ML12361A070

Kld TR-491, Final Report, Rev. 1, South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Cover Through Page 12-2

ML12361A070
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	12/17/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, South Texas
References
NOC-AE-12002941 KLD TR-491, Rev 1
Download: ML12361A070 (166)

Text

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kkldcompanies.com December, 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR -491 NOC-AE-12002941 Enclosure South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimate -Final Report, Rev. I (KLD Engineering, P.C. December, 2012) 7 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, by:_o.f TEc KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive%

• Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com December, 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR -491 Table of Contents I INTRODUCTIO N ..................................................................................................................................

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

1-2 1.2 The South Texas Project Electric 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 ..........................................................................................

2-1 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

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

3-8 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................

3-12 3.5 External Traffic .........................................................................................................................

3-15 3.6 Special Events ...........................................................................................................................

3-15 3.7 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-17 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 STP 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 Intersections

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

4-7 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................

4-7 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 Application to the South Texas Project ............................................................................

5-16 5.4.3 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation

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

5-17 5.4.4 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas .................................................

5-19 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS

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

6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................

7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation

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

7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation

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

7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation

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

7-2 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................

7-3 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.5 Evacuation

Tim e Estim ates (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

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

8-8 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 with 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-7 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results ......................................................................................................

F-8 F.4 Conclusions

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

F-10 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .....................................................................................................

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

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

G-1 H EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .................................

J-1 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETW ORK ...............................................................................................

K-1 L. PROTECTIVE RESPONSE ZONE BOUNDARIES

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

L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES .............................................................................................

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

M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People In the Shadow Region W ho Relocate .................

M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population

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

M-3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST

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

N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 List of Figures Fig u re 1-1. ST P Lo catio n ............................................................................................................................

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

1-7 Fig u re 3 -1 .ST P E PZ ....................................................................................................................................

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. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................

3-10 Figure 3-5. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................

3-11 Figure 3-6. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................

3-13 Figure 3-7. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-14 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams ...........................................................................................................

4-9 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

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

5-13 Figure 5-6. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile R e g io n ...........................................................................................................................................

5 -2 2 Figure 6-1. ST P EPZ PRZs ...........................................................................................................................

6-5 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology

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

7-17 Figure 7-2. STP Shadow Evacuation Region ............................................................................................

7-18 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................

7-19 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1:15 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................

7-20 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2:15 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .....................................

7-21 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 5:30 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .....................................

7-22 Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-23 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-23 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-24 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-24 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-25 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-25 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-26 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-26 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-27 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-27 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-28 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-28 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-29 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

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

8-10 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................

8-11 Figure 10-1. General Population and School Reception Centers ............................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D-5 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I Figure E-2. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ .............................................................................................

E-5 Figure E-3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ..........................................................................................

E-6 Figure E-4. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................

E-7 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. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ .....................................................................................

F-6 Figure F-6. M odes of Travel in the EPZ .....................................................................................................

F-7 Figure F-7. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation

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

F-8 Figure F-8. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School

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

F-9 Figure F-9. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e .....................................................................................................

F-9 Figure F-10. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation

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

F-l0 Figure G-1. Traffic Control Points for South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ..........................

G-3 Figure G-2. Intersection of SH 35 and SH 60 ............................................................................................

G-4 Figure H-1. Region R01 .............................................................................................................................

H-4 Figure H-2. Region R02 .............................................................................................................................

H-5 Figure H-3. Region R03 .............................................................................................................................

H-6 Figure H-4. Region R04 .............................................................................................................................

H-7 Figure H-5. Region R05 .............................................................................................................................

H-8 Figure H-6. Region R06 .............................................................................................................................

H-9 Figure H-7. Region R07 ...........................................................................................................................

H-IO Figure H-8. Region R08 ...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Figure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-iO. Region RIO .........................................................................................................................

H-13 Figure H-11. Region R11 .........................................................................................................................

H-14 Figure H-12. Region R12 .........................................................................................................................

H-15 Figure H-13. Region R13 .........................................................................................................................

H-16 Figure H-14. Region R14 .........................................................................................................................

H-17 Figure H-15. Region R15 .........................................................................................................................

H-18 Figure H-16. Region R16 .........................................................................................................................

H-19 Figure H-17. Region R17 .........................................................................................................................

H-20 Figure H-18. Region R18 .........................................................................................................................

H-21 Figure H-19. Region R19 .........................................................................................................................

H-22 Figure H-20. Region R20 .........................................................................................................................

H-23 Figure H-21. Region R21 ..........................................................................................................................

H-24 Figure H-22. Region R22 ..........................................................................................................................

H-25 Figure H-23. Region R23 ..........................................................................................................................

H-26 Figure H-24. Region R24 ..........................................................................................................................

H-27 Figure H-25. Region R25 .........................................................................................................................

H-28 Figure H-26. Region R26 .........................................................................................................................

H-29 Figure H-27. Region R27 .........................................................................................................................

H-30 Figure H-28. Region R28 .........................................................................................................................

H-31 Figure H-29. Region R29 .........................................................................................................................

H-32 Figure H-30. Region R30 .........................................................................................................................

H-33 Figure H-31. Region R31 .........................................................................................................................

H-34 Figure H-32. Region R32 .........................................................................................................................

H-35 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure H-33. Region R33 .........................................................................................................................

H-36 Figure H-34. Region R34 .........................................................................................................................

H-37 Figure H-35. Region R35 .........................................................................................................................

H-38 Figure H-36. Region R36 .........................................................................................................................

H-39 Figure H-37. Region R37 .........................................................................................................................

H-40 Figure H-38. Region R38 .........................................................................................................................

H-41 Figure H-39. Region R39 .........................................................................................................................

H-42 Figure H-40. Region R40 .........................................................................................................................

H-43 Figure H-41. Region R41 .........................................................................................................................

H-44 Figure H-42. Region R42 .........................................................................................................................

H-45 Figure H-43. Region R43 .........................................................................................................................

H-46 Figure H-44. Region R44 .........................................................................................................................

H-47 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good W eather (Scenario

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

J-8 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-8 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, W eekend, Midday, Good W eather (Scenario

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

J-9 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, W eekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-9 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n a rio 5 ) ..............................................................................................................................................

J-1 0 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

W inter, Midweek, Midday, Good W eather (Scenario

6) ..............

J-10 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

W inter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-11 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

W inter, Weekend, Midday, Good W eather (Scenario

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

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

W inter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

9) ...............................

J-12 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n a rio 10 ) ............................................................................................................................................

J-12 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Holiday (Beachgoers at Matagorda Beach) (Scenario

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

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

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Construction (S ce n a rio 12 ) ............................................................................................................................................

J-1 3 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Sce n a rio 1 3 ) ............................................................................................................................................

J-14 Figure K-1. STP Link-Node Analysis Network ............................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 11 ................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

K-18 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 17 ................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K-34 vii KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction

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

1-1 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

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

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons

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

1-10 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 PRZ .............................................................

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

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

3-9 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ......................................

3-13 Table 3-6. STP EPZ External Traffic ..........................................................................................................

3-17 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand ...........................................................................................

3-19 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand .................................................................................................

3-20 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities

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

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

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

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

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

5-9 Table 5-6. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................

5-11 Table 5-7. Description of the Distributions

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

5-12 Table 5-8. Comparison of Household Preparation Times for Various Nuclear EPZs ...............................

5-17 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation

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

5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ...........................................................................................

6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

6-7 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios

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

6-8 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario ..................................................................................................

6-9 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

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

7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

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

7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................

7-13 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ..........................

7-14 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................

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

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

8-12 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates

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

8-13 Table 8-3. Host Schools ...........................................................................................................................

8-13 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 Weather ..............................................................

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

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

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

8-18 Table 8-9. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-19 Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-19 Table 8-11. ETE for Homebound Special Needs Population

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

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

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

12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ................................................................................

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

C-2 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ...........................................................................

C-3 T a b le C -3 .G lo ssa ry ....................................................................................................................................

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

E-2 Table E-2. Major Employers within the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-2 Table E-3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ...........................................................................................

E-3 Table E-4. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-3 Table F-1. STP EPZ Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ................................................................................

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

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

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

J-2 Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input ...............................................................................................

J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) .......................

J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Regio n R0 3, Sce nario 1) ............................................................................................................................

J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario I ....................

J-7 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics

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

K-35 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

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

K-60 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 with Population Change .................................................................................

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

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

N-1 South Texas Project Electric 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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP)located in Matagorda County, Texas. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) 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.O 1OCFR50, Appendix E -"Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in August, 2011 and extended over a period of 1 year and 4 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:* Attended "kick-off" meetings with STPNOC 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 STP, 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.* Reviewed the results of a telephone survey (conducted in January 2007) 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

" Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in Matagorda County.Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.* The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents." Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 11 protective response zones (PRZ). These PRZs are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 44 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). Two special event scenarios involving a holiday with 100% occupancy at Matagorda Beach and construction of the White Stallion Energy Center were considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a segment of FM 521 both eastbound and westbound away from the plant was closed for the duration of the evacuation.

Traffic was forced to divert north onto FM 1468 and FM 2668." Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where 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 STP that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

• While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent "upper bound" estimates.

This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events." If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to host schools located outside the EPZ.Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to pick up their children at the host school.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.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Computation of ETE A total of 572 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 44 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 13 Evacuation Scenarios (44 x 13 = 572). 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 South Texas Project Electric 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.) should also be considered.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Matagorda County, and identifies a critical intersection.

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 STP EPZ showing the layout of the 11 PRZs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.* Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each PRZ based on the 2010 Census data.* Table 6-1 defines each of the 44 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PRZs." 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 100th 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 572 unique cases -a combination of 44 unique Evacuation Regions and 13 unique Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles.

These ETE range from 0:50 (hr:min) to 2:35 at the 9 0 th percentile." Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile.

This is the result of a long "tail" on trip mobilization.

85% of the population can mobilize in 2:45. The remaining 15% take an additional 2:45. As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-7 through 7-19." 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. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday) and 11 (summer, weekend, midday) in Table 7-2 indicates that a holiday weekend at Matagorda Beach has a material impact on the 9 0 th percentile ETE for Regions R19 through R22 as well as R41 through R43. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 (summer, midweek, midday) and 12 (summer, midweek, midday) in Table 7-2 indicates that an evacuation during peak construction at White Stallion increases the ETE by up to 30 minutes for Regions R08 and R28 specifically.

See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -eastbound on FM 521 just after the intersection with FM 2668 and westbound on FM 521 just after the intersection with FM 1468 -has a slight impact on 90th percentile ETE for nearly all regions, with up to 20 minute increases in ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Bay City is the most congested area during an evacuation.

The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is in Bay City at the intersection of Golden Ave and El Centro St; this is the result of a 4 way stop to exit the network. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes 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. The average single-wave ETE for these facilities are comparable to the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile.

See Section 8." Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses, ambulances, and wheelchair buses/vans available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave. See Sections 8.3 and 8.4.* The general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 5Y2 hours due to the lack of pronounced traffic congestion within the EPZ. The 1 0 0 th percentile ETE closely mirror the trip generation time. Thus, reductions in trip generation translate to reductions in 100th percentile ETE as it is essentially eliminating the evacuation tail. See Table M-1.* The general population ETE is sensitive (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 40 minutes) to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. More shadow evacuation in Bay City translates to more delay for the evacuees traveling north out of the EPZ. Thus resulting in a longer ETE. See Table M-2.* Population increases of 75% or more results in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses.

