Radiation
Exposure

Public Health
Risks

Economic Risks
Route Totals

(FIGURE OF MERIT)

SECONDARY FACTORS
Emergency Response
Evacuation

Special Facilities

Traffic Fatal./Inj.

E-17

SHEET of
ROUTE COMPARISON WORKSHEETS
(page 2 of 2)
NORMALIZED FACTOR VALUES
A Route _B Route _C Route _D

Route



In many applications of the route selection methodology, the number of

people in each band can be determined by adding the population of cities,
counties, towns, and villages that lie within the band. This method will
usually be appropriate when relatively long routes are being compared that
pass through or near a number of population centers of various sizes. More
detailed data, using census districts, for example, may be required when
comparing shorter routes. This type of analysis would generally be associated
with comparisons of Interstate through routes with alternative bypass routes

for a major city.

If a closer evaluation of large urban areas is believed necessary, a

ie Health consequence measure can be

simplified method of computing the
used. Because distances are much more limited than in the case of a Statewide
analysis, the 10-mile band is not practical. In some cases, alternative
routes through and around urban areas may not even be 10-20 miles apart.
Therefore, a 5-mile band (on either side of highway) is more practical. When
using the 5-mile band for examining urban alternative routes, the health
consequence band multiplier can be considered 1.0 since all individuals in

that proximity may be considered as receiving the same dose of radioactivity

health

3.2.3 Economic Risks from Accidents Comparison Factor

An accidental release of radioactive materials could also have economic
impacts. The economic risk is determined by considering the release frequency
(probability of an accident) and the release consequences similar to the
determination of public health risk. The release frequency measure will be
the same as used for public health risk, i.e., the accident rate along the

prospective route. It is important to apply the same accident rate (hazardous


-18-

the distance between vehicles in a traffic lane. This average vehicle
separation distance can be estimated by dividing the average vehicle speed by
the average hourly traffic count and converting the results from miles to feet
for entry into Table 3.2-1. The average population density, P, can be
obtained from the total population in a 0-5 mile band along the highway. This
band is identified and explained in the next section, Dividing the total
population by the area of the band (10xL) will provide a reasonable estimate

of the population density for use in the normal exposure calculations.
3.2.2 Public Health Risks from Accidents Comparison Factor

A release of radioactive material. during transportation accidents will
occur only when the package carrying the material is subjected to accident
forces that exceed the package design standards. Packages containing highway
route controlled quantity radioactive material are required by DOT and NRC
regulations to be designed to retain their contents in severe transportation
accidents. Accidents that could cause release of material from these packages
are therefore expected to occur very infrequently. A number of studies have
found that public risks are quite low from accidental releases of radioactive
materials from the type of packages used for highway route controlled quantity
shipments (BNWL-1846, BNWL-1996, PNL-2030, PNL-211, PNL-2588, NUREG-0170).

Because accidental releases of radioactive material could occur,
however, it is appropriate to include consideration of the public health risks
from these accidents in the selection of preferred routes. Risks from
accidental release of radioactive material depend on two factors: 1) the
frequency of accidents that could result in release and 2) the consequence
from such accidents in terms of the number of people that could be exposed to
radioactive materials if a release occurs. Both of these factors are expected
to vary among available routes for radioactive material shipments. Suggested
methods for determining these accident release frequencies and the measure of
the consequences are discussed below. The overall accident risk factor for
each route is determined by multiplying the accident release frequency by the
accident release consequence measure. The method presented here yields a
result that will indicate differences in risks among the routes being
analyzed. The numerical results are not equal to the actual risk, because of

the simplifying assumptions that are possible in a comparative measure.


F-3

MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES

BEIR Report. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation. Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of

Ionizing Radiation, National Academy of Science, 1972.

Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970.

WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/104). Reactor Safety Study - An Assessment of the
Accident Risks of the U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1975.

PNL-2133. R.E. Rhoads, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting
Gasoline by Truck. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington,

November 1978.

PNL-3308. C.A. Geffen, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting
Propane by Truck and Train. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

Washington, September 1980.

PNL-3376. W.B. Andrews, et al. An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting
Liquid Chlorine by Rail. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington,

March 1980.

Experiments with Chlorine. Directorate-General of Labour of the Ministry of
Social Affairs, P.O. Box 69, Voorburg, the Netherlands, 1975.

EPA-520. J.M. Hans and T.C. Sell. Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 1974.

FHWA-IP-80-20. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. E.J. Barber and

L.K. Hildebrand. Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for

Transporting Hazardous Materials - Implementation Package. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1980.

‘#U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1992 601 -81660024


-30-

3.2.7 Traffic Fatalities and Injuries Comparison Factor

Trucks carrying shipments of these radioactive materials can be expected
to be involved in traffic accidents at about the same rate as other large
trucks carrying hazardous materials. Because the packages of highway route
controlled quantity radioactive materials are designed to survive very severe
accidents, the consequences of most accidents involving trucks carrying these
materials will be the same as any other accident involving a large truck.
Vehicles involved in the accident will be damaged and vehicle occupants may be
injured or killed. This factor accounts for accident impacts which are not

related to the radiological nature of the cargo.

Involvement of these vehicles in fatal and injury accidents also could
produce negative public reactions. The public may tend to associate the
fatalities and injuries with the cargo, even though this association is not
accurate. There may also be a tendency on the part of local officials to
order precautionary evacuations in accidents that result in fatalities or
injuries. This could be especially true in cases where these officials do not
have radiation detection equipment readily available to monitor the release of
radioactive materials. These factors provide an incentive to send radioactive

material shipments by routes with low fatal and injury accident rates.

If it is desired to include this factor in the route selection process,
numerical estimates for route comparison purposes should be straightforward.
Data on the frequency of fatal and injury accidents is usually available from
State and local agencies with highway safety responsibilities. Rates
expressed in fatalities and injuries per vehicle mile are ‘the easiest to apply
in the analyses. If these rates are not readily available, they can usually
be calculated from the number of fatalities and injuries that have occurred on
a given route and the traffic counts for the route. Rates for accidents
involving hazardous materials trucks would provide the most accurate
estimates. If the rates are not available, rates for truck transportation in
general or for all vehicle traffic can be used. Multiplying the rate per mile
by the route length will provide a reasonable comparative measure for this

factor.


-54-

WORKSHEET _9_ ROUTE _A_ SHEET _1 of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR TRAFFIC FATALITIES/INJURIES COMPARISON FACTOR
Accident Unit of Measure: Truck Accident Fatalities (Mil Tr Mi.)

Segment Accident Segment
Segment Rate Length Total
1 0.01 x 290 = 2.9
2 0.01 x 70 - 0.7.
3 0.02 x 30 = 0.6
4 0.007 x 100 = 0.7
(Total)

Comparison Factor = 4.9


B-4&

Wind Direction
—_—>

Isopleth For
Lower Limit Of
y Exposure Consideration

be

\<- e,= cy AXAY

>

LLC

Transportation E(x) = x 4

Pathway

Figure B.2
Determination of the Exposure Parameter, E(x), as a
Function of Downward Distance


-24-

the accident site generally become contaminated to a higher level, requiring

pe a fans

the amount of area within each band

occupied by each of the six land use types is determined from maps, local land
use planning information or other available data. The area may be measured in

square miles, square kilometers, acres or any other convenient unit. The

measures must be consistent over the entire route, for all land use types and

between alternative routes.

Pistons

This process will become clear in section 4 when

applied to a sample case.

SECONDARY ROUTE COMPARISON FACTORS

If alternative routes cannot be clearly distinguished by consideration
of the Primary Route Comparison Factors, State officials may want to consider
other factors which have the potential of mitigating the consequences of a
release of radioactive materials. Most of these secondary route comparison
factors are much more difficult to quantify and estimate. The following
methodology provides a useful approach for considering these factors. The
process involves the establishment of arbitrary scaling systems which are
totally dependent upon the judgement of the State officials performing the

analysis.
3.2.4 Emergency Response Comparison Factor
Timely action by emergency response units has the potential for reducing

the magnitude and extent of.a radioactive material release in a transportation

accident. The primary factors influencing the effectiveness of emergency


E-10

Route Specific Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System

Personnel Land Use
Hazardous Emergency
Equipment Material Manpower Response Weight
Land Use Type Response Time Availability Training Avaitabitity Factor
Rural
‘Suburban
Urban
Commercials

Industrial


-5-

2. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

Implementation of the routing regulations for highway route controlled
quantity shipments of radioactive materials necessitates a methodology for
selecting preferred routes. This methodology is needed to provide a basis for
State agencies to select from alternative routes available within the State.
A number of factors can be important in comparing available routes and the
methodology is needed to provide a systematic treatment of these factors. It
may also be that some comparison factors important in choosing preferred
routes may vary according to the circumstances in the State in which they are
being applied. The methodology therefore needs to provide the flexibility to
treat these varied situations, as well as provide for consistent application
from State to State. Finally, the methodology needs to be straightforward to
apply and should not require expertise beyond that normally found in State

regulatory agencies.

The general methodology developed to meet these needs is based on a
common decision-making approach consisting of six basic steps. These steps

and their application to a routing analysis are outlined below:

Steps Routing Analysis
1. Define objective - Determine highway route that
minimizes impacts
2. Identify courses of action to - Identify alternative highway
meet the objective routes available in
consultation with affected
jurisdictions
3. Identify factors that could - Develop list of route
affect the objective comparison factors
4. Evaluate the factors in - Evaluate route comparison
relation to the objective for factors for each alternative
each course of action highway route
5. Select the alternative that - Select route that best
best satisfies the objective minimizes impacts based on
evaluation of route comparison
factors
6. Document each step in the - Document entire routing
analysis analysis to serve as the basis

for the routing decision


B-5

Cumulative
Function

of Inhalation
Dose

Distance From Route X (mi)

Figure B3
Dose Contribution


D-1

APPENDIX D

DERIVATION OF EVACUATION COMPARISON FACTOR

Public health consequences from accidents involving radioactive
materials are due to mechanical forces generated by the accident and exposures
of populations to ionizing radiation if a release of material occurs.

