ML12356A170

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

ML12356A170
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/30/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Northern States Power Co, Xcel Energy, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-MT-12-112 KLD TR-505, Rev 1
Download: ML12356A170 (72)

Text

Enclosure I 2012 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis (456 Pages follow)

ENGINEERING P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Xcel Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 505

Table of Contents I INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................

1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process......................................................................................................

1-1 1.2 The M onticello Nuclear Generating Plant Location...................................................................

1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities.................................................................................................................

1-5 1.4 Com parison with Prior ETE Study..............................................................................................

1-9 2

STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS.............................................................................................

2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates...........................................................................................................................

2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions..........................................................................................

2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions.....................................................................................................................

2-5 3

DEM AND ESTIM ATION.......................................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents.................................................................................................................

3-2 3.2 Shadow Population....................................................................................................................

3-7 3.3 Transient Population................................................................................................................

3-10 3.4 Em ployees................................................................................................................................

3-14 3.5 M edical Facilities......................................................................................................................

3-18 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population..............................................................

3-18 3.7 Special Event............................................................................................................................

3-18 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and...............................................................................................................

3-21 4

ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections..............................................................

4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highway........................................................................

4-4 4.3 Application to the M NGP Study Area........................................................................................

4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads.................................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highway...........................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.3 Freeways............................................................................................................................

4-7 4.3.4 Intersections......................................................................................................................

4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation..........................................................................................

4-8 5

ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E..........................................................................................

5-1 5.1 Background................................................................................................................................

5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations.....................................................................................................

5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5...................................................

5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution....................................................................

5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers............................................................................................................

5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation.................................................................................

5-16 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterways and Recreational Areas.................................................

5-18 6

DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS.....................................................................

6-1 7

GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE)..........................................................

7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation.........................................................................

7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation......................................................................................................................

7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation.....................................................................

7-2 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant i

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.4 Evacuation Rates........................................................................................................................

7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results....................................................................................

7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results.........................................................................................................

7-5 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables...................................................................................................

7-6 8

TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES............................

8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate............................................................................

8-2 8.2 School Population -Transit Dem and.........................................................................................

8-4 8.3 M edical Facility Dem and............................................................................................................

8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People.......................................................

8-5 8.5 Special Needs Population.........................................................................................................

8-13 8.6 Correctional Facilities...............................................................................................................

8-14 9

TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY...................................................................................................

9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES..................................................................................................................

10-1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS.......................................................................

11-1 12 CONFIRM ATION TIM E..................................................................................................................

12-1 List of Appendices A.

GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S..............................................................................

A-1 B.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL....................................................

B-1 C.

DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL...........................................................................................

C-1 C.1 M ethodology..............................................................................................................................

C-5 C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram............................................................................................

C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel....................................................................................................

C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent..............................................................................................................

C-13 C.2 Im plem entation.......................................................................................................................

C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure............................................................................................

C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD)...............................................

C-16 D.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE..........................................................................

D-1 E.

SPECIAL FACILITY DATA......................................................................................................................

E-1 F.

TELEPHONE SURVEY...........................................................................................................................

F-1 F.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................

F-1 F.2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan.......................................................................................

F-2 F.3 Survey Results............................................................................................................................

F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results...........................................................................................

F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response.............................................................................................................

F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results..................................................................................................

F-10 F.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................

F-14 G.

TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN..........................................................................................................

G-1 G.1 Traffic and Access Control Points..........................................................................................

G-1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

H.

EVACUATIO N REG IO NS.....................................................................................................................

H-1 J.

REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM..................................

J-1 K.

EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK..............................................................................................

K-1 L.

SU B-AREA BO UN DA RIES....................................................................................................................

L-1 M.

EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES..........................................................................................

M-1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times........................................................................

M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate................. M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population.........................................................................

M-3 N.

ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST...................................................................................................................

N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped iii KID Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

List of Figures Figure 1-1. M NG P Location.......................................................................................................................

1-4 Figure 1-2. MNGP Link-Node Analysis Network........................................................................................

1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology.......................................................................................

2-4 Figure 3-1. M N G P EPZ...............................................................................................................................

3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector.............................................................................

3-5 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector.................................................................................

3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector.................................................................................................

3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector.....................................................................................................

3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................

3-12 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector.................................................................................................

3-13 Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector............................................................................................

3-16 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector................................................................................................

3-17 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental Diagram s..........................................................................................................

4-10 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip..............................................................

5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities........................................................................................

5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution.......................................................

5-15 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions.......................................................................

5-20 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Region....................................................................................................................................

5-22 Figure 6-1. M NG P EPZ Sub-Areas..............................................................................................................

6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology.....................................................................................

7-16 Figure 7-2. M NG P Shadow Region..........................................................................................................

7-17 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate....................................

7-18 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate........................ 7-19 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate..........................................

7-20 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... 7-21 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate..........................................

7-22 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours, 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate...................... 7-23 Figure 7-9. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate..........................................

7-24 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03....................................................

7-26 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03....................................................

7-26 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03....................................................

7-27 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03....................................................

7-27 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03....................................................

7-28 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03....................................................

7-28 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03....................................................

7-29 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03..................................................

7-29 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03..................................................

7-30 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03..................................................

7-30 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03..................................................

7-31 Figure 7-23. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03..................................................

7-31 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations......................................................................

8-15 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes.............................................................................................

8-16 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 10-1. General Population Reception Centers and Sister Schools................................................

10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route M ap........................................................................................................

10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-DTRAD Interface........................................................................

B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network.........................................................................................

C-4 Figure C-2. Fundamental Diagrams...........................................................................................................

C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t, > 0..............................................................................

C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3)...............................................

C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities.....................................................................................................

D-5 Figure E-1. Overview of Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within the EPZ.....................................

E-IO Figure E-2. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas 5N and 10W................................ E-11 Figure E-3. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas 5E, 5S and lOSE...........................

E-12 Figure E-4. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas 10S, 1OSW and the Shadow Region......................................................................................................................................................

E-13 Figure E-5. M edical Facilities within the EPZ.....................................................................................