See Section M.3.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Figure 6-1. STP EPZ PRZs South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 0 0 2 40 49 3 402 356 4 56 74 5 82 102 6 650 707 7 518 624 8 0 0 9 237 224 10 692 823 11 198 173 EPZ Population Growth: 8.2%1 South Texas Project Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Rev 2, April 2008, KLD TR-415 2 2010 Census data, census.gov South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Response Zone Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R01 2-Mile Ring R02 5-Mile Ring R03mmmmm Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Protective Response Zone Region in Degrees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R04 29-50 R05 51-106 R06 107-140 R07 141-174 R0817-3 R09 231-286 R10 287-331 RO1* 332-28 Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Wind Direction From: Rl1 355-50 R12 51-61 R13 62-95 R14 96-129 RIS 130-163 R16 164-174 R17 175-219 R18 220-230 R19 231-286 R20 287-298 R21 299-343 R22 444-'54 Protective Response Zone 7 8 9 10 11 M I I I PRZ(s) Shelter-in-Place 3 20% of population in these subareas will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002. Once 90% of the 2-mile Region has evacuated, the remaining population in these subareas will evacuate.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Continued from above.Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Region From: R23 5-mile ring R24 29-50 R25 51-106 R26 107-140 R27 141-174 R28 175-230 R29 231-286 R30 287-331 I Protective Response Zone I 1 I 2 13 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i_ _ _ F I + i F F/ //u Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Region From: R31 344-50 R32 51-61 R33 62-95 R34 96-106 R35 107-129 R36 130-140 R37 141-163 R38 164-174 R39 175-219 R40 220-230 R41 231-286 R42 287-298 R43 299-331 R44 332-343 Protective Response Zone 1 2 Notes: 1. Evacuating the 2-mile region and downwind to 5 miles with wind from 3320 to 28° both result in the evacuation of Region R01. Thus, R01 is shown twice in the table above.2. The STP site is not part of PRZ 1 but will evacuate with PRZ 1.3. Residents and Transients in the Matagorda Beach area are always evacuated.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 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 Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Holiday -Beachgoers at 11 Summer Weekend Midday Good Matagorda Beach Construction of White 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Stallion Roadway Impact-Closure on FM 521 13 Summer Midweek Midday Good Eastbound (East of STP)Westbound (West of STP)4 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 0 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Eiree Midweek Weekend le Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday -Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Ran Good Ran Good Good Rain Good Ran Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weatheri Weather Weather Event Event impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R02 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:30 2O~ 10 :1 05 :150 -1150 2:1 -21 0:50- 1:05 1:20 R03. 2:10 2:5 Ai5 21 21 t.l~ I:S:52:1515" 2:2:15 2:35 2:10 2:15 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:20 R05 1:1-0 1:'15' 1:20: 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:20 R06 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:20 R07 1:10 1:15" 112 10 11 1:10 1:5" 1:10 1:10, 1:10 1:10 1:35 1:25 R08 1:05 1:10 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:05 1:10 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:35 1:251:15, -1:20' 1:35 '1:315 1:35 1'15 1:20 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:30 RIO 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:15 1:20 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:20 1:30 5-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary;:.R11 1:50 1:50 i::55 .1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:45 1:50 R12 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:102:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R14 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R_5 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R16 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 R17 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:05 R18 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:45 R19, 1:55 1:55 1:55 ':55' 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:50 1:55 R20 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 R2 1401:40 40 1:45 1:45 1:40 -1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 R22 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:45 1:55 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 7-1. Continued from above.Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather R Weather I Weather Event Event Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles~R23 :30X :30 '1:40 :4O~ ?Yi:4x 1:3- 'ii3O~-~-1:40'-

1:40 1:0:3140:5 R24 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:20R S 1 10 ,: -1:15 -1:30 : :1:30 1:15 1:15 ý,- 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:15 1:20 R26 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:20 R27 1:10 .1:15 11:25 '1:25 1-:25 1:10 1:15 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:35 1:25 R28 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:35 1:25 R29 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40- 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:30 R30 1:25 1:30 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:25 1:30 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R31 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:00 1:45 1:50 R32ii I ,2:10 -2:10' -,"' 2:15-:'- 2:15 2:15. 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R33 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R34 2 10 2:15 --2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R35 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10:R36 2 10 2:10 2:15 :-2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:10 R37 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:10 38 2:10d 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R39 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 1:55 2:05:R40-I: ..1:35 '1:35 -1:45 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:40 R41 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:50 1:50 R42 1:40 1:45 1:. 45< -1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 R43 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 R44 1:05: 1-110 A50 0:50. 0:50. J:S 105- 1:10 0:50. 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 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 Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain GoodI Rain Good Good Good Good Special Special Roadway Weather Rain Weather Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ..L RO- 1:15 1:20 i 0 1:10 1:05 :i15, 1:20 1:10 1 1:1010 1:15 1:30 R02 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35-:R03, j 5AO 5:40, 5 : 40 *5::40. 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35`05 5:35 5:35 535 5:35 5, :35 S:3s 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R06 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R07 5:35 5:35 '--ý5.35' 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R08 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35.-R09 5:35 5:35 5 35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R10 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 S-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary!-R11 5:40 5:40.- 5:40 5:40 5A40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R12 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R13 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R14 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R15 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R15 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40:~R16 5:40 S:40 5:`40 5:40 5:40 40 0 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R18 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40.'R19 5:40. -. A5:40.. 5W 0 :40 5:40 5:40- 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R20 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R21 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R20 5:40 5:40 S:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 7-2. Continued from above.Summer Summer Summeather Weater Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Mdek Midweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening 7Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather IWeather IWeather Event Event Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles-R23 5:35 5:35 5,35',, 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R24 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:355--5:35 5:35.: 5:3S5 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R26 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 IR27 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R28 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 llR29 5:35 5:35 -'5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R30 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R31 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R32- 5:40 .5:40 :t"5:4O -5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R33 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R34 5:40 5A40 5:40 -5'5: O40' '. 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R35 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:405:40 5:4Q 0 :40 5: 40 " 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R37 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R38' 5:40, i' 5:40 5:40 5:40 64504:0 5:40 4 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R39 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R40, 5:40 5:40- .,5:40 .. :5:40.. '5:40 5:40',. 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R41 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 1R42 '5::40 5:40 5:40 55:40' :40 ' 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R43 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R14 .4J 5 :, 5:40 ^55:40' 5:40';:40.

... 5:40 .5:40-' 5:40 '5:40-.. 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 0 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer MidweekMiwe Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ri Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Roadway Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles Ril 1:05 i:10 .0:5o 0:50 0:5o 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R02 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20:;R04 1:05 11 .:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 11o 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R04 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R06 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R07 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R08 1:05 1:10 70:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R09 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 Ri9 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R23 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R214 -1:05 10,. 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R25 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20.R2 1:05 -0.:50 '0:55 0:50, .1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R27 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R28, 1 0A5 1'10 .- O 050 0:-50 ~ 0:50 1: .1:05 1 10 ,, 050 0:50 .0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R29 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1 :10 0:50 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20.:R34 105 1 10 .; ,.§0:50 608' :50. .050 1:05 1 10 -0:5O 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 ES-is KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Roadway Roadway Weather Weather R Weather Weather R Weather R Weather Event Impact Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles1:15 1:20 '-1i:10 -110 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R02 1:15 1:20 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:301:15 1:20 1:1'0 1 10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 2i R06 -1:15 1:20 1:.10'. 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R07 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 RO 1 ,:1:5 1ý, :20 1:10 1 10 ,1:10 1:15 1 .:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R09 1:15 1:20 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:30 1io.1 1:15 1:20 1:05 1:10 ',-ý-, .1:05 1:15:. 1 20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R23 1:15 1:20 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:30 R24 1:15 1:20 1::10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R25 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R2 1:15: 1:20 1:10 110 1:05 1:1S IO 1!20 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R27 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 SR28 1:15 1:20 1:10 110 1:10 1:15 1 20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R29 1:15 1:20 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:30 R0 1:15 1:2 :5 110 1O :520 0 10 1:01:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-6. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Matagorda School 30 15 16.7 50 20 1:05- -'3.6 4 1:10 Tidehaven Junior High School 350 0 0 2 1 1:00 (to Blessing)30 15 6.4 50 8 0:55 0.2 1 1_ 00__, Tidehaven Junior High School 1 0:550 8 (t aka )30 15 8.0 50 10 :0:55": 0.8 21 ! ":1:00'(to Markham) 1:00 Tidehaven High School (to30 15 4.7 50 6 : Blessing) 1______ 30_____ 15_____ 4.7___ 50___ 6____ 0:550.2___00 Tidehaven High School (to Markham)30 15 6.2 50 8 0O:55 0.8 Maximum for EPZ:~~~Avrg fouIrL _______South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-9. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather 1 I 1 90 115.9 1 501 201 30 2:201 3.3 4 I 5 1 101421 30 3:55, 2 1 90 :17.7 502230 : 3.3 4 5 1014630 4:0 3 1 1 1 90 1 7.0 1 50 1 9 1 30 I -.2:10 .1 12.41 15 1 5 10 1321 30 1 :'45 Maximum ETE: Maximum ETE: 4 Average ETE: Average ETE: 3:53.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 0 Figure H-8. Region R08 ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STP), located in Matagorda County, Texas. 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: 0 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.* 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 hTexas Project Nuclear Operating Company Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies Matagorda County Judge Meetings to define data requirements and set up Matagorda County Emergency Management Office contacts with local government agencies Matagorda Sheriffs Offices Review the traffic management plans Review school evacuation procedures, pupil and Matagorda School District staffing data, transportation needs Texas DOT Highway construction plans and Traffic Counts in STP EPZ South Texas Project Electric 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 South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company.b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Matagorda County Emergency Management Office 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. Reviewed an existing random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

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

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.

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

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.5. Used existing protective response zones (PRZs) to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 11 PRZs along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous PRZs for which ETE are calculated.

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

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, STPNOC 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 STP.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 special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Location The STP is located in Matagorda County, Texas, approximately 13 miles south- southwest of Bay City, and 75 miles south-southwest of Houston. A portion of the EPZ is on the Gulf Coast (E/W Matagorda Bay) and Tres Palacios Bay. The area has many lakes, rivers, creeks, and a barrier island that attracts many transients.

The area is sparsely populated; Matagorda is the largest community.

The area surrounding STP is shown in Figure 1-1. This map identifies the location of the plant relative to the nearest major city, Houston.The EPZ, which approximates an area of 10-mile radius surrounding the site, is predominantly rural in nature, with a permanent population of about 3,000 people. It is characterized by gently rolling terrain and has good primary and secondary paved roads. There are no major concentrations of population within the EPZ.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 0 Figure 1-1. STP Location 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric 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 a 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 South Texas Project Electric 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 in 2007. Since the population and demographics in the EPZ have not changed significantly over the last 5 years, the survey and its results are still valid. 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).South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 0 0 Figure 1-2. STP Link-Node Analysis Network South Texas Project Electric 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 STP.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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2007 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:* An increase in permanent resident population." The use of 20 percent as the factor for shadow evacuation as required by NRC guidelines

• Staged evacuation is considered" The highway representation is updated to reflect current conditions.

• Trip generation times were recomputed using a new methodology.

The new methodology resulted in a 90 minute reduction in trip generation for residents without commuters.

