ML12362A100

Evacuation Time Estimates Report, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Part 1 of 3

ML12362A100
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/17/2012
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
3F1212-02
Download: ML12362A100 (107)

Text

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 DOCKET NUMBER 50-302 / LICENSE NUMBER DPR-72 ENCLOSURE Evacuation Time Estimates Report

CrystalRiver NuclearPlant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performedfor Duke Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 kweinisch~kldcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 516

rohe Energy Project Lead, Emergency Preparedness Dat Ij~7:~ ~L' -

KLDjngineering, PC. - Lead Analyst Date f'0764'ýcý--

KLD Engineering. P.C. - Senior Project Manager Crystal River Nuclear Plant KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 The Crystal River Nuclear Plant Location ................................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities ................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Com parison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 3-10 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................ 3-15 3.5 M edical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population .............................................................. 3-19 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.8 Sum mary of Dem and ............................................................................................................... 3-22 4 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 4-4 4.3 Application to the CRNP Study Area .......................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highway ........................................................................................................... 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 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 5-16 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Offshore Areas and W aterw ays ....................................................... 5-17 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ......................................................... 7-1 7.1 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 7-3 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 7-5 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 7-6 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ............................ 8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................ 8-2 8.2 School Population -Transit Dem and ......................................................................................... 8-4 8.3 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................ 8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 8-5 8.5 Functional Needs Population ................................................................................................... 8-10 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 10-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S .............................................................................. A-1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL .................................................... B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL ........................................................................................... C-1 C.1 M ethodology .............................................................................................................................. C-S C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram ............................................................................................ C-S C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel .................................................................................................... C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent .............................................................................................................. C-13 C.2 Im plem entation ....................................................................................................................... C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure ............................................................................................ C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) ............................................... C-16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .......................................................................... D-1 E. 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-9 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results ................................................................................................ F-11 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F-14 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................................................................. K-1 L. ZO NE BO U N DA RIES ............................................................................................................................ L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ......................................................................................... M-1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ....................................................................... M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M-3 N. ETE CRITERIA CH ECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Crystal River Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering.I P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

List of Figures Figure 1-1. CRN P Location ......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1-2. CRNP Link-Node Analysis Network ......................................................................................... 1-7 Figure 2-1. Shadow Evacuation Methodology .......................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1. C RN P EPZ ................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ..................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-14 Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 3-17 Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 3-18 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental Diagram s ............................................................................................................ 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 ...................................................... 5-14 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions ....................................................................... 5-20 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 5 mile to EPZ Bo u ndary .................................................................................................................................................. 5-22 Figure 6-1. CRN P EPZ Zones ...................................................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 7-1. Shadow Evacuation Methodology ........................................................................................ 7-14 Figure 7-2. CRNP Shadow Region ............................................................................................................ 7-15 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 7-16 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................... 7-17 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 7-18 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................ 7-19 Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario I for Region R02 ...................................................... 7-20 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R02 ...................................................... 7-20 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R02 ...................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R02 .................................................... 7-23 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R02 ................................................... 7-24 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-24 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-25 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R02 .................................................. 7-25 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 8-12 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 8-13 Figure 10-1. Evacuation Shelters and Relocation Schools ...................................................................... 10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route M ap ........................................................................................................ 10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface ................................................................... B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ........................................................................................................... C-6 Crystal River Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t, > 0 .............................................................................. C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3) ............................................... C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities .................................................................................................. D-5 Figure E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E-8 Figure E-2. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................ E-9 Figure E-3. Major Employers within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E-I0 Figure E-4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ................................................................................... E-11 Figure E-5. Lodging w ithin the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E-12 Figure F-i. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F-4 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F-5 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - i to 5 Person Households ...................................................................... F-6 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 6 to 8 Person Households ...................................................................... F-6 Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F-7 Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the. EPZ ..................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-7. M odes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F-9 Figure F-8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ......................................................................... F-IO Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets ..................................................................................... F-10 Figure F-i0. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .......................................................... F-12 Figure F-11. Work to Home Travel Time .............................................................................................. F-12 Figure F-i2. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ............................................................................ F-13 Figure G-i. Traffic and Access Control Points for the Crystal River Nuclear Plant .................................. G-2 Figure H-1. Regio n R01 ............................................................................................................................. H-3 Figure H-2. Regio n R02 ............................................................................................................................. H-4 Figure H-3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H-5 Figure H-4. Regio n R04 ............................................................................................................................. H-6 Figure H-5. Regio n ROS ............................................................................................................................. H-7 Figure H-6. Regio n R06 ............................................................................................................................. H-8 Figure H-7. Regio n R07 ............................................................................................................................. H-9 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (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, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ....... J-9 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .......................... J-9 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario 5) ..................................................................................................................... J-10 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ....... J-10 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ........................... iJ-1 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8) ....... J-21 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) ........................... J-12 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario i0) ......... J-12 Figure J-1i. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11) ...................................................................................................................... J-13 Figure J-i2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadw ay Im pact (Scenario 22) ................................................................................................................ J-13 Figure K-1. Crystal River Nuclear Plant 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