Accident forces are the only effects with potential for immediate public
health impacts. Public exposure to radiation during a transportation accident
would not result in immediate fatalities due to the relatively low individual
doses that would be produced. Public dose can be further reduced, moreover,

through evacuation of persons in the affected areas.

Factors contributing to an effective evacuation include the type of area
to be evacuated (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.), means of egress,
implementation of plans by authorities and the nature of the threat. Little
research has been done to measure the effect of these parameters on evacuation
results. Evacuation results can be measured in terms of the number of persons
who choose not to evacuate, time required to evacuate, and impacts on the
evacuating population. A study by EPA (Hans and Sell, 1974) was used in this

project to gain insight on evacuation mechanisms.

Hans and Sell gathered all available historic data on evacuations. This
included information on planned evacuations for civil defense, natural
disasters, special facility evacuations and precautionary evacuations in
response to potential threats. Several conclusions were developed on public
behavior during an evacuation. First, the frequency of death or injury is
approximated by motor vehicle accident statistics because 99% of all
evacuations were made using motor vehicles. Second, a state of panic does not
exist. Low speeds and orderly movement of vehicles were observed. Third,
evacuation planning is essential to identify potential problems. Fourth,
special facilities such as schools, hospitals, and penal institutions require
specific plans for their evacuation. Fifth, evacuation times vary with
population density. Areas of lower density required longer to evacuate.

Finally, even when faced with a threat, an average of 6% of the people refuse


-1-

1. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Transportation has established specific highway
routing requirements for certain radioactive materials. These requirements
are codified in 49 CFR 173.22 and 177.825 and are extensively discussed in the
January 19, 1981, Federal Register (Docket HM-164, 46 FR 5298). In addition
to the requirement that carriers follow "preferred routes," which will be
discussed further, the carrier must prepare and file route plans, provide
specialized driver training related to radioactive materials and emergency
response capabilities, and comply with security requirements of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (or equivalent requirements as approved by DOT) when

appropriate.

"Preferred routes" are defined in the rules as any route designated by a
"State routing agency" (see definition in 49 CFR Sec. 171.8) and any
Interstate System highway for which an alternative highway has not been
designated by a State agency. In recognition of the many site-specific
factors involved in selecting the safest available highway routes, DOT is
strongly encouraging the States to examine their own highway network and
designate "preferred routes" to supplement the Federally-prescribed Interstate
highway system, or provide suitable alternatives to portions of the Interstate
system. The purpose of this document is to provide State officials with a set
of guidelines which will identify the important factors involved in a routing
analysis, and assist in their selection of routes which result in the lowest
public risks from the transportation of highway route controlled quantity

radioactive materials.

The routing requirements apply to highway shippers and carriers of
“highway route controlled quantity" packages of radioactive materials.
"Highway route controlled quantity" is a term specifically defined in the
Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-179) in Section
173.403(1). Whether or not a package contains a highway route controlled
quantity depends upon the radionuclide in the package, the activity of the
radionuclide as measured by the number of curies present, and the form of the

radionuclide (dispersible or not). These packages can be identified by the


C-2

number of structures per acre. These assumptions were based upon the
descriptions of the development types given in the Reactor Safety Studies
document. The results of this conversion are given in Table C.2. To make the
economic consequences comparison factor a conveniently sized number, the
values were further modified to represent millions of dollars per hundred

square miles.

TABLE C-2

Decontamination Costs ($K/mi2)

Land Use Type DF=20 DF=2
Farmland 150 15
Residential

Single-Family 11,210 3,600
Multi-Family 205,000 22,000

Commercial 20,000 1,300
Parks 3,200 1,900
Public Areas 50,000 4,700

To apply the economic consequence methodology to the routing decision
analysis, the decontamination factors need to be interpreted into a measurable
distance from the pathway. The "DF equals 20" region will lie closer to the
pathway than the "DF equals 2" region. This is due to higher deposition rates
of airborne radioactive material, resulting from higher airborne
concentrations, near the release location. The boundaries for these regions
have been selected to coincide with the bands for the public health
consequence evaluation. A decontamination factor of 20 will be assumed to be
required to return land in the 0-5 mile band to normal use after an accident.
A decontamination factor of 2 will be assumed for the 5-10 mile band. It is
assumed that no decontamination will be required past 10 miles from the
shipping route. With these last simplifying assumptions, the economic

consequence multipliers take on the value given in Table C.3.


E-8
ROUTE __ SHEET __. of

WORKSHEET FOR PUBLIC HEALTH RISK COMPARISON FACTOR

Segment Release Consequences
(0 - 5 Mile Band) (5 - 10 Mile Band)

Segment Pop. Count Multiplier Total Pop. Count Multiplier Total

1 x .75 = x .25 =
2 x 75 = _ x .25 = _
3 x .75 - _ x .25 =~ _
4 x .75 = x .25 =

Health Risk Calculations

Pub. Hlth. Seg.
0-5 Mile 5-10 Mile Segment Conseq. Acc. Prob. Health
Segment Total Total Length Factor (Ac. Rate) Risk
1 ( + ) + Sere - x _
2 (CL + ) - x =
3 ¢ + ) os x =
4 ¢ + ) +: = x =

ROUTE TOTAL =


-56-

WORKSHEET _11 ROUTE _B_ SHEET _1_ of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES COMPARISON FACTOR

Number of Weight Factor

Special Facility Facilities (Table 3.2-6) Total
Children’s Hospital x =
Hospital 3 x 1 = 33
Prison x -
Nursing Home xX =

School 6 x 9 = 54
Church 9 x 5 = 45
Stadium x =
Shopping Center 1 x 5 = 5
Theater xX =
Factory x =

(Total)

i
+
Jus
N

Comparison Factor


~52-

WORKSHEET _7_ ROUTE _A_ SHEET _1_ of _1
WORKSHEET FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE and EVACUATION
COMPARISON FACTORS (Area in 0 - 5 Mile Band)

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALCULATIONS

Route Weighted
Land Use Type Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight’ Total
Rural 2300 + S00 + _0 + 820 = 3620 0.74 x _12 = _8.88
Suburban? 103 + 102 + _65 + _53 = _323 0.07_ x _10 = _0.70
Urban? 97 + _58 + _85 + _27 = _267 0.05 x __7 = _0.35
Commercial/ 400 + _40 +150 +100 = _690 0.14 x 6 = 0.84
Industrial

(Total)

Comparison Factor = 10.77

EVACUATION CALCULATIONS

Route Weighted
Land Use Type Seg 1 Seg 2 Seg 3 Seg 4 Total Fraction Weight? Total
Rural 2300 + 500 + _0 + 820 = 3620 0.74 x 11 = 8.14
Suburban? 103 + 102 + 65 + _53 = _323 0.07 _ x _13 = 0.91
Urban? 97 + 58 + _85 + _27 = _267 0.05 x 28 = 1.40
Commercial/ 400 + _40 + 150 +100 = _690 0.14 x _17 = _2.38
Industrial

(Total)

Comparison Factor = 12.83

Based on Sample Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-4)
2 Includes Parks and Public Areas

3 Based on Sample Evacuation Parameter Scaling System (Table 3.2-5)


-14-

around a large urban area. The State, in cooperation with the city, may want
to identify a non-Interstate by-pass route as an alternative to the Interstate

route through the city.
3.1 Identifying Alternative Routes

It is expected that identification of available alternative routes will
be straightforward, because the agency applying these guidelines will have
detailed knowledge of the highway systems in the State. Information on routes
currently being used in the State for radioactive material shipments may be
useful in identifying alternatives for consideration. Interstates connecting
the points being considered may be included in the analysis in cases where it
is desired to remove the preferred status from a segment of the Interstate
system. Such a removal can only be done if the comparative analysis shows
that there is an alternative route that results in lower overall impacts from
highway route controlled quantity shipments than the available Interstate

route,

Routes selected for consideration as alternatives for designation as
preferred routes should meet minimum requirements for heavy truck use. Fuel
and repair stops should be available and the routes should be maintained for
year-round use in the same manner as other major highways in the State.
Preferred routes in one State must also match up at the borders with preferred
routes in other States. This will require coordination with State agencies

responsible for route selection in neighboring States.

In some peculiar situations, States may want to include consideration of
an existing ferry route which crosses a body of water separating available
highway segments. This could be done for the purpose of comparing a
combination highway-ferry route with an all highway route in cases where a
body of water may limit the number of available highway routes to be

considered.
3.2 Evaluation of Comparison Factors

This section contains suggested procedures and non-route specific data

needed to evaluate the comparison factors for the routes being.considered. As


-43-

WORKSHEET _1_ ROUTE _A_ SHEET _1_ of _2_

WORKSHEET FOR NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARISON FACTOR

D = (PL/v)*C, + (LT/v#)#C, + (LT#/v3)*C, + L/v

Segment _1 (0 - 5 Mile Band)

P = 14/sq. mi. = (40,000/2,900) C, = 6.8 x 10°5

L = 290 mi. Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes = 50 ft.
v= 45 mph Cy (Table 3.2-1) = 9.4 x 10°

T = 1250 veh. / hr. = (30,000/24) Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. = 190 ft.