E-14 Figure E-6. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ.....................................................................................

E-15 Figure E-7. Recreational Areas within the EPZ...................................................................................

E-16 Figure E-8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ.....................................................................................

E-17 Figure E-9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ..............................................................................

E-18 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ.......................................................................................................

F-4 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability................................................................................................

F-4 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 5 Person Households.................................................................

F-5 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 6 to 9+ Person Households...............................................................

F-5 Figure F-S. Household Ridesharing Preference.........................................................................................

F-6 Figure F-6. Comm uters in Households in the EPZ.....................................................................................

F-7 Figure F-7. M odes of Travel in the EPZ.....................................................................................................

F-8 Figure F-8. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation...............................................................................

F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets...........................................................................................

F-9 Figure F-10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School..........................................................

F-11 Figure F-11. W ork to Home Travel Time.................................................................................................

F-12 Figure F-12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation..........................................................................

F-13 Figure F-13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow.....................................................................

F-14 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the M NGP EPZ............................................................

G-2 Figure H-1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................

H-3 Figure H-2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................

H-4 Figure H-3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................

H-5 Figure H-4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................

H-6 Figure H-S. Region R05.............................................................................................................................

H-7 Figure H-6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................

H-8 Figure H-7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................

H-9 Figure H-8. Region R08...........................................................................................................................

H-10 Figure H-9. Region R09...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Figure H-10. Region R10.........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-11. Region R11.........................................................................................................................

H-13 Figure H-12. Region R12.........................................................................................................................

H-14 Figure H-13. Region R13.........................................................................................................................

H-15 Figure H-14. Region R14.........................................................................................................................

H-16 Figure H-15. Region RIS.........................................................................................................................

H-17 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant v

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-16. Region R16.........................................................................................................................

H-18 Figure H-17. Region R17.........................................................................................................................

H-19 Figure H-18. Region R18.........................................................................................................................

H-20 Figure H-19. Region R19.........................................................................................................................

H-21 Figure H-20. Region R20.........................................................................................................................

H-22 Figure H-21. Region R21.........................................................................................................................

H-23 Figure H-22. Region R22.........................................................................................................................

H-24 Figure H-23. Region R23.........................................................................................................................

H-25 Figure H-24. Region R24.........................................................................................................................

H-26 Figure H-25. Region R25.........................................................................................................................

H-27 Figure H-26. Region R26.........................................................................................................................

H-28 Figure H-27. Region R27.........................................................................................................................

H-29 Figure H-28. Region R28.........................................................................................................................

H-30 Figure H-29. Region R29.........................................................................................................................

H-31 Figure H-30. Region R30.........................................................................................................................

H-32 Figure H-31. Region R31.........................................................................................................................

H-33 Figure H-32. Region R32.........................................................................................................................

H-34 Figure H-33. Region R33.........................................................................................................................

H-35 Figure H-34. Region R34.........................................................................................................................

H-36 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1).............. J-9 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)...........................

J-9 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)............ J-10 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)......................... J-1 Figure J-S. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)..............................................................................................................................................

J-11 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6).......

J-11 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: W inter, M idweek, M idday, Rain (Scenario 7)...............................

J-12 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8).............................

J-12 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9).............. J-13 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)...........................

J-13 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11).........................

J-14 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)...........................................................................................................................................

J-14 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)............................................................................................................................................

J-15 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)............................................................................................................................................

J-15 Figure K-1. M NGP Link-Node Analysis Netw ork.......................................................................................

K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 1.....................................................................................

K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 2.....................................................................................

K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 3................................................................................

K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 4.....................................................................................

K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 5......................................

............................................... K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 6.....................................................................................

K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 7.....................................................................................

K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8..............................................................................

K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9............................................................................

K-11 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant vi KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 10...............................................................................

K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 11...............................................................................

K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 12...............................................................................

K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 13...............................................................................

K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 14...............................................................................

K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 15...............................................................................

K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 16...............................................................................

K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 17...............................................................................

K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 18...............................................................................

K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 19...............................................................................

K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 20...............................................................................

K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 21...............................................................................

K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 22...............................................................................

K-24 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 23...............................................................................

K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 24...............................................................................

K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 25...............................................................................

K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 26...............................................................................

K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 27...............................................................................

K-29 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 28...............................................................................

K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 29...............................................................................

K-31 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 30...............................................................................

K-32 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 31...............................................................................

K-33 Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 32...............................................................................

K-34 Figure K-34. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 33...............................................................................

K-35 Figure K-35. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 34...............................................................................

K-36 Figure K-36. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 35...............................................................................

K-37 Figure K-37. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 36...............................................................................

K-38 Figure K-38. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 37...............................................................................

K-39 Figure K-39. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 38...............................................................................

K-40 Figure K-40. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 39...............................................................................

K-41 Figure K-41. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 40...............................................................................

K-42 Figure K-42. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 41...............................................................................

K-43 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant vii KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction...........................................................................................................

1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics...........................................................................................................

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons............................................................................................................

1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions...............................................................................................

2-3 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather.................................................................................

2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population.......................................................................................

3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-Area....................................................

3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector.............................................................................

3-7 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles.....................................................................

3-11 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles......................................

3-15 Table 3-6. MNGP EPZ External Traffic.....................................................................................................

3-20 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand...........................................................................................

3-22 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand.................................................................................................

3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities................................................................................

5-3 Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public...............................................................................

5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work...................................................

5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home..................................................................

5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate.......................................................

5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow......................................................

5-10 Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events............................................................................................

5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions.............................................................................................

5-13 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation.................... 5-19 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation....................... 5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions...........................................................................................

6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions...............................................................................................

6-5 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios............................................

6-6 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario..................................................................................................

6-7 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population...........................

7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population....................... 7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region............................ 7-13 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region.......................... 7-14 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions.........................................................................................

7-15 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates..............................................................................

8-17 Table 8-2. School, Pre-School and Daycare Population Demand Estimates...........................................

8-18 Table 8-3. Sister Schools.........................................................................................................................

8-20 Table 8-4. Medical Facility Transit Demand............................................................................................

8-22 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources..................................................................................

8-23 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions..........................................................................................................

