L-2018-081, Kld Engineering, Pc - 2017 Population Update Analysis

Kld Engineering, Pc - 2017 Population Update Analysis

ML18093A380
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/20/2017
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18093A362	List: L-2018-081, Kld Engineering, Pc - 2017 Population Update Analysis L-2018-081, St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, Transmittal of Periodic Update of Population Data within 10 Miles of the Plant ML18093A379
References
L-2018-081 KLD TR-937, Rev 0
Download: ML18093A380 (16)

Text

ENGINEERING, RC.

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 2017 Population Update Analysis

.... .... *1-*

\

' \

\

I j

6 I

I I

I

/

/ I I

I I

/

/

/

/

/

Legend Q

St.Luci*

Area

\.-:. 2, 5, 10 MIi, Rin1s 10 Mile.s Work performed for Florida Power & light, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 E-mail: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com Septem ber 20, 2017 Final Report , Rev 0 KLD TR - 937

Executive Summary Federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to 10CFR part SO) require nuclear power plant licensees to estimate the permanent resident population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the plant at least annually during the years between decennial censuses. If the population increases such that the longest 90th percentile Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) for the 2-mile region, 5-mile region or the entire EPZ increases by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less, a full ETE update is required. Based on U.S.

Census Bureau data, the population within the 2-mile region, 5-mile region and the entire EPZ for the St.

Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie) has increased by +11.0%, +11.8% and +12.9%, respectively, since the 2010 Census . Based on the population sensitivity study documented in the 2012 St. Lucie ETE report, population growth of +10% or greater is needed to increase the 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes or more. As such, the population within the EPZ has grown enough at this time to trigger a full ETE update. As per federal regulations, the full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018.

Florida Power & Light (FPL) acknowledges that 10CFRSO, Appendix E,Section IV.4 requires a full ETE analysis to be done within 365 days of the availability of the most recent decennial census data . The last full ETE analysis (KLD TR-533, dated December 2012) was based on the data from the 2010 Census. FPL continues to perform annual permanent resident population estimates for the EPZ (as documented in this report) in the years between the decennial censu ses, in accordance with 10CFRSO, Appendix E,Section IV.5. The annual update for 2017 indicates that permanent resident population within the EPZ has grown enough to significantly impact ETE, thereby triggering a full ETE analysis.

Introduction The federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to 10CFR part 50) stipulate :

During th e years between decennial censuses, nuclear power reactor licensees shall estimate EPZ permanent resident population changes once a year, but no later than 365 days from the date of the previous estimate, using the most recent U.S. Census Bureau annual resident population estimate and State/local government population data, if available. These licensees shall maintain these estimates so that they are available for NRC inspection during the period between decennial censuses and shall submit these estimates to the NRC with any updated ETE analysis.

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Ana lysis - 2017 Rev.0

If at any time during the decennial period, the EPZ permanent resident population increases such that it causes the longest ETE value for the 2-mile zone or 5-mile zone, including all affected Emergency Response Planning Area s, or for the entire 10-mile EPZ to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less, from the nuclear power reactor licensee's currently NRC approved or updated ETE, the licensee shall update the ETE analysis to reflect the impact of that population increase. The licensee shall submit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under§ 50.4 no later than 365 days after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities for use in developing offsite protective action strategies.

FPL has contracted KLD Engineering, P.C. to estimate annual population changes between the decennial censuses for St. Lucie in accordance with the aforementioned federal regulations . FPL and the offsite response organizations (OROs) - Martin and St. Lucie Counties, the State of Florida - have reviewed and approved the methodology and Census growth rates provided below.

US Census Growth Rates The population analysis for the 2012 St. Lucie ETE was performed using 2010 Census population data 1 2 provided on the U.S. Census Bureau website

• The Census Bureau QuickFacts website provides annual population updates for each state, county, and municipality3 in the United States . The most recent population updates for counties and municipalities available on the QuickFacts website are for the time 4

period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 . The population change for each county and municipality within the study area (EPZ plus the Shadow Region, which extends to 15 miles radially from the plant) provided by QuickFacts is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

1 www.census .gov 2

https://www.census .gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00 3

https://www.census .qov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns .html 4

The annual population estimates prepared by the Census Bureau for the entire U.S. involves an extensive data gathering process .