Cz (Table 3.2-1) = 1,3 x 10%

D = 6.68

Segment _2_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)

P = 257/sq. mi. = (180,000/700) C, - 6.8 x 10%

L= 70 mi. Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes = 40 ft.
v = 50 mph C, (Table 3,2-1) = 1.1 x 103

T = 2083 veh. / hr. = (50,000/24) Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. = 127 ft.

C3 (Table 3.2-1) = 1.5 x 10%

D = 1.53

Segment _3_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)

P = 1200/sq. mi. = (360,000/300) C, = 6.8 x 10%

L = 30 mi. Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes = 50 ft.
v = 50 mph C, (Table 3.2-1) = 9.4 x 10%

T = 3333 veh. / hr. = (80,000/24) Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. = 79 ft.

Cz (Table 3.2-1) = 1.5 x 10%

D=0.73

ROUTE TOTAL =


WORKSHEET _3

Land Use Type

Farmland

Single Family
Residential

Multi-Family
Residential

Commercial
Parks

Public Areas

Land Use Type

Farmland

Single Family
Residential

Multi-Family
Residential

Commercial
Parks

Public Areas

-47-

ROUTE _A SHEET _2_ of _2

WORKSHEET FOR ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR
(5 - 10 Mile Band)

Segment _1_ Segment _2_
Weighted Weighted

Area Weight! Total Area Weight! Total
2400 x .0002 = _0.48 560 x .0002 = 0.11
150 x 0.04 = _6.0 60 x 0.04 = 2.4
80 x 0.20 = 16.0 30 x _0.20 = 6.0
160 x 0.01 = _1.6 30 x 0.01 = 0.3
50 x 0.02 = _1.0 10 x _0.02 = 0.2
60 x 0.05 = _3.0 10 x 0.05 = 0.5
WEIGHTED TOTAL = 28.1 WEIGHTED TOTAL = _9.5_

Segment _3_ Segment _4_
Weighted Weighted

Area Weight! Total Area Weight! Total
20 x 0002 = (e) 860 x .0002 = 0.17
60 x 0.04 = _2.4 40 x _0.04 = 1.6
30 x 0.20 = _6.0 20 x _0.20 = 4.0
100 x 0.01 = _1.0 40x _0.0l = 0.4
30 x 0.02 = _0.6 20 x _0.02 = 0.4
60 x 0.05 = _3.0 20x 0.05 = 1.0
WEIGHTED TOTAL = 13.0 WEIGHTED TOTAL = 7.6

1 Based on Economic Consequence Measure Weight Table (Table 3.2-3)


c-1

APPENDIX C

DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR

If radioactive materials are released in a severe transportation
accident, property in the vicinity of the accident could become contaminated
with radioactive materials. When contamination exceeds safe levels, it would
have to be removed or otherwise reduced to safe levels before the property
could be returned to normal use. The expenses associated with decontamination
are expected to be the primary economic impact of a transportation accident

that releases radioactive materials.

Decontamination costs vary with the type of property being
decontaminated (Reactor Safety Study, 1975 (i.e., Wash 1400, 1975 Report)).
The decontamination costs for several land development types are given in
Table C.1. Costs are presented for two levels of decontamination that are
assumed to be required following a release. A decontamination factor (DF) is
defined as the starting contamination level divided by the reduced

contamination level following decontamination activities.

TABLE C.1

Average Land Use Decontamination Costs

Land Use Type DF=20 DF=2
Farmland $230/acre $23/acre
Single Family Dwelling $9,000/dwelling $5 ,000/dwelling
Multiple Family Dwelling $280/capita $30/capita
Commercial $315/capita $21/capita
Parks $38/capita $30/capita
Public Areas $420/capita $40/capita

The values shown in Table C.1 are chosen to be representative of the ranges of
the values listed in the Reactor Safety Studies document. Representative
values were used rather than the ranges given to make the routing evaluation
methodology easier to apply. To further simplify the methodology application,
the values were converted to cost per square mile. This required making

several assumptions concerning the number of persons per structure and the


-9-

returned to normal use. The cost of these decontamination
operations varies considerably for the kinds of property that
could become contaminated. The relative amount of each kind of
property along each route provides a way of determining potential
differences in economic consequences from accidents. The
frequency of severe transportation accidents which could cause

contamination must also be considered.

SECONDARY FACTORS

. Emergency response capabilities. If a severe transportation
accident results in radioactive material being released from the
shipping package, actions by emergency response personnel can
mitigate the potential consequences from the release. The
effectiveness of these measures is generally dependent on many
considerations, such as the availability of response equipment,
the expertise of response personnel or the time required for
emergency response units to reach the accident scene. These

factors could vary significantly among available routes.

. Evacuation. One method of mitigating the consequences of a

radioactive material release is to evacuate the people that could
potentially be exposed to the material. The time and effort
required to evacuate a segment of the population may vary for the
available routes. Evacuation is often ordered as a precautionary
measure if an accident occurs, even if a release has not been
confirmed. Evacuation has economic impacts which may also be

considered in comparing available routes.

. Location of special facilities. Some private and public
facilities along transportation routes contain populations
requiring special consideration when analyzing the potential
effects of accidental releases of radioactive materials or
exposure during normal transport. These facilities contain
populations that are either large (such as stadiums), may be more

sensitive to radiation (such as schools) or are difficult to


-51-

WORKSHEET _6_ ROUTE _B_ SHEET _2. of _2_

WORKSHEET FOR ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR
(5 - 10 Mile Band)

Segment _1_ Segment ___
Weighted Weighted

Land Use Type Area Weight! Total Area Weight! Total
Farmland 3070 x .0002 = 0.6 x 0002 =
Single Family 50 x 0.04 = 2.0 x 0.04 =
Residential
Multi-Family 4 x _0.20 = _0.8 x 0.20 =
Residential
Commercial 50 x 0.01 = _0.5 x 0.01 =
Parks 6 x 0.02 = _0.1 x 0.02 =
Public Areas 20 x _0.05 = 1.0 x 0.05 =

WEIGHTED TOTAL = 5.0 WEIGHTED TOTAL =

Segment ___ Segment ___
Weighted Weighted

Land Use Type Area Weight" Total Area Weight! Total
Farmland x 0002 = x .0002 =
Single Family x 0.04 = x 0.04 =
Residential
Multi-Family x 0.20 = x 0.20 =
Residential
Commercial x 0.0L = x 0.01 =
Parks x 0.02 = x 0.02 =
Public Areas x 0.05 = x 0.05 =

WEIGHTED TOTAL

WEIGHTED TOTAL

Based on Economic Consequence Measure Weight Table (Table 3.2-3)


iv

These guidelines were developed in part under contract with DOT by
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, a research organization which has
conducted numerous risk studies in radioactive material transportation. The
Department also received helpful information in developing the guidelines
through pilot tests conducted with the help of State officials in Oregon and
California. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided some useful
guidance in their review of the draft guidelines. The most recent revisions
to the guide were made with assistance from ICF Incorporated under contract

with DOT.

This guide is organized in four main sections. Section 1 contains a

description of the history, regulatory framework and philosophy underpinning
these guidelines. The route selection methodology is reviewed in Section 2,
while Section 3 describes the application of the methodology and presents
technical data needed to evaluate the safety factors that form the basis for
the route selection process. The use of these safety factors to select
preferred routes is also discussed. A sample case illustrating the
application of the methodology is presented in Section 4. Worksheets to
facilitate application of the method and documentation of the analysis are
contained in Appendix E. A bibliography of general reference materials on

radioactive material transportation is also provided as an appendix.


A-10
TABLE A-1
Conversion Factors for Use in Estimating

Routine Radiation Exposure Factor

Vehicle Separation
Distance = v (ft)

Distance Between
Opposing Traffic

Lanes (ft) Co, T C.
10 4.9 x 103 10 1.8 x 10°5
20 2.5 x 103 50 1.6 x 105
30 1.5 x 103 100 1.3 x 10°
40 1.1 x 103 200 1.3 x 105
50 9.4 x 10% 300 1.0 x 10°
60 7.5 x 10% 400 8.6 x 10°
70 6.5 x 10% 500 7.3 x 10°
80 5.7 x 10% 600 6.0 x 10°6
90 4.9 x 104 700 5.0 x 10°
100 4.1 x 10% 800 4.0 x 10°
150 2.6 x 10% 900 3.3 x 10°6
200 1.9 x 10% 1000 3.0 x 10°
300 1.0 x 10% 1200 1.3 x 10°6


-23-

material truck driver fatality, general truck driver fatality, etc.) that is
used for public health risk.

The release consequence measure for economic risk is based on the type
of property along the prospective route. Property in the vicinity of an
accident could become contaminated with radioactive materials. When
contamination exceeds safe levels, it would have to be removed or otherwise
reduced to safe levels before the property could be returned to normal use.
The expenses associated with decontamination are expected to be the primary
economic consequence of a transportation accident that releases radioactive

materials.