8-24 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather..............................................................

8-26 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain..............................................................................

8-28 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow............................................................................

8-30 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes........................................................................

8-32 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather........................................

8-33 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain........................................................

8-34 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow.......................................................

8-35 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather.............................................

8-36 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain..............................................................

8-37 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow............................................................

8-38 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates....................................

8-39 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation.............. 12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms................................................................................

A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II........................................................

C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model...........................................................................

C-3 Table C-3. G lossary....................................................................................................................................

C-8 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ.............................................................................................................

E-2 Table E-2. Pre-Schools and Daycares within the EPZ................................................................................

E-4 Table E-3. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ..............................................................................................

E-5 Table E-4. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ..............................................................................................

E-6 Table E-5. Cam pgrounds w ithin the EPZ...................................................................................................

E-7 Table E-6. Parks w ithin the EPZ.................................................................................................................

E-7 Table E-7. Golf Courses w ithin the EPZ.....................................................................................................

E-8 Table E-8. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ..............................................................................................

E-9 Table E-9. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ.......................................................................................

E-9 Table F-1. Monticello Telephone Survey Sampling Plan...........................................................................

F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Sub-Area Population Evacuating for Each Region.................................................

H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections........................................

J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input...............................................................................................

J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)....................... J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Sce nario 1).................................................................................................................................................

J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1..................... J-7 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics......................................................................

K-44 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled.................................... K-105 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study.......................................

M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study....................................................

M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change.................................................................................

M -4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist..............................................................................................

N-1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) located in Wright County, Minnesota. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Xcel Energy and State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.

10CFR50, Appendix E - "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began at the end of February 2012 and extended over a period of nine months.

The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Attended "kick-off" meetings with Xcel Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010.

Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the MNGP, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.

Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant.

Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county.

Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

" The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 12 Sub-Areas. These Sub-Areas are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 34 Evacuation Regions.

" The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow).

One special event scenario involving Riverfest was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 94 eastbound for the duration of the evacuation.

" Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

" A rapidly escalating accident at the MNGP that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

" While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent "upper bound" estimates. This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.

If the emergency occurs while schools or daycares are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to sister schools or reception centers, respectively, located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

" Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans.

Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required.

Separate ETE are calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-2 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Computation of ETE A total of 476 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 34 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (34 x 14 = 476).

Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place. Once 90% of the 2-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (non-compliance) even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

A link-node representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures.

The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.

The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-3 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

because the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Sherburne and Wright Counties, and identifies critical intersections. The existing traffic management plans are adequate and no additional TACPs are identified as a result of this study.

Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.

Figure 6-1 displays a map of the MNGP EPZ showing the layout of the 12 Sub-Areas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

" Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Sub-Area based on the 2010 Census data.

" Table 6-1 defines each of the 34 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sub-Areas.

Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

• Tables 7-1 and Table 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

• Tables 7-3 and Table 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather.

Figure H-8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1.

Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions

" General population ETE were computed for 476 unique cases - a combination of 34 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:00 (hr:min) to 3:30 at the 90th percentile.

Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation "tail". As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-4 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-10 through 7-23.

" Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R02, R04 through R11 with Regions R26 through R34, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

" Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday, good weather) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicate that the special event has no effect on ETE for the 9 0 th or 1 0 0 th percentiles. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - 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) - does have a significant impact on ETE for evacuation of Sub-Areas 5E, 5S or lOSE (Regions R02 through R04, R09 through R14, and R20 through R25) with up to 45 minute increases for the 90th percentile and up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for the 100th percentile. With a lane closed on 1-94 eastbound, the capacity of 1-94 is reduced to half, increasing congestion and prolonging ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Big Lake is the most congested area within the EPZ during an evacuation, and Elk River and Otsego also exhibit significant levels of congestion within the shadow area. The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is along US-10 EB. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 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 after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-9.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for schools are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. Due to the shortfall in transportation resources, the evacuations of all other transit-dependent population groups exceed the 9 0 th percentile ETE for the general population.

See Section 8.

" 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 9 0 th percentile. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

State and county emergency plans indicate that only Emergency Workers can operate a vehicle returning to the EPZ once a general emergency is declared. Up to I hour and 30 minutes would be required to complete just-in-time training and issue dosimetry. This additional time is incorporated into each of the second wave calculations.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1.

The general population ETE is sensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases the 9 0 th percentile ETE by 20 minutes). See Table M-2.

• A population increase of 50% will result in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 6-1. MNGP EPZ Sub-Areas Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 2 - Sherburne 478 745 2 - Wright 2,422 2,413 5N 5,814 8,634 5E 12,916 17,571 S9A5R4 13.527 5W 2,559 2,557 1ON 583 708 O0E 2,368 2,920 lOSE 1,368 3,044 los 5,399 8,176 1OSW 3,395 3,812 low 2,646 3,449 IONW 1,049 1,079 EPZ Population Growth:

35.69%

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Sub-Area I

Region Description I

4 12 I 5N I SE 55 I SW I 1ON IOE I lOSE IOS I 1OSW I lOW I lONW I R01 2-Mile Radius R02 5-Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ Region Wind Direction From:

Sub-Area I 1ON 10E I 10SE los 10SW lOW I 1ONW R04 N, NNE, NE, ENE ROS E

R06 ESE, SE, SSE R07 S

R08 SSW, SW, WSW R09 W

R10 WNW, NW 4-4 s and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Rll NNW Evacuate 2-Mile Ra Region Wind Direction From:

L Sub-Area R12 N

R13 NNE, NE R14 ENE RIS E

R16 ESE R17 SE R18 SSE R19 S

R20 SSW, SW R21 WSW R22 W

R23 WNW R24 NW R25 NNW Staged Evacuation -

Wind Direction Region From:

R26 5-Mile Rin R27 N, NNE, NE, ENE R28 E

R29 ESE, SE, SSE R30 S

2i Ri EvctS1ON th E

1E 2-Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate OSE 10S 10SW 10W 1ONW

