ML12356A169

Kld TR-505, Rev. 1, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Part 8 of 8

ML12356A169
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/30/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Northern States Power Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Xcel Energy
References
L-MT-12-112 KLD TR-505, Rev 1
Download: ML12356A169 (30)

Text

APPENDIX L Sub-Area Boundaries L. SUB-AREA BOUNDARIES Sub-Area 2 Sub-Area 5N Sub-Area 5E Counties:

Sherburne and Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People north of County Road 39 (Golf Course Road) and west of Elm Street and County Road 50 in Monticello and Monticello Township in Wright County.People south of US Highway 10, 137th Street Southeast and 140th Avenue (Sherburne Avenue) in the southern portion of Becker and Becker Township in Sherburne County.County: Sherburne Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People in Becker and Becker Township in Sherburne County.County: Sherburne Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People in Big Lake and Big Lake Township in Sherburne County.County: Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People north of County Road 106 (80th & 90th Streets) in the entire city of Monticello and all of Monticello Township in Wright County.County: Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People in Silver Creek Township and the northeast corner of Maple Lake Township in Wright County.This does include Lake Maria State Park.County: Sherburne Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People south of County Road 16 (57th Street Southeast) and west of Hwy 48 in Santiago Township in Sherburne County. People east of County Road 53 and south of County Road 16 (57th Street Southeast) in Palmer Township in Sherburne County.Sub-Area 5S Sub-Area 5W Sub-Area 1ON Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate L-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Sub-Area 1OE Sub-Area lOSE County: Sherburne Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People in the city of Orrock in Sherburne County. This area includes the Sand Dunes Game Refuge.County: Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People west of County Road 19 in Otsego and Otsego Township in Wright County.People west of County Road 19 and north of County Road 35 in St. Michael Township.

This does not include downtown St. Michael or downtown Albertville.

Sub-Area lOS County: Wright Sub-Area 10SW Sub-Area lOW Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People north of Hwy 55, north of County Road 35, and west of Pelican Lake in the city of Buffalo and Buffalo Township, in Wright County.County: Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People in Maple Lake Township and the city of Maple Lake in Wright County.County: Wright Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People south of the Mississippi River, west of Elder Road, west of Gowan Ave NW, and east of Hwy 24, Ireland road and IlIsley road in Clearwater Township and the city of Clearwater in Wright County.People east of Ireland road and 91st street, east of Hwy 7 (south of County 39)and west of Gowan Ave NW in Corrina Township in Wright County.County: Sherburne Defined as the area within the following boundary:

People south and east of State Highway 24 and the Clear Lake city limits in Clear Lake Township in Sherburne County. This area DOES NOT INCLUDE the city of Clear Lake.Sub-Area 1ONW Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate L-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 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 6, Region 3; a winter, 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 3 Hours 2:25 3:20 3 Hours 30 Minutes 2:25 3:40 4 Hours (Base) 2:25 4:10 As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes. As such, the ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile mirrors trip generation time after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes. The 90th percentile ETE is not sensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution.

The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translate into shorter ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile.

The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 9 0 th percentile ETE for protective action decision making.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant M-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 6, Region 3; a winter, 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 3.2 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 not impacted by shadow evacuation from 0% to 20%. Tripling the shadow percentage increases the ETE by 20 minutes at the 9 0 th percentile

-a material change. Decreasing the shadow percentage to 13 percent, reflecting the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F, does not have an effect on ETE.Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study EvcaigEvcainTmeEtmt orEtr P PretShao Shadow 0 1 0 1 2:25 1 4:10 13 5,628 2:25 4:10 20 (Base) 8,658 2:25 4:10 60 25,974 2:45 4:10 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate M-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 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 study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area 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 study area, 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 percent change in population within the study area was varied between -90% and+50%. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and in 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 (R01), 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. Note that all of the base ETE values are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25 percent of the base ETE is always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating.Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes are highlighted in red below -a 50% increase in the EPZ population.

It is highly unlikely that an updated ETE analysis will be required due to a decrease in population.

According to Table M-3, with a 90% decrease in population, the ETE for the full EPZ decreases by only 20 minutes. Xcel Energy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 50% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant M-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Population Change Region Base 30%40% 1 50%Base-30%-50%-90%2-MILE 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 5-MILE 2:30 2:40 2:45 2:50 2:30 2:15 2:10 j2:10 FULL-EPZ 2:40 2:45 2:55 2:25 2 2:1 Population Change Population Change Region Base 30% 40% 50% Base -30% -50% -90%2-MILE 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 5-MILE 4:05 4:05 4:10 4:15 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 FULL EPZ 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:20 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant KLD Engineering, P.C.M-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist.R Re.e Crtei Crtro Adrsse Comment 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, Figure 3-1, Figure 6-1 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 Sections 2.1, Section 3, Section 8 large employers, and special events should be identified.

c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.3, 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant KLD Engineering, p.c.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Critrio Addese Coment e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be described.