• Data provided by the STP emergency management personnel indicated that employees mobilize within 60 minutes.* The EPZ boundary considered is the boundary currently in place as part of the county and state REP plans South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons

-- ------Resident Population Basis ArcGIS Software using 2000 US Census blocks; block centroid method used.ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used; Population

= 3,132 Population

= 2,875 2.38 persons/household, 1.43 evacuating 2.38 persons/household, 1.43 Resident Population vehicles/household yielding:

1.66 evacuating vehicles/household Occupancy persons/vehicle yielding:

1.66 persons/vehicle Employees treated as separate population Employees treated as separate population group. Employee group. Employee estimates based on populati on grup rmploy Employee information provided by Matagorda County estim ed on information provided by Matagorda County Population about major employers in the EPZ. 1.01 about major employers in the employees/vehicle based on phone survey EPZ. 1.01 employees/vehicle results. based on phone survey results.Voluntary 50 percent of population within the circular evacuation from portion of the region; 35 percent, in annular 20 percent of population within within EPZ in areas ring between the circle and the EPZ all areas of the EPZ not advised outside region to be to evacuate (see Figure 2-1)evacuated boundary.20 percent of population in the 50 percent of population w ithin the circular s d re n in the a nnula Shadow Evacuation portion of the region; 30 percent of the ring between the EPZ boundary population in the annular ring between the and the 15 mile circle (see Figure EPZ boundary and the 15 mile circle. 21)Network Size 574 Links; 389 Nodes. 497 Links; 370 Nodes.Field surveys conducted in August 2011. Major Field surveys conducted in 2007. Major intersections were video intersections were video archived.

GIS shape- archived.

GIS shape-files of signal Roadway Geometric files of signal locations and roadway locations and roadway characteristics created during road survey. characteristics created during Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. road survey.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Host School. Host Schol.Host School.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

---

--_ei , Previous ETE I Current Topid-1, -ETE Studv,_IL _Stucty --- L Transit- Dependent Population Defined as households with 0 vehicles +households with 1 vehicle with commuters who do not return home + households with 2 vehicles with commuters who do not return home. Telephone surveys results used to estimate transit dependent population Defined as households with 0 vehicles + households with 1 vehicle with commuters who do not return home + households with 2 vehicles with commuters who do not return home.Telephone surveys results used to estimate transit dependent population (See Table 8-1).50 percent of transit-dependent persons will 50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing ride outwitha neighbor or friend. persons will ride out with a neighbor or friend.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

resint with comuer returning leave between 45 and Residents with commuters returning leave 360 minutes.between 45 and 360 minutes.Residents without commuters Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning returning leave between 15 and Evacuation leave between 15 and 300 minutes. 210 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 10 Employees leave between 15 and 120 minutes. and 60 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Transients leave between 15 and Evacuate.

120 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, or Rain. The capacity Normal, or Rain. The capacity and free flow and fr f din k in Weather speed of all links in the network are reduced the network are reduced by 10%by 10% in the event of rain,.nteeeto an in the event of rain.Modeling IDYNEV System: TRAD and PC-DYNEV DYNEV II System -Version (version 1.0.0.1).

4.0.0.0 Peak Holiday and White Stallion Special Events Peak Holiday and New Plant Construction Con ion.Construction.

44 Regions (central sector wind 22 Regions (central sector wind direction and direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases each adjacent sector technique used) and 12 sector technique used) and 13 Scenarios producing 264 unique cases Scenarios producing 572 unique cases South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

---

-. ------Staged Evacuation Not Considered Evacuation of 2 mile region with sheltering of 2-5 mile region followed by 2-5 mile evacuation when 2 mile region evacuation is 90% completed ETE reported for 5, 0 th, 9 5 th, and 1 0 0 h ETE reported for 9 0 th and 100th Evacuation Time erente porl50ti, 90ts presented by percentile population.

Results Estimates Reporting percentile population.

Results presented by presented by Region and Region and Scenario.

Scenario.100tu percentile:

Summer 1 0 0 th percentile:

Summer Midweek Midday Midweek Midday Evacuation Time Good weather = 6:10 Good weather = 5:40 Estimates for the t Entites EZ 90th percentile:

Summer Midweek Midday 90th percentile:

Summer entire EPZ Good weather = 3:00 Midweek Midday Good weather = 2:15 South Texas Project Electric 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 surveys of major employers within the EPZ.3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from the Matagorda 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 2.38 persons per household and 1.43 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees and transients is as follows: a. Employees:

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

b. Parks: 2.38 people per vehicle (average household size obtained from the telephone survey results, assuming 1 vehicle per family).c. Campgrounds, golf courses, and lodging facilities:

vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local facilities.

2.2 Study

Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th 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 contiguous Protective Response Zones (PRZs) 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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002.

These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the PRZs 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 13 "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 13 considers the closure of two segments on FM 521. .The first closure is eastbound just after the intersection of FM 521 and FM 2668 to the intersection of FM 521 and SH 60. The second is westbound just after the intersection of FM 521 and FM 1468 to the intersection of FM 521 and CR 392.8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources:

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik').

The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.

The DYNEV II System is used to compute ETE in this study.1 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.South Texas Project Electric 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 MdSummer week, Evening Good None Sume Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Holiday (Beachgoers at 11 Summer Weekend Midday Good Matagorda Beach)Construction of White 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good 12 Stallion Roadway Impact -Closure on FM 521 13 Summer Midweek Midday Good Eastbound (East of STP)Westbound (West of STP)2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I

2.3 Study

Assumptions

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

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

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of PRZs forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. 49 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 70 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 34 percent (49% x 70% = 34%) 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 the siren notifications, 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.South Texas Project Electric 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 host schools.b. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.c. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception 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 reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3 , and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

9. One type of adverse weather scenarios is considered.

Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios.

It is assumed that the rain 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 in rain.Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).4 Agarwal, M. et. al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity.Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.South Texas Project Electric 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 Matagorda County Emergency Management personnel.

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-Hgha Free Flow 9-S 9 Rain 90% 90% No Effect*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.South Texas Project Electric 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 high.Analysis of the population characteristics of the STP 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 PRZ and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).The STP EPZ is subdivided into 11 PRZs. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1. Note the central PRZ is the STP site. The two mile region is comprised of the STP site and PRZ 1 which always evacuate together.South Texas Project Electric 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 (2010) U.S. Census data.The average household size (2.38 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.43 vehicles/household

-See Figure F-7) 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 PRZ 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 the population within the PRZs and the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is uniformly distributed within a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PRZ, based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles.

Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from STP. 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 0 Figure 3-1. STP EPZ South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 0 0 2 40 49 3 402 356 4 56 74 5 82 102 6 650 707 7 518 624 8 0 0 9 237 224 10 692 823 11 198 173 TOTAL 2,875 3,132 EPZ Population Growth: 8.2%Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PRZ I iI o Iii 2010 2 49 30 3 356 215 4 74 45 5 102 60 6 707 421 7 624 378 8 0 0 9 224 137 10 823 499 11 173 104 TOTAL. 3,132 1,889 1 South Texas Project Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Rev 2, April 2008, KLD TR-415 2 2010 Census data, census.gov South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 74£2 9 186 1 N 1 680',ENE 6, E r7II 3 M~iles tc, E-PZ 13ýrndary 0 wSW\0 /,ESE 5, 10 Miles.... EPZ Boundary SZZ S N Resident Population Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0-1 0 0-1 0 1-2 0 0-2 0 2-3 9 0-3 9 3-4 166 0-4 175 4-5 180 0-5 355 5-6 367 0-6 722 6-7 I 602 0-7 1324 7-8 I 527 0-8 1851 8-9 669 0-9 2520 9-10 483 0-10 3003 10-EPZ 129 0-EPZ 3132 W) E 0 -3 M'iles ED'etail Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I

! 112 N'xENE 3 17W 3 Miles to EPZ Boundary 0 /,'ESE 2181 5, 10 Miles EPZ Boundary SSW S--- SE S CSZ62 i p i~I ......N Resident Vehicles Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0-1 0 0-1.... 0 1-2 0 0-2 0 2-3 5 0-3 5 3-4 102 0-4 107 4-5 108 1 0-5 215 5-6 221 0-6 436 6-7 360 0-7 796 7-8 317 0-8 1 1113 8-9 405 0-9 1518 9-10 293 0-10 -18 1 I10-EPZ j 78 0-EPZ ] 1889 W)E 0 -3 M~iles I~etail S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow

Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the STP (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 presents estimates of the permanent resident shadow population and vehicles, by sector.Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector N 1,431 853 NNE 17,305 10,385 NE 107 65 ENE 27 16 E 0 0 ESE 1 1 SE 0 0 SSE 79 47 S 0 0 SSW 0 0 Sw 325 192 WSW 4,987 2,990 W 110 67 WNW 1,205 772 NW 521 316 NNW 170 102 TOTAL 26,268 '15,756'South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

3.3 Transient

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

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

• Lodging Facilities

• Marinas/Boat Ramps" Beaches" Campgrounds" Golf Courses Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility.

These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities.

A total of 122 transients in 64 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.Surveys of the marina and boat ramps within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of boat slips, parking capacity, average daily attendance, number of vehicles and peak season.These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities.

A total of 233 transients and 128 vehicles are assigned to the marina and boat ramps in the EPZ.Surveys of the parks, campgrounds, and recreational areas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day and to determine peak season. A total of 405 transients and 265 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ.There are two golf courses within the EPZ. Surveys of golf courses were conducted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travels from outside the area. A total of 30 transients and 21 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E-5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.Facilities at Matagorda beach were included even though they exist outside of the EPZ because they will be evacuated in all scenarios, according to Matagorda County Emergency Management personnel.

Also, evacuees at Matagorda Beach must travel through the EPZ; thus they are treated the same as evacuees from within the EPZ. The beach population is highly seasonal and varies by day of week and on holidays.

The special event, Scenario 11, with maximum visitors at the beach is not shown in Table 3-4, Figure 3-4, or Figure 3-5; only the average daily number of visitors is shown.Transients in West Matagorda Bay are included in the analysis at their launch point; they are South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 counted at the marina and boat ramps within the EPZ. Transients in West Matagorda Bay who launch from a point outside of the EPZ are not counted, as they are expected to return to their launch site safely outside of the EPZ in the event of an evacuation.

Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PRZ. Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.Even though Matagorda Beach lies outside the EPZ, its population is included within Figures 3-4 and 3-5 because this population must enter the EPZ while evacuating.

Thus, the ETE statistics reflect this population.

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Transi nts--1 0 0 2 6 3 3 161 135 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 74 41 7 309 150 8 0 0 9 5 2 10 0 0 11 0 0 Matagorda Beach 350 132 TOTAL 905 463 i: 3-9 KLD Engineering, p.c.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I N NNE 0 NNW W~NW 1 0 0ENE 0 E-5=w 0 wsv, 01o *\3 Miles to EPZ Bo3undary 0/'ESE 5, 10 Miles EPZ Boundary 350 -SSE s F01--N Transient Population Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0-1 0 0-1 0 1-2 0 0-2 0 2-3 0 0-3 0 3-4 71- 4 4 71 4-5 6 0-5 77 5-6 0 0-6 77 6-7 J 95 0-7 172 7-8 0 0-8 172 8-9 359 0-9 531....................

