LR-N12-0366, Kld TR-499, Revision 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Appendix L Through Appendix N

Kld TR-499, Revision 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Appendix L Through Appendix N

ML13052A683
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/28/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Public Service Enterprise Group
References
LR-N12-0366 KLD TR-499, Rev. 0
Download: ML13052A683 (28)

Text

APPENDIX L ERPA Boundaries

L. ERPA BOUNDARIES ERPA 1 County: Salem Defined as the area within the following boundary: The western portion of Lower Alloways Creek (LAC) Township. It consists of the area from the edge of the Delaware River along Mill Creek to Money Island Road. It then goes north on Money Island Road to Fort Elfsborg-Hancocks Bridge Road and east on Fort Elfsborg-Hancocks Bridge Road to the LAC/Elsinboro boundary line. It continues northeast to the boundary for Salem City and proceeds south down the LAC/Quinton boundary and along Salem New Bridge/Harmersville Canton Road/Main Street Canton to the county line. It then continues south on the county line to Delaware Bay.

ERPA 2 County: Salem Defined as the area within the following boundary: The eastern portion of Lower Alloways Creek Township and the western portion of Quinton Township. It starts at the intersection of Quaker Neck Road and the Salem City line and goes east along Quaker Neck Road to the Mannington Township line. It continues southeast along the Quinton/Alloway Township boundary to Alloway Road (Route 581), then turns west to Burden Hill Road and south to Route 49. It then goes southeast along Route 49 to Gravely Hill Road. It then continues southwest on Gravely Hill Road to Quinton Jericho Road, then southeast to the county line.

It continues west along the county line to Main Street Canton. It then goes northwest along Main Street Canton/Har mersville Canton Road/Salem New Bridge Roads and continues northwest along the Lower Alloways Creek/Quinton Township boundary to the Salem City line and then proceeds northeast along Salem City/Quinton line to Quaker Neck Road.

ERPA 3 County: Salem Defined as the area within the following boundary: The township of Elsinboro and Salem City. It starts at the Delaware River and goes east along the Salem River to the southern edge of Mannington Marsh. It then goes east along the boundary line between Salem City and Mannington and continues south/southeast along the Salem/Quinton and Lower Alloways Creek/Elsinboro township lines to Fort Elfsborg Hancocks Bridge Road. It then goes west to Money Island Road, then south to Mill Creek and west to the Delaware River.

ERPA 4 County: Salem Defined as the area within the following boundary: The southern portion of Mannington Township. It starts at the intersection of Quaker Neck Road and the Salem City line and goes east along Quaker Neck Road to the Mannington Township line. It then goes northwest to Fenwick Creek and then north to Penna Reading Railroad line and northwest to East Robert Street. It continues west past Salem-Hope Creek NGS L-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Newell Street to the Salem River. It then goes south along the river to the former H.J. Heinz Company (now Anchor Hocking Glass), then goes east along the Salem/Mannington boundary to intersection of Salem City line and Quaker Neck Road.

ERPA 5 County: Salem Defined as the area within the following boundary: The southern portion of Pennsville Township. It starts at Salem Cove and goes east along the Salem River to a point near the former H.J. Heinz Company (now Anchor Hocking Glass). It then goes north on a direct line to Old Toll Bridge Road then north and west into Lenape Drive to Route 49. It continues south on Route 49 to Lighthouse Road and then goes northwest on Lighthouse Road to Fort Mott Road, then south to the entrance to Finn's Point National Cemetery.

ERPA 6 County: Cumberland Defined as the area within the following boundary: The western portion of Stow Creek. It starts at the intersection of Quinton Jericho Road and Stow Creek and continues southwest along Stow Creek across Main Street Canton and turns south along Stow Creek to Raccoon Ditch. It then goes east along Raccoon Ditch to the southern shore of Davis Mill Pond. It continues east to Macanippuck Road and turns north to Buckhorn Road, then turns east to Quinton Jericho Road. It continues northwest on Quinton Jericho Road to Stow Creek.