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 Netw ork - 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-1l 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 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 Netw ork - 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................ 1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone ........................................................... 3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 3-7 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ...................................... 3-16 Table 3-6. CRNP EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 3-23 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand ................................................................................................. 3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 5-3 Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 5-9 Table 5-6. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 5-11 Table 5-7. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 5-12 Table 5-8. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 5-19 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ......................... 5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 6-5 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 ....................... 7-10 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the S-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 7-11 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 7-12 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 8-14 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 8-15 Table 8-3. Relocation Schools ................................................................................................................ 8-16 Table 8-4. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 8-17 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 8-18 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................................... 8-20 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................................... 8-21 Table 8-9. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .......................................................................... 8-22 Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ........................................ 8-23 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ......................................................... 8-24 Table 8-12. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................. 8-25 Table 8-13. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain .............................................................. 8-26 Table 8-14. Homebound Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................... 8-27 Crystal River Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ................................................................................ A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C-3 Table C-3 . Glossary .................................................................................................................................... C-8 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E-2 Table E-2. M edical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-3 Table E-3. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-4 Table E-4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E-5 Table E-5. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-7 Table F-1. CRNP Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ................................................................................... F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region ....................................................... H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections ........................................ J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ............................................................................................... J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02) ....................... J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, S ce n a rio 1 ) ................................................................................................................................................. J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario I ..................... J-7 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K-32 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled ........................................... K-56 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant viii KID Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CRNP) located in Citrus County, Florida. ETE provide Duke Energy and State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

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

• Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, December 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.

" Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 10CFR50.

Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in March, 2012 and extended over a period of 5 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

• 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 3 Zones. These zones are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 7 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). One special event scenario involving Manatee Fest in Crystal River was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single southbound lane was closed on U.S 19.

• Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 5 mile radius and sectors downwind to the EPZ boundary were evacuated.

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

" A rapidly escalating event at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly 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 reception centers or evacuation shelters located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

• Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound functional needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 84 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 7 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 12 Evacuation Scenarios (7 x 12 = 84). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Except for Region R02, 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 shadow evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by shadow evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 5-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 5 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place. Once 90% of the 5-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 5 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 5 miles will evacuate 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 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.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Citrus and Levy Counties, and identifies critical intersections.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 CRNP EPZ showing the layout of the 3 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

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

" Table 6-1 defines each of the 7 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of zones.

" Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

• Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 are compilations of ETE for the general population. 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 shadow evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

• Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present ETE for the 5-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

" Table 8-7 and Table 8-8 present ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather and rain, respectively.

• Table 8-10 and Table 8-11 present ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather and rain, respectively.

• Figure H-3 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R03) 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 84 unique cases - a combination of 7 unique Evacuation Regions and 12 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:10 (hr:min) to 3:15 at the 90th percentile.

• Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation "tail". As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since 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 7-18.

• Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to ETE (compare Regions R02, R03 and R04 with Regions R06, R05 and R07, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). While staged evacuation does not provide a benefit, it slightly increases ETE Scenario 11 (Special Event) at the 90th percentile. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

" Comparison of Scenarios 8 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather) and 11 (winter, Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

weekend, midday, special event) in Table 7-2 indicates that the special event does not have a significant impact on the ETE for the 9 0 th percentile with increases only up to 5 minutes. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane southbound on US 19/98 from the intersection with West Power Line St. to the edge of the Shadow Region at the intersection with West Mckinley St. - does have a material impact on 9 0 th percentile ETE for keyhole regions which include Zone 2, with up to 20 minute increases in ETE. The roadway closure has no effect on regions which do not involve evacuating the City of Crystal River. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

• Crystal River is the most congested area during an evacuation, and is the last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion. 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 10 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-6.

" Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound functional needs persons. Schools and medical facilities evacuating within a single wave have an average ETE that are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. The average single-wave ETE for transit-dependent and homebound functional needs exceed the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

• Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough wheelchair buses to evacuate the wheelchair-bound population in a single wave. The second-wave ETE for ambulances do exceed the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

• 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 traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1.

" The general population ETE is insensitive to the shadow evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (with a 60% increase in shadow evacuation, the ETE for the 9 0 th percentile does not change). See Table M-2.

• An increase in permanent resident population of 37% or more will result in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 6-1. CRNP EPZ Zones Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 1,2441,397 2 14,48314,178 33 33,000002,825 EPZ Population Growth: -1.75%

KLD Engineering,Rev.

P.C.1 Crystal Nuclear Plant River Nuclear Crystal River Plant ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Zone Region Description 1 2 RO 5-Mile Radius R02 Full EPZ Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Zone Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 2 3 R03 NW, NNW, N, NNE N/A NE, ENE See Region R02 R04 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S N/A SSW, SW, WSW, W, WNW Refer to Region RO0 Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 10 Miles Zone Region Wind Direction Towards: 1 1 2 _j R05 NW, NNW, N, NNE R06 NE, ENE R07 E, ESE, SE, SSE, S I Zone(s) Shelter-in-Place Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 10 Winter Midweek, None Weekend Evening Good 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Special Manatee Event-Fest Roadway Impact Closure 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good of one southbound lane on U.S. 19 Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekd Weekend Midweek Weekend weeke Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Weather Event Impact Entire S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 {2:10 j2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 R02 2:30 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 1 2:30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:45 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R03 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 [2:20 f2:15 2:20 2:20 j2:15 2:20 R04 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:25 j 2:25 2:25 [ 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:50 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ROS 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:40 2:35 2:35 R06 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:05 3:20 R07 3:10 3:15 3:10 3:15 3:15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:15 3:15 3:10 3:25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-b ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Mi weekend 5Mie Midweek tWeekend Weekend Midwek Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rin Good I Ran Good Good IRain Good Rain Good special Roadway Weahe Rin Weathr Ran Weather Weather Weather Weate Eet Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R01 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 R02 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 R03 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 R04 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ROS 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 R06 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 R07 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:15 P.C.1 KLO Engineering,Rev.