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

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

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

.... ... .9-10 24 0-10 555 10-EPZ 350 0-EPZ 905 7) E 0 -3 Mil~es E~etail S Figure 3-4. Transient Population by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 1 44 N NNW 1 __0 WNW 0 1 0J'ENE 3 Miles to EPZ Boundary 0/'ESE I 75 S 5, 10 Miles EPZ Boundary N Transient Vehicles Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0--------

-01 0..... .. ... .. ..... .. .. ... .. .. ....... ... ....... .. .. .... ......1-2 0 0-2 0 2-3 0 0-3 0 3-4 60 0-4 60 4-5 3 0-5 63 5 -6 0 0-6 63 6-7 77 0-7 140 7-8 0 0-8 140 8-9 173 0-9 313 9-10 18 0-10 331 10-EPZ j 132 0-EPZ 463 W E 0 -3 M'~iles E~etail Figure 3-5. Transient Vehicles by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 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.

Surveys of the major employers were conducted to determine the number of employees, employee vehicles, and percent of employees who reside within the EPZ. This data was used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ.In Table E-3, the Employees (Max Shift) are multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.12 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-6) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by PRZ. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector.Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles STP 1,349 1,204 1 0 0 2 493 440 3 134 120 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 JTOTAL 1 ,976-. " 1 f64 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 F 0--1 298 N 01 0 ELwio 1 0 1'ENE 3 Miljes tc, E-PZ 13cLtndary 0 WSW" 0 I 0 1'ESE 1 0 5, 10 Miles EPZ Boundary S N Employees Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0-1 .1349 0-1 1349 1-2 0 0-2 1349 2-3 0 0-3 1349_1-4 0 0-4 1349 4_5__ 493 0-5 1842 5-6 0 0-6 1842 6-7 134 0-7 1976 7-8 0 0-8 1976 8-9 0 0-9 1976 9-10 o 0 0-10 1976 1o-Epz J 0 O-EPZ 1976 w) E 0 -3 Miles tDetail Figure 3-6. Employee Population by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0---ý1 266 N WNW'0 Wi~ o 0 wsx', 10',ENE o \3 Miles to EPZ Boundary/ESE 5, 10 Miles.. EPZ Boundary z2Ez E0 __N Employee Vehicles Ring Total Cumulative Miles Subtotal Miles Total 0-1 1204 0-1 1204 1-2 0 0-2 1204 2-3 0 0-3 1204 3-4 0 0-4 1204 4-5 440 0-5 1644 5-6 0 0-6 1644 6-7 120 0-7 1764 7-8 0 0-8 1764 8-9 0 0-9 1764 9-10 0 0-10 1764 10-EPZ 0 0-EPZ 1764) E 0 -3 Miles Doetail S Figure 3-7. Employee Vehicles by Sector South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

3.5 External

Traffic 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 route traversing the EPZ -State Highway 35. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate and then be diverted to routes outside the EPZ.Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Texas Department of Transportation to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes.The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered.

The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (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 1,252 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. External traffic was reduced by 40% for weekend and evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 10) as discussed in Section 6.3.6 Special Events Two special events are considered for the ETE study -a holiday with beachgoers at Matagorda Beach and the construction of White Stallion Energy Center. The first special event occurs during the summer in Matagorda County, TX. Estimates of the peak attendance at Matagorda beach were provided by Matagorda County Emergency Management Offices. On a holiday, there can be as many as 6,000 people on or near the beach. Using an average household size of 2.38, these 6,000 people would be evacuating in 2,521 vehicles.

This is based on the assumptions that families take one car to Matagorda Beach when visiting and they would evacuate as a family.The event that a general emergency at STP occurs during the peak construction year for the White Stallion Energy Center is considered as the second special event. Information and data for the construction of the facility was provided by White Stallion Energy Center, LLC. The peak construction year is 2014. During the peak phase, there will be 2,500 people on the job site, (97.5% being non-EPZ employees), evacuating in a total of 2,171 additional evacuating vehicles.Based on Census data from 2000 and 2010, a population growth rate was calculated for each PRZ. This growth rate was used to realistically represent the population in 2014. An additional 57 resident vehicles were loaded on the network to represent the increased population in 2014.Since the shadow population has decreased between 2000 and 2010, 214 shadow vehicles were removed from the network to represent the 2% decrease in population in 2014.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Public transportation is not provided for either event and was not considered in the special event analyses.Table 3-6. STP EPZ External Traffic 8481 j 481 ISH 35 WB I4,600 0.136 U .5 V 313. .~--SH 35 EB 4,600 0.136 0.5 313. 626 Route 35 EB traffic must be allocated to the SH 35, FM 616, and FM 1862 approaches.

This allocation will be based upon the proportional AADT on each of these roads upstream of the respective merge points.8844 844 SH 35 EB 2,400 ....163 326 8982 982 FM 616 EB 850 -58, 116 8984 1347 FM 1862 EB 1,350 --92 184 STotal: 1,22 3 Texas Department of Transportation, 2009; ttp://www.txdot.gov/travel/trafficmap.htm 4 HCM 2010 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

4.1 Summary

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

This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups -transit-dependent, special facility and school population

-are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 11,919 evacuating people in 8,549 vehicles are considered in this study.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 1 0 0 0 1,349 0 0 0 1,349 2 49 0 6 0 0 0 0 55 3 356 0 161 493 0 0 0 1,010 4 74 0 0 134 0 0 0 208 5 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 6 707 30 74 0 0 0 0 811 7 624 26 309 0 135 0 0 1,094 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 224 0 5 0 0 0 0 229 10 823 35 0 0 426 0 0 1,284 11 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 Shadow Shadow 0 0 350 0 0 5,254 0 5,604 Region _ _NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 1 0 0 0 1,204 0 U U I,ZU4 2 30 0 3 0 0 0 0 33 3 215 0 135 440 0 0 0 790 4 45 0 0 120 0 0 0 165 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 6 421 2 41 0 0 0 0 464 7 378 2 150 0 4 0 0 534 8 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 9 137 0 2 0 0 0 0 139 10 499 2 0 0 20 0 0 521 11 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 Shadow 0 0 132 0 0 3,151 1,252 4,535 Region NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 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* 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. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions.

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 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 for rain.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: Qcapm X (36 Qca~m \ m ---Pm where: Qcap,m Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes 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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 L C Pm m movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds= Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds= Duration of each signal cycle; seconds-Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

The movement executed by vehicles after they enter intersection:

through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.the 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 1 , F 2 , ...)where: hsat F 1 , F 2= Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle= The various known factors influencing hm fN() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 ,..The estimation of hrm 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 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 2010.2Lieberman, 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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 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 (Pm) 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 South Texas Project Electric 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 (QODF) 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application

to the STP 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 Highway 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 South Texas Project Electric 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 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.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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Volume, vph Speed, A Vf R vc mph: 'Free ocd I I I I I I I I , I Density, vpm lo Density, vpm I I I mm I kf k)-Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 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 Classification 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 emergency notification.

2. Mobilization of the general population will commence up to 10 minutes after the alert 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 siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate.

In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public 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 siren alert. 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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 314 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 siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available).

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 the previous ETE study, KLD TR-415, July 2009, and was applied to 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.South Texas Project Electric 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 Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 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 1 -4 2 Receive Notification 1 2 -3 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 -4 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.* 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household 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 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 1 Ah 2 3 4 5 Residents Residents W MW 0 Households wait for Commuters 1 Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 1 2 5 Residents, Transients away from Residence Residents, Transients at Residence 1 Af 2 45 Return to residence, then evacuate.w -w W -W 1 2 5 Residents at home;transients evacuate directly 1 2 3, 5 ACTIVITIES 1 --- 2 Receive Notification 2 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2, 3 .4 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 South Texas Project Electric 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: Activitv 1 -+ 2 In accordance with the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, 100% of the population is notified within 45 minutes.It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens 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 Elase Tim Pecn of (Mnues Pouato Notifie 0 0 5 7 10 13 15 27 20 47 25 66 30 87 35 92 40 97 45 100 South Texas Project Electric 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 45 87 5 33 50 88 10 49 55 88 15 59 60 93 20 65 75 98 25 67 90 100 30 79 35 82 ________ ________40 83 _______ _____ __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.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate 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---- -. 6u .. .. u- I at. -_C m ltv Elpe Tim Pecn Elpe imSecn 0 0 40 89 5 21 45 92 10 37 50 93 15 51 55 93 20 62 60 96 25 68 75 98 30 84 90 100 35 86 1 NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 --> 5 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 5-5.Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate U U 16 6b 15 0 195 90 30 21 210 90 45 29 225 90 60 49 240 92 75 63 255 96 90 66 270 96 105 67 285 96 120 72 300 97 135 81 330 98 150 82 360 100 165 83 NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Mobilization Activities-Notification

-Prepare to Leave Work -Travel Home -Prepare Home 100%80%60%4..C 40%20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities South Texas Project Electric 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 --> 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 5-6 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-6. Mapping Distributions to Events Appl .Srmig Algrii To Ditibto Obaie Even Def-ined 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 Table 5-7 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Table 5-7. Description of the Distributions Ditiu [Desciption A Time distribution of commuters departing place of work. This distribution was obtained from STP based upon plant evacuation drills. (See Section 5.4.2.2).A, Time distribution of transients beginning their evacuation trip from within the EPZ or from Matagorda Beach (Event 3).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).Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

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-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)are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-6, Table 5-7);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;South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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.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%% 70.0%30.0 0 60.0%1 50.0%0 2 40.0%S30.0%E u20.056 10.0%Li Lq Lq UA Lq Lq .i LA Li UL Li Lq Vi Vi LQ Lq rq 4 .-t (J M' M m T Zr U1 LA W 00 O0)-Center of Interval (minutes)-Cumulative Data --Cumulative Normal 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: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 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).

In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, and D. 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 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, A 1 , C, and D, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).The final time period (13) 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Mobilization Activities

-Employees

-Transients

-Residents with Commuters

-Residents with no Commuters 100 80 C 0 CL 60 40 20 0 0 60 120 180 240 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions 300 360 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

5.4.2 Application

to the South Texas Project 5.4.2.1 Permanent Residents Analysis of outliers for the Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate (Table 5-5)yields a distribution with a tail that extends to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. When compared with telephone survey results obtained from recent surveys of EPZ residents at other nuclear sites, it is clear that the distribution for this activity is significantly longer in the STP EPZ. Table 5-8 presents this comparison.

Both the mean value and standard deviation of the STP distribution is more than double the value for any other site studied to date. A reason for this is the fact that when the STP survey was conducted (January 2007), the area was dealing with the after effects of Hurricane Rita which impacted the Texas Gulf Coast in 2005. Consequently, responses to this question are indicative of a level of hurricane preparation that is not relevant to a no-notice nuclear power plant evacuation scenario.

To mitigate this situation, the distribution obtained from a telephone survey of the Oconee site in South Carolina will be substituted.

