ML12356A204

Kld TR-497, Rev. 1, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Final Report, Cover Through Page 6-7

ML12356A204
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Energy Northwest, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-12-178 KLD TR-497, Rev 1
Download: ML12356A204 (104)

Text

~KLD Columbia Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Energy Northwest, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com October 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR -497 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY .............................................................................................................................

ES-1 1 I INTRODUCTION

..................................................................................................................................

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

1-2 1.2 The Colum bia Generating Station Location ...............................................................................

1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities

.................................................................................................................

1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith 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 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population

..............................................................

3-17 3.6 Special Event ............................................................................................................................

3-17 3.7 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-19 4 ESTIM ATION O F HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections

..............................................................

4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highw ay ........................................................................

4-4 4.3 Application to the Colum bia Generating Station Study Area ....................................................

4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................

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

....................................................................

5-11 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................

5-12 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation

.................................................................................

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

5-17 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATIO N FO R EVACUATIO N SCENARIOS

.....................................................................

6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATIO N 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 Columbia Generating Station 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 ....................................................................................

7-3 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results .........................................................................................................

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

7-5 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 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .......................................................

8-4 8.4 Special Needs Population

...........................................................................................................

8-9 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. DYNAM IC TRAFFIC ASSIGNM ENT AND DISTRIBUTION M ODEL ...................................................

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-12 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .....................................................................................................

G-1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-1 Columbia Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 H EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

H-i J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................

J-K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW ORK .............................................................................................

K-1 L. SECTION BOUNDARIES

.......................................................................................................................

L-i 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 M .4 Innovation Center Apartments Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................

M -5 M .5 M igratory W orker Sensitivity Analysis .....................................................................................

M -6 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST

...................................................................................................................

N-i Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 List of Figures Figure 1-1. CGS Location ...........................................................................................................................

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

1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology

.......................................................................................

2-4 Figure 3-1. CGS 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 ............................................................................................

3-15 Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-16 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams .........................................................................................................

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

5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities

........................................................................................

5-10 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

......................................................

5-14 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions

.......................................................................

5-18 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Reg io n ...........................................................................................................................................

5-20 Figure 6-1. CGS EPZ Sections .....................................................................................................................

6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology

.....................................................................................

7-13 Figure 7-2. Columbia Generating Station Shadow Region ......................................................................

7-14 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................

7-15 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................

7-16 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................

7-17 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................

7-18 Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 1 for Region R03 ......................................................

7-19 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 2 for Region R03 ......................................................

7-19 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 3 for Region R03 ......................................................

7-20 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 4 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-20 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 5 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-21 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 6 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-21 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 7 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-22 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 8 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-22 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 9 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-23 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 10 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-23 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 11 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-24 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 12 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-24 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 13 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-25 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 14 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-25 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

......................................................................

8-11 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................

8-12 Figure 10-1. General Population Assistance Centers ..............................................................................

10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................

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

....................................................................

B-S Columbia Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure C-i. Representative Analysis Netw ork ...........................................................................................

C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ...........................................................................................................

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

C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary:

Table C-3) ..............................................

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

.....................................................................................................

D-5 Figure E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................

E-6 Figure E-2. M ajor Em ployer Overview .......................................................

...............................................

E-7 Figure E-3. M ajor Em ployers .....................................................................................................................

E-8 Figure E-4. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................

E-9 Figure E-5. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-10 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................

F-3 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-5. Household Ridesharing Preference

.........................................................................................

F-6 Figure F-6. Com m 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 w ith Pets ...........................................................................................

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

..........................................................

F-10 Figure F-11. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ............................................................................................

F-11 Figure F-12. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation

...........................................................................

F-11 Figure F-13. Tim e to Clear Drivew ay of 6"-8" of Snow .....................................................................

F-12 Figure G-1. Access Control Points for the Colum bia Generating Station .................................................

G-2 Figure H-1. Region RO1 .............................................................................................................................

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-5. 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 RiO..........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-1l.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 R15 ..........................................................................................................................

H-17 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 J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ..............

J-7 Columbia Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

2) ...............................

J-7 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

3) ..............

J-8 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

4) ..............................

J-8 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario

5) .......................................................................................................................

J-9 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

6) .........

J-9 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

7) ...............................

J-10 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

8) .............................

J-10 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

9) ....... J-11 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

10) ...........................

J-11 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

11) .........................

J-12 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario

12) ...................................................................................................................

J-12 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario

13) ......................................................................................................................

J-13 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadw ay Im pact (Scenario

14) ................................................................................................................

J-13 Figure K-1. Columbia Generating Station Link-Node Analysis Network ...................................................

K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 1 .....................................................................................

K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 2 .....................................................................................

K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 3 .....................................................................................

K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 4 .....................................................................................

K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 5 .....................................................................................

K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 6 .....................................................................................

K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -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 Figure K-1i. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -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 Netw ork -Grid 14 ...............................................................................

K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 15 ...............................................................................

K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 16 ...............................................................................

K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 17 ...............................................................................

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

K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -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 Netw ork -Grid 24 ...............................................................................

K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 25 ...............................................................................

K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 26 ...............................................................................

K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 27 ...............................................................................

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

.....................

K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 29 ...............................................................................

K-31 Columbia Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 vii KID Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate vii KLD EngineerinR, P.C.Rev. 1 List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction

...........................................................................................................

1-1 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

...........................................................................................................

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons

............................................................................................................

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 Section .......................................................

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 ......................................

3-14 Table 3-6. CGS EPZ External Traffic .........................................................................................................

3-18 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand ...........................................................................................

3-20 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand .................................................................................................

3-21 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 .......................................................

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

5-9 Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................

5-11 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions

.............................................................................................

5-12 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 Estimates by Scenario ..................................................................................................

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

...........................