-4 4

+

to 5 Miles ownwind Sub-Area 1OE I lOSE 10S 1OSW 1oW I 1ONW 4

4 4

4

+

1~tz~

1 1__ i I

___I I

I R31 R32 R33 SSW, SW, WSW W

WNW, NW NNW I

IEHiN 11 n-Sub-Area(s) Shelter-in-Place Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Da of Tmeo Scnai Sesn WekDy W

atepca 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5

Summer

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6

Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7

Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8

Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9

Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Riverfest Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on 1-94 EB 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow RSpecial Roadway WeaWeatheeather Weather Weather Rain Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 12:05 2:0512:0512:0512:0012:05 2:05 2:101 2:05 2:05 2:1012:001 2:05 12:15 R02 2:30 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:15 2:25 2:35 3:00 2:20 2:25 2:50 2:15 2:20 2:55 R03

.2:25 2:35 2:20 2:30 2:10 2:25 2:35 2:

2:20 2:25 2:50 2:10 2:20 2:50 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:50 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R06 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:15 R07 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 200 2:15 R08 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:30 2:40 3:05 2:30 2:35 2:55 2:20 2:25 2:40 R09 2:30 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:30 2:40 3:00 2:20 2:25 2:50 2:15 2:25 2:55 RIO 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:30 2:35 3:00 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:20 2:25 3:00 R11 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:50 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:05 2:10 2:20 1:55 2:05 2:45 R13 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:25 2.05 2:05 2:20 1:55 2:05 2:35 R14 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:35 R15.2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:0.5 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:25 R16 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:25 R17 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:25 R18 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:25 R19 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:25 R20 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:15 2:30 2:35 3:05 2:25 2:30 2:55 2:20 2:25 2:50 R21 2:25 2:40 2:25 2:0 2:20 2:30 2:35 3:05 2:25 2:30 2:55 2:20 2:25 2:5 R22 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:15 2:30 2:35 3:00 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:15 2:25 3:00 R23 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:15 2:30 2:40 3:00 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:15 2:25 3:05 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday

__Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Ri Snw Good Ri Snw Good Special Roadway WahrWah rai Weather Weather Ri Snw Weather Ri Snw Weather Event Impact R24 2:30 2:35 2:20 2:30 2:15 2:25 2:40 3:00 2:20 2:30 2:50 2:15 2:20 3:00 Weathe 2:10 Weathe 2:0 2:1 2:00 2:1

_:0 225 20 20

0

02:525 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R26 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:20 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:55 2:50 3:15 R2 :5

5 2:0 23 2:40

5 23

5 23 2:35 2:50 2:40 2:03:10 R28 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:15 2:10 2:20 R9 2:2,

5

02:202 2:25 2:0 2:5 2:02:20~

2:20 2:40 Z2:2 2:2 23 R30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:35 2:20 2:20 2:35 2:25 2:20 2:30 R3

55 3:05 2:55 3:00 3:0 2:55 3:05

>3:3 2:55 3:00 3:25 3:0 25 30 R32 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:20 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:55 2:50 3:15 33 3:00 3:05 2:55 3:00 3:00 2:55 3:05 3:25 2:5 30 320

0255:5 R34 2:30 2:35 1 2:30 12:35 2:35 2:30 12:35 12:50 1 2:30 12:35 2:50 2:35 2:30 3:05 Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Montcell NucearGeneatin Plat KD EnineeingP.C KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Eire Midweek Weekend EPZ Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region GoodI Good I

an Good GoodI Goodl Good Special Roadway Weather IRain Weather Ran Weather Weather Rain Snow Weather Rain Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 14:0014:0014:0014:00 4:0014:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45144:00

DO1 4:05 R02 4:05 4:10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:45 R03 4:10 j4:10 4:10 4:10 j4:10 j4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 14:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 5:00 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:05 4:10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:35 R05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R06 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R07 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 405 4:05 4:05 R08 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R09 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:40 R

i1 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:40 11 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 5:00 R13 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:45 R14 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:35 R15 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R16 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R17 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R18 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R19 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R20 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R21 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 R22 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 5:00 R3 4:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 4:10 4:10 14:10 4:55 4:10 14:10 14:55 4:10 4:10 5:00 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday

__Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Ri Snw Good Ri Snw Good Special Roadway WahrWah rai Weather Weather Weather Ri Snw Weather Event Impact Weahe Weather1 :0

0 41 41

5

0 41 45

0

050 R25 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:55 4:10 4:10 45:0 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R26 4:05 4:10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:10 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:55 R2:5 4:10 4:M 4:05 4:0 4:0 4:5

0 4:05 4:05 4:5 4:05 4:5

5 R28 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4.05 4.05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4.50 4:05 4:05 4:05 R2

5 40 4:

05 4:05 4-05

05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:0 4:5 4:05 4:05:0 R30 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4.05 4.05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4.50 4.05 4:05 4:05 R1 4:05 4:10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:0 4:10 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:5 4:05 4:05 4:05 R32 4:05 4:10 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:10 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:55 R3 4:05 4:10 4:0 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:10 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:5 4:05

545 R34 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 4:05 14:05 14:50 14:05 4:05 4:50 4:05 4:05 4:55 Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate Montcell NucearGeneatin Plat KD EnineeingP.C KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday l

IIGood Special Roadway Region Good Ran Good Ran Good Good Ri Snw Good Rain Snow Weathe Specia Impadwa Weather Weather Weather Weather Rain Snow e

r Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region ROI 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R02 2:05 2:05 j2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 12:05 2:05 2:100j 2:00 2:05 2:15 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles R04 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2.05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R6 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 205 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R07 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 RO8 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R09 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 RIO 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R11 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles R26 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R27 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R28 2.05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R29 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R30 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R31 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R32 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R33 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 R34 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 1.2:05 2:0 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 ES-iS KID Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Ran Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Weathe Rain Snow Weahe d

Se iapRadwa Weather Ran Weather Weather Weather I IWahreter Event Ipc Entire 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region R02 4:00 4:00 4:00 44:00 4:00 1

4:00 1 4:00 4:45 1 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles RO4 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R05 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R07 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 ROB 4:00 4:00 4

4-00 4:00 4:0 4:0 445 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00:05 R09 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 RO 4:009

00 9 4:00 4:00 4:DO 4:0 4.00 44

0 40

5 40

0 40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles R26 4:00 4:00 4:00.............00 4:00*4: 5.