This data was collected in 2011 and its characteristics place it among the highest mean, standard deviation and last interval observed.Table 5-8. Comparison of Household Preparation Times for Various Nuclear EPZs Question:

If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area?last interval used N used mean median std data normal Beaver Valley KLD Study -2011 493 40.0 22.5 34.0 180 165 Callaway KLD Study -2011 443 36.1 22.5 31.2 180 150 Davis-Besse KLD Study -2011 531 40.7 22.5 33.0 180 150 DC Cook KLD Study -2011 449 44.7 22.5 37.6 180 180 DCPP KLD Study 2011 464 36.9 22.5 33.1 180 150 Oconee KLD Study 2011 460 42.8 22.5 36.5 195 165 Perry KLD Study -2011 518 35.5 22.5 27.5 150 135 VCSummer study:- 2tud- 0347 4 91.7 67.5 77.5 35 360 VC Summer KILD Study -2006 458 135.4 22.5 31.0 135 150 min min min min min min min min min Figure 5-5 presents a comparison of the Home preparation mobilization distribution drawn from the STP and the Oconee telephone survey data.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Comparison of STP and Oconee Home Preparation Times-STP Prepare Home -Oconee Prepare Home 100%80%60%40%.6~C U'U I-0 0.I I I I I 20%0%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)300 330 360 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Home Preparation Distributions 5.4.2.2 Employees and Transients As shown in Figure 5-1, the trip generation time for employees and transients is the sum of the distributions for notification, time to prepare to leave work and time to travel home from work.Normally the same trip generation time is used for employees and transients with the assumption that the time for transients to pack their things and return to their cars to begin evacuating is comparable to the time for employees to pack their things and arrive home. As shown in Figure 5-6, the transient mobilization time is 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, with approximately 85% of transients mobilized within the first hour. In the draft report for the ETE study, the same mobilization time was used for employees.

Based on discussion with STPNOC, the mobilization time for employees at STP and other major employers in the EPZ would not exceed 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. As a result, the employee mobilization distribution was revised to be complete within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> as shown in Figure 5-6.5.4.3 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Protective Response Zones (PRZ) comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. PRZs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the 2 mile region is cleared South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

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 PRZs 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 90'h 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, on a beach, 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 90th percentile evacuation time for the PRZs 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).

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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 "approximately 9 0 th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen* is 65 minutes based upon simulation results. This is based upon the fact that the 2-mile region is exclusively populated by employees at the STP site. The 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for these workers is based upon an employee mobilization time of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups: a. Residents with returning commuters b. Residents without returning commuters Figure 5-4 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. 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 9 0 th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation period, 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 unstaged trip generation distribution.

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

5.4.4 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Annex W, Tab 5 of the Matagorda County RERP indicates protective actions for the public are broadcast over the Emergency Alert System local service, KMKS-FM, KKHA-FM and the National Weather Service. 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 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. It is assumed that this 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation P o T T G W I T P Re sd ents---- ----Rei-nt wit 1i W Iaithout 1 15 2 6 0 1 2 15 23 27 0 8 3 15 65 31 3 23 4 15 10 17 7 24 5 15 0 8 14 16 6 15 0 6 16 11 7 15 0 4 14 4 8 15 0 1 12 2 9 30 0 0 16 6 10 60 0 0 14 5 11 30 0 0 2 0 12 90 0 0 2 0 13 600 0 0 0 0 NOTE: Employee mobilization based upon discussion with STP personnel about plant evacuation drills.Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distribution C.Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A 1.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Tabe 510.Trp GnertioHstoramPfrceth EPZ TotalaTripsGnefraStaed Eauto WitinInictedTie erod Resident 1 15 0 0 2 15 0 2 3 15 1 4 4 15 1 5 5 15 18 44 6 15 20 28 7 15 14 4 8 15 12 2 9 30 16 6 10 60 14 5 11 30 2 0 12 90 2 0 13 600 0 0*Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 0 Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation

-REmployees

-Residents with Commuters-Staged Residents with Commuters-Transients

-Residents with no Commuters-Staged Residents with no Commuters 100 80 W 4E-LU C 0 0.0 0.60 40..........

V/I/ V 20 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)270 300 330 360 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-22 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 PRZs 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 44 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of PRZs considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6-1. The PRZ 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 RiO and R23 through R30), or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R11 through R22 and R31 through R44). Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively.

Region R23 is identical to Region 02, while Regions R24 through R30 are identical to Regions R04 through RIO, respectively; however, those residents in PRZs between 2 miles and 5 miles are advised to shelter until 90% of the 2-mile region (Region R01) has evacuated from Region RO0, and are then advised to evacuate ("staged evacuation").

A total of 13 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 44 x 13 = 572 evacuation cases. Table 6-2 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of region and scenario ("case") implies a specific population to be evacuated.

Table 6-3 presents the percentage of each population group assumed 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 49% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 70%(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 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 6-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 scenarios that 10% of households with commuters will have a returning commuter at work during those times.Employment is estimated to be at its peak during the winter, midweek, and midday scenarios.

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

This is based on the estimated 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 15% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer weekends and less (75%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there is a significant amount of lodging and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be high during evening hours -65% for summer and 10% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 25% and 15% during the week.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); to include the employees within the shadow region, who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario-specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 6-4 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows: 20%x 1+ 1,693 ': 38%2 1 645+1,244)

Two special events -Holiday with beachgoers at Matagorda Beach and construction of White Stallion -were considered as Scenarios 11 and 12. Thus, the (incremental) special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenarios 11 and 12, and 0% for all other scenarios.

Scenario 13 is identical to Scenario 1 except that a road closure is specified; this scenario is designed to quantify the impact of a road closure on ETE, as required by the guidance.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 evening, 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 used to transport students 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-external traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 6-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Response Zone Region Description

_2 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ROI 2-Mile Ring R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Ful EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction From in Protective Response Zone Region Degrees: 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 R04 29-50 ROS51-106 R06 107-140 R07 141-174 R08 175-230 R09 231-286 RIO 287-331 RO1* 332-28 Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Wind Direction From: R11 355-50 R12 51-61 R13 62-95 R14 96-129 R15 130-163 R16 164-174 R17 175-219 R18 220-230 R19 231-286 R20 287-298 R21 299-343 R22 344-1S4 I Protective Response Zone 11.1I2I21.1I 6 Elm PRZ(s) Shelter-in-Place 1 20% of population in these subareas will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002. Once 90% of the 2-mile Region has evacuated, the remaining population in these subareas will evacuate.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-1. Continued from above.Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates (90%), then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Wind Direction From: R23 5-mile ring R24 29-50 R25 51-106 R26 107-140 R27 141-174 R28 175-230 R29 231-286 R30 287-331 I Protective Response Zone I -r , I1 21 3 14 1516 7 8 19 10 11+-4 t ~ I-+ 4 + ~ 4 Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Wind Direction From: R31 344-50 R32 51-61 R33 62-95 R34 96-106 R35 107-129 R36 130-140 R37 141-163 R38 164-174 R39 175-219 R40 220-230 R41 231-286 R42 287-298 R43 299-331 RAA :q-tA I Protective Response Zone 1 2 Notes: 1. Evacuating the 2-mile region and downwind to 5 miles with wind from 332* to 28* both result in the evacuation of Regioni. Thus, R01 is shown twice in the table above.2. The STP site is not part of PRZ 1 but will evacuate with PRZ 1.3. Residents and Transients in the Matagorda Beach area are always evacuated.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 6-1. STP EPZ PRZs South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions bay o me of S *e § 0 2 ,4s Sceriftio Weekf Day 11, -Weather T pecial 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 Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 10 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 11 Summer Weekend Midday Good Holiday -Beachgoers at Matagorda Beach Construction of White 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good staion Stallion Roadway Impact-Closure on FM 521 13 Summer Midweek Midday Good Eastbound (East of STP)Westbound (West of STP)2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 S Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 134% 66% 96% 75% 38% 0% 0% 10% 100% 100%2 34% 66% 96% 75% 38% 0% 0% 10% 100% 100%3 3% 97% 15% 100% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%4 3% 97% 15% 100% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%5 3% 97% 15% 65% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%6 34% 66% 100% 15% 39% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%7 34% 66% 100% 15% 39% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%8 3% 97% 15% 25% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%9 3% 97% 15% 25% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%10 3% 97% 15% 10% 23% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%11 3% 97% 15% 100% 23% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%12 34% 66% 96% 75% 37% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%13 34% 66% 96% 75% 38% 0% 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 along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.

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

Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special events.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 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.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario 1 645 1,244 1,693 347 5,975 -2 6 1,252 11,170 2 645 1,244 1,693 347 5,975 -_ 2 6 1,252 11,170 3 65 1,824 265 463 3,593 ---6 1,252 7,475 4 65 1,824 265 463 3,593 -- 6 1,252 7,475 5 65 1,824 265 301 3,593 ---6 501 6,562 6 645 1,244 1,764 69 6,094 --24 6 1,252 11,104 7 645 1,244 1,764 69 6,094 --24 6 1,252 11,104 8 65 1,824 265 116 3,593 ---6 1,252 7,128 9 65 1,824 265 116 3,593 ---6 1,252 7,128 10 65 1,824 265 46 3,593 ---6 501 6,307 11 65 1,824 265 463 3,593 2,521 --6 1,252 9,996 12 6661 1,2791 1,693 347 5,8141 -2,171 2 6 1,252 13,236 13 645 1,244 1,693 347 5,975 -2 6 1,252 11,170 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)1 Based on the year 2014. See Section 3.7.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)This section presents the current ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 44 regions within the STP EPZ and the 13 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.The required ETE for all un-staged Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 7-1 (9 0 th percentile population) and Table 7-2 (1 0 0 th percentile).

These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions, for all Evacuation Scenarios.

The ETE for the 2-mile region, for both staged and un-staged evacuations, are presented in Table 7-3 (9 0 th percentile) and Table 7-4 (1 0 0 th percentile).

Table 7-5 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II System outputs which are generated at (simulated) 5-minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary

Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation"Voluntary evacuees" are people within the EPZ who occupy PRZs for which an Advisory to Evacuate has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. "Shadow evacuation" is the voluntary outward movement of some people from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ, extending to about 15 miles from the plant) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the recommended evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.The ETE for the STP EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 7-1. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located outside the evacuation region, who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.

Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of the people in the shadow region (all of whom are not advised to evacuate), will elect to voluntarily evacuate.Figure 7-2 presents the area identified as the Shadow Evacuation Region. This annular region extends from the EPZ boundary to a distance of approximately 15 miles from the power plant.The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Evacuation Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 26,268 people reside in the Shadow Evacuation Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate.

See Table 6-4 for the number of evacuating vehicles (including employees) from the Shadow Region.Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the STP location, has a potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

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

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 7-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate, Rev. 1

2. PRZs comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the two mile region is cleared.3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 2 mile region boundary.5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns

of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-6 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 5-5): The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have exceeded a specified service measure value, or combination of service measure values, that most users would consider unsatisfactory.

However, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is. Several measures are available to describe individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:

• Demand-to-capacity ratios describe the extent to which capacity is exceeded during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%, etc.);* Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h); and-Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions.

These include measures such as the back of queue, and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these Figures by a thick red line; all other links experiencing LOS A-E are lightly indicated with other colors. Congestion can develop rapidly around concentrations of population and at traffic bottlenecks.

At 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 7-3 displays congestion caused by employee vehicles evacuating from the plant.Figure 7-3 displays the maximum congestion within the population center of Bay City within the shadow region to the northeast of STP, 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). The plant access road exhibits LOS F when 90 percent of employees have mobilized.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 7-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Because plant employees have fully mobilized at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, and most have evacuated by that time, the plant access route exhibits LOS A by 1:15 after the ATE.Congested conditions develop in Bay City on 4 th St, Nichols Ave, Golden Ave, SH 616 and SH 35 at 1:15 after the ATE (Figure 7-4). These roads exhibit LOS F at areas with high populations loading onto the network with a high traffic signal density. Pronounced traffic congestion persists in the area for about an hour. As seen in Figure 7-5, all roads in Bay City have reached LOS C or better, and the EPZ that is nearly clear of evacuating traffic, at 2:15 after the ATE. After 2:30, all roadways remain LOS A.At the conclusion of the trip-generation activity (5:30 -see Section 5.4), the roadways are effectively empty of traffic; see Figure 7-6. Thus, the ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile evacuation is dictated by the trip generation time. The 9 0 th percentile ETE should be considered when making protective action decisions, as specified in NUREG/CR-7002.

