ML12307A089
| ML12307A089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2012 |
| From: | KLD Engineering, PC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML12307A089 (78) | |
Text
APPENDIX F Telephone Survey
F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 INTRODUCTION The development of evacuation time estimates for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the VCSNS Site requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data.
The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area.
Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.
These concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form "What would you do if ...?" and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar ("How long does it take you to ...?")
KLD Engineering, P.c.
Virgil c. Summer Virgil C. Nuclear Station Summer Nuclear Station F-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
F.2 SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND SAMPLING PLAN Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.
Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of approximately 550 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F-1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F-1.
Due to the sparse population of the zip codes within the EPZ, the area which was sampled was expanded (within the zip codes identified) so that an appropriate sample could be gathered.
The over-sampling was computed in proportion to the entire zip code population. The approach is justified on the basis that the area outside of the EPZ has similar land-use and housing characteristics as does the EPZ. The completed survey adhered to the over-sampling plan.
The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.
Table F-1. VCSNS Telephone Survey Sampling Plan S 29015 1,173 371 49 14 29036 2,495 943 124 102 29063 576 205 27 204 29065 733 289 38 6 29075 1,692 676 89 23 29126 2,164 856 113 21 29127 414 161 21 57 29180 1,930 671 88 122 Totals: 11,177 4,172 550 550 Average Household Size: 2.68 Total Sample Required: 550 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
F.3 SURVEY RESULTS The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre-evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.
A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a "don't know" (DK) or "refused" entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional DK/refused responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the DK/refused responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.
Virgil c. Summer Nuclear Station F-3 KLD Engineering. P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F-1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.68 people. The estimated household size (2.68 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F-i) was drawn from Census data. The agreement between the average household size obtained from the survey and from the Census is an indication of the reliability of the survey.
VCSNS Household Size 50%
40%
=0 30%
40
'A o 20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
Household Size Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.22. It should be noted that approximately 4.76 percent of households do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F-2. Figure F-3 and Figure F-4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that the majority of households without access to a car are single person households. As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.
VCSNS Vehicle Availability 50%
40%
'A 30%
- 20 0
0%
0% 1M I I, 0 . M I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
Number of Vehicles Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-5 KLD Engineering. P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 1-5 Person Households Ml Person *2 People *3 People *4 People E5 People 100%
fn 80%
0 60%
0 40%
20%
I - i111 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
Vehicles Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 6-9+ Person Households S6 People *7 People *8 People *9+ People 100%
80%
0 60%
0 94 40%
20%
0% wi 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vehicles Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 6 to 9+ Person Households Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Commuters Figure F-5 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.
Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.
The data shows an average of 1.19 commuters in each household in the EPZ.
VCSNS Commuters - 1 50%
40%
o 30%
20%
10%
0%
0 1 2 3 4+
Number of Commuters Figure F-5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Commuter Travel Modes Figure F-6 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.01 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.
VCSNS Travel Mode to Work 120%
9705%
100%
U) 80%
0 60%
0 40%
20%
0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 1.4% 0.5%
0%
Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool Park and (2+) Ride Travel Mode Figure F-6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the population's response to an emergency. These are now discussed:
"How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?"The response is shown in Figure F-7. On average, evacuating households would use 1.49 vehicles.
"Would yourfamily await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?"
Of the survey participants who responded, 78 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 22 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%
80%
- u. 60%
0
.C
- 40%
0 O 20%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
Number of Vehicles Figure F-7. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre-evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their day-to-day lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responder's experience.
The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.
"How long does it take the commuter to complete preparationfor leaving work?" Figure F-8 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 90 minutes.
Seventy-five percent can leave within 30 minutes.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%
80%
60%
E 0 /0 U 40%
0 20%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 Travel Time (min)
Figure F-8. Time to Prepare to Leave Work/School "How long would it take the commuter to travel home?" Figure F-9 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 85 percent of commuters can arrive home within 40 minutes of leaving work; all within 90 minutes.