4:004.00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R27 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R,2 4:00 4;00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R31 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R3

0

0 4:0 40 40

0

0 4:45 40 4:0 4:45 4:0 4:00k 4:05 R31 :00

00 4:0 4:0 4:900

0 4:00 4:4

0 40

5 40:0 40 R33 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 4:00 4:05 R34 4:0<0 4:00 1 4:00 4:00 4:0<0 4:00 4:00 4:45 4:00 14:014:&454

.009P 4:0<0 74:0 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather DU*rwi nI'II*

au:IUUI I/

Becker Intermediate Elementary School 90 15 15.6 54.9 17 Becker Middle School 90 15 15.7 54.9 17 Becker Primary School 90 15 15.7 54.9 17 Independence Elementary School 90 15 5.9 21.2 17 Liberty Elementary School 90 15 5.8 17.7 20 Big Lake Middle School 90 15 6.0 21.2 17 Big Lake High School 90 15 6.6 21.1 19 Becker Primary School Early Childhood 90 15 15.7 54.9 17 Red Balloon Child Care Center 90 15 16.2 52.9 18 Agape Christian Pre-School 90 15 6.3 18.4 20 MonticelloT Middle SchoolS 90D 15 7.0 49.1 Pinewood Elementary School 90 15 6.3 52.6 7

Prairie House 90 15 10.1 52.7 11 Alternative Learning Program 90 15 7.1 54.3 8

Eastview Elementary (Family Center) 90 15 5.9 51.9 7

Little Mountain Elementary School 90 15 6.6 51.9 8

Monticello High School 90 15 6.6 51.9 8

Monticello Middle School 90 15 7.0 49.1 9

Swan River Montessori School 90 15 8.2 52.2 9

Fieldstone Elementary School 90 15 0.3 50.0 1

Kaleidoscope Charter School 90 15 1.4 38.5 2

St. Michael-Albertville High School 90 15 0.3 50.0 1

Buffalo Community Middle School 90 15 1.0 37.9 2

Buffalo High School 90 15 1.4 24.2 3

Cornerstone High School 90 15 1.0 37.9 2

Eastern Wright Elementary School 90 15 1.0 37.9 2

L.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.4 2.3 10.9

,)1 a j

3 3

3 31 31 31 31 3

15 la 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 3.8 2.7 3.4 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 5

4 5

15 15 15 15 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Ta. tranka Elermntaryl SchUoI Tatanka Elementary School 14 90 15 0.2 9.7 1

Wright Technical Center Headstart 90 15 1.0 37.9 2

Wright Technical Center High School 90 15 1.0 37.9 2

Maple Lake Elementary School 90 15 1.2 39.1 2

Maple Lake High School 90 15 1.2 39.1 2

St. Timothy's Catholic School 90 15 1.3 46.0 2

Westside School 90 15 1.1 47.5 1

Discovery Elementary School1 90 15 0.0 0.0 0

Northwinds Elementary School' 90 15 0.0 0.0 0

Parkside Elementary School' 90 15 0.0 1

0.0 0

Phoenix Learning Center' 90 15 0.0 0.0 0

PRIDE Transitions' 90 15 0.0 0.0 0

Playhouse Child Care Center 90 15 7.8 55.0 9

Pumpkin Patch Pre-School 90 15 6.3 51.9 7

St. Francis Xavier Child Development 90 15 2.2 9.5 14 Preschool Maple Lake Preschool 90 15 1.2 39.1 2

Bright Eyes Montessori School 90 15 1.3 30.6 3

10.6 10.6 11.0 11.0 19.3 19.3 19.3 19.3 10.8 11.9 10.5 11.0 10.8 8.6 8.6 10.6 19.3 13.1 8.9 14 14 15 15 26 26 26 26 14 16 14 15 14 11 11 14 26 17 42.7 7

'Not included in calculation for Maximum and Average ETE values since school is located outside the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Figure H-B. Region ROB Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), located in Wright County, Minnesota.

ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkhle Natur of Stkhle intracio Meetings to define data requirements and set up Xcel Energy contacts with local government agencies. Obtain county and state emergency plans.

Wright County Nuclear Department Met to discuss project methodology, key project Sherburne County Emergency Services assumptions and to define data needs. Obtain City of Monticello Building Department school/daycare data.

Met to discuss project methodology, key project Minnesota Homeland Security and EmergencyMetodsuspjctmhdlgykypret Management (MN HSEM) assumptions and to define data needs. Obtain GIS M files with existing traffic management plans.

1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from Xcel Energy.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 1-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Wright County Nuclear Department, Sherburne County Emergency Service, Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency Management and City of Monticello Building Department to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census.

e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

f.

Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip.

These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.

3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios. These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state law enforcement in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic and Access Control Points (TCAP) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing Sub-Areas to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 12 Sub-Areas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries.

"Regions" are groups of contiguous Sub-Areas for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Xcel Energy and from the telephone survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

c.

Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each "origin" (location of each "source" where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the MNGP.

8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, transients and employees ("general population") with access to private vehicles. Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Location The MNGP is located along the south bank of the Mississippi River in Wright County, Minnesota. The site is approximately 35 miles northwest of Minneapolis, MN and 20 miles southeast of St. Cloud, MN. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Sherburne and Wright Counties in Minnesota. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the MNGP. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Figure 1-1. MNGP Location Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2:

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width 0

Actual free speed Shoulder type & width 0

Abutting land use Interchange geometries 0

Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%)

0 Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for two-lane highways. Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30.

These links may be Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 1-5 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEVII which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Traffic signals are either pre-timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings~vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TACPs at locations which' have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre-timed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

Figure 1-2 presents the link-node analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.

Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate "source" links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-2. MNGP Link-Node Analysis Network 1-7 KID Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

DYNEV II consists of four sub-models:

A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).

A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate' destination (D) nodes for each "origin" (0) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are "generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.

A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.

A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.

Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, I-DYNEV, the following references are suggested:

NUREG/CR-4873 -

Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR-4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.

Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.

Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the MNGP.

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2008 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

Vehicle occupancy rates are based upon the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents. The number of evacuating vehicles per household is 1.39. Previous study used 1 evacuating vehicle per household, resulting in a 39% increase in the number of resident vehicles in the model.