Crystal Nuclear Plant River Nuclear Crystal River Plant ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Good Rain Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R01 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 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 R03 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 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 Staged Evacuation - S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ROS 5:35 5:35 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 R07 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

'According to Levy County, buses are located on site and do not require any time to mc Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain 1According to Levy County, buses are located on site and do not require any time to mobilize.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-10. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather 1 1 135 12.7 46.9 16 30 14.2 19 5 10 34 30 1, 2 120 14.7 48.8 18 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 3, 4 125 14.7 53.0 17 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 2 5, 6 130 14.7 54.8 16 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 7, 8 135 14.7 55.0 16 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 9, 10 140 14.7 54.5 16 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 11 145 14.7 54.4 16 30 14.2 19 5 10 35 30 3 1,2 135 4.8 55.0 5 30 32.5 43 5 10 49 30 Maximum ETE: Maximum ETE:

Average ETE: Average ETE:

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain 1 1 145 12.7 35.8 21 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 1, 2 130 14.7 37.4 24 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 3, 4 135 14.7 40.7 22 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 5, 6 140 14.7 44.0 20 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 7, 8 145 14.7 45.6 19 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 9, 10 150 14.7 47.7 18 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 11 155 14.7 48.8 18 40 14.2 21 5 10 39 40 3 1,2 145 4.8 50.0 6 40 32.5 49 5 10 54 40 Maximum ETE: Maximum ETE:

Average ETE: Average ETE:

Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-3. Region R03 Crystal River Nuclear Plant ES-18 KID Engineering, P.C.

ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX L Zone Boundaries

L. ZONE BOUNDARIES Zone 1 County: Citrus Defined as the area within the following boundary: Extends from 0-5 miles radially from the plant and extends out to 10 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

Bounded by the Withlacoochee River to the north.

Zone 2 County: Citrus Defined as the area within the following boundary: Extends from 5-10 miles radially from the plant within Citrus County, includes the town of Crystal River.

Bounded by Lake Rousseau and the Withlacoochee River to the north.

Zone 3 County: Levy Defined as the area within the following boundary: Extends from 5-10 miles radially from the plant within Levy County, includes the towns of Yankeetown and Inglis. Bounded by Lake Rousseau and the Withlacoochee River to the south.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant I-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 2; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M-1 presents the results of this study.

Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study 2 Hours 30 Minutes 2:20 2:45 3 Hours 30 Minutes 2:25 3:35 5 Hours 30 Minutes (Base) 2:25 5:40 The results confirm the importance of accurately estimating the trip generation (mobilization) times. The ETE for the 1 0 0 th percentile closely mirror the values for the time the last evacuation trip is generated. In contrast, the 90th percentile ETE is very insensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution. As indicated in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the EPZ clears at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translates into shorter ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile. The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 90th percentile ETE for protective action decision making.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant M-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 2; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.

Table M-2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is not impacted by shadow evacuation from 0% to 60% at the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles. Note, the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 23% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter. Thus, the base assumption of 20% non-compliance suggested in NUREG/CR-7002 is valid.

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

vacuating o, , Evacua."tOi i onTi me Estimateire16 .

0 0 2:25 5:40 15 4,155 2:25 5:40 20 (Base) 5,540 2:25 5:40 25 6,926 2:25 5:40 60 16,621 2:25 5:40 Crystal River Nuclear Plant M-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE if the resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region) increases. As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The population within the study area was increased by varying amounts up to a 47%

increase. Increases in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and in the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 5-Mile Region (R01) and the entire EPZ (R02).

4. The scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 7). There were multiple cases that had the highest ETE value of 2:30. Scenario 7 was chosen because it is a winter, midweek, midday, rain scenario, which has approximately 2,000 more vehicles than the other cases which had an ETE of 2:30.

5. An additional Scenario which involved the Special Event (Scenario 11) was also considered.

Table M-3 presents the results of the sensitivity study. Section IVof Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR-7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (5-Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that all of the base ETE values are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25 percent of the base ETE is always greater than 30 minutes.

Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes are highlighted in red below - a 37% increase in the EPZ population for Scenario 7 - a 47% increase in EPZ population for Scenario 11. Duke Energy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 37% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant M-3 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change ropuiaxion L.nange Region Base 30% 1 35% 1 37%

5-MILE 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 FULL EPZ 230 2:55 2:55 3:00

-Eo10Prei Population Change Region Base 30% 35% 37%

5-MILE 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 FULL EPZ 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 Base *Population Change Reiet30% 45% 47%

Poplaion 21840 23,90 26,60 27,04 FULL EPZ 2:5 . :4 2:0 :6 5FULE .:10 2:10 Base Population 2:10 2:20 Change Base Population Change Rein30% Baseo 30% 46%

45% 470 470 5-MILE 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 FULL EPZ 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 Crystal River Nuclear Plant M-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist RCrieri Reie Crteio AdrseCm et 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.

b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 1-1 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 1-3 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 1-1, "ETE Comparison," of NUREG/CR-7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3

c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.3, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G

d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 1-3, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

SReie Crtei Critrio Adrese Coment

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described.

Section 5, Appendix F - 4.25% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.

b. Assumptions consistent with Table 1-2, "General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 1-3, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 2-1, 6-2 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation. _

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 6-1 (ERPAs) should be included.

b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 6-1, Table 7-5 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Revie CrtraCieinAdesdCm et in EAnayi

c. A table similar to Table 1-4, "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 6-1, Table 7-5 Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.

b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.

ETE.

c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1, Yes Figure 3-2 "Population by Sector," of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.55 persons per vehicle - Table 1-3 or justification should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E- Table E-3 2.1.2 Transient Population KID Engineering, p.c.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-3 N-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR eiwCiei Crtro fldee sed Commnt

a. A list ot tacilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3 - Transients should be included, and peak and average attendance for 3.4 - Employees these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided. Appendix E

b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 3-4, 3-5 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 6-3 to estimate transient population by scenario.

c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3 - transients facilities should be estimated. 3.4 - employees

d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3 - transients Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on 3.4 - employees why values vary should be provided.

e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1 Yes Figure 3 transients of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution Figure 3 employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 8-1 dependent residents should be discussed.

b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 8-5, 8-9 should be quantified.

c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4 residents should be used in the analysis.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crteio Adrse Com ent I.~~~~~i . ETE ~-.

Analysis.-. -

d. I Re methodology used to determine the number ot Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 8 transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.5 - functional needs registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8-3, Section 8.4 - page 8-6 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Table 8-5 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Table E list facilities, location, and location, and average population should be provided, population Special facility staff should be included in the total special No correctional facilities exist within the facility population. EPZ

b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Section 8.3 data was obtained.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Crieri Crteio SReie Adrse Co met

c. Ine number ot wneeicnair and bed-bound inaiviauais Yes should be provided. Table 8-4

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.4 - page 8-9 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 8-4, 8-5 provided.

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 3.5 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Section 8.4 - Page 8-9 other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate. No correctional facilities exist within the EPZ.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 8-2, E-1 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 8-2 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.

d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave. However, Section 8.4 and Figure 8-1 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

R Revie Crtei Crteio AdrseCm et 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 2-1 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 3-4 Table 3-3

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 5-8 network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

R Reie Crtei Crtro Adrese Coment 2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 3-6 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Section 6 Table 6-3

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification. Section 3.6 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes Tables 3-7, 3-8 total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.

b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

P.C.1 KLD Engineering,Rev.

crystal River Nuclear Crystal River Plant Nuclear Plant N-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

. Reie

. Crtei Crtro Addrsse Comment

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, "Roadway Yes Appendix K,Table K-1 Characteristics," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K, Figures K-1 through K-30 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire link-node analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR- links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.

b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K,Table K-2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J-1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.

used in the calculations.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 2-1, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 2-2 should be considered.

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 2 based on HCM 2010. The Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 factors provided in Table 3-1 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR-7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on N/A Snow scenarios were not considered in streets and driveways, when applicable, this study.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.

b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Reie Crtei Critrio Addrsse Coment 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 6-3 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating, commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 5-1 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 5-8 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

R Reie Crtei Crtro Addese Comment 4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.3 - page 8-8. Pre-established bus in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with routes do not exist. Basic bus routes were the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible developed for the ETE analysis - see Figure authorities. 8-2, Table 8-9.

b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents.

c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-5 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, Figure 8-1 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.

e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.4 passengers should be discussed.

g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figure 8-2

h. The trip generation time for non-ambulatory persons Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Criteria- Review Crtro AddessdCm et in E nayi

i. intormat on snouoa oe proviaea to supports anaiysis or Tes secTlon 8.4 return trips, if necessary. Figure 8-1 Tables 8-10 ) and 8-11 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8-4, Tables 8-12 and 8-13 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4 outbound speeds.

c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes Tables 8-4, 8-12 though 8-12 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4

e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 8-5 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.

f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided.

g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4. - page 8-10 time elements for the return trips.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Revi. Crtei Crtro 9R dresdCm et 4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.

b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 8-6.

School bus speeds are presented in Tables 8-7 (good weather), and 8-8(rain).

Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 8-7 through 8-8, Discussion in Section 8.4

d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4- page 8-6 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 8-3. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to relocation schools where they will be pass through the reception center prior to being picked up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-14 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

in ET An.alysis

g. Supporting intormation should be provided to quantity the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 8-7 time elements for the return trips. and 8-8 provide time needed to arrive at relocation school, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary 4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.8.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 1-3, Appendix B, Appendix C.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J-2

b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C-1, C-2 analysis.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC~~~~

Crieri~ ~ ~ Reie Crtro dresdCm et 4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J-5.

to support review: 2. Table J-3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J-1.

node. 4. Table J-3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J-1 through J-14 (one plot

3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J-4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J-3.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 7-3 through 7-6 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E" and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 7-1, 7-2 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Reie Crtei Crtro Adrsse Coment

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 7 100th percentile ETE for general public

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 7-3, 7-4 similar to Table 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole,"

of NUREG/CR-7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 8-7 through 8 Schools populations.

