Text

Kld TR-534, Rev. 1, Robinson Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 5
	ML12363A056
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	12/07/2012
From:	Baker N; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Carolina Power & Light Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Progress Energy Carolinas
References
	RNP-RA/12-0136 KLD TR-534, Rev 1
	Download: ML12363A056 (107)
	v • d • e

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure to Serial: RNP-RA/12-0136 405 Pages (including cover page)

ENCLOSURE KLD Engineering Report KLD TR-534, Robinson Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

jKLD ENGINEERING, PC.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Progress Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 maiIto:kweinisch~kidcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 534

SIGNATURE LIST 914do Duke Ene'

)

Project Lead,-mergency Preparedness 7e" U,ýý Date Date Date KID Engineering, P.C. - Lead SiAalyst KLD Engineering, P.C. - Senior Project Manager Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table of Contents 1

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................

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

1-2 1.2 The Robinson Nuclear Power Plant Location.............................................................................

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

1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study..............................................................................................

1-9 2

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

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

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

2-1 2.3 Study Assum ptions.....................................................................................................................

2-5 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-20 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 RNP Study Area............................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

4-8 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5-18 6

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

6-1 7

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

7-1 7.1 Shadow Evacuation....................................................................................................................

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

7-1 Robinson Nuclear Plant i

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation.....................................................................

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

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

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

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

7-6 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 Medical Facility Demand 8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People.......................................................

8-4 8.5 Special Needs Population.........................................................................................................

8-10 9

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

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

10-1 A.

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

A-1 B.

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

B-1 C.

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

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

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

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

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

C-12 C.2 Im plem entation.......................................................................................................................

C-12 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure............................................................................................

C-12 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD)..............................................

C-15 APPENDIX D...............................................................................................................................................

D-0 D.

Detailed Description of Study Procedure....................................................................................

D-1 E.

FACI LITY DATA....................................................................................................................................

E-1 F.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F-13 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

K.

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

K-1 L.

ZO N E 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 M.4 Effect of Additional Traffic Control Points on E:OId Camden Rd...........................................

M-5 N.

ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST.................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

List of Figures Figure 1-1. RNP Location...........................................................................................................................

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

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

2-4 Figure 3-1. RNP EPZ...................................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-16 Figure 3-9. Non-EPZ Employee Vehicles by Sector.................................................................................

3-17 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams............................................................................................................

4-9 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip..............................................................

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

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

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

5-20 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region.................................................................................

5-22 Figure 6-1. RNP Zones...............................................................................................................................

6-8 Figure 7-1. Shadow Evacuation Methodology........................................................................................

7-17 Figure 7-2. RNP Shadow Region..............................................................................................................

7-18 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate......................... 7-19 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate............................................

7-20 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 50 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.................. 7-21 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................ 7-22 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate..........................................

7-23 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03......................................................

7-24 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03......................................................

7-24 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03....................................................

7-26 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03....................................................

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

7-27 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03....................................................

7-27 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03....................................................

7-28 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03..................................................

7-28 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03..................................................

7-29 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03..................................................

7-29 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03..................................................

7-30 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03..................................................

7-30 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations......................................................................

8-12 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes.............................................................................................

8-13 Figure 10-1. General Population and School Relocation Centers...........................................................

10-2 Figure 10-2. Major Evacuation Routes....................................................................................................

10-3 Robinson Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-D TRAD Interface........................................................................

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

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

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

C-6 Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3)....................................................

C-14 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities.....................................................................................................

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

E-8 Figure E-2. Preschools / Daycares within the EPZ.....................................................................................

E-9 Figure E-3. Preschools / Daycares within Downtow n Hartsville.......................................................

E-i0 Figure E-4. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ....................................................................................

E-11 Figure E-5. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ............................................................................................

E-12 Figure E-6. M ajor Em ployers within Dow ntown Hartsville......................................................................

E-13 Figure E-7. Recreational Areas within the EPZ.......................................

E-14 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ.......................................................................................................

F-3 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability................................................................................................