Decontamination costs vary with the type of property being
decontaminated (WASH 1400 1975). The relative amounts of various property
types along a transportation route can be used along with information on the
relative decontamination costs for each property type to develop a comparative
economic consequence measure for alternative radioactive material
transportation routes. A suggested method for performing this analysis is

summarized in Table 3.2-3. The consequence multipliers are derived in

Appendix C.
TABLE 3.2-3
Economic Consequence Measure
Land Use Type 0-5 mi Band 5-10 mi Band

Rural! 0.002 0.0002
Residential

Single-Family 0.10 0.04

Multi-Family 2.0 0.20
Commercial/Industrial 0.20 0.01
Parks 0.03 0.02
Public Areas 0.50 0.05

The multipliers presented in the table are proportional to the anticipated
decontamination cost for each land use type. The bands of land along the

route are used in analyzing the economic risk factor because areas closer to

1 Rural land designation may be applied to farm land and vacant land
also.


A-8

the cab by DOT regulations is 2 mR/hr. Typical values are much less than

this.) Equation (5) then becomes:

ID, =

<8

where L is in miles and v in mph.
The dose to people at truck stops (ID,) is given by the expression

ID, = (Ry + 9.1 x 10% k,) @ integer ¢ L_ (6)
4 4av

where R, is the dose at 10 ft from the package of radioactive material, k, is
another dose conversion factor and L and v are defined as before. R, is used
to estimate the dose to service station attendants, who are assumed to be in
the vicinity of the truck for about 15 minutes at each stop. A representative
value for R, of 2 mR/hr was used for this analysis. R, is a function of the
shipment characteristics, and not of the route used. The dose conversion
factor, k,, is used in estimating the dose to other people at the truck stop.
This would include, for example, people eating in a restaurant at the stop.
The value of k, used in this analysis was 18 mR m@/hr. The integer expression
estimates the number of stops made by the truck in traveling a route of length
L. It is assumed that refueling and crew comfort stops are made every four
hours. To simplify the expression for the route selection process, the
integer part of the equation has been ignored. This has the effect of
discounting fractional stops, but should not significantly affect the route

comparison process. Equation (6) then becomes:

where L is in miles and v in mph.
Substituting these expressions for ID, through ID, into equation (1).

D=1.7 x 104 PL + 2.4 x 10°? LT I, (y) + 3.0 x 105 LY? F(s) + 2.5L
v v v v

Because D needs to be only proportional to the normal radiation exposure on

each route, constants can be factored out to simplify the expression.


A-1

APPENDIX A

DERIVATION OF NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARISON FACTOR

The method for determining the normal radiation exposure factor for use
in the route selection process was developed from a transportation radiation
exposure model used in a previous Battelle study (Greenborg, et. al., 1980) of
the routine radiation exposure from spent fuel shipments. In this model,
radiation exposure from truck shipments is divided into six population groups.

These groups include:

. Persons residing along the shipping route

. Travelers in the opposite direction

. Travelers going in the same direction as the shipment

. The truck crew

. People at truck stops

. Personnel handling the shipments at origin and destination.

For purposes of comparing routes, the latter category can be neglected,
because it does not change with the shipping route used. The dose comparison

factor for each route then becomes:

dose to persons dose to passengers dose to passengers dose to _—dose to people at
D= along route + invehicles + imvehicles + truck crew + truck stops a
traveling in traveling in same
opposite direction direction

Doses to each of these groups will be referred to as ID, through ID,,

respectively for the remainder of the discussion.

The dose to persons residing along the transport route (ID,) is given by

the following equation:

n 4PL,kI,(d)
ID, =2 (2)

i=l Vv.


-16-

PRIMARY ROUTE COMPARISON FACTORS
3.2.1 Normal Radiation Exposure Comparison Factor

Shipping packages containing radioactive materials emit low levels of
radiation during normal transportation. The amount of radiation emitted
depends on the kind and amount of material being carried. DOT regulations
require that the shipping packages containing radioactive materials have
sufficient radiation shielding to reduce the levels of radiation emitted to
safe levels. Persons residing along a transportation route, passengers in
other vehicles, people at truck stops, and the truck drivers will all receive
small doses of radiation from these shipments. These doses are not expected
to adversely affect these people. However, federal regulatory agencies such
as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
DOT have adopted policies based on a position that it is prudent to avoid
unnecessary radiation exposure and to eliminate or minimize exposure when
practicable. Routes that minimize normal radiation exposure would therefore

be preferred if all other comparison factors were equal.

The method for evaluating normal exposure from highway route controlled
quantity shipments of radioactive material is summarized below. The method is
derived in Appendix A. In general, the radiation dose (D) from normal highway
transport of radioactive materials along the entire route or a route segment

is given by the following equation (Greenborg 1980):

dose to persons dose to passengers dose to dose to people

D = residing along + in other vehicles + truck crew + at truck stops

route (D,) (D2) (D3) (D,)

The exposure is a function of parameters that depend on characteristics
of the particular shipment and parameters that vary with the route being used.
Because the dose factor is being used for route comparison purposes only, the
shipment-specific factors can be factored out, or representative values used.
The normal radiation exposure factor then reduces to the following equation

(calculations in Appendix A):

D = (PL/v)*C, + (LT/v*)*C, + (LT?/v3)*C; + L/v


KEY

> 200,000
20,000 - 200,000
< 20,000

Interstate
US Highway
10 Mile Band

End Points of
Route Segments,
see Table 4.1

(Not to Scale)

Figure 4.1
Routes Used in Sample Case Application
of Route Selection Methodology


-53-

WORKSHEET _8_ ROUTE _A_ SHEET _1_ of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES COMPARISON FACTOR

Number of Weight Factor

Special Facility Facilities (Table 3.2-6) Total
Children's Hospital xX =

Hospital 18 x 11 - 198
Prison x =

Nursing Home x =

School 36 x 9 = 324
Church 54 x 5 = 270
Stadium x -

Shopping Center 18 x 5 = 90
Theater x -

Factory x =

(Total)

W
loo
Ico
In

Comparison Factor


-19-

Accident Release Frequencies

Exact determination of the frequency of radioactive material releases
from these shipments would require detailed information on the forces that
could be produced in transportation accidents and on the response of the
shipping packages to these forces. Development of this information would
require extensive data analysis and detailed engineering evaluations. This
level of effort is beyond that necessary for routing decisions (State routing
agencies are, however, encouraged to conduct such a detailed evaluation if it
seems appropriate). NUREG-0170, a document mentioned in the Introduction and
listed in the bibliography, provides an example of a more sophisticated method
of computing both release frequencies and consequences. Because routing
decisions are based on comparative assessments of the available routes, the
analysis can be greatly simplified. It is sufficient to obtain an accident
frequency measure for each route. Accident frequencies that inherently
include a measure of accident severity are preferred for the comparative

analysis.

Accident rate information and damage estimates based on observations of
actual accidents are generally available from State and local agencies with
responsibilities for highway safety. It is suggested that the comparative
assessments be based on this data. Accident rates in units of accidents per
vehicle mile are most convenient to use in the assessment. If they are not
available directly, they can usually be developed from accident frequency and
traffic volume information. The accident rate is multiplied by the route
length to obtain the release frequency measure for use in the comparative

analysis.

It is believed that rates for accidents that result in the death of the
driver of a truck carrying hazardous materials provide the best overall
indicator of accident frequency for use in the comparative assessment.

Suggested accident frequency measures in decreasing order of desirability

include:
. Hazardous Material Truck Driver Fatality Rate
. General Truck Driver Fatality Rate

. Hazardous Material Truck Fatal Accident Rate


E-6

S3USuaTUS
noy, sed
a3ey JUsplooy

”
£
2
L
puSuB.
TH-AL TIW Jed syzeed jo june; yunes STIW O1-S STW S-0 Seuey Bursoddo paeds qyBue7 S2UIOg-pug weupes
83ey Juaplooy = “ON JeNUUY = Yona. = D144. = gun0g “dog = yung “dog uaamzag aBeseny —-JuauiBas juawBas,
Aye Avie aoue3sig

:aTuq queptooy

TaVHD NOTLIVOTATINAGI ainow

tHONVLSIG TVLOL

‘NOILVOIAIINACI FLAOd


-40-

Worksheets 10, 11 and 12 evaluate these same secondary factors for

Route B.
4.3 Route Selection in the Sample Case

Worksheet 13 is a summary sheet for the data developed during the sample
case analysis. It is clear from the sample case that Route B would be the
preferred route since all three primary factors favor Route B. However, in
many situations such a clear-cut choice may not be evident. In most cases it
will be necessary to combine the factor values for each primary factor into
one representative risk value. This can be accomplished by "normalizing" the
factor values for each alternative route and then adding the normalized values

to obtain one "figure of merit."

The third column of numbers on Worksheet 13 shows the total of factor
values for each primary comparison factor. For example, the normal radiation
exposure factor was computed to be 11.01 for Route A and 8.27 for Route B.
This adds up to 19.28 as shown in the third colum. The "normalized value"
for Route A is simply the factor value for Route A divided by the total factor
value for all routes (11.01/19.28 = 0.57). The normalized value for Route B
for radiation exposure is 0.43 (the sum of the normalized values must be 1.0).
The same process is followed for the public health risk and economic risk
factors and the results are shown in the normalized value column for each

route.

The reason for normalizing the factor values is that the factor values
are disparate numbers, computed using different units of measure, and
therefore cannot be combined into a final figure which has any meaning. For
example, the factor values for public health accident risks are very small
numbers because of the units of measure. Compare these numbers with the high
units of measure for the normal exposure factor. Normalizing the factor
values produces unitless fractions of the same magnitude. These fractions
also retain the same relative magnitude for each comparison factor between the

two routes.

The normalized values for each route are then added to obtain the figure

of merit.



E-1

APPENDIX E

WORKSHEETS AND WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS

The following instructions guide the user through the steps necessary to
fill in the data correctly on the route selection worksheets that are
illustrated in Chapter 4, the Sample Problem. If proper data collection is
done, then most of the work to use the worksheets correctly entails only that
one fill in the blanks correctly. Almost all of the calculations necessary
are on the worksheet to assist the user in coming up with Route Comparison
Factors. Blank, reproducible worksheets are included with this Appendix to

illustrate the instructions, and so that they can be used for real cases.