Tables 8-10 through 8 Transit-Dependent Tables 8-12 through 8 Special Facilities Table 8 Homebound Functional Needs 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-17 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 9

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Appendix M time should be provided.

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Section 7.5 (pg. 7-5).

enhancements to local authorities should be provided.

Results of the ETE study were formally presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 1-1 with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes Comment resolution form was provided that may affect the ETE. and any issues were resolved.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required J Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC. I 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 10-1 should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8.4 discusses a multi-wave return times for buses should be provided, evacuation procedure. Figure 8-1

c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Technical Reviewer Date Supervisory Review Date Crystal River Nuclear Plant N-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CRNP), located in Citrus County, Florida. ETE provide State, local governments, and Duke Energy with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction I Stke .le Naur of Stkeole Interaction Attend Kick-Off meeting to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies. Act as point of contact for data collection. Review and approve Duke Energy Emergency Preparedness study assumptions. Coordinated a teleconference with the ORO's to discuss and collect their comments on the Draft Report. Attended Final Meeting where the results of the ETE study were formally presented.

Attend Kick-Off meeting to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies. Provide Duke Energy with local emergency plans, special facility Citrus and Levy County Emergency Management data, and major employment data. Review and approve study assumptions. Attended Final Meeting where the results of the ETE study were formally presented.

Attend Kick-Off Meeting. Provide Florida State Florida State Emergency Management Office Radiological Emergency Plan. Attended Final Meeting where the results of the ETE study were formally presented.

Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 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 Duke Energy.

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Florida EM, Citrus County EM, and Levy County EM to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census.

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

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

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

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

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state 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 Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 3 Zones along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous Zones 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 which computes ETE (See Appendices B and C).

1 All references to EPZ refer to the plume exposure pathway EPZ.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

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

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2) 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 CRNP.

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

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

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

1.2 The Crystal River Nuclear Plant Location The Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CRNP) is located on the Gulf of Mexico approximately seven and one-half miles northwest of Crystal River, Florida. The site is approximately 35 miles southwest of Ocala, FL. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Citrus and Levy Counties in Florida. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the CRNP. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

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

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-3 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-1. CRNP Location Crystal River Nuclear Plant KID Engineering, P.C.

1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

• Number of lanes

• Posted speed

" Lane width

• Actual free speed

• Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use

" Interchange geometries 9 Control devices

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

" Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%)

• 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 IISystem.

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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 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 arid do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-2. CRNP Link-Node Analysis Network KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-7 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 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 CRNP.

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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 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 2008 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

" A decrease in permanent resident population and also in average persons/household.

" The highway representation is updated to reflect the HCM 2010.

• The previous study modeled all traffic signals as pretimed signals with fixed signal timings. NUREG/CR-7002 requires the ETE to consider actuated signals in the traffic simulation model where they exist in the real world. Actuated signals allocate green time based on the volume at each approach and will vary throughout the simulation.

This adaptive intersection control has improved capacity at critical intersections along congested corridors, thus decreasing ETE.

" Dynamic evacuation modeling.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons urn T td I Toi PrvosEESuy ArcGIS Software using 2010 US 2000 US Census Data extrapolated to 2007 Resident Population Census blocks; area ratio method using block centroid method; Basis used.

Population = 23,309 Population = 18,400 2.25 persons/household, 1.32 evacuating 2.08 persons/household, 1.34 Vehicle Occupancy vehicles/household yielding: 1.70 evacuating vehicles/household persons/vehicle, yielding: 1.55 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information information provided about provided by county emergency management major employers in EPZ.

offices about major employers in EPZ. 1.03 1.02 employees pe ehil Employee Population employees/vehicle based on telephone 1.02 employees per vehicle survey results. based on telephone survey results.

Employees = 797 Employees = 1,821 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Toi-I PrvosIESuyCretEESuy -

Estimates based upon U.S.

Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 404 people who do not have Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and access to a vehicle, requiring 14 Transit-Dependent the results of the telephone survey. A total buses to evacuate. An additional Population of 596 people who do not have access to a 46 homebound functional needs vehicle, requiring 20 buses to evacuate. persons needed special transportation to evacuate (30 required a bus, 11 required a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and 5 reouired an ambulance).

Transient estimates based on information Transient estimates based on Transient gathered from each county within the EPZ. information gathered from each Population county within the EPZ.

Transients = 3,214 Transients = 5,037 Special facility population based on information provided by each county within Special facility population based the EPZ. on information provided by each Special Facility Population = 442 county within the EPZ.

Special Facilities Buses required = 6 Current census = 438 Population Wheelchair Bus Required = 14 Buses Required = 8 Wheelchair Van Required = 4 Wheelchair Buses Required = 18 Ambulances Required = 34 Ambulances Required = 13 School population based on information School population based on provided by each county within the EPZ. information provided by each county within the EPZ.