Work to Home Travel 100%
80%
E 60%
E 0
U
.4-40%
0 20%
0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 Travel Time (min)
Figure F-9. Work to Home Travel Time Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
"How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?"
Figure F-10 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a family's preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.
The distribution shown in Figure F-10 has a long "tail." About 60 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 30 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional one hour and forty five minutes.
Time to Prepare to Leave lome 100%
80%
W1 0
60%
@1 U'
40%
20%
0%
0 60 120 180 Travel Time (min)
Figure F-10. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation F.4 CONCLUSIONS The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and "mobilization time" which can influence evacuation time estimates.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Telephone Survey Instrument COL. 1 Unused Hello, my name is and I'm working for First Market Research on a survey for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and COL. 2 Unused Richland Counties to identify local behavior during emergency COL. 3 Unused situations. This information will be used for emergency planning COL. 4 Unused and will be shared with local officials to enhance emergency COL. 5 Unused response plans in your area for all hazards; emergency planning for some hazards may require evacuation. Your responses will greatly Sex COL. 8 contribute to local emergency preparedness. I will not ask for your 1 Male name. 2 Female INTERVIEWER: ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. (Terminate call if not a residence.)
DO NOT ASK:
1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 9-11 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 12-14
- 2. What is your home zip code? COL. 15-19 3A. In total, how many cars, or other vehicles are usually COL. 20 SKIP TO available to the household? 1 ONE Q. 4 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 2 TWO Q. 4 3 THREE Q. 4 4 FOUR Q. 4 5 FIVE Q. 4 6 SIX Q. 4 7 SEVEN Q. 4 8 EIGHT Q. 4 9 NINE OR MORE 0..4 0 ZERO (NONE) 0. 3B X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Q. 3B 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area COL. 21 with a neighbor or friend? 1 YES 2 NO X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Rev. 2 Evacuation Time Estimate
- 4. How many people usually live in this household? COL. 22 COL. 23 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
- 5. How many adults in the household commute to a job, COL. 24 SKIP TO or to college on a daily basis? 0 ZERO 0..9 1 ONE Q. 6 2 TWO Q. 6 3 THREE 0..6 4 FOUR OR MORE 0..6 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSE D 0.9 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 5, ask Questions 6, 7, and 8.
- 6. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER)
Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL. 25 COL. 26 COL. 27 COL. 28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Drive Alone 4 4 4 4 Carpool-2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Don't know/Refused 6 6 6 6
- 7. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 29 COL. 30 COL. 31 COL. 32 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LIESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR-15 MINUTES MINUTES Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-14 KILD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 S 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 5 21-25 MINUTES S MINUTES AND I HOUR MINUTES 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES , 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES MINUTES AND 2 HOURS MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 8
__1 __1 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 DON'T KNOW X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 COL. 34 COL. 35 COL. 36 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16
- 5. 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES MINUTES AND 2 HOURS MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 36-40 MINUTES 0 8 36-40 MINUTES 0 m) m) 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 DON'T KNOW X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED /REFUSED
- 8. Approximately how much time does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 37 COL. 38 COL. 39 COL. 40 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN I HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 21-25.MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES MINUTES AND 2 HOURS MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 2 HOURS (SPECIFY OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 36-40 MINUTES 8 OVER
__) 8 36-40 MINUTES 0 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 COL. 42 COL. 43 COL. 44 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56 -- 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 31-35 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES MINUTES AND 2 HOURS MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 36-40 MINUTES O 8 36-40 MINUTES O q.) *.)
9 41-45 MINUTES 9 9 41-45 MINUTES 0 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED
- 9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 15-30 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 31-45 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )
Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS COL. 47 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
- 10. Please choose one of the following (READ ANSWERS): COL. 50 A. I would await the return of household commuters 1 A to evacuate together.
2 B and meet other B. - I would evacuate independently household members later. X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED
- 11. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)
X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Thank you very much.