As such , populati on estimates are a year behind - 20 16 data are released in 2017. The schedule for re lease of Census data is provided on the Census website: https://www.ce nsus.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/schedule .html St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev . O

The Census does provide population estimates for the Cen sus Designated Placess (e.g., Indian River Estates, White City, River Park, etc.) within the study area at each decennial census . However, the Census Bureau does not provide annual population estimates for CDPs between decennial censuses.

Thus, a growth rate since the 2010 Census cannot be computed for CDPs . This analysis used county population growth rates for CDPs as population within the CDPs is included within the county population . The county, municipal, and CDP boundaries are shown in Figure 1.

The U.S. Census Bureau works closely with state and local agencies to ensure that population estimates between decennial censuses are done consistently and to assure the highest quality in performing these estimates, as evidenced by the existence of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population 6

Estimates (FSCPE) . The FSCPE meets twice a year and has an established set of by-laws to ensure consistency and quality in population estimates at the federal, state and local levels. The counties within the EPZ were asked for local data; no data was provided. Thus, this report uses U.S. Census growth rates.

These Census growth rates were reviewed by the planning agencies within each of the EPZ counties and found to be acceptable .

Tab le 1. County Population Change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 5

A Census Designated Place (CDP) is similar to an incorporated place (city, village, town , etc.) in that it is a place that people recog nize by name . However, incorporated places have a separate municipal government, while CDPs do not. One of the main uses of Census data is political in terms of fund allocations (proportional to population size) to different municipalities by the state or county. The Census does not provide annual population estimates for CDPs because they Jack government and are not eligible for funding .

6 https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popesUabouUfscpe .html St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev. O

Table 2. Municipality Population Change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 7

Municipality 2010 Population 2016 Population Percent Change Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 355 357 0.56%

Sewall's Point 1,996 2,180 9.22%

Stuart 15,588 16,623 6.64%

St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 41,918 I 45,295 I 8.06%

Port St. Lucie I 164,716 I 185,132 1 12.39%

Shado w Region St. Lucie Village I 597 I 636 I 6.53%

7 The 2010 Population of Fort Pierce City and St. Lucie Village listed in Table 2 do not match those numbers reported in the ETE Update for 2016 (KLD TR-872, September 21, 2016). Slight population adjustments have been made through the Population Estimates Challenge Program to the 2010 Census Population numbers . Thi s program allows governmental units to challenge their population estimates by submitting additional data to the Census Bureau for evaluation . This report displays the 20 10 population data as it is cu rrently published on the Census Bureau website and may vary from numbers reported in previous ETE Updates .

Additional details about the Population Estimates Challenge Program can be fou nd at th e following webs ite:

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popesVabouVchallenqe-program .html St. Lu cie Nuclear Power Plant 4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Anal ysis - 2017 Rev . 0

St. Lucie

' \

Count y \

' \

\

'Atlantic Ocean

\

\

\

' \

' \

' \. \

\

/

/

I

' I I

I I

I r

I t

JI

ii I

I I

/ I

/ I

/

Legend I

/

St.Lucie /

/

CJ EPZ /

~ Shadow Region /

(=

/

~ County Boundary Martin /

2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin1s Go unty Census Places Q ON: 1/ l/2011 I

Municipalities with Dat:1

~  : CSIIIDffl1r111M.,.2016

(? Census Desi1nated Places (No Data) .........

llDf""'"'"""8,Aoflda,-.rllllht lOMiles Figure 1. Census Boundaries within the St. Lucie Study Area St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev. 0

Methodology The compound growth formula (Equation 1) was used for all population projections, where g is the ann ual growth rate and X is the number of years projected forward from Year 2010. The compound growth formula can be solved for g as shown in Equation 2. The data provided in Table 1 and Table 2 were used in Equation 2 to compute the annual growth rate for each county and municipality in the study area using X = 6.25 (6 years and 3 months from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016). The computed annual growth rates for each county and municipality are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

Equation 1. Compound Growth Rate (Compound Growth for X years): Population 20lX = Population 2010 x (1 + g)x Equation 2. Annual Growth Rate (Solving for the annual growth rate): g = (Population 20lX Population 2010/lx - l Table 3. Annual Growth Rate by County Table 4. Annual Growth Rate by Municipality Municipality Annual Growth Rate Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 0.09%

Sewall's Point 1.42%

Stuart 1.03%

St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 1.25%

Port St. Lucie I 1.89%

Shadow Region -

St. Lucie Village I 1.02%

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Analysis - 2017 Rev. O

The most detailed data should always be used when forecasting population . In terms of detailed data, mun icipal data is the finest level of detail, then county data, and state data. The municipality growth rate was used first and if that was not available or applicable within the study area, then the county growth rate was used. County growth rates are available for the entire study area and were used (in the absence of municipal data) as they are the finest level of detail available for the entire study area. Thus, state data was not used.