Yes Section 3 -avoid double counting Section 5, Appendix F -4.5% 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 Table 2-1, Table 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 Section 5.4.2, Section 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

I 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, Table 7-5, Table H-1 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 R Reie Crtei Crtro Addrsse Comment c. A table similar to Table 1-4, "Evacuation Areas for a Staged 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.

Yes Table 6-1, Table 7-5, Table H-1 2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents

-Section 3 population groups, including permanent residents of the Employees, transients -Section 3, EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Appendix E 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.growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the 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 land 2 Yes 1.97 persons per vehicle-Table 1-3 or justification should be provided for other values.b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E -Table E-4 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie CrtraCrtro Addesse Comment in EAnayi 2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, Section 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 3-6 -transients of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution Figure 3-8 -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 8-5, Table 8-10 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1, Section 8.4 residents should be used in the analysis.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-4 KI.D Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis d. The methodology used to determine the number of 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.Yes Section 8.5 e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 10 transportation resources.

Bus seating capacity of 50% Section 3.5, Section 8.1, Section 8.2, should be used or justification should be provided for Section 8.3 higher values.f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 8-1 -transit-dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.4 -transit-dependents registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

Section 8.5 -special needs 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, Section 8-3 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 -Table E-3, Table E-9 -list location, and average population should be provided.

facilities, type, location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Section 8.3, Section 3.5 -medical facilities data was obtained.

Section 8.6 -correctional facility Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NR Reie Crtei Crtro Adrssed Comment in EAnayi c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals should be provided.Yes Section 8.3, Table 8-4, Table E-3 d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3, Section 8.6 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Table 8-4, Table 8-5 provided.e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.4 -medical facilities medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Wright County Jail -shelters-in-place other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 8-1 -Schools population, and transportation resources required to Table 8-2 -Daycares support the evacuation, should be provided.

The source of this information should be provided.

Section 8.2 b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 8-1, 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 insufficient resources to evacuate schools and daycares in a single wave. Section 8.4 and Figure 8-1 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation lime Estimate N-6 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Critrio 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, Figure 7-1 from the NPP.Section 3.2 b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 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, Section 6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 3-6, Table 6-3, Table 6-4 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NRC Rview ritera Crierio Addese Coment b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification.

Yes Section 2.3 -Assumption 5 (offsite agencies indicated pass through traffic would be diverted within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />)Section 3.6 Table 6-3 -External Through Traffic footnote 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Table 3-7, Table 3-8 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, Appendix D conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D 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.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Addese Comment e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR-7002.Yes Appendix K, Figures K-1 through K-42 present the entire link-node analysis network at a scale suitable to identify all links and nodes 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.

N-9 KID Engineering, p.c.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NR Reie Crtei Crteio Addese Comment inE E A ay i 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 2-2 -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.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I

.R Reie Crtei Crteio Addese Comment in EAnayi 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times.Trip generation time includes the assumption that a percentage of residents will need to return home prior to evacuating.

Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for households with and without returning commuters.

Table 6-3 presents the percentage of households with returning 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.

Section 2.3, Assumption 3 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 5.4.3, 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.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NR Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse Comments*4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.4- page 8-7 and 8-8. Pre-in the ETE analysis.

If new plans should be developed with established bus routes do not exist. Basic the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible bus routes were developed for the ETE authorities.

analysis -see Figure 8-2, Table 8-10. State and local emergency agencies should review the ETE study including these prescribed routes.b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.5 ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-5 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 8.4, page 8-8 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 8.4 passengers should be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included.

Yes Figure 8-2 h. The trip generation time for non-ambulatory persons Yes Section 8.5 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.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crteio Adrsse Comments i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of return trips, if necessary.

Yes Section 8.4 Figure 8-1 Tables 8-11 through 8-13 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8-4, Tables 8-14 through 8-16, should be provided.

Table 8-18 b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.6 outbound speeds.c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-4, Tables 8-14 through should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these 8-16 residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4, Section 8.6 e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 -pages 8-10 through 8-12 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 8-5 additional trips should be needed.f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4- page 8-10 through 8-12 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 -pages 8-10 through 8-12 time elements for the return trips.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrse CommentsS inE EA nay i 4.1.4 Schools a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4, Tables 8-7 through 8-9 should be provided.b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 8-6.School bus speeds are presented in Tables 8-7 (good weather), 8-8 (rain) and 8-9 (snow).Section 8.4 discusses inbound and outbound speeds 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 8-6 through 8-7 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if Table 8-5 additional trips are needed.e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Section 8.4- page 8-6 through 8-8 should be provided.