(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)
IF REQUESTED:
For additional information, contact your County Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours.
County EMA Phone Fairfield (803) 635-5505 Lexington (803) 785-8343 Newberry (803) 321-2135 Richland (803) 576-3400 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station F-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan
G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR-7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ are discussed in the following documents:
" Fairfield County Emergency Operations Plan, Annex E, Appendix 7, Page E-15
" Lexington County Emergency Operations Plan, Annex 25a, Appendix 4, Page 25a-27
" Newberry County Emergency Operations Plan, Annex Q, Appendix 3, Page Q-57
" Richland County Emergency Operations Plan, Annex 25C, Appendix 3, Page 58
- South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response, Part 3 Table to Figure 1, Page 3-12 These plans were reviewed and the TCPs and ACPs were modeled accordingly. Figure G-1 is a map of the existing traffic control points.
G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre-timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K-2 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP, the control type is indicated as "Traffic Control Point" in Table K-2.
As discussed in Section 7.3, there is limited traffic congestion within the EPZ. As such, no additional traffic control points are recommended.
G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. There are no ACPs identified in the existing emergency plans for Lexington and Fairfield Counties.
Newberry and Richland County emergency plans state that entrance barricades will be placed at all routes of ingress other than at TCPs, and entrance into the area will be strictly enforced by local law enforcement.
As discussed in Section 3.6, external traffic is considered on Interstate-26, US-76, and US-176, which enter the EPZ in Newberry and Richland Counties, and on US-321 in the Shadow Region in Fairfield County. The access control procedure discussed above for Newberry and Richland Counties will stop the flow of traffic into the EPZ at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, while the TCPs along US-321 in Fairfield County (See Figure G-1) can be used to stop the flow of traffic through the area in Fairfield County. As such, no additional ACPs are recommended.
Traffic and access control points should be periodically reviewed by state and county emergency planners with local and state police agencies.
Virgil C.Summer Nuclear Station G-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure G-1. VCSNS Traffic Control Points Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station G-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions
H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H-i) and maps of all Evacuation Regions. The percentages presented in Table H-1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 2-1.
Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.
KLD Engineering, P.c.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-i H-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 Table H-1. Percent of PAZ Population Evacuating for Each Region I I I Protective Action Zone I Region DescriptionjA- A- IA- I B- I B- IC- IC- IID- ID- I E- I E2 I F1 I F2 R01 2-Mile Ring20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 R02 5-Mile Ring202020 202020 R03 Full EPZ R04 S, SSW202020 20 20 20 20 20 20 R05 SW, WSW202020 20 20 20 20 2% 20 R07 WNW, NW20 20 20 2020 20 20 120 20 120 20 1 R08 NNW, N20 20 20 2020 20 2 R09 NNE, NE20 20 20 20 20 R10 ENE, E20 20 20 1111 ESE, SE, SSE20 R12 S2020 20 20202%
R13 SSW, SW20 20 20202%
R14 WSW, W2020 202020 R11 WNW, NW202020 R16 NNW2020 R17 N, NNE2020 R18 NE2020 R19 ENE, E20 (M20 20 20 R20 20E R21 SE 20E Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table H-1. Continued I I I Protective Action Zone II I 1-- 1 A-n I A-'I I A-.2 1I - I I--
1r i r.. 1n- I n.., I c-..1 r--.2 1 c..i I c-7 I R22 5-Mile Ring 20% 20% 20% 120%1 20% 20%
R23 S, SSW 120%m 20%
I - I 20% I20% 1 20% 1 20%I1 20% 20% 20%
R24 SW, WSW 20% 0 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
R25 W 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2 20% 20%
R26 WNW, NW 20% 20% I20% 20%
R27 NNW, N 20%
20% II 20% 20%
R28 NNE, NE 20% 20% I 20% 20% P20%1 20% 20%
R29 ENE, E 20% I 20% 20% I 20% 1 20% 20%
20% I 20% 1* 20% __ 20%
i__i._..._*.*._._*
PAZ(s) Shelter-in-Place Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-1. Region RO0 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-2. Region R02 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-3. Region R03 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-4. Region R04 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-5. Region R05 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-6. Region R06 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-7. Region R07 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-8. Region R08 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-9. Region R09 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-10. Region RIO Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-11. Region Rll Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-12. Region R12 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-13. Region R13 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-14. Region R14 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-15. Region R15 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-16. Region R16 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 Figure H-17. Region R17 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-18. Region R18 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-19. Region R19 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-20. Region R20 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-21. Region R21 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 0 Figure H-22. Region R22 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-23. Region R23 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-24. Region R24 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-25 Region R25 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-26. Region R26 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-27. Region R27 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-28. Region R28 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-29. Region R29 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Figure H-30. Region R30 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station H-33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
APPENDIX J Representative Inputs and Outputs from the DYNEV II System
J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J-1 provides the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the study area.