The Census Bureau does not provide population data specific to the boundaries of the study area. As such, the county or municipality population reported in Table 1 and Table 2 was used to compute an annual growth rate. Then, the appropriate county or municipality growth rate was only applied to those Cens us blocks located within the study area . All other blocks outside of the study area were not considered as part of the EPZ or Shadow Region population, even if they are located within one of the counties or municipalities that intersect the study area.

Figure 2 maps the Census block centroids in the southwestern portion of the EPZ. The Martin County growth rate was applied to those designated centroids in the county, while the Port St. Lucie municipality growth rate was applied to those centroids located within the Port St. Lucie municipality boundary. As shown in Figure 2, parts of Port St. Lucie extend beyond the 15-mile Shadow Region boundary. While the population in the Census blocks in those parts of the municipality beyond 15 miles was considered in the computation of the growth rate for the municipality, the population at those centroids beyond 15 miles was not included in the study area population.

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software, the appropriate annual growth rate was applied to each Census block in the study area depending on which county or municipality the block is located within. The population was then projected to September 1, 2017 for this update using Equation 1 with X = 7.42 (7 years and 5 months from the April 1, 2010 Census date to September 1, 2017) .

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Analysis - 2017 Rev. O

O.i.: 7/i/l01' Co pyr1,t,i1: URI D<<t .wt M*Ps J014 KlO l nclMllflrc. f ~ Po.et A utf,t Legend Census l"opulatlon Location Census Boundary Munlcipallty Growth Rate Munklpallty

6. Port St. Lucie County Growth Rate County 0 Martin County LJMartln c:::::J EPZ ( -::::. 15 Mile Ring 0 0.25 0.5 Q Shadow Region I I II I I Figure 2. County and Municipality Growth Rates Applied by Location St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Analysis - 2017 Rev.O

Results The Areas which comprise the approximate 10-mile EPZ for St. Lucie are shown in Figure 3. Table 5 8

presents the 2010 permanent resident population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for each Area, for the EPZ as a whole, and also for the 2 and 5 mile regions. Table 6 presents the 2010 permanent resident population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for the St.

Lucie Shadow Region. Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the estimated 2017 EPZ and Shadow Region permanent resident population, respectively, by sector and distance from the St. Lucie site. These "population roses" were constructed using GIS software.

Note that the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region do not conform exactly to the 2-mile and 5-mile radii due to the irregular shape of the Areas; see Figure 3. Thus, the 2-mile and 5-mile populations shown in Figure 4 do not exactly match the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region totals in Table 5.

Equat ion 3 was used to compute the percent change in population from 2010 to 2017. The percent change in population for the various regions of interest is summarized in Table 7.

8 As per federal regulations, only the permanent resident population needs to be considered in the annual updates ; transient and special facility populations are not considered.

St. Lu cie Nuclear Power Plant 9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev.O

H

- .... .... ' w~ ,

' \

- .... ' \

\

\

\

\

' I I

I

/

/ I I

I I

/

/

/

/

/

Legend GJ St . Lucie Area

, -=. 2, 5, 10 Mil* Rings 10 Mllu Figure 3. Areas Comprising the St. Lucie EPZ St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev.O

Table 5. EPZ Population 2017 2010 Extrapolated Area Population Population 1 3,676 4,033 8 7,736 8,639 2-Mile Region Total: 11,412 12,672 2 13,199 14,75 2 6 22,505 25,737 7 21,995 24,071 5-Mile Region Total: 69,111 77,232 3 37,713 41,547 4 38,391 43,764 5 72,494 83,161 t** ~.