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

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

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

F-6 Figure F-6. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ.....................................................................................

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

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

F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating w ith Pets...........................................................................................

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

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

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

F-12 Figure F-13. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 2"-3" of Snow.......................................................................

F-13 Figure G-1. Traffic Control Points for the RNP Site..................................................................................

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

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

H-S Figure H-3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................

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

H-7 Figure H-5. Region RO5..............................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

H-12 Figure H-iO. Region RiO.........................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H-23 Robinson Nuclear Plant v

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H-35 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1).............. J-9 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)..........................

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

J-10 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario 5)................................................................................

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

J-11 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)...............................

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

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

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

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

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

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

J-15 Figure K-1. RNP Link-Node Analysis Network...........................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 1i...............................................................................

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-18.

Figure K-19.

Figure K-20.

Figure K-21.

Figure K-22.

Figure K-23.

Figure K-24.

Figure K-25.

Figure K-26.

Figure K-27.

Figure K-28.

Figure K-29.

Figure K-30.

Figure K-31.

Figure K-32.

Figure K-33.

Figure K-34.

Figure K-35.

Figure K-36.

Figure K-37.

Figure K-38.

Figure K-39.

Figure K-40.

Figure K-41.

Figure K-42.

Figure K-43.

Figure K-44.

Figure K-45.

Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-Grid 17...............................................................................

K-19 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 18...............................................................................

K-20 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 19................................................................................

K-21 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 20...............................................................................

K-22 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 21...............................................................................

K-23 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 22...............................................................................

K-24 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 23...............................................................................

K-25 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 24...............................................................................

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

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

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

K-29 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 28................................................................................

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

K-31 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 30...............................................................................

K-32 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 31...............................................................................

K-33 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-Grid 32...............................................................................

K-34 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 33...............................................................................

K-35 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 34...............................................................................

K-36 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 35...............................................................................

K-37 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 36...............................................................................

K-38 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 37...............................................................................

K-39 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 38...............................................................................

K-40 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 39...............................................................................

K-41 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 40...............................................................................

K-42 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-Grid 41...............................................................................

K-43 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-Grid 42...............................................................................

K-44 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 43...............................................................................

K-45 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 44...............................................................................

K-46 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

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

1-1 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics...........................................................................................................

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons............................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-19 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand...........................................................................................

3-21 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand.................................................................................................

3-22 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities................................................................................

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

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

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

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

5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 2-3" of Snow........................................................

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

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

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

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

6-9 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios..........................................

6-10 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario................................................................................................

6-11 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population........................... 7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population....................... 7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region............................ 7-13 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region.......................... 7-14 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions.........................................................................................

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

8-14 Table 8-2. School and Daycare Population Demand Estimates..............................................................

8-15 Table 8-3. School Relocation Centers.....................................................................................................

8-17 Table 8-4. Medical Facility Transit Demand............................................................................................

8-19 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources..................................................................................

8-20 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions..........................................................................................................

8-21 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good W eather..............................................................

8-22 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain...............................................................................

8-23 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow.............................................................................

8-24 Table 8-10. Summary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes........................................................................

8-25 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good W eather........................................

8-26 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain.........................................................

8-27 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow.......................................................

8-28 Robinson Nuclear Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

8-29 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain..............................................................

8-30 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow............................................................

8-31 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates....................................

8-32 Table 8-18. Homebound Special Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates -

Second W ave for Am bulatory...............................................................................................

8-32 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms................................................................................

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

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

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

C-7 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ.............................................................................................................

E-2 Table E-2. Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ.................................................................................

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

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

E-6 Table E-5. Recreational Areas and Lodging within the EPZ.......................................................................

E-7 Table F-i. RNP Telephone Survey Sam pling Plan......................................................................................

F-2 Table H-i. 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-3 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)...........................

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

J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1.........................

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

K-47 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled...........................................

K-67 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 Scenario 6...............................................................

M-4 Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change Scenario 8...............................................................

M-4 Table M-4: Effect on ETE of Two Additional TCPs.....................................................................................