Refer to Table K-2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.
Table J-2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for five roadway segments (link) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
Table J-3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, Scenarios 8 and 11, which are ice scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times.
Table J-4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes (US 76, US 176, 1-26) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions.
As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, there is no material congestion within the EPZ. Consequently, the speeds shown in this table reflect free-flow speeds.
Table J-5 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
Figures J-1 through J-14 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion. As seen in Figures J-1 through J-14, the curves are closely aligned since there is no traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.
Virgil C.Summer Nuclear Station J-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections 392 3,422 0 US 76/US 176 and SH 393 27/Woodrow St Actuated 39 407 0 TOTAL 3,829 631 720 1 Actuated 936 2,617 0 630 US 76/US 176 and Koon Rd 392 416 0 TOTAL 3,753 852 1,039 0 218 US 76 and US 176 Actuated 612 1,772 0 936 647 0 TOTAL 3,458 222 2,959 11 221 US 76 and SH 6 Actuated 220 401 0 TOTAL 3,360 221 91 0 US 76 and Marina Rd Actuated 709 176 0 222 821 2,782 0 TOTAL 3,049 808 1,120 2 809 US 76 and SH 219 Actuated 843 718 0 810 905 0 TOTAL 2,743 226 2,395 0 225 US -76 and Lowman Home Actuated 224 119 0 Barn Rd 710 159 0
_ 1 TOTAL 2,673 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections, Cont'd 227 2,286 0 225 124 0 226 US-76 and Three Dog Rd Actuated 819 47 0 818 58 0 TOTAL 2,515 687 636 0 228 1,550 0 686 US-76 and Wessinger Rd Actuated 227 134 0 815 13 0 TOTAL 2,333 809 1,005 0 810 US 76 and SH 34 Actuated 921 895 0 813 393 0 TOTAL 2,293 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicle.