,,+/- ~°'. *~-I[~-:*;~"~"' ~*iA

'f; fi,~,h,;i.,,.ec .. ti*

~~. ~-

~--~~~'r,,;J.,<-";<;,,

V  : t .. ~ ~ : -

~~h~n Table 6. Shadow Population by Sector 2017 Extrapolated Sector 2010 Population Population N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 8,482 9,299 s 43,648 47,620 SSW 14,04 1 15,486 SW 30,851 35,395 WSW 20,275 23,263 w 3,596 4,078 WNW 2,351 2, 649 NW 7, 109 7,985 NNW 5,382 6,03 2

• • , s;,,,:l ~ '*.-t*>'r ,Jc*. ,v. "";;""' ;,:;

St. Lucie Nucl ear Power Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popul ation Upd at e Anal ysis - 2017 Rev.O

NNW NNE 14,455 I CD 0

NW NE

@4,043! CD WNW ENE

!14,262! CD w E

!31, 772! I 0 o* CD I

I i WSW ESE

~ 7,964! IT]

' ,l.S7S SW ' SE

@6,286! [ill]

, -' 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary 0

SSW .l - - - SSE

~4,873! s !11,689! N 120,0501 2017 Extrapolated Resident Population Miles subtotal by Rine Cumulative Total 0*1 180 180 1* 2 335 515 2*3 412 927

3. 4 8,919 9,846 w E

4. 5 20,564 30,410 5* 6 27,630 58,040 6-7 36,066 94,106 7-8 47,634 141,740 8 -9 49,460 191,200 9 - 10 40,925 232,125 10

• EPZ 13,579 245,704 Total: 245,704 Figure 4. Permanent EPZ Resident Population by Sector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Analysis - 2017 Rev.O

N NNW 0 NNE 0

NW NE 7,985 0 WNW ENE 12,649 1 0 w E 14,01s I EPZ Resident Population See Figure 4 0

).

ESE WSW I23, 2631 0 SW SE 135,3951 0 EPZ Boundary t o 11 M ilos SSW ' _,

115,4861 2017 Extrapolated Shadow Population M iles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ

• 11 36,864 36,864 11

• 12 40,047 76,911 12 - 13 37,620 114,531 13

• 14 19,488 134,019 14 - 15 17,788 151,807 Total : 151,807 Figure 5. Shadow Population by Sector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Popu lation Update Analysis - 2017 Rev. O

Equation 3. Percent Population Change 2017 Extrapolated Population - 2010 Population

% population change= x 100%

2010 Population Table 7. Summary of Percent Population Changes Percent Region Population Change (2010-2017) 2-Mile Region +11.0%

5-Mile Region +11.8%

EPZ +12.9%

Shadow Region +11.8%

EPZ + Shadow Region +12.5%

As documented in the NRC's response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013-001, the licensee should consider the impact of a population increase on the longest goth percentile ETE for the scenarios identified in Table 1-3 of NUREG/CR-7002, with two possible exceptions:

1. The roadway impact scenario need not be considered because the only purpose of this scenario is to support the development of traffic control planning.

2. The need to include the special event scenario depends on the frequency of the special event analyzed. Licensees should consider using this scenario if the special event chosen is repetitive during the year, such as multiple home football or baseball games, and not a one-time event such as a seasonal parade.

As documented in Table 7-1, "Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population" in th e 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report, the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE is Scenario 7 - a winter, midweek, midday scenario with rain - a non-special event.

St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update Analysis - 2017 Rev.0

Table 8 is from Ta ble M -3 in Appendix M of the 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report and documents the population sensitivity study conducted under Scenario 7 conditions. As disc ussed in the introduction, federal regulations stipulat e that a full updated ETE study mu st be conducted if population growth is large enough t o cause the longest goth percentile ETE to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Those population changes which result in a goth percentile ETE change meeting or exceeding the federal criteria f~r a full ETE update are highlighted red in Table 8.

As shown in Table 8, at least a 10% increase in population in the EPZ is needed to increase the longest goth percentile ETE by 30 minutes. The EPZ population has increased by 12.g% as shown in Table 7. Thus, population has grown enough to trigger a full ETE update. As discussed in the introduction, the federal regulations indicate that the licensee shall submit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under §50.4 no later than 365 days after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities fo r use in developing offsite protective action strategies. Thus, a full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018.

Table 8. ETE Variation with Population Change Region Base 3% 4% 5% 7%

2-MILE 5 :35 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:45 5-MILE 4:05 4:05 4:15 4 :15 4 :20 Population Increase Region Base 3% 4% 5% 7% 10%

2-MILE 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:10 7:10 7:20 5- MILE 7:05 7:05 7:05 7:10 7:10 7:20 FULL EPZ 8:10 8 :40 8 :40 8:40 8:40 8:55 St. Lu cie Nuclear Powe r Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Population Update An alysis - 2017 Rev. O