Tables 8-7 through 8-9 f. If used, reception centers should be identified.

Discussion Yes Table 8-3. Students are evacuated to sister should be provided on whether students are expected to schools (reception centers for some pass through the reception center prior to being daycares) where they will be picked up by evacuated to their final destination.

parents or guardians.

N-14 KLD Engineering, p.c.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 R Reie Crtei Crtro Addesse Comment g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the time elements for the return trips.Yes Section 8-4 -page 8-7 through 8-8. Tables 8-7 through 8-9 provide time needed to arrive at sister school/reception center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation for each school and daycare 4.2 ETE Modeling a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.11.0).

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 Appendix B and Appendix C describe the set of model inputs should be provided.

simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J-2 -mode inputs b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Table C-1 Table C-2 analysis.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-15 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crteio Addese Comment 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 7-9 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 Table 7-1, Table 7-2 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NR Reie CrtraCrtro Addese Comment b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated data should be explained.

Yes Section 5.4 -truncating survey data to eliminate statistical outliers Table 7-2 -1 0 0 th percentile ETE for general public c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Table 7-3, Table 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 8-9 populations.

Tables 8-11 through 8-18 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 Appendix M time should be provided.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.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NR Review Crieria CriterionAddesdC m et 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 There are no outstanding issues.that may affect the ETE.5.4 Reviews and Updates a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC. j 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.Technical Reviewer Date Supervisory Review Date Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate N-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Enclosure 2 2012 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Recommendations (2 pages follow) 4 I(1 ENGINEERING RC.Memo To: Amy Hass, Edward Weinkam From: Brandon Allen CC: Kevin Weinisch Date: 11/28/12 Re: Recommendations Memo As a result of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study, KLD offers the following recommendations:

1. Examination of the general population ETE in Section 7 shows that the ETE for 100 percent of the population is generally 1 to 2 / hours longer than for 90 percent of the population.

Specifically, the additional time needed for the last 10 percent of the population to evacuate can be as much as double the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population.

This non-linearity reflects the fact that these relatively few stragglers require significantly more time to mobilize (i.e. prepare for the evacuation trip) than their neighbors.

This leads to two recommendations:

a. The public outreach (information) program should emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.).b. The decision makers should reference Table 7-1 which list the time needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population, when preparing recommended protective actions, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.2. Staged evacuation is not beneficial because traffic congestion within the 5-mile region never extends upstream to the point where it creates an impedance to evacuees from within the 2-mile region. Staged evacuation also adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2-mile region since they are forced to unnecessarily wait before they can start their evacuation trip.3. The roadway impact scenario -a single lane eastbound on Interstate-94 from a location by MNGP (between exits 183 and 193) to the end of the analysis-network at the interchange with SR-101 (exit 207) -has a significant impact on ETE with increases of up to 45 minutes for both the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles.

State and local law enforcement could consider traffic management tactics such as re-routing of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming 1-94. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage on 1-94 as expeditiously as possible.

4. Counties should implement procedures whereby schools and daycares are contacted prior to dispatch of buses from the depots to get an accurate count of students needing transportation and the number of buses required (See Section 8).5. Table 8-5 indicates that there are insufficient transportation resources to evacuate the transit-dependent population and special facility population within the EPZ in a single wave. A second wave is required to evacuate all students and staff at schools and daycares.

Mobilization time for the evacuation of the transit-dependent population, ambulatory and wheelchair-bound persons residing in medical facilities and ambulatory and wheelchair-bound homebound special needs persons are dictated by when buses have returned to the EPZ after the first wave evacuation of schoolchildren has been completed.

The second-wave ETE for transit-dependent population exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile.

See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.6. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) such as Dynamic Message Signs (DMS), Highway Advisory Radio (HAR), Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), etc. could be used to facilitate the evacuation process (See Section 9). The placement of additional signage should consider evacuation needs.7. Counties/State could establish strategic locations to position tow trucks provided with gasoline containers in the event of a disabled vehicle during the evacuation process (see Section 11) and could encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

8. Counties/states could establish a system/procedure to confirm that the Advisory to Evacuate is being adhered to (see the approach suggested by KLD in Section 12). Should the approach recommended by KLD in Section 12 be used, consideration should be given to keep a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at all times.