A public outreach (information) program to emphasize the advisability for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should be considered.

7.4 Evacuation

Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 7-7 through Figure 7-19. These Figures indicate the rates at which traffic flows out of Region R03 (the full EPZ) for the case of an evacuation of Region R03 under the indicated conditions.

One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in these Figures, there is typically a long "tail" to these ETE distributions.

Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase).

As some evacuation routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal.

Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end -thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.7.5 Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) Results Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 present the ETE values for all 44 Evacuation Regions and all 13 Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present the ETE values for the 2-mile region, for both staged and un-staged 5-mile regions. These Tables are organized as follows: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 7-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

.6LIw ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 7-1 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 7-2 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 7-3 population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 7-4 population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un-staged) evacuation Scenario 1 and Region, R03, which are displayed in Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-6. Most of the congestion is located in the shadow region which is beyond the EPZ;this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

• The 9 0 th percentile ETE for Region R01 of about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> reflects only the plant employees, as there are no residents within the 2-mile area.* The 9 0 th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5-mile ring) ranges from 1:20 (hr:min) to 1:40.* The 9 0 th percentile ETE for Regions R03 (full EPZ), R11 -R22, and R31 -R44 (which extend to the EPZ boundary) are within 2:35, well after traffic congestion in the EPZ dissipates.

The 100t' percentile values of ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios are the same or slightly longer than the mobilization times. This fact implies that congestion (LOS F) within the EPZ dissipates well before the end of mobilization, as displayed in Figure 7-4.Comparison of ETE values for Scenarios 3 and 11 when Region R03 (entire EPZ) is evacuated, in Table 7-1, indicates that the Special Event -a holiday with beachgoers at Matagorda Beach -increases the ETE for the 9 0 th percentile by up to 25 minutes. Regions which include PRZs 3 and 7 show an increase in ETE for this special event. This is due to the influx of traffic from the beach through Matagorda, which delays the departure of evacuees from that town. All other scenarios have ETE values of 2:10 or 2:15.Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 7-1 (summer-midweek) indicates that the Special Event -construction at White Stallion -increases the ETE for the 9 0 th percentile by up to 30 minutes for Regions R07, R08, R09, R27, R28 and R29. These regions include the 2-mile region and PRZ 2 where White Stallion is located. Thus, the evacuation of these Regions is predominately the evacuation of White Stallion and STP employees.

The increase in ETE is the result of some STP employee vehicles mixing with the White Stallion construction employee South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 7-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 traffic heading northbound on FM 2668 into Bay City, which increases congestion and prolongs travel time.Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -eastbound on FM 521 from the intersection with FM 2668 and westbound on FM 521 from the intersection with FM 1468- increases the 90th percentile ETE for regions within 5 miles of the plant, by up to 15 minutes. The only evacuees affected by these closures are plant employees who are obliged to take FM 2668 and FM 1468 northbound to exit the EPZ.7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present a comparison of the ETE for the 2-mile region, that are compiled for the concurrent (un-staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R23 through R30 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, and R04 though RiO, respectively.

To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, it must be shown that the ETE for the 2-mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in these tables, the ETE for the 2 mile region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented.

The reason for this is that the congestion within the 5-mile area does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of the plant. Consequently, the impedance, due to this congestion within the 5-mile area, to evacuees from within the 2-mile area is not sufficient to materially influence the 90th percentile ETE for the 2-mile area.While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within 2 miles of the plant, staging produces longer ETE for those evacuating from within the 5-mile area. A comparison of ETE between Regions R02 and R04 through RIO, with Regions R23 through R30 reveals that staging retards the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for those in the 2 to 5-mile area by up to 15 minutes (see Table 7-1). This lengthening of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip, experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the trip-generation "spike" (significant volume of traffic beginning the evacuation trip at the same time) that follows their eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ area beyond 2 miles.Therefore, staging the evacuation to reduce congestion within the 5-mile area while those within 2 miles evacuate, provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles.7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 9 0 th percentile).

The applicable value of ETE within the chosen Table (7-1 for 90-percentile; 7-2 for 100-percentile) may then be identified using the following procedure:

1. Identify the applicable Scenario circumstances:

• Season" Summer" Winter (also Autumn and Spring)South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 7-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

• Day of Week" Midweek" Weekend" Time of Day" Midday" Evening" Weather Condition" Good Weather" Rain" Special Event" Holiday (Beachgoers at Matagorda Beach)" Construction at White Stallion" Road Closure (FM 521 eastbound after the intersection with FM 2668 and FM 521 westbound after the intersection with FM 1468)* Evacuation Staging" No, Staged Evacuation is not considered (recommended)" Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

• The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenario (2) or (4) applies.* The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenario (7) or (9) for rain applies.* The seasons are defined as follows: " Summer assumes that public schools are not in session." Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.* Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:* Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction).

This wind direction, defined in Table 7-5, is expressed in terms of azimuth degrees: from 29-50,51-106, 107-140, ...* Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below: 0 2 Miles (Region R01)0 to 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 through RIO)N to EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R1 through R22 and R31 through R44)* Enter Table 7-5 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the STP Site. Select the Evacuation South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth (from) direction of the plume, listed in the second column of the Table.3. Determine the ETE Table (either 7-1 or 7-2) based on the percentile selected.

Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:* The columns of Table 7-1 and 7-2 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.* Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.* The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:

• Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.* It is raining.* Wind direction is from the southwest (SW). The azimuth direction is 225 degrees.* Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5-mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).

• The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.* A staged evacuation is not desired.Table 7-1 is applicable because the 9 0 th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows: 1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 7-1, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors.

However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.2. Enter Table 7-S and locate the Region described as "Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary" for wind direction from the SW and read Region R18 in the first column of that row.3. Enter Table 7-1 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R18. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R18; it contains the ETE value of 1:50.7-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MidweekMidweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Ran Good F Rin Good Good Ran Good Ran Good Special Special Roadway weather Ran Weather Ran Weather ,Weather Ran Weather Ran Weather Event Event Impact Entire Z-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ z 1:05 10: :05 .1 .1101 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R02 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:30~RO3 '2:10 2:15. 2:4 '215 2:15 2:15I 2: 15ý ~2:15 2:15' 2:35 2:10 2:15 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:201:"oi 1:5! 1 20. 1:20 .1:20. 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:0, 1:20. 1:20 1:10 1:20 R06 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:20iio , ib:' ::.

10 :10 1:10 1:5 1:25 R08 1:05 1:10 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:05 1:10 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:35 1:25 ROg 11 1:0 13 1: 1 :15 11:5120 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:30 R10 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:35 1:15 1:20 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:20 1:30 S-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R i, 1:50i 1 !:50 !,i1:8 t1:55 1:- , 1:0 1:50 2:00 2;.00 2:00 1:50 1:45 1:50 R12 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 Ri.3: 2:05 2:10, 2.10 2:10 ':2:10'..

2:05 .2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R14 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R15i 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:05 2ý10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R16 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:10 R17* 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10. .2:10 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:05 R18 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:451:55 .1:55 1:55 .1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:50 1:55 R20 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 R21 1:40 1:406 i,:', 1:45 'ý .1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 R22 1:55 1:55 1 :55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:45 1:55 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 7-1. Continued from above.Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Mdek Midweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather IWeather Weather Event Event, Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles-, 23 130 *1:3~ w.1:0 , 1:40< 4:0 1:30W1i:Oj 14 1 ,1:40 1:40. 1:35 1:40 1:35 R24 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:20 R5 1f 1:15 13 1:30 1:30 1:1, :5' : A30 130 1:30 1:15 1:20 R26 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:10 1:20 Rii~i271!

1i-0 : 15:>> 1:2- .11:25 :25 1:10 1:15 " :25' 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:35 1:25 R28 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:05 1:35 1:25 R29 ' :25 1:25> 1:40 -iL40 .. -4 0i 1: 25 ! :2- "5.25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:30 R30 1:25 1:30 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:25 1:30 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R31 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:00 1:45 1:50 R32 2:,10 '2:10 -:5 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R33 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R34 2:10 2!15: 2,: ,5 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R35 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:5 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 R36 2:10 2:105-5 2:1 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:10 R37 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:10:R38M 2:1o 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:10 R39 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:05 1:55 2:05 R40 1:35 1:35 14 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:40 R41 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:50 1:50! R42 1:40 1:40" 1ý'.,I;:45

4 ,'5 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 R43 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:20 1:40 1:40 R44" 1:05 1:10 :0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good R Good i Good Good R Goodr Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Event Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl li1:15 1:20K 1:10, -~1A61, 1:05- >1.I7 1 t20'. --K110 r -1:10 4"::10 1:10 11:15 13 R02 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35"R3 15:40 :

5:40 5:40 5:40 [ 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35-R55 5:.' -535 ,35 5:35 5:35 .5:35 ..- 5:35 5.35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R06 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35:R07 --5:35 5:35 5-----,3 -5:35 ,5:35 5:35. , 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R08 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R09 5:35 5:35 5 3:35 ,5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R10 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary:11R1 5:40 5:40 ,5-40o 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R12 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 ,5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40":.,R13 5:40 5:40 :540 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R14 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R15 5:40 5:40 :,5`40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R16 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:405:40 5:40 5:40.,- 5:40 5:40 5:40. 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R18 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40-- .R19 5:40 5:40. :CJ('40 -5:40 .5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R20 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 2."1 -"'5:4'0

-5:40< -5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R22 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 7-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-2. Continued from above.Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Special Roadway Weather Weather I Weather Weather I Weather R Weather Event Event Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles 1R23 5:35 5:35 2 5-35,': 5:35"-2 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R24 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R25 5:35' " '5:35 5:35 5:35 ','5:35 5:35 ' 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R26 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R27 5:5 ~ 5~5 :3 535' :3 535 5:35 '5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:5 5:35 R28 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35ý1R29 5:35 -.5:35 5:35 -5:35s 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 R30 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R31 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40'-"R32 5:40 5:40 -5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R33 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 1R34' 5:40 5:40 ,5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R35 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40.36 5:40 5:40 5: 540 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R37 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R38, 5:40 5:40 5:,0 5:40w" 5:40' 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R39 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R41 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 SR42 .5:0 5:40.' 5:40 5:40 540 50 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R43 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 R44 5.:40 ' 5:40 5:40 :5:40 5:404 ',-:4 :5:40 1- 5 :40 540 :40 5:40 5:40 5:40 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Roadway Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Event Impact Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles ROL, :1:05 10o" 0:50 -:50-K :50 1:05 lA1 0:50 0:55- 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R02 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R104 :05 1:10 ' 0:50. 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 ROS 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R06 1:05 10 0:50 , : 0:50 ..0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R07 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:201:05 -1:10 ,0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R09 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:201:05 1:10 0150 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R23 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R24 1:05 0:50. 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R25 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R26 :0:05 ý1o 10 0:50 0:50 :50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R27 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R28 1:05 1110 000: :50, :50 1:O5 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R29 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:10 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 R30' 1:05, Q-- 0:50- .:5O'<K0:50