Trip generation rates are based upon results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents. The 100th percentile ETE are essentially dictated by mobilization time, i.e., the time for the last percentage of individuals to begin their evacuation trip.

" The highway representation is far more detailed.

" More accurate representation of signalized intersections in the roadway network.

Previous study used a "priority rule" (see Appendix B of the previous study) whereas the current study modeled signals as they appear in the network (see Section 1.3).

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic

.reios StdCurn TSuy Resident Population Basis 2000 US Census Data extrapolated with 2007 population estimates at township and municipal level; Population = 64,184 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.

Population = 68,635 Vehicle occupancy based upon township average numbers of Resident Population persons per household with the 2.74 persons/household, 1.39 evacuating Resilen POcplatnc assumption of 1 evacuating vehicles/household yielding: 1.97 Vehicle Occupancy vehicle per household. Vehicle persons/vehicle.

occupancy ranges from 2.50 to 3.00 persons per vehicle.

Employee estimates based on information provided and phone calls to major employers in the Employee estimates based on information EPZ. 1.0 employees per vehicle provided and phone calls to major employers Employee were used for all major in the EPZ.

Population employers. Employees not 1.03 employees per vehicle based on reduced to avoid double telephone survey results.

counting of permanent Employees = 2,270 Total and 1,128 Non-EPZ.

residents.

Employees = 2,098 (Total) 1-9 KID Engineering, p.c.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

To-icPeiu T Std CretE Sud Transit-Dependent Population Census data used to provide an estimate of the number of people without access to personal transportation. No number provided.

Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 1,488 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 50 buses to evacuate. An additional 110 homebound special needs persons needed special transportation to evacuate (69 required a bus, 34 required a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and 7 required an ambulance).

Transient estimates based on Transient estimates based upon information previous ETE study (November provided and phone calls to transient 2003), internet searches, attractions in the EPZ. Significant decrease in Transient Monticello Chamber of transient population is attributed to double Population Commerce and phone calls to counting individuals as transients and EPZ transient attractions in the EPZ.

residents in the previous ETE study.

Transients = 5,111 Transients = 2,060 Special facility population based on Special facility population based information provided by each county within on information provided by each the EPZ.

county within the EPZ.

Medical Facility:

Special Facilities Special Facility Population =

Current census = 290 Population 1,355 Buses Required = 28 Vehicles originating at special Ambulances Required = 18 facilities = 1,341 Correctional facility = 110 inmates (shelter-in-place)

School population based on School population based on information information provided and phone provided by each county within the EPZ calls to daycares.

(Daycares are included in these estimates School Population School enrollment = 18,399 School enrollment = 20,446 Vehicles originating at schools =

Buses required = 423 371 Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the EPZ, within EPZ In areas Not considered but not within the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be Figure 2-1) evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Evacuation Not considered Shadow Region I _(see Figure 7-2)

Network Size 374 links 1,517 links; 1,162 nodes Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

I oi rvosEE Std Curn T td Roadway Geometric Data Field surveys conducted between May and August 2008.

Field surveys conducted in February 2012.

Roads and intersections were video archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Sister Assistance Center.

School/Reception Center.

100 percent of transit-Ridesharing dependent persons will 50 percent of transit-dependent persons will evacuate with a neighbor or evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

friend.

Trip Generation curves adapted Based on residential telephone survey of from discussions with local specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

emergency management Residents with commuters returning leave personnel. Permanent residents between 15 and 240 minutes.

Trip Generation for evacuate between 30 and 150 Residents without commuters returning leave Evacuation minutes after the advisory to between 15 and 165 minutes.

evacuate.

Employees and transients leave between 15 Employees and transients leave and 90 minutes.

between 30 and 60 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free capacity and free flow speed of flow speed of all links in the network are Weather all links in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20%

reduced by 20% in the event of for snow.

rain and 30% for snow.

Modeling NETVAC2 DYNEV II System -Version 4.0.11.0 Riverfest Special Events Not considered Special Event Population = 990 additional transients s 24 Regions and 12 Scenarios 34 Regions (central sector wind direction and Evacuation Cases producing 288 unique cases.

each adjacent sector technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 476 unique cases.

ETE reported for 1 0 0 th percentile ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile Evacuatispontim, population. Results presented population. Results presented by Region and by Region and Scenario.

Scenario.

Winter Weekday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 3:01 Good Weather: 4:10 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 1 0 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:59 Good Weather: 4:10 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from surveys of major employers within the EPZ.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management agencies and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.74 persons per household and 1.39 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.03 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.

c. Special Events:

Assumed transients attending Riverfest travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.74 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1.

ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of Sub-Areas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate.

A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR-7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Sub-Areas included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted "keyhole" evacuate. Twenty percent (20%) of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. Twenty percent (20%) of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of 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).

8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik'). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC.

The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment. The DYNEV II System is used to compute ETE in this study.

1 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2-2 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5

Summer

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6

Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7

Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8

Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9

Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Riverfest 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact - Lane 1

Closure on 1-94 EB 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following:

a. Advisory to Evacuate is announced coincident with the siren notification.

b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.

c.

ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

2.

It is assumed that everyone within the group of Sub-Areas forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

3. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 41 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 27 percent (67% x 41% = 27%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Traffic and Access Control Points (TACP) along major routes on the periphery of the EPZ will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of TACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.

6. Traffic and Access Control Points (TACP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TACP are:

a.

Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

c.

Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a.

If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated sister schools/reception centers.

b. It is assumed that daycares for which the counties provide transportation assistance will evacuate to their respective sister school or reception center.

Parents will pick up their children at all other daycares prior to evacuation.

c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.

e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

f.

Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips ("waves") of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.

No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.

Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4.

Table 3-3 of the research indicates that light rain characterized by 0.01-0.25 inches/hour reduces highway capacity between 5% and 10%

and reduces free flow speed between 2% and 5%. Heavy rain characterized by greater than 0.25 inches/hour reduces highway capacity between 10% and 17% and reduces free flow speed between 4% and 7%.

Light snow characterized by 0.11-0.50 inches/hour reduces highway capacity between 7% and 13% and reduces free flow 3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).