Route Choice and Segmentation - The first step, prior to the use of any
worksheet, is to define the alternative routes for analysis, and then break
them into segments that will make applying the route selection methodology
meaningful. Segments many times bound areas with differing land use types or
population densities. Frequently, segments are made to encompass a road type,
like an Interstate, or a change of road type, from county road to state road

to take advantage of changes in data collection frequency and accuracy.

Data - The first worksheet is the Route Identification Chart. Using

county, state, and any other municipality land use maps, census data, and
traffic count and accident rate data, this worksheet should be filled in
first. The data should be filled in on a segment basis, using the segments
decided on in the alternative route selection process. Distances between
opposing lanes should be in feet; lengths of segments should be in miles. The
number of special facilities for each route segment should be for the 0-5 mile
Band only. Once all data has been filled in, the Route Comparison Factors can

be calculated.

Normal Radiation Exposure Comparison Factor - First, the values of
segment length L, average speed v, and distance between opposing lanes can be
filled in for each route segment. The population density, P, is calculated

using the population count for the 0-5 mile band and dividing by the area (10


WORKSHEET _13_

PRIMARY FACTORS

-58-

ROUTE COMPARISONS

Normal Radiation
Exposure

an

SHEET _1_ of _1_

TOTAL

FACTOR VALUES FACTOR VALUES NORMALIZED VALUES
Rte.A Rte.B Rte.A Rte.B
11.01 8.27 19.28 0.57 0.43

SECONDARY FACTORS

Emergency Response
Evacuation
Special Facilities

Traffic Fatalities
and Injuries

TOTAL

FACTOR VALUES FACTOR VALUES NORMALIZED VALUES
Rte.A Rte.B Rte.A Rte.B
10.77 11.60 22.37 0.48 0.52

12.83 11.64 24.47 0.52 0.48

882s: 137 1019 0.87 0.13

4.8 6.4 11.3 0.43 0.57



E-2

x length of the segment). The hourly traffic count, T, is calculated by
dividing the daily traffic count by 24. The vehicle separation distance is
calculated for each segment by first converting v from mph to fph (by
multiplying v by 5280 ft.), then dividing by the hourly traffic count, T. C,
and C; values come from Table 3.2-1. Using the expression on the worksheet
for D, route segment D's are calculated. The Normal Radiation Exposure

Comparison Factor is then the sum of all the segment D values.

Public Health Risk Comparison Factor - First, populations within the
0-5 mile band and the 5-10 mile band can be filled in, using the actual count,

or another convenient count, provided that all routes are treated equally.
That is, all population counts can be divided by 1000 to make calculations
easier. The result will not be affected as long as all populations for all
segments and routes are treated the same. Then these population figures are
Phe:

multiplied by the public health multipliers for the bands.
past : timed) and eh ided by ENG segment Je ; ;
a These consequences are multiplied by

the Accident Probability to arrive at Segment Health Risks. The sum of all of

the segment Health Risks gives the Health Risk Comparison Factor.

Accident Probability can be simply the accident rate obtained in data
collection, or it can be converted into other meaningful probability numbers.
For instance, if the accident rate for route segments is given as truck
accidents per million truck miles, multiplying the accidents per million truck
miles by the segment length and by one thousand leaves an Accident Probability
of accident rates per 1000 shipments. Any measure of probability, expressed
in a relationship to the accident rate can be used, provided that every route

and route segment is figured the same way.

Economic Risk Comparison Factor - The areas for each land use type in

each of the two area bands (0-5 mile band and 5-10 mile band) are entered on
the worksheet. These areas are then multiplied by the economic consequence
measures derived in Appendix C. These
This number is then multiplied by its respective accident probability just

ive at a measur

used in the calculation of the Public Health Risk Comparison Factor. The


-27-

use. Large public and private facilities pose special problems in an
evacuation. Examples include schools, hospitals, prisons, nursing homes,
churches, stadiums, and theaters. Detailed plans for the evacuation of
special facilities are essential to the minimization of injuries and

confusion.

The evaluation of evacuation capabilities can be simplified by using a
relative ranking scheme similar to emergency response. Arbitrary scales are
established to rank route alternatives relative to each other for each of the
important evacuation parameters. An example of one approach is shown in Table
3.2-5. Parameters selected for use in this evaluation include the number of
people affected; the availability and capacity of egress routes; the
availability of evacuation coordination personnel; the time required for
effective evacuation; and the economic and other impacts of the evacuation on

the affected population.

As Table 3.2-5 illustrates, evacuation parameters are evaluated for each
major land use type along the routes being compared. The values of the
ranking factor for each parameter are added to provide a single factor for
each land use type. An overall comparison factor for each route can be
developed by determining the fraction of land area by development type within
5 miles of the route, multiplying these fractions by the respective factor
totals in Table 3.2-5, and summing the results. For example, a route that
passes 90 square miles of rural area, 4 square miles of suburban development,
1 square mile of urban area, 5 square miles of commercial development and
industrial area would have an overall evacuation factor of 11.6 (which is
generated by: .9 x 11+ .04 x 13 + .01 x 28 + .05 x 17).

Again, it should be emphasized that the parameter ranking system
presented in Table 3.2-5 requires subjective judgement and is intended only as
a starting point for any particular route selection case. It is expected that
the parameter ranking scales and the relative ranking of the land use types on
these scales may need to be adjusted to fit local conditions for the routes

being analyzed.


-3-

It is also important to emphasize that the methodology presented in this
document is not a true risk analysis in that actual risk figures are not
developed. As will be explained later in more detail, risk factors developed
under these guidelines are for comparative purposes only. Risk index figures
are developed in order to compare routes and identify the highway which is
likely to minimize the transportation impact associated with these materials.
The comparative figures are computed by simplifying certain factors that are
not route-specific. Nevertheless, the risk factors are representative of the
actual risk involved and are believed to be valid for the purpose of route

selection.

Various studies have been conducted to assess the actual risk involved
in the transportation of radioactive materials. Perhaps the most
comprehensive study was completed for the NRC by Sandia National Laboratories
entitled “Final Environmental Statement on The Transportation of Radioactive
Materials by Air and Other Modes" (NUREG-0170). In order to estimate risk to
the U.S. population, this study required the development of sophisticated
computer models to account for such factors as the health effects resulting
from both external and internal radiation sources; the atmospheric dispersion
of materials released from a damaged package; the severity of an accident
involving nuclear shipments and the resulting damage to a package; and the
fraction of material released from the damaged package. This type of analysis
is far beyond the capacity and resources available to a State routing agency
and is beyond the scope and purpose of these routing guidelines. NUREG-0170
and other risk studies have concluded that the risk from the transportation of
radioactive materials is quite low by any measure of comparison. The intent
of the Department's routing regulations and the guidelines presented here is
to minimize the public risk even further by providing for the use of the

safest available highway routes.

In performing a routing analysis, States are required to solicit and
consider input from other jurisdictions which are likely to be impacted by a
routing decision. This will necessitate coordination with local government
authorities along the prospective routes of travel and with other adjacent
State Authorities to obtain relevant information and to ensure continuity of

designated routes, should an alternative route be selected.


-42-

distribution and density, accident statistics, and other site-specific factors
that vary from one routing situation to another. Therefore, relative weights
have not been assigned to the three primary factors in these guidelines. It
is believed that the route identified as having the lowest figure of merit, as
calculated in the manner described in this document, will be the route most
likely to minimize impacts from the transportation of highway route controlled

quantity radioactive materials.


-2-

shipping paper, which must accompany each shipment, and the warning placard on
the vehicle. The shipping paper must contain the term "highway route
controlled quantity" in association with the material description required for
any shipment of radioactive material. A highway route controlled quantity
shipment can also be uniquely identified by the square white background which
is required for the standard radioactive material vehicle placard. Although
many different radioactive materials could be packaged such that they would
meet the definition of highway route controlled quantity, in practice, most of
these shipments can be identified as either irradiated reactor fuel (spent
fuel) from a nuclear power plant, certain large source medical shipments such
as Cobalt-60 for teletherapy uses, or possibly some other large source

industrial isotopes.

It is important to emphasize that the guidelines presented in this
document do not represent the only method of conducting an adequate routing
analysis. Under the regulatory scheme established by the routing
requirements, the States are extended considerable flexibility in carrying out

the routing function, as exemplified by the following definition found in Sec.

171.8:

"State-designated route" means a preferred route selected in
accordance with U.S. DOT "Guidelines for Selecting Preferred
Highway Routes for Highway Route Controlled Quantity Shipments of
Radioactive Materials" or an equivalent routing analysis which
adequately considers overall risk to the public (emphasis added).

Designation must have been preceded by substantive consultation
with affected local jurisdictions and with any other affected
States to ensure consideration of all impacts and continuity of

designated routes.

The important point is that the State adequately considers public risk
to all those who may be affected by radioactive material transportation. The
Department believes that these guidelines identify the important risk factors
to be considered and provide one methodology of estimating these risk factors
for the purpose of identifying the lowest risk route. States may be able to
develop a better method of risk assessment or identify other important risk

factors relating to peculiar situations.


-36-

persons inside the 5-mile band and dividing that number by the area inside the
band. The area is 10 times the segment length (L) since the band lies on both
sides of the pathway. For example, for segment 1, from Table 4.1 we obtain
the population count inside the 0-5 mile band (i.e., 40,000) and divide by
2900 (290 mi. x 10) to obtain a population density of 14 people per square

mile.