M-5 Table N-i. ETE Review Criteria Checklist..............................................................................................

N-i Robinson Nuclear Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) located in Darlington County, South Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

" Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.

Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in April, 2012 and extended over a period of 6 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

" Attended "kick-off" meetings with Progress 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 RNP, 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.

Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

Robinson 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 11 zones. These zones are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 32 Evacuation Regions.

The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario involving a NASCAR race and related activities, at the Darlington Raceway, was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a section of SR 151 was closed southbound for the duration of the evacuation.

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

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

A rapidly escalating 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 host schools located outside the EPZ.

Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required.

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

Computation of ETE A total of 448 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 32 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (32 x 14 = 448).

Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent Robinson Nuclear Plant ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

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

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place. Once 90% of the 2-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate 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 Darlington, Chesterfield and Lee Counties, and identifies critical intersections. The existing TCPs are well placed and adequate. Two additional locations were evaluated (see Section 9 and Appendix M).

Robinson 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 RNP EPZ showing the layout of the 11 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 32 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of zones.

Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

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

Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

Tables 8-7, 8-8, and 8-9 present ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather, rain and snow respectively.

Tables 8-11, 8-12 and 8-13 present ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather, rain and snow respectively.

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

Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 448 unique cases - a combination of 32 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 90th and 1 0 0 th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:50 (hr:min) to 3:15 at the 9 0 th percentile.

Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile. There are two factors that contribute to this large difference. Firstly, the population trip generation curves have a long "tail" due to the fact that a small number of people take a long time to complete all the activities necessary to start their trip. Secondly there is congestion within the EPZ.

When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared.

As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

See Figures 7-8 through 7-21.

Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the Robinson Nuclear Plant ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R04 through R10 with R25 through R31 and R02 with R32 in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather) and 13 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather, special event) in Table 7-2 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE, although it does create significant and prolonged congestion outside of the EPZ. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -

closure of the section of SR 151 southbound between Bethel Road and Faith Road - can increase the 9 0 th percentile ETE by up to 15 minutes for evacuation of the more populous regions. For most regions, however, there is sufficient capacity on neighboring routes to accommodate the evacuating flow.

Routes out of the EPZ from Hartsville and North Hartsville carry the most traffic, in particular SR 151. The traffic control points on SR 151 are very important, given the demand for that route. The congestion patterns are described in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 7-3 through 7-7.

" Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for these facilities are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses available to evacuate the schools in a single wave; however there are not enough buses to evacuate the schools, daycares and transit dependents in a single wave. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

There are insufficient ambulances available to evacuate the bedridden patients at medical facilities in a single wave. See Table 8-5.

The general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months 15 minutes due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ.

See Table M-1. The 1 0 0 th percentile ETE is shortened when the trip generation time is reduced.

The general population ETE is insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2.

Population changes of +40 to 50% results in ETE changes that meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses in Scenario 6 and Scenario 8. See Section M.3.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 6-1. RNP Zones Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population A-0 2,161 2,281 A-1 670 669 A-2 852 1,426 B-1 12,721 16,584 B-2 8,998 5,645 C-1 2,555 2,578 C-2 1,903 1,931 D-1 1,039 1,114 D-2 1,409 1,196 E-1 295 396 E-2 1,931 2,106 EPZ Population Growth:

4.03%

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Zone Region Description Wind Direction From: (Degrees)

A-2 B-1 B-2 C-i c-2I D-iI D-2 E-i E-2 Region wina Direction From:

Wind Direction From: (Degrees)

A-i A-2 IB-1I B-2 IC-i I C-2 ID-1I D-2 Ei E-R18 North

> 328 - <= 015 R19 Northeast

> 015 - <= 078 R20 East

> 078 - <= 112 R21 Southeast

> 112 - <=157 RU2 South

> 157 - <= 202 (R22)

Southwest

> 202 - <= 247 R23 West

> 247 - <= 292 R24 Northwest

> 292 - <= 328 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Note: Regions that are repeated for a different wind direction are written in parentheses Robinson Nuclear Plant ES-9 Evacuation Time Estimate KILD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scnai Seao' We aete Spca 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer IWeekend Midday

=Rain None

Midweek, Weekend 5

Summer Evening Good None 6

Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7

Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8

Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9

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

Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Darlington NASCAR Race Roadway Impact-Roadway Closure on SR 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good 151 Southbound 1 Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-b KID Engineering, P.C.

ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Rein Go an Go an Good Good Rain Snow God Rain Snow Weathe Eventa Impadwa Weather Weather Weather Weather IiIeWeather Weather Eventer Sump Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROl 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 R02 2:10 2:15 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:10 2:15 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 1:55 2:10 R03 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:15 2:35 J2:45 j3:10 j2:30 2:30 2:50 j2:15 j 2:35 2:45 MidwekWeen2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 MilesMi R04 2:10 2:15 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:10 2:15 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 1:55 2:10 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:50 2:00 2:05 R06 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 R07 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:50 2:00 2:05 R08 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:00 1:50 2:10 2:15 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:50 2:00 2:10 R09 2:10 2:15 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:10 2:15 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 1:55 2:10 RIO 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 1:50 2:10 2:15 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:50 1:55 2:05 e2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Bounday (10 miles)

R11 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:30 2:55 2:15 2:35 2:45 R12 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:20 1:55 2:05 2:20 R13 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:15 R14 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:05 R15 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:25 2:10 2:30 2:40 3:05 2:20 2:25 2:45 2:10 2:55 2:40 R16 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:10 2:30 2:45 R17 2:35 2:45 2:25 [2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 1 3:15 j2:25 12:30 2:55 2:15 2:35 2:45 Entire_2-MieRegion,_5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundar (10 miles)

R18 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:30 2:55 2:10 2:30 2:45 R19 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:05 1:50 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:00 2:05 2:25 1:50 2:00 2:30 R20 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:10 2:20 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:05 2:20 R21 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:10 2:20 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:25 2:00 2:05 2:15 R22 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:25 2:10 2:30 2:40 3:05 2:20 2:25 2:45 2:10 2:45 2:40 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer idweek MMidweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:30 2:50 2:10 2:30 2:45 R24 2:35 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:30 2:55 2:10 2:30 2:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R25 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:50 3:15 2:45 2:50 3:15 2:45 2:45 2:45 R26 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:45 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:20 R27 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:35 2:20 2:15 2:15 R28 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 R29 2:45 2:50 2:45 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:50 3:10 2:45 2:50 3:10 2:45 2:45 2:45 R30 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:50 2:50 3:15 2:50 2:50 3:15 2:45 2:50 2:45 R31 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:55 3:15 2:50 2:50 3:15 2:45 2:50 2:45 R32 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:40 2:45 3:00 2:45 2:45 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:40 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Rein Go an Go an Good Good Rain Snow God Rain Snow Weathe Eventa Impacta Weather Weather Weather Weather IiIeWeather Weather Eventer Sump Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 j4:25 4:35 4:50 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary (10 miles)

R11 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:45 R12 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R13 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R14 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:35 4:30 R16 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:50 R17 4:25 4:25 J4:25 4:25 4:25 j4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:50 Entire_2-MileRegion,_5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary (10 miles)

R18 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:50 R19 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario,:

(

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5 (6)

(7)

(8)

(9 (10 (1)

(12)

(1 )14 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:45 R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:50 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R25 4:25 4:30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:25 4:25 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:25 R26 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R27 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:25 4:30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 4:30 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:25 R30 4:30 4:30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 4:30 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 R31 4:30 4:30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 4:30 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 R32 4:30 4:30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 4:30 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:30 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend ev a

Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scnrio:l (2:052:0 12:002:511:551

052:051

102:00

052:1011) 5512) 001 2:0514 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Regio Goo Ri God Ri God Go Ran Sw Good