7-8 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

.........................

7-9 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................

7-10 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ..........................

7-11 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................

7-12 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates

..............................................................................

8-13 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates

...................................................................................

8-14 Table 8-3. School Assistance Centers ......................................................................................................

8-14 Table 8-4. Summary of Transportation Resources

..................................................................................

8-14 Table 8-5. Bus Route Descriptions

.....................................................................................................

8-15 Table 8-6. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good W eather ..............................................................

8-16 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain ...............................................................................

8-16 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow .............................................................................

8-17 Table 8-9. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ..........................................................................

8-18 Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather ........................................

8-18 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain .........................................................

8-19 Table 8-12. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow .......................................................

8-19 Table 8-13. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates

-One W ave ...............

8-20 Columbia Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 8-14. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates

-Two Wave ..............

8-20 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation

..............

12-3 Table A-i. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ..............................................................................

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

C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ...........................................................................

C-3 T a b le C -3 .G lo ssary ....................................................................................................................................

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

E-2 Table E-2. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................................

E-3 Table E-3. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ...........................................................................................

E-5 Table F-1. Colum bia Telephone Survey Sam pling Plan .............................................................................

F-2 Table H-i. Percent of Section Population Evacuating for Each Region ...................................................

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

J-3 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) .......................

J-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Regio n R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................

J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario I .........................

J-6 Table K-i. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics

......................................................................

K-37 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

..........................................

K-65 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 M-4. Innovation Center Apartments Sensitivity Analysis ..............................................................

M-6 Table M -5. M igratory W orker Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................

M -7 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

............................................................................................

N-i ix KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ix KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) located in Benton County, Washington.

ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Energy Northwest 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 Project Activities This project began in November, 2011 and extended over a period of 11 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence: " Attended "kick-off' meeting with Energy Northwest 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 CGS, 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." Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and schools in each county. Telephone calls Columbia Generating Station ES-1 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 7 Sections.

These Sections are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 22 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, a Motor Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park, was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate 182 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 CGS that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren or tone 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 are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to assistance centers 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.

Columbia Generating Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Computation of ETE A total of 308 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 22 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (22 x 14 = 308). 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 9 0 th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions Columbia Generating Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 because the 100th 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.) could also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the existing comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Benton and Franklin Counties.

As discussed in Section 9 and in Appendix G, no changes to these existing plans 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 CGS EPZ showing the layout of the 7 Sections that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.* Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Section based on the 2010 Census data.* Table 6-1 defines each of the 22 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sections." Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios." Tables 7-1 and 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 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 8-6 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather." Table 8-10 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 308 unique cases -a combination of 22 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles.

These ETE range from 1:05 (hr:min) to 2:15 at the 90th percentile." Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 901h percentile.

This is the result of the long tail of the evacuation curve caused by those evacuees who take longer to mobilize.

See Columbia Generating Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Section 7.4 and Figures 7-7 through 7-20.* 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 for some Regions (compare Regions R04 through R11 with Regions R15 through R22, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion." Comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather) and 13 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather, special event) in Table 7-1 indicates that the special event has a material impact on the 9 0 th percentile ETE, with increases by up to 45 minutes. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -one lane eastbound on 1-182 -does not materially affect the ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion." Richland is the most congested area during evacuation.

All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2Y2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-6.* Separate ETE were computed for schools, transit-dependent persons and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for schools are comparable to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile.

The average single-wave ETE for the transit-dependent population and homebound special needs population are longer than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile and could be taken into consideration when making protective action decisions.

See Section 8.* Table 8-4 indicates that there are enough resources to evacuate the schools, transit-dependent population and homebound special needs population in a single wave. See Sections 8.3 and 8.4.* The general population ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile closely parallel the trip generation time -further evidence of the long evacuation tail. See Table M-1.* The general population ETE is sensitive (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases the 90th percentile ETE by 40 minutes) to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2." A population growth within the EPZ of 155% or more would trigger an ETE update.Therefore, it is unlikely that Energy Northwest will have to update the ETE study for CGS prior to the release of 2020 Census data. See Table M-3.* Based on the current plans, the Innovation Center Apartments to be built on University Drive/is t St between Stevens Drive and George Washington Way, does not affect ETE.See Table M-4.* The presence of the migratory worker population reduces the 90th percentile ETE by 15 minutes. This population does not affect the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE. See Table M-5.Columbia Generating Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 6-1. CGS EPZ Sections Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population CGS 4 0 1 1,255 1,077 2 1,476 1,649 3A 0 2 3B 1,048 1,941 3C 3 19 4 0 0 EPZ Population Growth: 23.8%ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C ROI 2-Mile Radius R02 5-Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ d" Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 3A 3B 3C R04 SSE, S, SSW ROS SW, WSW R06 W, WNW R07 NW ROS NNW, N, NNE R09 NE RIO ENE, E, ESE Rll SE Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region ROS N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N R13 NNE, NE, ENE R14 E, ESE N/A SE Refer to Region Rll Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Wind Direction From: R15 SSE, S, SSW R16 SW R17 WSW, W, WNW RIB NW R19 NNW, N, NNE R20 NE R21 ENE, E, ESE RA22 F I Section ICGSI 1 1 2 1 3A 3B 3C 4__ _ -Section(s)