Also needed for this calculation is the traffic density (T) in number of
vehicles per hour. The number of vehicles per hour is found by dividing the
daily vehicle count from Table 4.1 by 24 hours. For Route A, the daily
vehicle counts for the four segments are 30,000, 50,000, 80,000 and 30,000
respectively. These yield vehicle per hour values of 1250, 2083, 3333 and
1250 vehicles per hour. The average speeds (v) for each of the segments can

also be found in Table 4.1

As stated previously, Cc, is a constant (see derivation in Appendix A)
which is always 6.8 x 1075 (0.000068) in the route comparison analysis.
Values for the variables C, and C; come from Table 3.2-1. C, is dependent
upon the distance between opposing traffic lanes. For Route A, these
distances are 50, 40, 40 and 50 feet for the four segments. This results in
the values for C, shown on the worksheet. The value for C; is dependent upon
the separation distance between vehicles. The separation distance is
calculated by dividing the average vehicle speed by the traffic density (T).
Since the traffic density is expressed in vehicles per hour, the average speed
must be converted to feet per hour before the division. For Route A, the
results of these calculations are 190, 127, 79, and 211 as shown on
Worksheet 1. The values for C, can then be obtained from Table 3.2-1 and are

then entered on the worksheet.

Each segment is then evaluated using the equation shown on the worksheet
and the values are summed at the bottom of the worksheet to yield the route
total. This total is the comparison factor value for the route and is entered

in the appropriate location on the route comparison worksheet (Worksheet 13).

Worksheet 2 shows the calculations for determining public health risk
from accidental releases of radioactive material for Route A. The segment

risk factors are determined by tabulating the population count inside each of


-15-

discussed previously, the three primary factors are always included in the
analysis. Additional secondary parameters may be included for completeness of
the evaluation process or to establish a preference among routes with little
variation in the primary parameters. It may also be necessary to identify
other secondary factors. It is expected that the agency designated to carry
out the route selection process will determine which secondary factors are
appropriate for the analysis being performed. The reasons for selecting these
factors would be included in the documentation of the route selection process.
If other factors are added to the route comparison study, methods for
evaluating these factors will need to be developed. This should also be

included in the documentation of the selection process.

The numerical results from the computations are only valid for use in
comparison with similar numbers for alternative routes. In most cases the
number used in the comparison will be proportional to the actual value of the
factor being evaluated. For example, the routing exposure factor is
proportional to the actual radiation exposure that would result from a
shipment of radioactive material traveling along that route, but is not
numerically equal to the actual exposure. Because the numerical value
obtained from the evaluation factor will only be used in comparison with
similar values for other routes, it has been simplified for calculation
purposes by factoring out constants and variables that do not change from one

route to another.

Each of the primary comparison factors in the analysis must be evaluated
for each of the routes being considered. Methods for combining these factors
to select the route that minimizes the impacts from highway route controlled
quantity shipments of radioactive material are discussed in the next section.
Many of the comparison factors can utilize data (such as vehicle speeds,
accident rates or population densities) that are averaged over the entire
route being considered. In some cases, it may be advantageous to break a
route down into segments and evaluate one or more factors for these segments,
rather than for the whole route at once. Route segmentation results in a more
valid and detailed analysis when there is wide divergence in accident rates or

population along different portions of a prospective route.


-10-

evacuate (such as hospitals). The number and type of such

facilities provide a basis for comparing alternative routes.

. Traffic fatalities and injuries. Trucks carrying radioactive

materials can be expected to be involved in traffic accidents,
just like other vehicles. Only very severe accidents have the
potential to result in release of radioactive materials. Many
accidents will result in injuries and fatalities, however, as with
any heavy truck accident. Other things being equal, routes that

minimize these accidents would be preferred.
2.2 Route Selection

Previous risk studies on radioactive material transportation have shown
that the most important impacts are associated with normal radiation exposure,
radiation exposure from releases of radioactive materials in transportation
accidents and economic impacts from property cleanup following such accidents.
These "primary" route comparison factors will form the basis for route
selection decisions. The remaining or "secondary" factors could be used if no
clear-cut choice emerges from evaluation of the primary factors or if unusual
conditions exist in the State that increase the importance of one or more of

the secondary factors.

In many applications of the route selection methodology, one of the
primary factors may favor one route, while others favor a different route. A
method is needed to combine the various route selection parameters to arrive
at an overall figure of merit for each route. In the approach used in this
guidebook, the values of the primary comparison factors are converted to
unitless fractions and then summed for each route to arrive at the overall
figure of merit. Because the comparison factors provide a basis for
identifying potentially adverse impacts, the route with the lowest figure of
merit would be selected as the preferred route. This process will be

demonstrated in the sample case presented in Section 4.

In some cases there may be very little difference between the figures of
merit computed for alternative routes. In other words, the level of

radiological risk to public health and property may be essentially the same


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section
FOREWORD
1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

2.1 Route Comparison Factors
2.2 Route Selection .
3. METHODOLOGY APPLICATION .
3.1 Identifying Alternative Routes
3.2 Evaluation of Comparison Factors

PRIMARY ROUTE COMPARISON FACTORS

2.1 Normal Radiation Exposure . .
.2.2 Public Health Risks from Accidents .
2.3 Economic Risks from Accidents

www

SECONDARY ROUTE COMPARISON FACTORS

Emergency Response .
Evacuation . . .
Special Facilities .
Traffic Fatalities and Injuries

wWwwww
NNNN
NOUS

3.3. Selection of Preferred Route
4. SAMPLE CASE .
4.1 Calculation of Primary Route Comparison Factors .
4.2 Estimation of Secondary Route Comparison Factors
4.3 Route Selection in the Sample Case .
APPENDIX A - DERIVATION OF NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARISON FACTOR
APPENDIX B - DERIVATION OF RELEASE CONSEQUENCE ESTIMATE
APPENDIX C - DERIVATION OF ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR
APPENDIX D - DERIVATION OF EVACUATION COMPARISON FACTOR
APPENDIX E - WORKSHEETS AND WORKSHEET INSTRUCTIONS

APPENDIX F - BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

12

14
14

16


10.0

2.0 —

a 7 T 1 t ;
50 100 500 1000 1500

Vehicle Separation Distance, s (in feet)

Figure A-3. F(s) as a function of s


-20-

. General Truck Fatal Accident Rate

. General Truck Accident Rate

. General Vehicle Traffic Fatality Rate
. General Vehicle Traffic Accident Rate
. Accident Rate Predictive Models

Fatalities are used as a measure of accident severity because of data
availability and the implication that damage is sustained by the vehicle.
Narrowing the class of vehicles considered to those most like the shipments of

interest results in more realistic estimates.

The quality of data available should also be considered in selecting an
accident frequency measure for use in the analysis. Development of several
accident rates would permit evaluation of the data quality. A study of
accident frequency information and truck traffic volumes could require the
rejection of very narrowly defined accident rates due to a lack of data in
these categories. An indication of poor data would be equal accident rates
for several of the above classifications. Accident rates, in general, will
increase from the top of the list to the bottom with the exception of the
accident rate predictive model. The predictive models are intended for use
when little data is available locally. One such model is described in a
report entitled "Guidelines for Applying Criteria to Designate Routes for
Transporting Hazardous Materials" (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. 1980).

Accident Release Consequences

The consequences of an accidental release of radioactive material depend
on a large number of factors. Many of these factors would be essentially
identical for two alternative routes. These would include atmospheric
conditions and quantity and type of material transported. Differences between
alternative routes that contribute to a preference of one over another on the
basis of accident consequences result primarily from differing levels of
population and types of property along the routes. Population has therefore
been selected as the comparative measure for release consequences relating to
public health risk. Types of property and land use is the comparative measure
for release consequence relating to economic risk which is considered further

in Section 3.2.3.


-6-

The application of this methodology will be discussed in more detail in
Section 3, First, however, it is appropriate to introduce two key elements of
the routing analysis: (1) identification of the route comparison factors; and

(2) the process of selecting a preferred route based on these factors.

2.1 Route Comparison Factors

The risk from transportation of radioactive materials can be affected by
a number of factors. These factors are predominantly categorized as either
radiological impacts or non-radiological impacts. Additional factors
influencing the risk of radioactive materials transportation include certain
actions which have the potential of mitigating exposure to radioactive

materials.

Radiological impacts are those associated with the accidental release of
radioactive materials during transportation and its effect on the surrounding
population and property. They also include the effects on surrounding
population of low levels of radiation emitted during accident-free

transportation (often called normal exposure).

Non-radiological impacts are those associated with transportation by any
heavy truck and its effect, regardless of the nature of the cargo being
transported, on surrounding population (primarily other motorists) and
property. An example is a truck accident resulting in death, injury or

property damage when there is no release of radioactive material.

Other factors can be important to consider for the purpose of selecting
a highway route. These factors, such as effectiveness of emergency response
activities, evacuation capabilities, and avoidance of certain special
facilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, stadiums) can serve to reduce
radiological consequences, primarily consequences from accidents. These

factors however, become important only after an accident has occurred.

The primary objective of this routing analysis is to determine the route
which will minimize the radiological impacts. It is believed that the
emphasis in route selection should be placed on the risk which is associated

with the radiological nature of the cargo. This approach will result in the


-25-

response are manpower, timing, planning and equipment. Each of these
parameters is location dependent. The time taken to get emergency personnel
to the accident site is important for establishing control of the immediate
area and determining the nature of the hazard. First order response times are
limited by the accident locations and access to the accident site. These

response times can typically be on the order of a few minutes.