School enrollment = 3,603 co ol e nrol e = ,0 School Population School enrollment = 3,309 Buses required = 65 Buses required = 65 Vans required = 1 It was assumed that 50% of the population within the circle defined by the distance to Shadow evacuation be evacuated but outside the evacuation 20 percent of the population fromregion would voluntarily evacuate. It was within the EPZ, but not within areas outside region assumed that 35% of the population within the Evacuation Region (see reg the annular area between the circle defined Figure 2-1) to be evacuated by the central "key hole" of the evacuation region and the EPZ boundary would voluntarily evacuate.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

I0oi reiu T StdCurn T Std 20% of people outside of the EPZ 30% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Evacuation within the Shadow Region shadow area would evacuate.

(see Figure 7-2)

Network Size 517 Links; 364 Nodes. 500 links; 339 nodes Field surveys conducted in Field surveys conducted in February 2007. March 2 oadan itrct were video Major intersections were video archived. GIS Roadway Geometric shape-files of signal locations and roadway archived.

Data characteristics created during road survey.

Road capacities based on 2010 RcMa Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated Reception Direct evacuation to designated Center. Relocation School.

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

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

specific pre-trip mobilization activities: Residents with commuters Residents with commuters returning leave returning leave between 30 and between 15 and 300 minutes. 330 minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning Evacuation leave between 15 and 300 minutes. Residents without commuters Employees and transients leave between 15 returning leave between 15 and and 120 minutes. 270 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Employees and transients leave Evacuate. between 15 and 120 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal or Rain. The capacity and free flow Normal or Rain. The capacity and free flow speed of all links in Weather speed of all links in the network are reduced the netw are ed by 10%

by 10% in the event of rain. the eetwof rain.

in the event of rain.

DYNEV II System - Version Modeling IDYNEV System: TRAD and PC-DYNEV. 4.0y8V0 4.0.8.0 Manatee Fest Total Special Event Population =

One considered - new plant construction at 6,000 Special Events the proposed Levy Site.

Transient Population = 3,600 Transient Vehicles = 1,731 1-11 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

-I Topi Prvos Std Curn* Std 7 Regions (central sector wind 6 Regions (central sector wind direction and direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases each adjacent sector technique used) and 11 sector technique used) and 12 Scenarios producing 66 unique cases. Scenarios producing 84 unique cases.

ETE reported for EErpre o 9 00th and n 1 00t0 th ETE reported for 50, 90, 95, and 100th Evacuation Time erepopuedtfor 90e5ende100thpercentile R0, population. Results Estimates Reporting percentile population. Results presented by presented by Region and Region and Scenario. Scenario.

Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 3:00 Good Weather: 2:20 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90'h percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:45 Good Weather: 2:25 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates. NUREG/CR-7002 was used as the basis for most of the assumptions provided in this section. KLD has been doing ETE studies for U.S. nuclear power plants for over 30 years, including 16 new plant applications during the last 5 years. During that time, KLD has worked with more than 100 state and county emergency management agencies. The new plant application ETE studies were reviewed extensively by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and refined through the Request for Additional Information (RAI) process. KLD developed a list of key project assumptions based on NUREG/CR-7002, on years of ETE experience and interaction with offsite agencies, and on feedback from the NRC through RAIs. The list was discussed with stakeholders at the project kickoff meeting. The list was then refined based on inputs from stakeholders and documented in a technical memo. The memo was approved by all stakeholders prior to computing ETE.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Permanent resident 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 done by the county in which the employer resides.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management offices.

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 2.08 persons per household and 1.34 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.02 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

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

c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending Manatee Fest travel as a family unit in a single vehicle, and used the average household size taken from the telephone survey results of 2.08 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

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

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

Due to the geographic boundaries of the EPZ, there is no 2-mile region downwind to 10 miles; instead there is a 5-mile region downwind to the EPZ boundary.

4. 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 shadow evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

5. A total of 12 "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.

6. Scenario 12 considers the closure of a single lane on US-19 southbound, from the intersection with West Power Line St. to the end of the Shadow Region at the intersection with West McKinley St.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Seais Seso Da of Wee Tim of Day Wetepca 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 EeigGo 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Special Event -

Manatee Fest Roadway Impact Closure 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good of one southbound lane on U.S. 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-3 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

MQ I ýq=3mal 15 Mole$

Keyhole: 5-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind I Staged Evacuation: 5-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind I

• Plant Location

• Region to be Evacuated: 100% Evacuation [J 20% Shadow Evacuation

• Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 2-1. Shadow Evacuation Methodology Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

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

3. 37 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 50 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 19 percent (37% x 50% = 19%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip. It is assumed that the responses to the telephone survey regarding the return of commuters prior to evacuating are applicable for this study.

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.

crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Buses, ambulances, vans, and minivans 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 relocation school.

b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

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

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

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

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

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

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

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

9. One type of adverse weather scenario 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.

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 2; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.

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).

2 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.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-6 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

12. 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 3). 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.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Time for Special Highway Free Flow Mobilization Time for Facilities and Transit Dependent Scenario Capacity* Speed* General Population Population 10 Minute Increase

• Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.