Shelter-in-Place Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-2. 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 Eeig Go Motor Sports Event at 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Hor Rpids Rv ar Horn Rapids ORV Park 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact -Lane Closure on 1-182 EB 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Region Good Ran Go an Good Good IRain ISnow God Rain Snow Weathe Eventa Impadwa Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Eenter Sump Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:05 t1:0511:05 1:05 1:0511:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R02 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:40 j1:30 j1:30 1:40 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:45 1:35 1:25 R03 1:50 2:05 1:40 J1:45 1:35 1:50 2:00 2:05 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:35 2:00 1:55 Midday__ Midday__ En 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:40 ROS 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:45 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:40 R06 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:50 1:45 1:45 R07 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:55 1:50 1:45 ROB 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:40 1:35 1:25 R09 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R1O 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R11 1:05 1:05 1:0 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 1:50 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:30 1:50 2:00 2:05 1:25 1:30 1:45 1:35 2:00 1:55 R13 1:50 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:25 1:50 2:00 2:05 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:25 2:05 1:50 R14 J 41:50 2:10 1:40 1:45 1:25 1:50 2:00 2:05 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:25 2:05 1:50________ ~~~~Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles__________

R15 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:40 R16 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:40 1:45 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:40 1:40 R17 1:45 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:45 1:45 2:15 1:50 1:45 1:45 R18 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:55 1:50 1:45 R19 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:35 1:25 R20 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R21 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R22 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend lhýWeekend WeekendMiwe Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rgon Good~ Good Goood Good Good Goood SpcalRaway Weather Rain Weather Rain Weather Weather Rain Snow Weather Rain Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ RO 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 11:551:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 ROS 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R12 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R13 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles RIS 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R16 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R17 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R18 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R19 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R20 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R21 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R22 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 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 Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek-n] -[) -2) -3) -4) -5) -6) (7) -14)Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Good Good Rain S Good I RawSnow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to S-Miles RO 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R04 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 ROS 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R06 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R07 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 RO 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R09 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 RiO 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 RIl 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles RIS 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R16 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R17 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R18 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R19 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R20 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 R21 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:O5 1:05 1:05 R22 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 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 Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good0 Rn Gooodl Rai Goood Good Ran So ood Good Special Roadway Weather RanWeather Weather Weather RIn Sno Weather ai So Weather Event Ipc Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R01 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 ROS 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R08 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R09 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R10 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R11 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R15 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R16 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R17 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R18 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R19 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R20 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R21 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 R22 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-6. School Evacuation rime Estimates

-Good Weather Edwin Markham Elementary School I 2 County Haven Academy is currently closed. It is unclear whether or not it will reopen. It has been included in the analysis in the event the school reopens.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure H-8. Region R08 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KILD 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 Columbia Generating Station (CGS), located in Benton County, Washington.

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 2011.0 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 1980.0 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 Naur of Stkhle Interactio Energy Northwest emergency planning personnel Meeting to define data requirements, present ETE methodology and set up contacts with local government agencies.

Review and approval of telephone survey instrument and of key project assumptions.

Benton County Emergency Management Meeting to define data requirements, present ETE methodology and set up contacts with local Franklin County Emergency Management Office government agencies.

Obtain local and state emergency plans, special facility data, transient Washington State Emergency Management and employment data. Review and approval of Department (EMD) telephone survey instrument and of key project assumptions.

Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

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 Energy Northwest.

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Washington EMD, Franklin County Emergency Management, and Benton County Emergency Management 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 census, state and local agencies.e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, transient attractions, 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 police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) and Access Control Points (ACP) located within and on the periphery of the EPZ.5. Used existing Sections to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 7 Sections along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous Sections 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 schoolchildren 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 Columbia Generating Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Energy Northwest 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.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 Columbia Generating Station.8. Executed the DYNEV II model to provide the estimates of evacuation routing and 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 schools, for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Columbia Generating Station Location The Columbia Generating Station is located along the Columbia River in Benton County, WA.The site is located approximately 60 miles east-southeast of Yakima, WA and 12 miles north of Richland, WA. The EPZ consists of parts of Benton and Franklin Counties in Washington.

Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the CGS. This map identifies the major cities and major roads in the area.I Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Columbia Generating Station 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 1-1. CGS Location Columbia Generating Station 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 0 Posted speed" Lane width 0 Actual free speed" Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use" Interchange geometries 0 Control devices" Lane channelization

& queuing 0 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 Columbia Generating Station 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II 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. TCPs 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.

Developing 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).Columbia Generating Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 1-2. CGS Link-Node Analysis Network Columbia Generating Station 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 CGS.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 are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these Columbia Generating Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 previous ETE study done in 2005. 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: " A slight increase in permanent resident population.

• Vehicle occupancy and trip generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

This study uses a trip generation time of 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to load vehicles onto evacuation routes, versus 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in the previous study. Compressing the loading into a shorter timeframe can overwhelm evacuation routes, cause significant traffic congestion and prolong ETE.* More extensive voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered." Dynamic evacuation modeling used which adjusts routing to avoid traffic congestion to the extent feasible (similar to a modern GPS) and could reduce ETE.Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons

-oic PrvosIESud urn Std Resident Population Basis 2000 US Census Data;Population

= 4,537 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population

= 4,688 Vehicle occupancy based upon vehicles per Resident Population household and household size, taken from 3.13 persons/household, 1.32 census data. Vehicle occupancy rate was evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy 2.16 for Benton County and 2.77 for Franklin yielding:

2.37 persons/vehicle.

County.Employment data was developed based upon Employee estimates based on data provided by Benton and Franklin information provided about Counties, the previous ETE study (May 2001), Employee internet searches and the Harris Information major employers in EPZ. 1.19 Population Source. 1.0 employee per vehicle was used employees per vehicle based on for all major employers, telephone survey results.Employees

= 14,780 Employees

= 7,614 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 TopicPeiu T Std CurnIT StdI Transit-Dependent Population Census data used to provide an estimate of the number of people without access to personal transportation.

Approximately 2%of households do not have access to a private automobile.

It was assumed that most of these households would evacuate by assistance of neighbors, friends, or other family.Estimates based upon U.S.Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 210 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 7 buses to evacuate.