' 1:oS '1 :51:0 0:50 0:55 0:50 0:50 1:05 1:20 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Roadway Weather Rain Weather R in Weather Weather Rain Weather Rain Weather Event Impact Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles1:i20 1:10 1:10.- 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1130 R02 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30"R4 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 ROS 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R06 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R07 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R-1106, 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R09 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:301:15 1:20 1:10 1: 0 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R23 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R24 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R25 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R26 1:15 ,, :-: 1:10 110 1: 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R29 1:15 20 10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R25 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 .1:15 --1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 R27 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:05 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30~R29 1:15 1:20 1:10 1:10 1:I05 1:15 1:20 '1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:30 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Response Zone Region Description 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R01 2-Mile Ring // n R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Full EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction From in Protective Response Zone Region Degrees: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R04 29-50 ROS51-106 R06 107-140 R07 141-174 R08 175-230 R09 231-286 R10 287-331 _ _ _RO1* 332-28 Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Wind Direction From: R11 355-50 R12 51-61 R13 62-95 R14 96-129 R15 130-163 R16 164-174 R17 175-219 RIB 220-230 R19 231-286 R20 287-298 R21 299-343 I Protective Response Zone 11l-I 3i45 5q.-j14 PRZ(s) Shelter-in-Place 1 20% of population in these subareas will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR-7002. Once 90% of the 2-mile Region has evacuated, the remaining population in these subareas will evacuate.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 7-5. Continued from above.Stated Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Wind Direction From: R23 5-mile ring R24 29-50 R25 51-106 R26 107-140 R27 141-174 R28 175-230 R29 231-286 R30 287-331 Protective Response Zone 1 2 3 4 516 7 18 9 10 1 11 4 1 4 I*4 i i i i-.1 + I* 4 I-Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Wind Direction From: R31 344-50 R32 51-61 R33 62-95 R34 96-106 R35 107-129 R36 130-140 R37 141-163 R38 164-174 R39 175-219 R40 220-230 R41 231-286 R42 287-298 R43 299-331 Protective Response Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 3 Kam'iiL-iQi Notes: 1. Evacuating the 2-mile region and downwind to 5 miles with wind from 3320 to 28* both result in the evacuation of Region1. Thus, RO0 is shown twice in the table above.2. The STP site is not part of PRZ 1 but will evacuate with PRZ 1.3. Residents and Transients in the Matagorda Beach area are always evacuated.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology 7-lir South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-17 Rev. I 0 Figure 7-2. STP Shadow Evacuation Region South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1:15 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2:15 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 0 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 5:30 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%C 4J 41 M U'-GD 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario I for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring EPZ 0 90% 0 100%C LU:E VR C 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 2 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%10 9 to 8 C-7 M U Luw 5*c43 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed lime After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-9. Evacuation lime Estimates

-Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring Entire EPZ* 90% 0 100%'U fA XD 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed rime After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-10. Evacuation rime Estimates

-Scenario 4 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring , Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%ba"C (U I 31.VA -10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-4 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed lime After Evacuation Recommendation (min)360 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ

• 90% 0 100%(U VI C 0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 6 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ 0 90%0 100%C LU:E 3 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ

• 90% 0 100%C 4, EU U (U ILl In GD U GD#A 0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MOON 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 8 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%10 9 to 8 C 7 4. _ 7 m c un 6@ 4:E 3 2 1 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed lime After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring ---Entire EPZ

• 90% 0 100%LU IA U, 0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 10 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good, Holiday (Beachgoers)(Scenario 11)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%10 LU En~0 8 6 4 2 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)300 330 360 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, White Stallion Construction (Scenario 12)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring -Entire EPZ

• 90%0 100%10 4.r 4U Ui#A WU 0 8 6 4 2 0 AoýA=k Ir dip-A000p, AML 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)330 360 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 12 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 13)-2-Mile Ring Mile Ring :--i Entire EPZ 0 90% 0 100%10 8 M ZU 6> 2 0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 13 for Region R03 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles.

The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups: (1) residents with no vehicles available; (2) schoolchildren; and (3)homebound special needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of"passenger cars" (pc's). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pc's.This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.Specifically:

• Bus drivers must be alerted* They must travel to the bus depot* They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. It is assumed that bus mobilization time for school evacuations will average approximately 30 minutes extending from the Advisory to Evacuate, to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

According to Matagorda County emergency management personnel, transit dependent buses take no longer than an hour to mobilize.During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families.

Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this "bonding" process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the STP EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools at emergency action levels of Site Area Emergency or higher, and that parents should pick up schoolchildren at host schools. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency.

Therefore, children are evacuated to host schools.Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren.

These buses may have to return in a subsequent "wave" to the EPZ to evacuate the transit-dependent population.

This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required The procedure for computing transit-dependent ETE is:* Estimate demand for transit service* Estimate time to perform all transit functions South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the host schools 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate The telephone survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:* Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.

• Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Table 8-1 presents estimates of transit-dependent people. Note: Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren.

For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren.

The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates.

However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transit-dependent persons will evacuate by ride-sharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transit-dependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of "adult seats" taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 8-1 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.[20+ (2 x10)] -40 x1.5 = 1.00 Table 8-1 indicates that transportation must be provided for 91 people. Therefore, a total of 3 bus runs are required to transport this population to reception centers.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or ride-share, and the number of buses, B, required for the STP EPZ: n P = No. of HH x ZY('(% HH with i vehicles) x [(Average HH Size) -i]} x AiC'i=O Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter P 1,316 x [0.05 x 1.96 + 0.31 x (1.77 -1) x 0.49 x 0.30 + 0.42 x (2.51 -2)x (0.49 x 0.30)2] = 181 B (0.5 x P) + 30 = 3 These calculations are explained as follows: All members (1.96 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (5%) will evacuate by public transit or ride-share.

The term 1,316 (number of households) x 0.05 x 1.96, accounts for these people.The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (31%), who are at home, equal (1.77-1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (1,316 x 0.31 x 0.77 x 0.49 x 0.30), as 49% of EPZ households have a commuter, 30% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency.

The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride-share is equal to the product of these two terms.The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (42%), who are at home, equal (2.51 -2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 1,316 x 0.42 x 0.51 x (0.49 x 0.30)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or ride-share is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with I or 2 vehicles that are away from home.The estimate of transit-dependent population in Table 8-1 far exceeds the number of registered transit-dependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the county (discussed below in Section 8.4). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR-6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transit-dependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear power plants, does not register with their local emergency response agency.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

8.2 School

Population

-Transit Demand Table 8-2 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 2011-2012 school year. This information was provided by the Matagorda County emergency management agency and the schools themselves.

The column in Table 8-2 entitled "Buses Required" specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

• No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.* While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR-7002), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of these private vehicles.Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and 50 for middle and high schools.Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.It is recommended that Matagorda County introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot (approximately one hour after the Advisory to Evacuate), to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated.

In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities).

Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ride-sharing.

Table 8-3 presents a list of the host schools for each school in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these host schools where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.8.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency.

In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat"inefficient", or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the host school or reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a "second wave" of providing transport service to evacuees.

For this reason, the ETE for the transit-dependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transit-dependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pick-up points.Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions.

Figure 8-1 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations.

The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 8-1.Activity:

Mobilize Drivers (A-)B->C)Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would likely require 30 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transit-dependent facilities.

Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather -35 minutes when raining.Activity:

Board Passengers (C--'D)Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain)for school buses is used.For multiple stops along a pick-up route (transit-dependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pick-up point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, "a", expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed,"v", expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

T=t+B+t=B+2t=B+-, a Where B = Dwell time to service passengers.

The total distance, "s" in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v 2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is: P=T_--=B+

=_B a a Assigning reasonable estimates:

B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop S v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec* a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P = 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pick-up time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Activity:

Travel to EPZ Boundary (D->E)School Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agency and are summarized in Table 8-4. Also included in the table is the number of buses needed to evacuate medical facilities, transit-dependent population, and homebound special needs (discussed below in Section 8.4). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave.The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 45 minutes after the advisory to evacuate -30 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time -in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary.

Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5 minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 8-5 (refer to the maps of the link-node analysis network in Appendix K for node locations).

Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 45 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows: AverageSpeed (y-)Sle;'U= Delay on link i (min.) +60 min.x 1 hr.ngth of link i (mi)length of link i (mi.)current speed on link i Mi.)60 min.l hr.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 8-6 and Table 8-7 for school evacuation, and in Table 8-9 and Table 8-10 for the transit vehicles evacuating transit-dependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the Reception Center was computed assuming an average speed of 50 mph for good weather and 45 mph for rain. Speeds were reduced in Table 8-6 through Table 8-10 to 50 mph (45 mph for rain -10% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 50 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in Texas is 50 mph.Table 8-6 (good weather) and Table 8-7 (rain) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the School Reception Center. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities A-4B--C, C->D, and D--E (For example: 30 min. + 15 + 20 =1:05 for Matagorda Elementary School, with good weather).

The evacuation time to the Host School is determined by adding the time associated with Activity E--F (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.Evacuation of Transit-Dependent Population The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transit-dependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization.

As shown in Figure 5-4 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization at 120 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

To limit their exposure, buses will be assigned to pick up the transit-dependent, starting at about 1:30 after the ATE. A second wave will be provided for those that may take longer to mobilize.Those buses servicing the transit-dependent evacuees will first travel along their pick-up routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. The county emergency plan does not define bus routes to service these pick-up locations.

The 3 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 8-2 and described in Table 8-8 were designed by KLD to service the major routes through each PRZ. It is assumed that all transit-dependent residents will walk to and congregate at these major roads, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 120 minute bus mobilization time (good weather).As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop.The travel distance along the respective pick-up routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software.

Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

.Table 8-9 and Table 8-10 present the transit-dependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather and rain, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the last bus along transit dependent bus route 1 is computed as 90 +20 + 30 = 2:20 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes).

Here, 20 minutes is the time to travel 15.9 miles at 50 mph, the average speed output by the model (capped at 50 mph)for this route at 90 minutes. The ETE for the second wave is discussed below.Activity:

Travel to Reception Centers (E->F)The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 10-1. For a one-wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a two-wave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general public. Assumed bus speeds of 50 mph and 45 mph for good weather and rain, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transit-dependent population.

Activity:

Passengers Leave Bus (F->G)A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute break.Activity:

Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (G--'C).The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a "second wave" evacuation of transit-dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transit-dependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transit-dependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transit-dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.The second-wave ETE for transit dependent bus route 1 is computed as follows for good weather: The first bus arrives at reception center at 2:24 in good weather (2:20 to exit EPZ + 4 minute travel time to reception center).Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10-minute rest: 15 minutes.Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 4 minutes (equal to Travel Time to Reception Center) + 19 minutes (15.9 miles @ 50 mph) + 19 minutes (15.9 miles @50 mph) = 42 minutes* Pick up passengers:

30 minutes* Bus exits the EPZ at: 2:24 + 0:15 + 0:42 + 0:30 = 3:55 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transit-dependent bus routes are provided in Table 8-9 and Table 8-10.The average ETE for a two-wave evacuation of transit-dependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 9 0 th percentile, but is within the ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile.

The relocation of transit-dependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the county decides to do so, is not considered in this study.8.4 Special Needs Population The county emergency management agency has a registration for transit-dependent and homebound special needs population.

Based on data provided by Matagorda County, there are an estimated 5 homebound special needs people within the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate:

one wheelchair bound person and 4 ambulatory people.ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Buses Assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 4 households need to be serviced.

Only 1 bus is needed to service these special needs HH, assuming a bus capacity of 30 people. This bus will service 4 stops. The estimated travel time between pickups is based on a distance of 4 miles @ 30 mph = 8 minutes (speeds are 10% lower for rain). If planned properly, the sequence of pickup locations will be selected to minimize the route distance.