ERPA 7 County: Cumberland Defined as the area within the following boundary: The western portion of Greenwich Township. It starts at Oyster Cove and goes north along Stow Creek (county line) to Raccoon Ditch. It then goes east on Raccoon Ditch to the southern shore of Davis Mill Pond and continues to the intersection of Chestnut Road. It then turns south on Chestnut Road to Mill Road (aka Bacon's Neck-Othello Road) and goes southwest along Mill Road to the intersection of Gum Tree Corner Road. It then goes south on Gum Tree Corner Road to Bacon's Neck Road, then turns southwest to Tindall Island Road. It continues south on Tindall Island Road to the Cohansey River, then goes southwest along the Cohansey River to the Delaware Bay.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS L-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ERPA 8 County: N/A Defined as the area within the following boundary: A portion of Delaware Bay south of Artificial Island. It starts at the Delaware/New Jersey line on Artificial Island and goes west one mile then south to southeast along the Delaware Bay boundary line between New Jersey and Delaware to Cohansey Point. It then goes east three miles to Cohansey Point.

ERPA A County: New Castle & Kent Defined as the area within the following boundary: Port Penn, Odessa, East of Townsend, North Smyrna and South St. George's Areas. The area bounded to the west by Routes 13, 299 and 9; to the east by the Delaware River; to the north by the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal; to the south by Route 6.

ERPA B County: New Castle & Kent Defined as the area within the following boundary: Middletown, East of Townsend, and North Smyrna Areas. The area bounded to the west by the Norfolk Southern Railroad; to the east by Route 9; to the north by Route 299; to the south by Route 6 and Smyrna Landing Road.

ERPA C County: New Castle Defined as the area within the following boundary: Delaware City, North Middletown, St. George's and Reybold Areas. The area bounded to the north of Route 299 by Kirkwood St. George's Road; to the east of the Norfolk Southern Railroad to Route 13; to the south of the Red Lion Creek and east of Route 9; to the south of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and east of Route 13 to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal; to the south of Route 72 and east of McCoy Road to Route 13.

ERPA D County: N/A Defined as the area within the following boundary: The Delaware River and Bay.

The area just north of Pea Patch Island, near Delaware City, south to Woodland Beach.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS L-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M-1 presents the results of this study.

Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip ~~ ~ Evcato Tim Esimt fo nir Genraio Peio .ý 11Pecntl 10 *hece tl 2 Hours 1 1:55 1 3:00 3 Hours 2:25 3:25 4 Hours 2:25 4:05 0 5 Hours (Base) 2:25 5:10 The results confirm the importance of accurately estimating the trip generation (mobilization) times. The evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the 1 0 0 th percentile closely mirror the values for the time the last evacuation trip is generated. In contrast, the 90th percentile ETE is very insensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution. As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes. As such, the ETE for the 100th percentile is affected by the trip generation time, if the public finishes mobilizing after congestion clears. The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translates into shorter ETE at the 100th percentile. The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 9 0 th percentile ETE for protective action recommendation (PAR) decision-making.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS M-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.1 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.

Table M-2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is insensitive to shadow evacuation. Tripling the shadow percentage does not have a material impact on ETE at the 9 0 th or 1 0 0 th percentile. Note, the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 19% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter. Thus, the base assumption of 20% non-compliance suggested in NUREG/CR-7002 is valid.

Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Pecn Shdo Shadow 0 0 2:20 5:10 10 36,893 2:20 5:10 20 (Base)- 73,787 2:25 5:10 60 442,722 2:30 5:10 Salem-Hope Creek NGS M-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the EPZ. As population in the EPZ changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the EPZ, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The change in population within the EPZ was treated parametrically. The percent population change was varied between +/-30%. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2-Mile Region (RO1), the 5-Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The good weather scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 1).

Table M-3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR-7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes or 25%

are highlighted in red below - a 90% increase or 65% decrease in the EPZ population. PSEG will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 90%

or more, or decreases by 65% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS M-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Population Change Region Base 25% 50% 90% Base -25% -50% -65%

2-MILE 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25 5-MILE 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:30 1:25 1:20 FULL EPZ 2:25 2:35 2:40 2:50 2:25 2:20 2:10 1:55 Population Change Population Change Region Base 25% 50% 90% Base -25% -50% -65%

2-MILE 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5-MILE 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 FULL EPZ 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Salem-Hope Creek NGS M-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

. Reie Crtei Crtro Addesse Coment 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.

b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 1-1 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 1-3 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 1-1, "ETE Comparison," of NUREG/CR-7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3

c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.2, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G

d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 1-3, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments I in ETE Analysis

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described.

Section 5, Appendix F - 4% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.

b. Assumptions consistent with Table 1-2, "General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 1-3, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 2-1, 6-2 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 6-1 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 6-1 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 0 40

NR Reie Crtei Crteio A..ese Comment

c. A table similar to Table 1-4, "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 7-5 Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients -Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.

b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.