An additional 194 homebound special needs persons needed special transportation to evacuate.Transient data was developed based upon data provided by Benton and Franklin Transient estimates based upon Transient Counties, the previous ETE study (May 2001), information provided about Polatsiont internet searches and the Harris Information tranien aronin EPZ.Population Source. transient attractions in EPZ.Transients

= 9,549 Transients

= 2,088 at recreational areas within the EPZ.Special Facilities No medical or correctional facilities in EPZ. No medical or correctional Population facilities in EPZ.School population based on School population based on information information poied b n provded y Frnkli Couty.information provided by Franklin provided by Franklin County.Cony County.School Population School enrollment

= 460 School enrollment

= 324 Buses required = 6 Vans required = 1 Considered voluntary evacuation from the Washington State -Tri-Cities Campus and 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation the Hanford High School Campus, along within the Shadow Region George Washington Way. Also considered voluntary evacuation around the southern (see Figure 7-2)end of Harrington Rd in West Richland.Voluntary A modeling run was conducted for the full 20 percent of the population evacuation from EPZ to evaluate the impact of shadow within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas evacuations from the two campuses.

This the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be scenario assumed an additional 750 vehicles Figure 2-1)evacuated from the two campuses.Network Size Not Provided 559 links; 392 nodes Field surveys conducted in November 2011. Roads and Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in November 2004. intersections were video Data archived.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

-oi Preiu -T StdIurn T Std School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Assistance Direct evacuation to designated Center. Assistance Center.Ridesharing Assumed most transit-dependent households would rideshare with a neighbor, friend, or other family member.50 percent of transit-dependent persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.+ I -Trip Generation for Evacuation Residents leave between 30 and 90 minutes Employees leave between 30 and 90 minutes Recreational/Migratory Agricultural Workers leave between 30 and 120 minutes Energy Northwest/CGS Site leaves between 15 and 90 minutes.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 20 and 300 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 0 and 240 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 0 and 110 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Fair or Adverse. The capacity and free flow capacity and free flow speed of Weather speed of all links in the network are reduced all links in the network are 30% for Adverse. reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow.Modeling NETVAC DYNEV II System -Version Modeling N ETVAC _ 4.0.3.0 Motor Sports event at Horn Special Events None considered Rapids ORV Park Special Event Population

= 5,000 additional transients 22 Regions (central sector wind 7 Evacuation Schemes and 4 Scenarios direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases sector technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 308 unique cases.ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time ETE reported for 1 0 0 th percentile population percentile population.

Results Estimates Reporting only. presented by Region and Scenario.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 I Topi Prvos0ESuy urn td Evacuation Time Estimates for the entire EPZ 100th Percentile:

Evening, Good Weather: 1:52 Midday, Adverse Weather: 2:57 90' Percentile:

Winter Midweek, Evening, Good Weather: 1:35 Winter Midweek, Midday, Snow: 2:05 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 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 county emergency management agencies and surveys to major employers within the EPZ.3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management offices 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 3.13 persons per household and 1.32 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows: a. Employees:

1.19 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities, as well as assumptions made based on household size.c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the motor sports events at Horn Rapids ORV Park travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 3.13 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.Columbia Generating Station 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 sections 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 sections included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted"keyhole" evacuate.

20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate.

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-182 from the interchange with Interstate-82 to the interchange with State Highway 395 Southbound.

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; Urbanikl).

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.

'Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.Columbia Generating Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 Midweek, Weekend Good None 5 Summer Evening 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 Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Motor Sports Event at 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Horn Rapids ORV Park Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on 1-182 EB 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 It~ *II~le Region 1 10 Wes\~eE~\ \ f I Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind I Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind Staged Evacuation:

2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwindl I I

• Plant Location E Region to be Evacuated:

100% Evacuation M20% Shadow Evacuation E Shelter, then Evacuate I Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Columbia Generating Station C--+i- T;-. Cý+-+.Columbia Generating Station 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.2-4 KLD Engneerin, P.C

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 or tone alert radio 3 notification

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of sections forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. 66 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 45 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 30 percent (66% x 45% = 30%) 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. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following notification, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters.

It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) 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 TCP 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.3 CGS uses tone alert radios for residents within the EPZ. Sirens are used for transients along the Columbia River and the Horn Rapids area.Columbia Generating Station 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 assistance centers.b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

c. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to assistance centers.d. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.e. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

f. Analysis of the number of required round-trips

("waves")

of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

g. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from assistance 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 assistance 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 emergencies 4 , 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 operationsS; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.4 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).s 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.Columbia Generating Station 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 offices of emergency management.

Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highwy Fre Flo Scenari Caacty Sped Moiizto Tim fo Geea Population Rain 90%90%No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home (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.Columbia Generating Station 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 CGS 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 Section and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The CGS EPZ is subdivided into 7 Sections.

The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Columbia Generating Station 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent

Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (3.13 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.32 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 Sector 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 Section.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 CGS. 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.Columbia Generating Station 3-2 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 3-1. CGS EPZ 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population CGS 4 0 1 1,255 1,077 2 1,476 1,649 3A 0 2 3B 1,048 1,941 3C 3 19 4 0 0 EPZ Population Growth: 23.8%Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Section CGS 0 0 1 1,077 455 2 1,649 697 3A 2 1 3B 1,941 819 3C 19 8 4 0 0 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW r- --0 N---0 NNE 2 WNW w---EN E 229-1 I W w---0 52 I1 E F398 WSW 0 ESE F522-0 ssw SI 807 S 1,383 F356I Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 4-5 48 48 5-6 230 278 6-7 158 436 7-8 397 833 8-9 977 1,810 9- 10 1,440 3,250 10 -EPZ 1,438 4,688 Total: 4,688-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW-- 0 N w 0 NNE-33-1-~ 7 'WNW w 0 w WSW ENE I 22 E F170I~,-/5 ESE SI2 , 2 1--0 SSW --I' 341 231 S FS8 3 F15 11 Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 4-5 20 20 5-6 98 118 6-7 68 186 7-8 166 352 8-9 413 765 9 -10 608 1,373 10-EPZ 607 1,980 Total: 1,980 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 E W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 CGS (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 Seto Pouato EvcaigVhce N 33 14 NNE 337 142 NE 1,318 556 ENE 324 137 E 391 163 ESE 217 91 SE 531 226 SSE 23,644 9,967 S 25,872 10,903 SSW 2,638 1,109 SW 394 165 WSW 0 0 W 0 0 WNW 0 0 NW 1 0 NNW 0 0 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW NNE 337 WNW WSW ENE 104 66 E 30 123 39 10 27 ESE SE 531 S-J EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW SSE s F 23,644 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 2,389 2,389 11- 12 9,810 12,199 12- 13 14,410 26,609 13- 14 12,983 39,592 14- 15 16,108 55,700 Total: 55,700 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 N NNW NNE WNW w wsw ENE 43 E 12 52 F163 3 ESE SE 226 EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW ' ... SSE s F9,967 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 1,008 1,008 11- 12 4,139 5,147 12-13 6,068 11,215 13- 14 5,469 16,684 14- 15 6,789 23,473 Total: 23,473 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station 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.

The CGS EPZ has a number of recreational areas and facilities that attract transients, including: " Parks and Campgrounds" Golf Courses" Shooting Ranges" Ball Fields" Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Parks* Hunting and Fishing areas Data for campground and parks were provided by Benton County. The data included the number of transients and vehicles at parks and campgrounds during peak times within the EPZ.A total of 1,474 transients and 921 vehicles have been assigned to parks and campgrounds within the EPZ.There is one golf course within the Benton County portion of the EPZ. Data provided by Benton County indicate the number of transients during peak times at Horn Rapids Golf Club. A total of 25 transients and 6 vehicles were assigned to this facility.Rattlesnake Mountain Shooting Area is the only shooting range in the EPZ. Data provided by Benton County included the number of transients at this facility during peak times. From this data, the number of vehicles was estimated using the average household size obtained from the telephone survey. A total of 300 transients and 96 vehicles have been identified the only shooting range within the EPZ.The Babe Ruth Ball Diamonds are made up of four baseball fields. These ball fields are located in the Benton County portion of the EPZ. The number of transients during peak times was provided by Benton County. From this data, the number of vehicles was estimated using the average household size. A total of 500 transients and 160 vehicles were identified at this facility.Horn Rapids ORV Park is located in Benton County. The ORV Park has various attractions for visitors including a boat race area, go carts, a motocross area, an overnight park, and a radio controlled (RC) airport. Data were provided by Benton County for the number of transients and vehicles at each facility on a peak day. A total of 4,750 transients and 1,517 vehicles were assigned to these facilities.

There are three hunting and fishing areas within the EPZ. All three are located in Franklin County. Franklin County provided data indicating the number of people visiting these sites during peak times. From this data, the number of vehicles was estimated using the average household size (3.13 people) obtained from the telephone survey and assuming people traveled to these areas as a family. A total of 2,500 transients and 798 vehicles were assigned to hunting and fishing areas within the EPZ.Columbia Generating Station 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-3 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas.Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Section. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles CGS 0 0 1 1,500 479 2 1,000 319 3A 0 0 3B 1,095 348 3C 5,954 2,352 4 0 0 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW-0 N-0 NNE D---]WNW ENE w-I W w ,o 0I E w-WSW o' ESE w --'.. 0 SSW " --~s 1,000 Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 4- 5 1,000 1,000 5-6 0 1,000 6-7 0 1O00 7-8 0 1,000 8 8-9 7,020 8,020 9- 10 1,529 9,549 10 -EPZ 0 9,549 Total: 9,549-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 0 0 00 0 o0 E W Inset f 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW 1l60-0 N--' 0 .-NNE 0 WNW w WSW ENE 0~E 0 I 0 =-s 0 SSW-S 2,358 F3-19-N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 4-5 319 319 5-6 0 319 6-7 0 319 7-8 0 319 8-9 2,242 2,561 9-10 937 3,498 10 -EPZ 0 3,498 Total: 3,498 Boundary 0 0) E W Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

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.

Total employment data was provided by Benton County for employers with 50 or more employees.

These data were used to estimate the number of employees during a max shift at each major employer.

Total and max shift employment data for the Hanford site and Columbia Generating Station were supplied directly from the facilities.

In Table E-2, the Employees (Max Shift) are multiplied by a percent Non-EPZ factor, calculated from data provided by Columbia Generating Station, to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.19 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.

There is a significant migratory worker population within the EPZ during harvest seasons (Spring and Fall). Benton and Franklin County emergency management personnel indicated there is no reliable data on how many migratory workers or vehicles enter the area. Due to the uncertainty in the data and the fact that these workers are only in the EPZ for a limited portion of the year, migratory workers were not included in the base ETE analysis.