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

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the CRNP 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 (lodging, recreation) and then leave the area.

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

For this study, employees and transients have different scenario percentages (see Table 6-3).

For example, employees peak during the winter, weekday, midday scenarios while transients peak during winter weekends. For this reason, employees were treated separately than transients.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Zone and by polar coordinate representation (population distribution). The CRNP EPZ is subdivided into 3 Zones. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.08 persons/household - See Figure F-I) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.34 vehicles/household - See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the Zone 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 EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Zone 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 CRNP. This population distribution 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 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.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 3-1. CRNP EPZ Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 1,244 1,397 2 14,483 14,178 3 3,000 2,825 EPZ Population Growth: -1.75%

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone 1 1,397 903 2 14,178 9,147 3 2,825 1,828 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE F75-9 F28-7 0 7-.

0 WNW ENE I

0 W E w- 0 WSW o ESE 5,66

~5 0 Boundary SSW 0

---

--- I3 -SSE S F2 N Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 2 2 2-3 0 2 3-4 123 125 W 4-5 1,251 1,376 5-6 3,059 4,435 6-7 2,993 7,428 7-8 3,331 10,759 8-9 3,933 14,692 9 - 10 3,708 18,400 10- EPZ 0 18,400 Inset -',-

Total: 18,400 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NN E 49-1 F1-8 6- F871 0 r-4, 0

WNW ENE w E 13 0 F1,46 511 WSW 0 =

-S 0 SSW" Boundary 0

ssw-S 1l541 N F10 1-Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 1 1 2-3 0 1 3-4 79 80 W 4-5 810 890 5-6 1,975 2,865 6-7 1,931 4,796 7-8 2,150 6,946 8-9 2,542 9,488 9- 10 2,390 11,878 10-EPZ 0 11,878 Inset Total: 11,878 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-6 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the plant (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 those for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector N 0 0 NNE 239 153 NE 121 78 ENE 5,137 3,329 E 12,015 7,757 ESE 12,458 8,033 SE 9,927 6,392 SSE 3,038 1,958 S 0 0 SSW 0 0 SW 0 0 WSW 0 0 W 0 0 WNW 0 0 NW 0 0 NNW 3 2 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE WNW ENE 1,877 104 W E 02,879 5,057 1,1 768 WSW ESE w--- 41 SE F9,927 SEPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW S 30SSE LZ Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 4,283 4,283 11 - 12 6,883 11,166 12- 13 7,521 18,687 13 - 14 10,540 29,227 14- 15 13,711 42,938 Total: 42,938 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE WNW ENE F3,329 1,214

'21 W

E 11,858 3,262 7,5 140 WSW ESE 2.844 F8,033 SE 6,*P3921 EPZBoundary to 11 Miles SSW -.. L- SSE zizS F1,958 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 2,766 2,766 11-12 4,440 7,206 12 -13 4,848 12,054 13-14 6,802 18,856 14- 15 8,846 27,702 Total: 27,702 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector KID Engineering,Rev. P.C.1 Crystal Crystal River Plant Nuclear Plant River Nuclear 3-9 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Evacuation Estimate Time Estimate 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 CRNP EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

" Lodging Facilities

" Marinas

• Parks

" Campgrounds

• Beaches

" Golf Courses Data were provided by Citrus and Levy Counties on lodging facilities within the EPZ and were used to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 1,436 transients in 599 vehicles were assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

Data were provided by Citrus and Levy Counties on the peak season and also the number of vehicles during that season of the marinas in the EPZ. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 72 transients and 35 vehicles were assigned to marinas in the EPZ.

Data were provided by Citrus and Levy Counties on parks within the EPZ and were used to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a day during their peak season. A total of 983 transients and 477 vehicles were assigned to parks within the EPZ.

Data provided by Citrus and Levy Counties on campgrounds within the EPZ was used to determine the number of campsites, peak occupancy, and the number of vehicles and people per campsite for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at each of these facilities. A total of 2,330 transients and 1,233 vehicles were assigned to campgrounds in the EPZ.

There is one golf course within the EPZ. Data provided from Citrus County was used to determine the number of patrons and vehicles that visit the facility during a peak day and also what percentage makes up local residents. A total of 116 transients and 54 vehicles were assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.

There is also only one beach within the EPZ. Data provided from Citrus County were used to determine the number of beach patrons on a typical day and also how many vehicles would be at the facility. A total of 100 transients and 50 vehicles were assigned to beaches within the EPZ.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-10 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that were 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.

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

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-11 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles 1 1,156 580 2 3,521 1,692 3 360 176 3-12 KID Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-12 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

N NNW F2 0-6 w0 NNE S88

- -' *-

I -

-- 0 0 WNW

'0 w

WSW 0 SSW"

- -- - - - - SSE - -"

s- N 100 1--

Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 100 100 W E 4-5 900 1,000 5-6 872 1,872 6-7 1,050 2,922 7-8 426 3,348 8-9 1,239 4,587 9- 10 450 5,037 10 - EPZ 0 5,037 Inset Total: 5,037 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE F103 W0 0 40 0 0 WNW ENE F23-5I W

E

-]

WSW

' ESE 420 0

Boundary SSW o- -. SSE

_ - N 50'-

Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 50 50 W 4-5 480 530 5-6 434 964 6-7 530 1,494 7-8 152 1,646 8-9 577 2,223 9-10 225 2,448 10 - EPZ 0 2,448 Inset Total: 2,448 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 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.