4 Agarwal, M. et. al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

speed between 8% and 10%.

Heavy snow characterized by greater than 0.50 inches/hour reduces highway capacity between 19% and 28% and reduces free flow speed between 11% and 15%. The factors used in this study are shown in Table 2-2 and consist of a 10% and 20% reduction in both highway capacity and free flow speed for rain and snow scenarios, respectively.

10. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle and high schools, based on discussions with county emergency management agencies. Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 ambulatory and 4 wheelchair-bound people per bus.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Scnai Caaiy Sped Moiizto Tim fo Geea Poplaio Rain 90%

90%

No Effect Snow 80%

80%

Clear driveway before leaving home w

I0 8

(See Figure F-13)

• Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:

1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).

2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.

3. An estimate of potential double-counting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:

A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.

" A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.

Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the MNGP EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents - people who are year round residents of the EPZ.

• Transients - people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

Employees - people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Sub-Area and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The MNGP EPZ is subdivided into 12 Sub-Areas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 3-1 KLD Engineerine. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate I

Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.74 persons/household -

See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.39 vehicles/household - See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the Sub-Area and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Sub-Area based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from MNGP. This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.

It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:

Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer.

Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 3-2 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 3-1. MNGP EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population SbAre 200 Pouato 2010 P.

2 - Sherburne 478 745 2 - Wright 2,422 2,413 SN 5,814 8,634 SE 12,916 17,571 5S 9,584 13,527 Sw 2,559 2,557 ION 583 708 I0E 2,368 2,920 lOSE 1,368 3,044 los 5,399 8,176 1oSW 3,395 3,812 low 2,646 3,449 10NW 1,049 1,079 EPZ Population Growth:

35.69%

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-Area 201 SubAre 201 Pouato Resden Vehcle 2 - Sherburne 745 378 2 - Wright 2,413 1,227 5N 8,634 4,388 SE 17,571 8,928 5S 13,527 6,872 5W 2,557 1,305 ION 708 360 1OE 2,920 1,485 10SE 3,044 1,549 10S 8,1761 4,086 10SW 3,812 1,947 loW 3,449 1,758 IONW 1,079 550 1The population at the Wright County Jail is included in the U.S. Census permanent resident population.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW N

72,57-4-1 NNE

-"1 404 367 138 WNW 3,15 w

1 394 WSW

'34'1 1188l %%

104 SSW 1,39 J

SSE S

2 N

Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cum ulativ* Total 0-1 22 22 1 - 2 1,934 1,956 2-3 2,SS6 4,512 3-4 7P4 11,516 4-5 11,S03 23,019 5-6 11,453 34,472 6-7 3730 38,202 7-8 5,346 43,54 8-9 5,741 49,289 9 - 10 7,012 56,301 10 - EPZ 12,334 68,635 Total:

68,635 W

E Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector 3-5 KID Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW N

F153-0 NNE S17 205 187 WNW 1 60 I,

w E710--

70 wsw

'8 j

$ 4 SSW F7-08--

S 4 13 1 417 N

Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by King Cumulative Total 0-1 11 11 1-2 982 993 2 - 3 1,303 2,296 3-4 3,S61 5,857 4-5 5,844 11,701 S-6 SLS15 17,516 6-7 11898 19,414 7-8 2,719 22,133 8-9 2,860 24,993 9-10 3,565 28,558 10 - EPZ 6,27S 34,833 Total:

34,233 W

E Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the MNGP (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector N

1,387 707 NNE 56 30 NE 3,041 1,550 ENE 5,622 2,858 E

16,117 8,194 ESE 12,692 6,448 SE 20,360 10,334 SSE 1,636 834 S

8,048 4,097 SSW 3,110 1,585 SW 788 405 WSW 3,890 1,986 W

1,192 610 WNW 1,528 782 NW 1,391 709 NNW 1,647 841 3-7 KID Engineering, P.c.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N 1,-3-8 NNW F1,64 NNE F56 WNW ENE 5,62215 W

E WSW ESE SSW L __: _ -. -

SSE F3,110 S

1,636 EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Rin, Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 9,496 9,496 11-12 17,209 26,705 12-13 17,573 44,278 13-14 18,016 62,294 14-15 20,211 82,505 Total:

82,505 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N 707 NNW 8B41-NNE I WNW

• W WSW F1,97861 ENE 1.381 E

I 1,708 Z36 18,194 ESE 6,448 SE 10,73341

- L~ EPZ Boundary to 11 Mils SSW

• -/.

• SSE 1,585 S

834 4,097 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 4,832 4,832 11-12 8,751 13,583 12-13 8,931 22,514 13-14 9,153 31,667 14 - 15 10,303 41,970 Total:

41,970 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The MNGP EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

Campgrounds Parks Golf Courses Lodging Facilities Data was provided for Lake Maria State Park by MN HSEM. The data included the number of campsites and the number of vehicles and people per campsite as well as the number of day trippers visiting during peak season.

These data were used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at the facility. A total of 132 transients and 44 vehicles are assigned to the campground portion and 368 transients and 56 vehicles are assigned to the park portion of this facility.

There are eight golf courses within the EPZ.

Surveys of golf courses were conducted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travel from outside the area. A total of 686 transients and 454 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.

Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 874 transients in 403 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-5 presents the number of transients visiting the one campground, Table E-6 presents the number transients visiting the one park, Table E-7 presents the number of transients at golf courses, and Table E-8 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Sub-Area. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles 2 - Sherburne 0

0 2-Wright 100 100 SN 480 233 5E 34 26 5S 352 158 5W 500 100 ION 0

0 IOE 0

0 lOSE 275 137 loS 0

0 1OSW 0

0 low 141 87 6

ONW 178 116 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW 58ss-0 N

F o303-

~

NNE Eli--

WNW F23 [-

I W

0S 0

500 ENE orn 0~

.-J E

,/°' r-l I

ESE 0,

SSW E-5--

S EDi El0i-7 SE r 5-921 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

0 0

0 0

~0 0

0E Transients Miles subtotal by "llCumulative Total 0-1 0

0 1-2 0

0 2-3 100 100 3-4 566 666 4-5 558 1,224 S-6 199 1,423 6-7 0

1,423 7-8 34 1,457 8-9 113 1,570 9-10 120 1,690 10 - EPZ 3701 2,060 Total:

2,060 W

Inset 0 -2Ml~es S

Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant KID Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 19 L WNW 1l4-51 I

L w

WSW F10-0' 0

SSw w-0e*~

s ETD rn N

Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0

0 1-2 0

0 2-3 100 100 3-4 2S0 350 4-5 119 469 5-6 116 585 6-7 0

S85 7-8 26 611 8-9 71 682 9-10 60 742 10 - EPZ 215 957 Total:

957 W

E Inset 0- 2 Miles S

Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

Those who live and work in the EPZ.

Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

Xcel Energy provided employment data for the MNGP, training center and Sherco Plant and phone surveys of the remaining major employers were conducted to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ. An average of the percentage of employees commuting from outside of the EPZ from facilities that provide detailed data was applied to those facilities which did not provide detailed data.

In Table E-4, the Employees (Max Shift) is multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.03 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by Sub-Area. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant KID Engineering, p.c.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Su--raEplye i

-poe Vhce 2 - Sherburne-0 0

2 - Wright 299 290 SN 260 253 SE 64 62 5S 388 377 SW 0

0 ION 0

0 1OE 0

0 10SE 0

0 lOS 117 114 10SW 0

0 low 0

0 10NW 0

0 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW r 260--

0 N

w---

-0 NNE E-50 WNW

'0 I-WSW o

m"'--x, SSW 0-S 1117 F1-31 N

Employees Mits Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 286 286 1-2 13 299 2-3 0

299 3-4 280 579 4-5 368 947 5-6 0

947 6-7 0

947 7.8 64 1,011 8-9 0

1,011 9-10 117 1,128 10-EPZ 0

1,128 Total:

1,128 W

E Inset 0 -2 Miles S

Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N NNW 6D 3-"]

0 NNE E-5--

WNW W,

~0 SW I w:o wsW WSW ENE

'. I-E r-621 0

ESE 0,0-0 SSWm- -

0 S

F 114--

N Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 277 277 1-2 13 290 2-3 0

290 3-4 272 562 4-5 358 920 5-6 0

920 6-7 0

920 7-8 62 982 8-9 0

982 9-10 114 1,096 10 - EPZ 0

1,096 Total:

1096 Boundary W

Inset 0 -2 Miles S

Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data was provided by Wright County for each of the four medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. Based upon data provided, it is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 ambulatory and 4 wheelchair-bound people and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (external-external trips) at the time of an accident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ 94 and US-10.

It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (traffic and access control points -

TACP - are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 13,892 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the TACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - Riverfest. This event occurs annually during the weekend after the Fourth of July and is held near the Community Center in downtown Monticello. The peak population occurs during the parade on Sunday, where a total of 5,000 people are present. It is assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore the average household size of 2.74 was used as a vehicle occupancy factor. Based upon the data provided, 80% of attendees are local residents, 20% are transients, and a small percentage (approximately 1% of the transients) stay in local hotels during the multiday event. These factors result in an additional transient population of 990 people traveling in 361 vehicles. Public transportation is available for the event and it is assumed that 5 shuttle buses use the predetermined stops indicated on the special event's Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

website'. Including the shuttle buses (each bus counted as 2 vehicles - see Section 8), 371 vehicles were incorporated at parking locations near the Community Center and two blocks away in the Cub Foods parking lot. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients.

1 http://www.monticelloriverfest.com/

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

Table 3-6. MNGP EPZ External Traffic 8003 3

1-94 Eastbound 52,053 1 0.091 0.5 2,368 I 4,736 8045 45 1-94 Westbound 52,053 0.091 0.5 2,368 4,736 8658 658 US-10 Eastbound 19,049 0.116 0.5 1,105 2,210 8230 230 US-10 Westbound 19,049 0.116 0.5 1,105 2,210

'Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2012 2HCM 2010 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 112,872 people and 60,192 vehicles are considered in this study.

3-21 KID Engineering, p.c.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 2-Sherburne 745 16 0

0 0

0 0

0 761 2 - Wright 2,413 53 100 299 0

1,126 0

0 3,991 SN 8,634 187 480 260 0

3,277 0

0 12,838 5E 17,571 381 34 64 0

3,779 0

0 21,829 5S 13,527 293 352 388 255 4,229 0

0 19,044 SW 2,557 56 500 0

0 0

0 0

3,113 1ON 708 15 0

0 0

0 0

0 723 10E 2,920 63 0

0 0

0 0

0 2,983 lOSE 3,044 66 275 0

0 2,754 0

0 6,139

10S, 8,066 177 0

117 145 4,699 0

0 13,204 IOSW 3,812 83 0

0 0

1,266 0

0 5,161 low 3,449 75 141 0

0 48 0

0 3,713 IONW 1,079 23 178 0

0 0

0 0

1,280 Shadow0 1,592 16,501 0

18,093 Notes: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information Special Facilities include medical facilities and correctional facilities Schools include both enrollment and staff 1The population at the Wright County Jail is included in the U.S. Census permanent resident population. For the purposes of this table, those 110 inmates are included with the Special Facility population.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand TransitI.-

Spca Shdo External*..

2 -Sherburne 378 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

378 2 - Wright 1,227 4

100 290 0

34 0

0 1,655 5N 4,388 12 233 253 0

118 0

0 5,004 SE 8,928 24 26 62 0

134 0

0 9,174 5S 6,872 20 158 377 62 164 0

0 7,653 5W 1,305 4

100 0

0 0

0 0

1,409 1ON 360 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

362 1OE 1,485 4

0 0

0 0

0 0

1,489 10SE 1,549 4

137 0

0 106 0

0 1,796 loS 4,086 12 0

114 12 186 0

0 4,410 10SW 1,947 6

0 0

0 48 0

0 2,001 lo...w 1,75.

6I7

.040.,85.

low 1,758 6

87 0

0 4

0 0

1,855 1ONIW 550 2

116 0

0 0

0 0

668 Shadow 0

1 0

1 0

-F 0

1 0

1528 1,394 113,892"22,338

-I-Note:

Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information Special Facilities include only medical facilities. Wright County Jail shelters-in-place (see Section 8.6)

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1