]Rain Snow Good" Special oda Rgo Weather Go Ran Weather Go Ran Weather God Weather God RIn So Weather I IWeather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region 5-Mile Region R02 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles R04 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 R06 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 R07 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:00 2:05 ROB 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 R09 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 RIO 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles R25 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:10 2:15 R26 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:05 R27 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:05 R28 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:05 R29 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:10 2:15 R30 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:10 2:15 R31 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:10 2:15 R32 2:15 1 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:30 2:15 2:15 J 2:30 2:15 2:10 2:15 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend eva Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend r~re m 4:15 4:15 4:15]

4:15

[ 41 41 41 5:15 415[4:1 5:15[

4:15 1 4:15 ii f

4:15 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good 4:20 4

[n4:2Good 4:o:

Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Ieth r Weather Ri Snw Wahr Rai Sno Weather Eet Ipc Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region a

-Mile Region R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Unstaged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:15 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 RIO 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles R25 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R26 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R27 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather I McBee Elementary School I

90 I

15 1

3.9 I

45.0 I

5 FMcBtese r

ig anh Sch urc Schoo90 15 3.4 45.0 5

McBee Headstart 90 15 7.4 45.0 10 Lakeview Baptist Church School 90 15 15.5 39.5 24 Carolina Elementary School 90 15 9.9 39.2 15 North Hartsville Elementary School 90 15 10.2 39.0 16 First Presbyterian Church School 90 15 9.2 38.2 14 Hartsville Middle School 90 15 9.5 38.2 15 Hartsville Senior High School 90 15 9.3 38.6 14 Washington Street Elementary School 90 15 8.5 38.6 13 Southside Early Childhood Center 90 15 7.0 15.5 27 1st Baptist Church Preschool 90 15 9.1 37.9 14 Coker College 90 15 9.4 41.1 14 Thornwell School for the Arts 90 15 11.4 42.1 16 Governor's School for Science & Math 90 15 9.5 40.3 14 Eastside Christian Academy 90 15 11.1 42.1 16 Emmanuel Christian School 90 is 11.5 1

42.0 16 Calvary Christian School 90 15 1.9 45.0 3

Forest Hills Academy 90 15 10.2 43.2 14 West Hartsville Elementary School 90 15 10.8 43.2 15 Thomas Hart Academy 90 15 5.1 43.2 7

Maximum for EPZ:

Average for EPZ:

19.2 26 19.2 26 19.2 26 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 14.7 20 18.2 24 18.2 24 18.2 24 Maximum:

Average:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain tiemenxary bcnooi High School Headstart LU J,

i

'+U.U o

20 3.4 40.0 5

20 7.4 40.0 11 19.2 19.2 19.2 Lakeview Baptist Church School I

zo Carolina Elementary School 100 20 9.9 34.8 17 North Hartsville Elementary School 100 20 10.2 34.9 18 First Presbyterian Church School 100 20 9.2 35.1 16 Hartsville Middle School 100 20 9.5 35.1 16 Hartsville Senior High School 100 20 9.3 35.4 16 Washington Street Elementary School 100 20 8.5 34.2 15 Southside Early Childhood Center 100 20 7.0 12.8 33 1st Baptist Church Preschool 100 20 9.1 34.9 16 Coker College 100 20 9.4 38.0 15 Thornwell School for the Arts 100 20 11.4 38.5 18 Governor's School for Science & Math 100 20 9.5 38.0 15 Eastside Christian Academy 100 20 11.1 38.5 17 Emmanuel Christian School 100 20 11.5 38.3 18 Calvary Christian School 100 20 1.9 40.0 3

Forest Hills Academy 100 20 10.2 40.0 15 West Hartsville Elementary School 100 20 10.8 40.0 16 Thomas Hart Academy 100 20 5.1 40.0 8

Maximum for EPZ:

Average for EPZ:

18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 14.7 22 18.2 27 18.2 27 18.2 27 Maximum:

Average:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow I McBee Elementary School