The number of employees at each facility was provided by Citrus and Levy counties. Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ.

A vehicle occupancy of 1.02 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

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

1 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

KID Engineering, p.c.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-15 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles 1 1,293 1,268 2 528 520 3 0 0 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-16 KID Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE

-0 7- -,=

-- 0 0'11 WNW I

W w--- 0 wsW

-- 0 SSW -

0 F 1 S w--- N Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 1,140 1,140 1-2 0 1,140 2-3 0 1,140 3-4 0 1,140 W E 4-5 153 1,293 5-6 0 1,293 6-7 0 1,293 7-8 208 1,501 8-9 320 1,821 9-10 0 1,821 10 - EPZ 0 1,821 Inset Total: 1,821 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

N NNW NNE r 0 0 7-. 0W4 WNW EN E Wj E

0 0

]

isa5-WSW

'ESE o 520

~50 Boundary SSW 2 - - - SSE F-0 7 sN Employee Vehicles 0rnT Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 1,118 1,118 1-2 0 1,118 2-3 0 1,118 3-4 0 1,118 W 4-5 150 1,268 5-6 0 1,268 6-7 0 1,268 7-8 205 1,473 8-9 315 1,788 9-10 0 1,788 10 - EPZ 0 1,788 Inset Total: 1,788 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-18 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; wheelchair buses, up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (external-external trips) at the time of an emergency event. After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - US 19/98. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (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 2,196 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

10) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event There were 6 potential special events that were considered for this study. The events and transient attendance are listed below:

" Rock Crusher Canyon Concert - 2,000 to 5,000

• Port Citrus - not open yet

" Stone Crab Jam - 3,500 to 5,000

" Construction of new plant - project is deferred to 2024

• Civil War Re-enactment - 2,000 to 5,000

" Scallop Jam - 2,500

" Manatee Fest - 12,000 to 15,000 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-19 KLD Eniineerin2.I P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

After discussion with the counties, it was decided that Manatee Fest in downtown Crystal River should be used as the special event (Scenario 11) for this study. The event occurs during a weekend in January. According to Citrus County, between 12,000 and 15,000 people attend Manatee fest throughout the course of 2-3 days; in order to get the total number of people which attend the festival per day, 15,000 was divided by 2.5, therefore, 6,000 people were considered to be at the festival each day for this study. Of those 6,000 people, about 60% of them travel from outside the EPZ. Therefore, 3,600 attendees were considered to be transients.

It was assumed that attendees travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.08 was used for vehicle occupancy, resulting in a total of 1,731 additional vehicles, which were incorporated at various parking locations along the streets of downtown Crystal River. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as transients.

Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-6. CRNP EPZ External Traffic I . . . I 8034 34 US-19 SB 9,300 0.118 0.5 549 1,098 8304 304 US-19 NB 9,300 0.118 0.5 549 1,098 1Highwa'y 2

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 HCM 2010 KID Engineering, P.C.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-21 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand for the study area is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section and Section 8. Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 37,997 people and 24,074 vehicles are considered in this study.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 1 1,397 31 1,156 1,293 170 102 0 0 4,149 2 14,178 311 3,521 528 268 2982 0 0 21,788 3 2,825 62 360 0 0 225 0 0 3,472 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,588 0 8,588 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

NOTE: Special Facilities include medical facilities.

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit* - Special* O S hao External 1 903 2 580 1,268 24 6 0 0 2,783 2 9,147 22 1,692 520 41 115 0 0 11,537 3 1,828 4 176 0 0 10 0 0 2,018 Shadow 00000 0 5,540 2,196 7,736 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).

In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes free-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume is defined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service." This definition is similar to that for capacity. The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS) and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

Other factors also influence capacity. These include, but are not limited to:

" Lane width

" Shoulder width

" Pavement condition

• Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

• Percent truck traffic

" Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)

" Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS 1 ) according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent 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:

(3600 (G- L (3600\

Qcap,m = hM) X ( C = hm) X Pm where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph) hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.

The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.

Formally, we can write, hm = fm (hsat, F1 , F2 ,...)

where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1, F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fU() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1 , F2 , ...

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1 , F2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. 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 2

Lieberman, 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,..., 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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-4 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson 3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as "interrupted flow" facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.

Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

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

3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, "Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks," Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the CRNP 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 one category of road and, of course, intersection:

" Two-Lane roads: Local, State

" Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

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 Crystal River Nuclear Plant 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 IIsimulation logic is likewise complex.

The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks. Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:

"The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactionsinvoking several proceduralchapters 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.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant 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.

4-8 KLD Engineering, p.c.

Crystal River Nuclear Plant KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Volume, vph A Capacity Drop Qmax ...............

R Q max---

- --------

---

--- Q s

1. p Density, vpm Flow '.Regimes Speed, mph Free : Forced:

- -- --

Vf Rvc"

-- Density, vpm kf ko p t Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Crystal River Nuclear Plant 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1