ETE.

c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1, Yes Figure 3-2 "Population by Sector," of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 2.11 persons per vehicle - Table 1-3 or justification should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Tables E-4 and E-5 Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

. Reie Crtei Crtro Addesse Comments 2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.

b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 3-4, 3-5 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 6-3 to estimate transient population by scenario.

c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.

d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1 Yes Figure 3 transients of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution Figure 3 employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 8-1 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Table 8-10 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.4 residents should be used in the analysis.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 40 0

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis

d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumptions 10, 11 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 8 transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.5 - special needs registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.4 - page 8-6 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 8-5 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E, Tables E-3 and E list location, and average population should be provided, facilities, type, location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special Table 8-4 facility population.

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Sections 8.2, 8.3 data was obtained.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Crteio Addese Comments

c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes Table 8-4, Table E-3.

should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 8-4, 8-5 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.4 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 8-2, Tables E-1 and E-2 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 8-2 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.

d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave. However, Section 8.3 and Figure 8-1 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 0 0

Reie Crieri Crtro Addese Comet 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 2-1 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 1b Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 3-4 Table 3-3

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 5-9 network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Section 6 (page 6-2) reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse CommentsS

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 (item 5), Section 3.6 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification.

The assumption of two hours was not used because the local emergency management agencies indicated that they could stop pass through traffic about one hour after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes Tables 3-7, 3-8 total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, "Roadway Yes Appendix K,Table K-1 Characteristics," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 0 is

l . .- . FI I* . *t A ... 0i B

• 1 m

e. A legible map ot tfe roadway system tMat Mdentities node Yes Appendix K, I-igures K-1 through K-b/

numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire link-node analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR- links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.

b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K,Table K-2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J-1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.

used in the calculations.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Critrio Addesse Comments 3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 2-1, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 2-2, Section 5.3 should be considered. (page 5-10)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 2 based on HCM 2010. The Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 factors provided in Table 3-1 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR-7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Section 5.3 - page 5-10 streets and driveways, when applicable. Appendix F - Section F.3.3 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.

b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 0 0

0

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse CommentsS 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 6-3 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 5-1 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 5-9 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Critrio Addese Coment 4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.3 in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with Figure 8-2, Figure 8-3 the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible authorities. Table 8-10

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4 ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, Figure 8-1 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.3 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.3 passengers should be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figures 8-2 and 8-3

h. The trip generation time for non-ambulatory persons Yes Section 8.4 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or-special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 40 40

0 0 R Reie Crtei Crteio Addesse Comments

i. Intormation should be provided to supports analysis ot Yes Sections 8.3,8.4 return trips, if necessary.

Figure 8-1 Tables 8-1 I through 8-13 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.4, 8-14 through 8-16 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4.

outbound speeds.

c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bounds individuals Yes Tables 8-4, 8-14 through 8-16 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-5 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided.

g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4. Tables 8-14 through 8-16 time elements for the return trips.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Addresse Comments 4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Tables outbound speeds. 8-7, 8-8 and 8-9 Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 8-7 through 8-9, Discussion in Section 8.4

d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 8-8 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 8-3. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to receiving schools where they will be picked pass through the reception center prior to being up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-14 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 0 0

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse Comments.

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 8-7 time elements for the return trips. through 8-9 provide time needed to arrive at reception center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary 4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.0.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 1-3, Appendix B, Appendix C.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided, simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J-2

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C-1, C-2 analysis.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse Comments.

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J-5.

to support review: 2. Table J-3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J-1.

node. 4. Table J-3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J-1 through J-14 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J-4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J-3.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 7-3 through 7-7 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E" and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 7-1, 7-2 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 0 0 Rev. 0

IR Reie Crtei 0rtro Addese Comment in EAnayi

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained.

Table 7 100 th percentile ETE for general public

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 7-3, 7-4 similar to Table 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole,"

of NUREG/CR-7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 8-7 through 8 Schools populations.

Tables 8-11 through 8 Transit-dependents Tables 8-14 through 8 Medical Facilities Table 8 Homebound Special Needs 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Section 13, Appendix M time should be provided.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

NR Reie Crtei Critrio Addese Comment

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 1-1 with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes No Issues were determined after review that may affect the ETE. with the offsite agencies.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes J Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC. _

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 10-1 should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8.3 discusses a multi-wave return times for buses should be provided, evacuation procedure. Figure 8-1

c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.

Salem-Hope Creek NGS N-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 0 Rev. 0 40