Enern Candidate Lin Ne w r Di eto a Detn to Deti ato 8032 1698 2 4 E, SE 8664 1 1698 8061 1698 86 14 E 8664 1698 8391 1698 322 36 S 8395 1698 8824 6750 8813 2161 498 13 W 8814 3810 8720 1698 8141 1698 682 24 E 8470 1698 8032 1698 8401 1698 781 13 W 8363 4500 8813 2161 8664 1698 899 54 E 8061 1698 8141 1698 8720 1698 1019 9 SW 8391 1698 8395 1698 8813 2161 1175 33 SW 8814 3810 8720 1698 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)
I-Seaio Network-Wide
-i 1213-1 Average 1.02 1.15 1.02 1.15 1.06 1.03 1.16 1.33 1.02 1.15 1.33 1.06 1.33 1.20 1.06 11 1.14 Travel Time (Min/Veh-Mi)
Network-Wide Average 58.76 52.09 58.98 52.01 56.56 58.27 51.78 45.15 59.00 52.02 45.27 56.57 49.95 52.81 Speed (mph)
Total Vehicles Exiting 28,080 28,208 27,740 27,877 18,584 28,346 28,470 28,621 27,691 27,827 27,978 18,582 33,487 28,104 Network I I I I Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table J-4. Average Evacuation Route Travel Time (min) for Region R03, Scenario 1 interstate Zb Wb 14.15 / . 1 L/.i 1 /I. 1 ]..$ 1 / . 1 / . I19 11.9 Interstate 26 EB 14.68 72.3 12.2 72.2 12.2 74.1 11.9 74.8 11.8 US 76 WB 12.86 51.3 15.0 51.2 15.1 50.7 15.2 51.7 14.9 US 76 EB 12.87 50.4 15.3 50.6 15.3 50.1 15.4 51.6 15.0 US 176 WB 18.69 55.4 20.2 55.4 20.2 56.1 20 56.2 19.9 US 176 EB 18.69 54.9 20.4 55.3 20.3 55.7 20.1 55.7 20.1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-6 J-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Rev. 2 Evacuation Time Estimate
Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario I Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval 440 993 1119 1144 37 5.52 4.76 4.15 4.10 195 574 663 670 71 2.44 2.75 2.46 2.40 243 642 868 914 92 3.05 3.07 3.22 3.28 134 403 523 549 150 1.68 1.93 1.94 1.97 130 631 818 845 180 1.63 3.02 3.04 3.03 2124 4670 5726 5774 541 26.66 22.36 21.25 20.71 454 1804 2442 2577 592 5.69 8.64 9.06 9.24 469 1581 2164 2248 597 5.88 7.57 8.03 8.06 122 351 455 480 609 1.53 1.68 1.69 1.72 3 17 25 27 636 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.10 32 110 145 152 638 0.40 0.52 0.54 0.54 233 639 896 970 707 2.92 3.06 3.33 3.48 128 627 956 1042 995
_________ 1.61 3.00 3.55 3.74 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
Table J-6. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Continued from previous page Vehicles Discharged During the Indicated Time Interval Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged During the
_Indicated Time Interval 257 670 856 897 1111 t 1-3.23 3.21 3.18 3.22 1113 423 1025 1303 1339 5.30 4.91 4.84 4.80 2251 5405 6940 7099 1125 28.25 25.88 25.76 25.46 332 745 1046 1155 1131
_________ 4.17 3.57 3.88 4.14 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)
-Trip Generation -ETE 100%
a' 80%
w U
a' 60%
4-0 I-
'I.-
0 40%
4-a' U
a'
- a. 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
-Trip Generation mETE 100%
80%
U1 60%
0 40%
4-20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)
-Trip Generation -ETE 100%
80%
L 0I 60%
0u 4- 40%
20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
-Trip Generation lETE 100%
.C 80%
"0 ý'.001ý_
60%
4.
40%
C 20%
0% 0/4001.r 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed lime (min)
Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)
- Trip Generation - ETE 100%
80%
60%
0 40%
0%
o 0% ,,
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed rime (min)
Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)
-Trip Generation -ETE 100%
A 80%
U 60%
0 o 40%
20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
- Trip Generation - ETE 100%
80%
60%
4-0 40%
- a. 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)
- Trip Generation - ETE 100%
S80%
60%
o 40%
- a. 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)
- Trip Generation . ETE 100%
V 80%
60%
0 I--
o 40%
- a. 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)
- Trip Generation l ETE 100%
8 80%
60%
o 40%
20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-1O. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)
- Trip Generation 1ETE 100%
.C u,80%
60%
0I 0 40%
20%
J1I ,
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed rime (min)
Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)
- Trip Generation - ETE 100%
S80%
60%
o 40%
- a. 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good, Construction (Scenario 13)
- Trip Generation 1ETE 100%
.2 80%
60%
0 o 40% '
C 41 L. 20%
0% W' 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Construction (Scenario 13)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
0 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)
-Trip Generation -ETE 100%
80%
60%
0 4.~
40%
C 20%
0%
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station J-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2