{

110 1

25 I

3.9 I

33.1 I

7 N

McBee High School 110 25 3.4 33.1 6

McBee Headstart 110 27.31.7 14 Lakeview Baptist Church School 110 25 15.5 32.7 28 Carolina Elementary School 110 25 9.9 31.5 19 North Hartsville Elementary School 110 25 10.2 31.6 19 First Presbyterian Church School 110 25 9.2 31.6 17 Hartsville Middle School 110 25 9.5 31.6 18 Hartsville Senior High School 110 25 9.3 31.8 18 Washington Street Elementary School 110 25 8.5 31.8 16 Southside Early Childhood Center 110 25 7.0 10.9 38 1st Baptist Church Preschool 110 25 9.1 31.5 17 Coker College 110 25 9.4 33.4 17 Thornwell School for the Arts 110 25 11.4 33.7 20 Governor's School for Science & Math 110 25 9.5 33.3 17 Eastside Christian Academy 110 25 11.1 33.4 20 Emmanuel Christian School 110 25 11.5 33.5 21 Calvary Christian School 110 25 1.9 35.0 3

Forest Hills Academy 110 25 10.2 34.9 18 West Hartsville Elementary School 110 25 10.8 34.9 19 Thomas Hart Academy 110 25 5.1 35.0 9

Maximum for EPZ:

Average for EPZ:

19.2 33 19.2 33 101) 22 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 14.7 25 18.2 31 18.2 31 18.2 31 Maximum:

Average:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather 4

90 10.4 17.4 36 30 14.7 20 5

10 49 30 1

3 105 10.4 18.1 34 30 3

90 13.7 16.7 49 30 2

2 105 13.7 17.6 47 30 2

90 12.8 17.7 43 30 3

1 105 12.8 18.4 42 30 2

90 5.5 40.0 8

30 4

1 105 5.5 40.0 8

30 1

90 6.5 40.0 10 30 1

105 6.5 40.0 10 30 2

90 7.2 40.0 11 30 6

1 105 7.2 40.0 11 30 1

90 4.3 5.8 44 30 7

1 105 4.3 7.5 34 30 8

1 90 7.9 9.8 49 30 3

90 13.0 20.0 39 30 9

9 2

105 13.0 20.9 37 30 4

90 4.3 15.8 54 30 10 3

105 14.3 16.2 53 30 3

90 5.8 20.4 17 30 2

105 5.8 23.2 15 30 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

14.7 20 5

10 49 30 14.7 20 5

10 58 30 14.7 20 5

10 56 30 14.7 20 5

10 35 30 14.7 20 5

10 38 30 14.7 20 5

10 40 30 14.7 20 5

10 41 30 14.3 19 5

10 31 30 14.3 19 5

10 41 30 14.7 20 5

10 56 30 14.7 20 5

10 60 30 14.7 20 5

10 36 30 14.7 20 5

10 36 30 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain 4

100 10.4 14.5 43 40 1

+

t I

t 3

115 10.4 14.8 42 40 3

100 13.7 13.9 59 40 2

2 115 13.7 14.6 56 40 2

100 12.8 14.7 52 40 3

1 115 12.8 15.0 51 40 2

100 5.5 40.0 8

40 4

1 115 5.5 40.0 8

40 1

100 6.5 39.5 10 40 5

1 115 6.5 40.0 10 40 2

100 7.2 40.0 11 40 6

1 115 7.2 40.0 11 40 1

100 4.3 6.8 38 40 7

1 115 4.3 9.3 28 40 8

1 100 7.9 12.0 39 40 3

100 13.0 16.7 47 40 9

2 115 13.0 17.3 45 40 4

100 14.3 13.3 64 40 10 3

1154.3 14.0 61 40 3

100 5.8

12.

1 6

4 11

______4 1 2 115 58

13.