The estimated travel time to the EPZ boundary is based on a distance of 8 miles @ 50 mph = 10 minutes (average speed output by DYNEV at 2:15 good weather; 45 mph at 2:25 -rain). Buses were assigned a loading time of 5 minutes. Mobilization time for good weather is assumed to be 90 minutes. It is assumed that mobilization time to first pickup is 10 minutes longer in rain. Table 8-11 outlines the ETE calculations for buses. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.Wheel-Chair Vans According to Matagorda County emergency management personnel, the county-owned wheelchair vans have a capacity of 2. As discussed above, there is one homebound special needs person within the EPZ requiring a wheelchair van. Only one van and one stop are required.

Loading time is assumed to be 5 minutes. The one required stop is assumed to be 8 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the network-wide average speed (Scenario 6, Region 3) is used to compute travel time. Mobilization time for good weather is assumed to be 90 minutes.It is assumed that mobilization time to the pickup is 10 minutes longer in rain. Table 8-11 outlines the ETE calculations for wheelchair vans. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 (Subsequent Wave)Time A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pick-up Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host Facility G Bus Available for "Second Wave" Evacuation Service A-->B Driver Mobilization B--*C Travel to Facility or to Pick-up Route C-->D Passengers Board the Bus D-->E Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary E->F Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ F-->G Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 8-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 0 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes IZ-.i KLD Engineering, P.C Evacuation Time Estimate 8-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates 3,132 1.96 1.77 2.51 1,316 5% 31% 42% 49% 30% 181 50% 91 2.9%South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates 7 Matagorda Elementary School 135 2 10 Tidehaven Junior High School 210 5 10 Tidehaven High School 216 5 Table 8-3. Host Schools OSchoR Hos Scho Matagorda Elementary School 7 Linnie Roberts Elementary School Tidehaven Junior High School 10 Blessing Elementary School & Markham Tidehaven High School 10 Elementary School 8-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-4. Summary of Transportation Resources I Matagorda County I 15 1 -1 4 I 7 1 Matagorda County School District 50 9'i '

• Is (Table 8;2)i: Transit-bDependent

'(Table 8-8): -3 0.Homnebound Spe'cial Needs,(Section 8.4): 1 -0 TT AL Nr ATSED' 6_________

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-5. Bus Route Descriptions Bs Route-* .*e* -* :. .1 Matagorda Elementary School 880, 870, 860, 861, 850, 851, 1179, 1238, 852, 90, 91, 92, 98, 93, 94, 100, 1228, 1221, 1355, 221, 1178, 220 2 Tidehaven Junior High School to Blessing Elementary School 1432, 640, 1216, 1217, 650, 651, 652, 653, 660, 1267 3 Tidehaven High School to Blessing Elementary School 640, 1216, 1217, 650, 651, 652, 653, 660, 1267 4 Tidehaven Junior High School to Markham Elementary School 1432, 640, 1168, 1167, 1166, 1262, 1263 5 Tidehaven High School to Markham Elementary School 640, 1168, 1167, 1166, 1262, 1263 Note: Appendix K figures show node locations.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-6. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Matagorda Elementary School 30 15 16.7 50 20' 3.6 5 1:10'Tidehaven Jr High School (to Blessing) 30 15 6.4 50 8 CII IiI(i 1 0.2 1 1:90 Tidehaven Jr High School (to Markham)30 15 8.0 50 10 Tidehaven High School (to Blessing) 30 15 4.7 50 6 Tidehaven High School (to Markham) 30 15 6.2 50 8 Maxirnm mfdor EPZ: Aveage fo0EZ 0.8 1 1:00 !0.2 1 1:000 0.8 1 -l:OO , Maxim mi:e A:10: IAverage:

12:02 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain 0 Tidehaven Jr High School (to Blessing)Tidehaven Jr High School (to Markham)Tidlehaven High School (to Markham) =35 ] 20 J 6.2 [ 5 9-,maximum forEPZ,-Average6forEPZ:ý I -- 1:05 1 0.8 1 1:10 Maximum:.

1:25'Average: I 1:4-I -South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-8. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes 1 1 ~Zipprian Way in Selkrik Island to River Road to State Highway 60 to Wadsworth, 1.State Highway 60 northbound out of EPZ towards Bay CityI State Highway 60 from Fisher St, Matagorda, northbound out of the EPZ towards Bay City 3 1 FM 2853 northbound from Ashby, out of EPZ towards Blessing 7.0 Tot~al'ý:

3:4 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table 8-9. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather 3.3 I 4 I I 10 I 42 I 30 Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain 1 1 1 100 1 15.91 45 1 22 1 40 2 1 o100 17.7 45 24 40 3 1 100 7.0 45 10 40 Maximum ETE: A Average ETE: 3.3 4 5 10 47 40 4:35 3.3 4 5 10 51 40 4:35 12.4 1 15 I 5 10 1 I 40 Maximum ETE: Average ETE: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 0 Table 8-11. ETE for Homebound Special Needs Population Toa Travel.Loain Lodn Tiet ii Pe pl i. Tim at Trvet Tim at .- ---* 5 ** 5 5 5 S -.St South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 8-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested traffic control and management strategy that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include: " Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers)." Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. These devices should comply with the guidance of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T.

All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available on-line: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.* A plan that defines all locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.The functions to be performed in the field are: 1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function.

There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.

For example:* A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees." The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 9-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process: 1. The existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agency in their existing emergency plan serves as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR-7002.

2. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment.

This analysis identifies the best routing and those critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion.

Any critical intersections that are not identified in the existing offsite plan are suggested as additional TCPs and ACPs 3. A field survey of the highway network within 15 miles of the power plant. The schematics describing traffic and access control at suggested additional TCPs and ACPs, which are presented in Appendix G, are based on data collected during field surveys, upon large scale maps, and on overhead photos.4. Consultation with emergency management and law enforcement personnel.

Trained personnel who are experienced in controlling traffic and are aware of the likely evacuation traffic patterns should review the control tactics at the suggested additional TCPs and ACPs.5. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located far from the power plant. These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.

It is recommended that the control tactics identified in the schematics in Appendix G be reviewed by the state and county emergency planners, and local and state police. Specifically the number and locations of the suggested TCPs and ACPs should be reviewed in detail, and the indicated resource requirements should be reconciled with current assets.The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies (if available) can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information.

DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees en route through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information.

Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while on board navigation systems (GPS units), cell phones, and pagers can be used to provide information en route. These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process. Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 9-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals.Chapters 2N and 5G, and Part 6 of the 2009 MUTCD are particularly relevant and should be reviewed during emergency response training.The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all "external-external" trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> have elapsed from the advisory to evacuate (ATE).All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning ACPs and TCPs.Study Assumptions 5 and 6 in Section 2.3 discuss ACP and TCP staffing schedules and operations.

9-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 9-3 Rev. I 10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from a PRZ being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.* Routing of transit-dependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable.

The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The routing of transit-dependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers or host facilities is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.Figure 10-1 presents maps showing the general population and host schools for evacuees.

The major evacuation routes, including the waterway evacuation route for the Colorado River, for the EPZ are presented in Figure 10-2.It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate host schools and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians.

Transit-dependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception center. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers, if the county does make the decision to relocate evacuees.South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 10-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 S 0 Figure 10-1. General Population and School Reception Centers South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 10-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 01 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 10-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS There is a need for surveillance of traffic operations during the evacuation.

There is also a need to clear any blockage of roadways arising from accidents or vehicle disablement.

Surveillance can take several forms.1. Traffic control personnel, located at Traffic Control and Access Control points, provide fixed-point surveillance.

2. Ground patrols may be undertaken along well-defined paths to ensure coverage of those highways that serve as major evacuation routes.3. Aerial surveillance of evacuation operations may also be conducted using helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft, if available.

4. Cellular phone calls (if cellular coverage exists) from motorists may also provide direct field reports of road blockages.

These concurrent surveillance procedures are designed to provide coverage of the entire EPZ as well as the area around its periphery.

It is the responsibility of Matagorda County to support an emergency response system that can receive messages from the field and be in a position to respond to any reported problems in a timely manner. This coverage should quickly identify, and expedite the response to any blockage caused by a disabled vehicle.Tow Vehicles In a low-speed traffic environment, any vehicle disablement is likely to arise due to a low-speed collision, mechanical failure or the exhaustion of its fuel supply. In any case, the disabled vehicle can be pushed onto the shoulder, thereby restoring traffic flow. Past experience in other emergencies indicates that evacuees who are leaving an area often perform activities such as pushing a disabled vehicle to the side of the road without prompting.

While the need for tow vehicles is expected to be low under the circumstances described above, it is still prudent to be prepared for such a need. Consideration should be given that tow trucks with a supply of gasoline be deployed at strategic locations within, or just outside, the EPZ. These locations should be selected so that:* They permit access to key, heavily loaded, evacuation routes." Responding tow trucks would most likely travel counter-flow relative to evacuating traffic.Consideration should also be given that the state and local emergency management agency encourages gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 11-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 12 CONFIRMATION TIME It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the Advisory to Evacuate.

The EPZ county radiological emergency plans do not discuss a procedure for confirming evacuation.

Should procedures not already exist, the following alternative or complementary approach is suggested.

The procedure suggested employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.

It is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 12-1) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 250.The confirmation process should start at about 2Y hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, which is when about 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Table 5-9). At this time, virtually all evacuees will have departed on their respective trips and the local telephone system will be largely free of traffic.As indicated in Table 12-1, approximately 6Y person hours are needed to complete the telephone survey. If four people are assigned to this task, each dialing a different set of telephone exchanges (e.g., each person can be assigned a different set of PRZs), then the confirmation process will extend over a time frame of about 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the Evacuation Region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., reverse 911 or equivalent if available) can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.If this method is indeed used by the offsite agencies, consideration should be given to maintain a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and could be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 2Y hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, to ensure that households have had enough time to mobilize.

This 2%-hour timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, obtain a call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.Should the number of telephone responses (i.e., people still at home) exceed 20 percent, then the telephone survey should be repeated after an hour's interval until the confirmation process is completed.

Other techniques could also be considered.

After traffic volumes decline, the personnel manning TCPs can be redeployed to travel through residential areas to observe and to confirm evacuation activities.

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 12-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation Problem Definition Estimate number of phone calls, n, needed to ascertain the proportion, F of households that have not evacuated.

Reference:

Burstein, H., Attribute Sampling McGraw Hill, 1971 Given:* No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 1,350* Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate = 0.20* Allowable error margin, e: 0.05* Confidence level, a: 0.95 (implies A = 1.96)Applying Table 10 of cited reference, p=F+e=0.25; q=i-p=0.75 A 2 pq + e =n -=-308 e2 Finite population correction:

nN rnF -- -- 251 n+N-1 -5 Thus, some 250 telephone calls will confirm that approximately 20 percent of the population has not evacuated.

If only 10 percent of the population does not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate, then the required sample size, nF = 186.Est. Person Hours to complete 250 telephone calls Assume:* Time to dial using touch tone (random selection of listed numbers):

30 seconds* Time for 6 rings (no answer): 36 seconds* Time for 4 rings plus short conversation:

60 sec." Interval between calls: 20 sec.Person Hours: 250[30 + 0.8(36) + 0.2(60) + 20]3600 6.3 3600 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 12-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1