Rather, a sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect this population has on ETE and is presented in Appendix M (Section M.5).Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by Section. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Seto Emloee EmlyeVhce CGS 1 593 1 498 1 0 0 2 0 0 3A 2,087 1,754 3B 0 0 3C 4,934 4,147 4 0 0 Columbia Generating Station 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 NNW-0 N---0 NNE 0 S WNW ENE w---W F593 I-0 I--J*1 E w5-WSW 0 ESE w----S 0 SSW w----0 S F4-6 5 6,556 SE-5--1 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o )0 E Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 593 593 1-2 0 593 2-3 0 593 3-4 0 593 4-5 0 593 5-6 0 593 6-7 0 593 7-8 1,505 2,098 8-9 4,279 6,377 9-10 1,237 7,614 10 -EPZ 0 7,614 Total: 7,614 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 NNW V-6--0 S 0 N-0 -' -NNE WNW J 0 I w SW Employee Vehicles ENE E Iw ESE Z Boundary-0 ssW w---S 391--1 5,51 N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 498 498 1-2 0 498 2-3 0 498 3-4 0 498 4-5 0 498 5-6 0 498 6-7 0 498 7 -8 1,265 1,763 8-9 3,596 5,359 9- 10 1,040 6,399 10 -EPZ 0 6,399 Totall 6,399 W E Inset O- 2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector 3-16 KID Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

3.5 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 study area -US 395, 1-82, and 1-182. 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 3 0 th 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 /> (access control points -ACP -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 7,386 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.3.6 Special Event One special event is considered for the ETE study -a motor sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park. Championship competitions are likely to draw the most people to the motocross facility.Championship competitions occur on weekends during the day in the fall. Data were obtained from Benton County to determine the number of people who would be at these events. A maximum of 5,000 people are estimated to attend these events. It was assumed that families travel to the event together in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 3.13 was used for vehicle occupancy.

A total of 1,597 vehicles were incorporated at the Horn Rapids Motocross facility for this special event. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients.

Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.Columbia Generating Station 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 3-6. CGS EPZ External Traffic 8320 327 US 395 Northbound 12,910 0.116 0.5 749 1,498 8333 343 US 395 Southbound 12,910 0.116 0.5 749 1,498 8003 298 1-82 Eastbound 18,920 0.116 0.5 1,097 2,194 8010 299 1-82 Westbound 18,920 0.116 0.25 549 1,098 8316 329 1-182 Westbound 18,920 0.116 0.25 549 1,098 1 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2 HCM 2010 Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

3.7 Summary

of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is summarized in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively.

This summary includes all population groups described in this Section. Additional population groups -transit-dependent and school population

-are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 33,525 people and 23,985 vehicles are considered in this study.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 2 1,649 74 1,000 0 324 0 0 3.047 3A 2 0 0 2,087 0 0 0 2,089 3B 1,941 87 1,095 0 0 0 0 3,123 3C 19 1 5,954 4,934 0 0 0 10,908 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 11,140 0 11,140 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand Trnst Shdw Etra CGS 0 0 0 498 0 0 0 498 1 455 8479 0 0 0 0 942 2 697 319 0 13 0 0 1,029 3A 1 0 0 1,754 0 0 0 1,755 3B 819 6 348 0 0 0 0 1,173 3C 8 2,352 4,147 0 0 0 6,507 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadw 00000 4,695 7386 12,081 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Country Haven Academy is currently close but may reopen in the future. It has been included for this reason. The school would evacuate in a van which is represented as one passenger vehicle. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed.

The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics.

These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes free-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition.

LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume is defined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service." This definition is similar to that for capacity.

The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.Other factors also influence capacity.

These include, but are not limited to:* Lane width* Shoulder width* Pavement condition* Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)* Percent truck traffic* Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)* Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process;some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS 1) according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity.

The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions.

Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)Columbia Generating Station 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity.

These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by "uninterrupted" flow; and (2) approaches to at-grade intersections where flow can be "interrupted" by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection.

Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions.

This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form: 360 G = 30 Qcap,m = (3M) (UL) Cx 2 XPM where: Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Columbia Generating Station 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection:

through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.Formally, we can write, hm = fm(hsat, F, F 2 ,...)where: hst= Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F 1 , F 2 = The various known factors influencing hm fM() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model 2.The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm _ hsat 2Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach".

Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Columbia Generating Station 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.

These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity.

In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F 1 , F 2 ,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5)of the HCM 2010.The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection.

Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (P1m) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances.

The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of all-red time is assigned between signal phases, typically.

If a signal is pre-timed, the yellow and all-red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections -- as distinct from approaches to intersections

-- is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior.

There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4-1 illustrates this relationship.

As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity ("capacity drop"). Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.

The value of VF can be expressed as: VF = R x Capacity where: R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Columbia Generating Station 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson 3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown.

These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances.

The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).

This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified.

This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as "interrupted flow" facilities.)

As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections.

Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics.

Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity.

Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection-specific capacity.

For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, "Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks," Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.Columbia Generating Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application

to the Columbia Generating Station Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required.

The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections: " Two-Lane roads: Local, State" Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)" Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.

Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios: " Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain";

some are "rolling terrain"." "Class II" highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively.

Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections.

A Columbia Generating Station 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components.

Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments".

Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations.

The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand: capacity relationships.

A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections.

The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of"merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction:

The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Columbia Generating Station 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3.4 Intersections

Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts).

The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters.

The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.The simulation model explicitly models intersections:

Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections.

Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions.

Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly.

Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.

Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is: "The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system." This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions.

The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM -they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location.

The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Columbia Generating Station 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Volume, vph Drop R.... QS Speed, Vf Rvc -

mph Free :Forced: ,I !..sity, vpm* Density, vpm kf I kýopt Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Action Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details): 1. Unusual Event 2. Alert 3. Site Area Emergency 4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities.

As a Planning Basis we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume: 1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren or tone alert radio notification1.

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

3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to: 1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863.

2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the notification to the Advisory to Evacuate.

In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public 1CGS uses tone alert radios for residents within the EPZ. Sirens are used for transients along the Columbia River and the Horn Rapids area.Columbia Generating Station 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 during this one-hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the notification.

In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.The notification process consists of two events: 1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).

2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 330 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities.

It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared.

These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by tone alert radio. Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and word-of-mouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day -families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.Columbia Generating Station 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.2 Fundamental

Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities.

Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are: Event Number 1 2 3 4 5 Event Description Notification Awareness of Situation Depart Work Arrive Home Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities as outlined below: Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Evn -q c Acivt Ditrbuio 1-42 Receive Notification 1 2 -_ 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 -) 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 -5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.S An Event is a 'state' that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)An Activity is a 'process' that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)As such, a completed Activity changes the 'state' of an individual (e.g. the activity, 'travel home'changes the state from 'depart work' to 'arrive home'). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an 'Event Sequence';

the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-1(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5-1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5-1(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 5-1(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.It is seen from Figure 5-1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Residents Residents w 1*W Households wait for Commuters 1 Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 2 A911 5 Ak w Residents, 1 2 4 5 Transients away from Residence Return to residence, then evacuate Residents, Transients at Residence 1 Af 2 Ak 5 A11111 Residents at home;transients evacuate directly 1 2 3,5 ACTIVITIES 1 -- 2 Receive Notification 2 -3 Prepare to Leave Work 2, 3 .44 Travel Home 2, 4 .5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate Activities Consume Time EVENTS 1. Notification

2. Aware of situation 3. Depart work 4. Arrive home 5. Depart on evacuation trip 1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

5.3 Estimated

Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions

-not scalar numbers).Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 -+ 2 It is assumed (based on the use of tone alert radios within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below: Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elpe Tim Pe cto (Minutes)

Pouato Notfie 0 0%5 7%10 13%15 27%20 47%25 66%30 87%35 92%40 97%45 100%Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 -> 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility.

The distribution of Activity 2 -> 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work 0 0%40 90.9%5 41.6% 45 92.6%10 59.4% 50 92.6%15 71.6% 55 92.6%20 77.7% 60 98.4%25 78.3% 75 99.2%30 89.5% 90 100.0%35 90.5%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response.

That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question.

The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the "Don't know" responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 -4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-4.Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home 0u uatv Cumulati%1lapse 45m PecetElpedTmePrcn 5 13.2%45 95.5%10 32.2% 50 95.8%15 49.5% 55 95.8%20 65.3% 60 98.4%25 70.5% 75 99.1%30 87.2% 90 100.0%35 88.4%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 -5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate the telephone Ca, J u mlu : ,la i e 9 LC u m u lativemu~

i Elapsed'Z*U Tie Pren ed o lpe ime Perent1 ReadyII* to@0 0%105 91.7%15 22.4% 120 96.2%30 64.6% 135 97.4%45 69.5% 150 97.4%60 85.9% 165 97.4%75 89.3% 180 99.6%90 91.3% 195 100.0%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance.

It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable -albeit at a lower capacity -under the vast majority of snow conditions.

Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions.

These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6.Note that those respondents (47.5%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity.

Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow Cumuativ Peren 0 47.5%15 60.0%30 84.8%45 86.8%60 95.6%75 97.6%90 98.5%105 98.9%120 99.8%135 100.0%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Columbia Generating Station 5-9 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Mobilization Activities 100%>4-N Ja0 C 0 4-0 CL 80%60%40%20%-Notification-Prepare to Leave Work-Travel Home-Prepare Home-Time to Clear Snow 0%0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)180 210 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

5.4 Calculation

of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions.

As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the work-to-home trip (Activity 3 --> 4) must precede Activity 4 -4 5.To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities.

The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution.

As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure.

Table 5-7 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events Appl" ummiong" gi To Distribution Oba Event D Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

5-11 KLD Engineering, P.c.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Disrbto Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.I B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).E Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to some questions or choose to not respond to a question.

The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses.

But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say "four hours" and 4 say "six or more hours".These "outliers" must be considered:

are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider: 1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered "outliers" for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Columbia Generating Station 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 parametric methods to avoid that assumption.

The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used: 1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps "a" to "d" are repeated.Columbia Generating Station 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution.

A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5-3.100.0% -90.0%80.0% -.k 70.0% -4.60.0%u 50.0%40.0%Q 20.0%10.0%0.0% .. .....ul Lq Ln Ln LA Ln Ln LA LA LA Ln LA LA ,-1 -4 N~ ri M M 1 -t LA v LAo. 0O1-Center of Interval (minutes)-Cumulative Data --Cumulative Normal-4 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times: 0 Most of the real data is to the left of the "normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;) The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off" slower than the comparable "normal" curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential

-preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent -for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms.

These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).The final time period (14) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

5.4.2 Staged

Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sections comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Sections comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the 2 mile region is cleared 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary 5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in sections beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 9 0 th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region 2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios.

That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, fishing, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.

4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.

Procedure 1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows: a. Identify the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for the sections comprising the two mile region. This value, Tscen*, obtained from simulation results is scenario-specific.

It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows: i. The non-shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance).

Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen, iii. Following time Tscen , the balance of trips are generated:

1. by stepping up and then following the non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen is < max trip generation time) or 2. by stepping up to 100% (if Tscen* is > max trip generation time)c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios.

NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement"approximately 90th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen* is 1:05 for all scenarios.

3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups: a. Residents with returning commuters b. Residents without returning commuters c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 9 0 th percentile two-mile evacuation time is 65 minutes for all scenarios.

At the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory.

Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution.

Following time Tscen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After Tscen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the un-staged trip generation distribution.

Table 5-10 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational AreasSection VII of the Washington State Integrated Fixed Facility Radiological and Chemical Protect Plan (2008) indicates the United States Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing maritime laws, river access, river traffic control, river evacuation, and river evacuation verification during an emergency at the Columbia Generating Station.As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 5-9 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes. It is assumed that this 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, 50 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.Columbia Generating Station 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 100.2 0 4-C 80 60 40 20 Trip Generation Distributions-Employees/Transients

-Residents with Commuters

-Residents with no Commuters-Res with Comm and Snow -Res no Comm with Snow Wil 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)240 270 300 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation I 1U J 'Yo UY UIYb 2 10 11% 11% 0% 3% 0% 2%3 20 52% 52% 2% 27% 1% 15%4 20 23% 23% 14% 34% 8% 25%5 20 6% 6% 24% 16% 16% 21%6 10 3% 3% 12% 5% 10% 8%7 20 2% 2% 18% 5% 19% 11%8 20 0% 0% 12% 2% 15% 6%9 10 0% 0% 4% 2% 6% 3%10 20 0% 0% 5% 2% 9% 3%11 20 0% 0% 4% 1% 6% 2%12 60 0% 0% 4% 2% 8% 4%13 60 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%14 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%NOTE:* Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.

• Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Staged and Un-staged Evacuation Trip Generation

-Employees

/ Transients

-Residents with Commuters-Residents with no Commuters

-Res with Comm and Snow-Res no Comm with Snow -Staged Residents with Commuters-Staged Residents with no Commuters

-Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)-Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow)100 80 4O.2 3S 60 C CL 0~ 0 c 0 CL 0 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Columbia Generating Station 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation 1 10 0%0%0%0%2 10 0% 1% 0% 0%3 20 0% 5% 0% 3%4 20 3% 7% 2% 5%5 20 37% 68% 23% 55%6 10 12% 5% 10% 8%7 20 18% 5% 19% 11%8 20 12% 2% 15% 6%9 10 4% 2% 6% 3%10 20 5% 2% 9% 3%11 20 4% 1% 6% 2%12 60 4% 2% 8% 4%13 60 1% 0% 2% 0%14 600 0% 0% 0% 0%*Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Un-staged and Staged Evacuation.

Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation "case" defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.The definitions of "Region" and "Scenario" are as follows: Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating sections that forms either a "keyhole" sector-based area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.

A total of 22 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of sections considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6-1. The section configurations are identified in Figure 6-1.Each keyhole sector-based area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

The central sector coincides with the wind direction.

These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R11) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R12 through R14).Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively.

Regions R15 through R22 are identical to Regions R04 through R11, respectively; however, those sections between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2-mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 22x14=308 evacuation cases. Table 6-2 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated.

Table 6-3 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each scenario.Table 6-4 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 -the entire EPZ.The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 6-3, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H-1. The percentages presented in Table 6-3 were determined as follows: The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 66% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 45%(the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating).

See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.Columbia Generating Station 6-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Employment is assumed to be at its peak during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.

Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios.

This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer middays and less (60%) during the winter middays. As shown in Appendix E, there are few facilities offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be low during evening hours-30% for summer and 15% for winter.As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6-3, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2).One special event -a motor sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park -was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios.

School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances.

As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances.

Transit buses for the transit-dependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transit-dependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

Columbia Generating Station 6-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 RO 2-Mile Radius R02 5-Mile Radius R03 Full EPZ l l Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 3A 3B C R04 SSE, S, SSW ROS SW, WSW R06 W, WNW R07 NW ROS NNW, N, NNE R09 NE RIO ENE, E, ESE R11 SE Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region R05 N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N R13 NNE, NE, ENE R14 E, ESE N/A SE Refer to Region Rl1 Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C R15 SSE, S, SSW R16 SW R17 WSW, W, WNW RiB NW R19 NNW, N, NNE R20 NE R21 ENE, E, ESE R22 SE Section(s)

Shelter-in-Place Columbia Generating Station 6-3 Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 6-1. CGS EPZ Sections 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Da of im o Scenrio easn' Wek ay Wathr Spcia 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 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 Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Motor Sports Event at 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Horn Rapids ORV Park Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on 1-182 EB 1 Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 13%7%96% 100% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%2 30% 70%9610%0%01010%0%

3 30% 970% 10% 100% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%33% 7%10% 100% 20% 7%0% 0% 100% 100%4 3%97%10%100%20%0%0%100%100%5 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%6 30% 70% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%7 30% 70% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%8 30% 70% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%9 3% 97% 10% 60% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%10 3% 97% 10% 60% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%11 3% 97% 10% 60% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%12 3% 97% 10% 15% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%13 3% 97% 10% 60% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%14 30% 70% 96% 100% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%Resident Households with Commuters

....... Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.Resident Households with No Commuters

..Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.Employees

..................................................

EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients

..................................................

People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (non-employment) purposes.Shadow ......................................................

Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation.

The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents as per NUREG/CR-7002.

Special Events ............................................

Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.School and Transit Buses ............................

Vehicle-equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transit-dependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic .............................

Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation.

This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the evacuation begins.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario 1 594 1,386 6,143 3,498 4,695 1 14 7,386 23,717 2 594 1,386 6,143 3,498 4,695 -1 14 7,386 23,717 3 59 1,921 640 3,498 4,695 --14 7,386 18,213 4 59 1,921 640 3,498 4,695 --14 7,386 18,213 5 59 1,921 640 1,049 4,695 --14 2,954 11,332 6 594 1,386 6,399 2,099 4,695 -13 14 7,386 22,586 7 594 1,386 6,399 2,099 4,695 -13 14 7,386 22,586 8 594 1,386 6,399 2,099 4,695 -13 14 7,386 22,586 9 59 1,921 640 2,099 4,695 --14 7,386 16,814 10 59 1,921 640 2,099 4,695 --14 7,386 16,814 11 59 1,921 640 2,099 4,695 --14 7,386 16,814 12 59 1,921 640 525. 4,695 --14 2,954 10,808 13 59 1,921 640 2,099 4,695 1,597 -14 7,386 18,411 14 594 1,386 6,143 3,498 4,695 -1 14 7,386 23,717 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)2 The number of school buses includes 1 van evacuating schoolchildren at Country Haven Academy. The van is equivalent to 1 passenger car vehicle. As noted in Sections 3 and 8, and Appendix E, this school is currently closed and it is unclear whether or not it will reopen. It has been included in the event the school reopens.Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1