Secondary response to accidents includes the mobilization of police to
aid evacuations if needed, contacting specialized technical personnel and
obtaining radiation monitoring and cleanup equipment at the accident site.
These secondary times depend on adequate pre-accident planning, local
equipment availability and distances to be traveled. Minutes to hours are

required for these operations.

Route comparisons can be based on a relative ranking of available
routes. Exact determination of all the parameters that affect emergency
response is therefore not required. If emergency response is to be evaluated
as a secondary route comparison factor, it is suggested that arbitrary scales
be established for each emergency response parameter and each route be ranked
on these scales. An example of such a ranking scale is presented in Table
3.2-4, Evaluation parameters selected for use in this example include the
time required for emergency response personnel to reach potential accident
sites; the availability of specialized equipment such as radiation detection
instruments; the amount of training that local public safety personnel have
received in dealing with hazardous material spills; and the availability of
trained manpower to respond to an incident. The scales assign low numbers to

routes that are most favorable for that parameter.

gency response factor for

For example, a route that passes by 5 square miles of

urban area, 3 square miles of suburban area, 90 square miles of rural area and

2 square miles of industrial area would have an emergency response comparison


E-14
ROUTE _A_

WORKSHEET FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES COMPARISON FACTOR

Number of
Special Facility Facilities Weight Factor Total
Children’s Hospital x =
Hospital x =
Prison xX =
Nursing Home 4 =
School x =
Church x =
Stadium x =
Shopping Center Xx =
Theater x =
Factory x =

ROUTE TOTAL


ROUTE __

E-7

WORKSHEET FOR NORMAL RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPARISON FACTOR

D = (PL/v)*C, + (LT/v?)*C, + (LT#/v3)*C; + L/v

SHEET ___ of

Segment _1_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)

D=
Segment _2_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P=
Le=

v=

D=
Segment _3_ (0 - 5 Mile Band)
P=

L=

C, = 6.8 x 10°

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
, (Table 3.2-1) =

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =

C; (Table 3.2-1) =

Cc, = 6.8 x 10°

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
C, (Table 3.2-1) =

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =

C, (Table 3.2-1) =

Cc, = 6.8 x 10°

Avg. Dist. Opposing Lanes =
C, (Table 3.2-1) =

Avg. Veh. Separation Dist. =

C; (Table 3.2-1) =

ROUTE TOTAL =


-7-

selection of a route that will minimize the total impact associated with
normal exposure and the potential consequences of an accidental release of
radioactive materials, so that mitigating factors such as emergency response
may not be necessary. Consequently, the following are considered to be the

primary route comparison factors:

. Radiation exposure from normal transport

. Public health risk from accidental release of radioactive
materials

. Economic risk from accidental release of radioactive materials

All other factors are considered secondary to the basic goal of
minimizing the radiological risk from transportation. These other factors may
be useful to consider in the route selection process, but only after careful
analysis reveals that alternative routes have essentially the same level of
risk based on the three primary comparison factors. The following are

therefore considered secondary comparison factors:

. Emergency response effectiveness

. Evacuation capabilities

. Location of special facilities such as schools or hospitals
. Traffic fatalities and injuries unrelated to the radioactive

nature of the cargo

Each of these factors is discussed in more detail below. Suggested
methods for evaluation of these factors are described in Section 3.2 of this
report. It is believed that these seven factors represent the most important
elements to consider for the purpose of conducting a comparative risk
assessment to identify preferred routes. Other factors that may be important
in a particular application of the methodology. may be identified by the State
agency responsible for the route selection process. It is important that the

State document the reasons for considering additional factors and that


E-13

Route Specific Special Facility Scaling System

Accident Facility
Dose Response Evaluation Economics Factor
Children's
Hospital
Hospital
Prison

Nursing Home
School

Churches
Stadium
Shopping Center
Theaters

Factory




10.0

I, dd)

10 T 7 Ln a
10 50 100

Distance From Moving Source, d (in feet)

Figure A-1. I,(d) as a function of d


Factoring out 2.5 gives
D=C, PL+C, LT + Cs; LI? +L
v ve wv Vv
where, C, = 6.8 x 10°5 mR @ mile?/hr
C, = 9.6 x 103 I, (y) mR @ people @ mile/(vehicle @ hour)

C; = 1.2 x 10° F(s) mR © people @ mile*/(vehicle? @ hour)

Values for C, and C, as a function of y and s are given in Table A-1.


-12-

3. METHODOLOGY APPLICATION

The methodology described in the previous section will facilitate the
selection of preferred routes for highway route controlled quantity shipments
of radioactive materials. The methodology provides the flexibility needed for
the variety of situations that will be treated under the routing regulations.
It parallels the decision-making process normally followed by a regulatory
agency in making these decisions. It should facilitate participation of the
public, other State agencies and local jurisdictions in the route selection
process and documentation of the decision-making process. Application of the

methodology would follow the basic steps outlined below:

1) Determine routes potentially available for shipping
materials between the points being considered in the

analysis.

2) Evaluate each primary comparison factor for each route,
using the data on the routes being considered and input from
other agencies and local jurisdictions affected by the

decision, as presented in Section 3.2.

3) Apply the route selection approach presented in Section 3.3

to select the "preferred" route.
4) Document the route selection process.

5) Obtain public comment and appropriate reviews or approvals

of other agencies and affected local jurisdictions.

The information needed to perform the analysis may be held by a number
of different State or local agencies. The lead agency for the route selection
process will need to establish liaison with other involved agencies early in
the route selection process. Some basic information needed to evaluate the

primary route comparison factors includes:


E-15
ROUTE ___ SHEET ___ of

WORKSHEET FOR TRAFFIC FATALITIES/INJURIES COMPARISON FACTOR

Accident Unit of Measure:

Segment Accident Segment Segment
Segment Rate Length (L) Total
—1_ X =
—2_ x =
3 x =
4 x =

ROUTE TOTAL =


-17-

where,

D = normal radiation exposure comparison factor

P= average population density along the route or route segment
(people per mi?)

L= length of route or route segment (mi)

v= average speed of vehicles on the route or route segment (mi per
hour)

C= a constant = 6.8 x 105

T= average traffic count on the route (vehicles per hr)

C,= conversion factor determined from Table 3.2-1

C,= conversion factor determined from Table 3.2-1

TABLE 3.2-1

Conversion Factors for Use in Estimating
Normal Radiation Exposure Factor

Distance Between Vehicle Separation
Opposing Traffic Distance = y (ft)
Lanes (ft) Cy T C,

10 4.9 x 103 10 1.8 x 105
20 2.5 x 103 50 1.6 x 105
30 1.5 x 103 100 1.5 x 105
40 1.1 x 10% 200 1.3 x 105
50 9.4 x 104 300 1.0 x 10°
60 7.5 x 10% 400 8.6 x 10°6
70 6.5 x 10% 500 7.3 x 106
80 5.7 x 10% 600 6.0 x 10°
90 4.9 x 104 700 5.0 x 10°6
100 4.1 x 104% 800 4.0 x 10°6
150 2.6 x 10% 900 3.3 x 10°
200 1.9 x 10% 1000 3.0 x 10°
300 1.0 x 10% 1200 1.3 x 106

Conversion factor C, in the equation for normal exposure is a function
of the distance between opposing lanes of traffic on the route. A centerline
to centerline measurement would provide the most accurate estimate of C,. For
a two-lane road, this would reduce to the width of a traffic lane. For a
four-lane road, this measurement would be the distance from the line dividing
the two traffic lanes on one side of the road to the corresponding line for

traffic moving in the other direction. Conversion factor C; is a function of


-46-

WORKSHEET 3 ROUTE A SHEET 1 of 2

WORKSHEET FOR ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR
(0-5 Mile Band)

Segment 1 Segment 2
Weighted Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight" Total Area Weight’ Total
Farmland 2300 x 0.002 = 4.6 500 x .002 = _1.0
Single Family
Residential 40 x 0.10 = 4.0 80 x .10 = 8.0
Multi-Family
Residential 20 x 2.0 = 40.0 20 x 2.0 = 40.0
Commercial 400 x 0.20 = 80.0 40 x 0.20 = _8.0
Parks 40 x 0.03 = 1.2 20 x 0.03 = _0.6
Public Areas 100 x 9.50 = 50.0 40 x 0.50 = 20.0
WEIGHTED TOTAL = 179.8 WEIGHTED TOTAL = 77.6
Segment 3 Segment 4
Weighted Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight" Total Area Weight! Total
Farmland - x .002 = 2 820 x .002 = 1.6
Single Family - x 10. = : 30 x 10 = 3.0
Residential
Multi-Family 80. x 2.0 = 160.0 - x 2.0 = -
Residential
Commercial 150. x 20 = 30.0 100 x 0.20. = 20.0
Parks 20. x 03 = 0.6 30 x 0.03 = _0.9
Public Areas 50_ x 50 = 25.0 20 x 0.50 = 10.0
WEIGHTED TOTAL = 215.6 WEIGHTED TOTAL = 35.5
Economic Risk Calculations
Econ. Seg.
0-5 Mile 5-10 Mile Segment Conseq. Econ. Prob. Econ.
Segment We. Tot. We. Tot Length Factor (Ac. Rate) = Risk
1 (179.8 + 28.1) : 290.
2 (77.6 + 9.5)
3 (215.5 + 13.0)
4 (35.5 + 7.6)

nie

1 Based on Economic Consequence Measure Weight Factor Table (3.2-3).


Land Use Type
Rural
‘Suburban,
Urban

Commercial/
Industrial

E-11

Route Specific Evacuation Parameter Scaling System

Manpower and Land Use
Population Egress Equipment Evacuation Evacuation Evacuation
Density Availability Availability Lime Impacts Weight Factor



-29-

depending on local situations. Only relative rankings are important. Larger
scales could be used to weight some factors more than others. Factors in
Table 3.2-6 were all weighted equally and then summed to obtain the facility

factor.

TABLE 3.2-6

Sample of a Special Facility Scaling System

Accident Facility

Dose Response Evaluation Economics Factor
Children's Hospital 5 5 2 12
Hospital 4 5 2 11
Prison 1 4 2 7
Nursing Home 2 5 1 8
School 5 3 1 9
Churches 2 2 1 5
Stadium 3 3 3 9
Shopping Center 1 1 3 5
Theaters 2 2 1 5
Factory 2 2 5 9

To apply this method, special facilities that could be encountered along
any of the alternative routes are identified. An overall facility factor is
then assigned to each type of facility using the procedure outlined above.

The special facility comparison factor is determined for each route by
counting the number of each type of special facility along the route,
multiplying by the appropriate facility factor, and summing the results. For
example, using the facility factors in Table 3.2-6, a route passing near one
hospital, three churches, two schools, and a shopping center would have a
special facility comparison factor of 49 (which is generated from: 1x 11 + 3
x5+2x9+ 1x5). In general, special facilities would only be considered
if they were within 5 miles of a route. A distance of 5 miles is selected to
be consistent with the emergency response and evacuation factors. The special
facility comparison factor may be most useful when comparing shorter routes,

for example routes through or around a major city.


-13-

. Accident frequencies (accidents/vehicle mile) for each route.
. Traffic counts on each route.

. Average vehicle speed on each route.

. Population distribution along each route.

. Land use data along each route.

In addition, if secondary factors are to be evaluated, information such

as the following is needed:

. Location and capabilities of organizations near the routes that

would be involved in emergency response or evacuation.

. Location of special facilities such as schools, hospitals,

stadiums, and nursing homes.

The agencies that collect and use this information will vary from State
to State but may include the equivalent of the state highway or transportation
department, the state police or highway patrol, the public utility commission,
the radiological protection agency, state and local emergency service units,
state and county planning agencies, and the state energy agency. Other

information needed in the route selection process is included in this guide.

The methodology can be applied whenever two or more routes are
potentially available for designation as a preferred route connecting two
points in the State. The Interstate system highways are Federally preferred
routes unless the State wishes to designate alternative routes in accordance
with these guidelines or an equivalent routing analysis. Consequently,
although it is not necessary, the State may wish to apply this methodology to
all Interstate highways for comparison with other available non-Interstate
alternatives. The route selection method described in this guide would also
be useful when it is desired to designate additional preferred routes. An
example of a situation where additional preferred routes might be beneficial
is the case of a nuclear power plant that is located some distance from an
Interstate highway. Designating a preferred route from the plant would assure
that these shipments are made over a route that has been shown by analysis to
minimize the radiological impacts resulting from the shipments. Another

example is the situation where an Interstate beltway route does not exist


-57-

WORKSHEET _12 ROUTE _B_ SHEET _1_ of _1_

WORKSHEET FOR TRAFFIC FATALITIES/INJURIES COMPARISON FACTOR

Accident Unit of Measure: Truck Accident Fatalities (Mil Tr Mi.)

Segment Accident Segment
Segment Rate Length Total
1 0.02 4 320 = 6.4.
x - __
x = —
x = —_.
(Total)

Comparison Factor = 6.4


4.1

4.2

4.1

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Conversion Factors for Use in Estimating Normal Radiation
Exposure Factor .

Release Consequence Measure .

Economic Consequence Measure

Sample Emergency Response Parameter Scaling System
Sample Evacuation Parameter Scaling System

Sample Special Facility Scaling System
Descriptive Data for Route A

Descriptive Data for Route B

LIST OF FIGURES

Routes Used in Sample Case Application

17
21
23
26
28
29
34

34

33


E-9

ROUTE

WORKSHEET FOR ECONOMIC RISK COMPARISON FACTOR

SHEET ___ of

Segment
(0-5 Mile Band) (5-10 Mile Band)
Weighted Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight’ Total Area Weight? Total
Farmland x 0.002 = x 0.0002 =
Single Family
Residential x 0.10 = x 0.04 =
Multi-Family
Residential x 2.0 = x 0.20 =
Commercial x 0.20 x 0.01 =
Parks x 0.03 = x 0.02 =
Public Areas x 0.50 = x 0.05 =
WEIGHTED TOTAL = WEIGHTED TOTAL =
Segment
(0-5 Mile Band) (5-10 Mile Band)
Weighted
Land Use Type Area Weight! Total Area Weight! Total
Farmland x 0.002 = x 0.0002 =
Single Family
Residential x 0.10 = x 0.04 =
Multi-Family
Residential x 2.0 = x 0.20 =
Commercial x 0.20 = x 0.01 =
Parks x 0.03 = x 0.02
Public Areas x 0.50 = x 0.05 =
WEIGHTED TOTAL = WEIGHTED TOTAL =
Economic Risk calculations
Econ. Seg.
0-5 Mile 5-10 Mile Ségment Conseq. Econ, Prob. Econ.
Segment Wt. Tot Wt. Tot SUE Factor (Ac, Rate) Risk

AnRA
+e tt
VULL

i
ee OK OM

1

Based on Economic Consequence Measure Weight Table

ROUTE TOTAL = __

(Table 3.2-3)


900" gol /z0" "0 oz 000's2 0002 000‘82 733 0S udw oy = *1w Ooze A-x t
‘yueubSS
SqUSIeTYS TW Tin syesg go) unoG SS TUOG STW 01S SvIW S-0 sa0e7 poods qaBuST S70 Ted-pug
Noy, sad Jad ajyey juapiooy “ON JenuUy yond o1gges junoy dog qunog dog Buisoddo ebeuaay quewbas juawBas
aaey quaplooy Aiea Ate usamieg
ouejsig
eye ASATAC YONAL :37UQ Quepyooy SeTTW OZ€ :HONVLSICG IVLOL
Aeay3tH “S'N - @ eqnoy = :NOTLVOIGIINACI aLnod
@ e3noy r0F eqeq eat AdTa0seqg
1 ty ATavL
t
°
2000°0 gol/200° z0 oz 000’ 0s 000'Lt o00’st “34 07 udu og = *1w 904 ae %y ”
9000°0 got 720" z ooze 00008 000’02 000'o9¢ “3305 udu os “yw og fy . ey €
2000°0 g0t/ to" a) ost 0000s 000’0s 000’ ost “43 Ov udu os “1 og ay. hy z
£00°0 gol/io" £70 00s 000’0s 000’0s 000'0% 743 0s udu sy 1 062 Wy ex t
Jusubss
STUSITTYS TWH syyesg yo NOD UGG srw ol-s SyIW S-0 saue7 peeds EUS syuyoq-pua
nous sad ued a3ey wepiooy “oN JeNuUY Fond. ~— 914 4eU1 ~—-gunog “dog yunog ‘dog Bul soddg = aBeyany —quaiBag quauBag
a3ey JUaplooy Ayieg Ayieg usemjeg
gouejsid
TTTEIEY TSATAC WONT = :3TuQ JuepTooy SeTTW 064 ‘HONVLSIG IVLOL
AemyZtH ©389S8I0qUI - Y eIN0Y :NOLLVDIALINAGI FLNOY

¥ eqnoy tox veg eatadzz0seq

Ty FIavL


PRIMARY FACTORS

Normal Radiation
Exposure

Public Health
Risks

Economic Risks

SECONDARY FACTORS

Emergency Response
Evacuation

Special Facilities

Traffic Fatal./Inj.

SHEET ___ of __
ROUTE COMPARISON WORKSHEETS
(page 1 of 2)
FACTOR VALUES
A Route _B Route _C Route _D TOTALS

Route

E-16



-37-

the bands of interest. For segment 1 these values are 40 for the 0-5 mile
band and 30 for the 5-10 mile b

thousands.

The total public health consequence factor for each segment must be

multiplied by the accident rate to determine the segment risk factor. In this
example, data for truck accidents that resulted in driver fatalities was
available. The accident rate shown on the worksheets includes consideration
of the segment lengths. This is done by converting truck accidents per
million truck miles to accidents per thousand shipments. To make this
conversion, the accident rate per million truck miles shown in Table 4.1 is
multiplied by the segment length. This product is then multiplied by one
thousand to arrive at the accident rate per thousand shipments shown in the
last column of Table 4.1. Accidents per thousand shipments was chosen for the
accident rate units on the health risk worksheet because it resulted in
conveniently sized numbers. Accidents per shipment or per million shipments
would be just as valid a number as long as all segments and alternative routes

are figured the same way.

After each of the segment health risk factors are calculated, they are
totaled to yield the comparison factor value. This number is found at the
bottom of the public health risk worksheet. It is also entered on the

comparison worksheet.

Worksheet 3 consists of two pages and shows calculation of the economic
risk factor for Route A. The area inside two bands (Sheet #1 for the 0-5 mile
band and Sheet #2 for the 5-10 mile band) on either side of the highway is
examined to determine the area in each of the land use types shown on the
worksheet. It is important to remember to consider both sides of the pathway.
The amount of land in each of the use types is entered on the worksheet for
each segment and band. The areas are multiplied by the appropriate weighting
factor and entered in the weighted total column. Weighting factors used in

the example were taken from Table 3.2-3. The bottom of the first page of