0 4

Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

14.7 22 5

10 52 40 14.7 22 5

10 62 40 14.7 22 5

10 58 40 14.7 22 5

10 38 40 14.7 22 5

10 41 40 14.7 22 5

10 43 40 14.7 22 5

10 42 40 14.3 21 5

10 34 40 14.3 21 5

10 44 40 14.7 22 5

10 59 40 14.7 22 5

10 66 40 14.7 22 5

10 38 40 14.7 22 5

10 38 40 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow 4

LIU 1U.4 11.4 1

4

+

3 125 10.4 12.6 49 50 3

110 13.7 12.5 66 50 2

2 125 13.7 13.0 63 50 2

110 12.8 12.7 61 50 3

1 125 12.8 13.2 58 50 2

110 5.5 35.0 9

50 4

1 125 5.5 35.0 9

50 1

110 6.5 35.0 11 50 5

1 125 6.5 35.0 11 50 2

110 7.2 35.0 12 50 6

1 125 7.2 34.7 12 50 1

110 4.3 8.7 30 50 7

1 125 4.3 14.5 18 50 8

1 110 7.9 14.2 33 50 3

110 13.0 14.3 55 50 9

2 125 13.0 14.7 53 50 4

110 14.3 11.9 72 50 10 3

125 14.3 12.4 69 50 3

110 5.8 35.0 10 50 11____

2 125 5.8 35.0 10 50 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

14. /

bI 14.7 25 5

10 57 50 14.7 25 5

10 67 50 14.7 25 5

10 68 50 14.7 25 5

10 64 50 14.7 25 5

10 42 50 14.7 25 5

10 45 50 14.7 25 5

10 46 50 14.7 25 5

10 47 50 14.7 25 5

10 47 50 14.3 25 5

10 38 50 14.3 25 5

10 49 50 14.7 25 5

10 65 50 14.7 25 5

10 71 50 14.7 25 5

10 72 50 14.7 25 5

10 50 14.7 25 5

10 50 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Figure H-8. Region R08 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate ES-23 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP), also known as the H. B.

Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Darlington County, South Carolina. ETE provide Progress 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:

0 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.

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

0 Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.

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 Stke olde Ia eo Stkhle Interctio Progress Energy emergency planning personnel Kick-off meeting to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies.

Progress Energy acted as point of contact for data collection and reviewed and approved study assumptions. Final meeting to present results and solicit comments.

Comments provided were addressed.

Kick-off meeting to define data requirements.

Counties reviewed and approved study Chesterfield, Darlington, Florence and Lee County asumtios Fieeting topres sud Emergency Management Divisions assumptions. Final meeting to present results and solicit comments.

Comments provided were addressed.

Kick-off meeting to define data requirements. Final SC Emergency Management

Division, SC meigt rsn eut n

oii omns Department of Health and Environmental Control meeting to present results and solicit comments.

O Comments provided were addressed.

Other agencies (e.g. GIS departments)

Communication to define data requirements Robinson Nuclear Plant 1-1 KLD EnRineerinR, 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 Progress Energy.

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Darlington, Chesterfield, Lee and Florence County Emergency Management Divisions as well as SC EMD and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) 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 1) and Shadow Region.

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census and Chesterfield, Darlington and Lee County agencies.

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 (TCPs) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 11 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.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system which computes the ETE (see Appendices B and C).

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Progress 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant.

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 schools and special facilities, for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Robinson Nuclear Power Plant Location Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) is located in northeastern South Carolina, approximately five miles west-northwest of Hartsville. The nearest large city is Columbia, South Carolina, approximately 55 miles southwest. The site is approximately 30 miles south of the North Carolina border and 90 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the RNP. This map identifies the major cities and communities in the area as well as the major roads.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-1. RNP Location Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Lane width Shoulder type & width Posted speed Actual free speed Abutting land use Interchange geometries 0

Control devices Lane channelization & queuing 0

Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%)

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

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

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

As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. These links may be Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-2. RNP Link-Node Analysis Network Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. I

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 RNP.

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 Robinson 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 2006 study. The factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

Changes which cause an increase in the ETE o

Transit-dependent households assigned one vehicle per household in the 2006 study; evacuated on buses in this study.

o Decrease in the resident vehicle occupancy of approximately 25%.

o A small increase in permanent resident population.

o Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

o Longer 100% mobilization time.

Changes which cause a decrease in the ETE o

Bad weather (rain and snow) reductions in free-flow speed and roadway capacity higher for the 2006 study.

o DYNEV II is a dynamic evacuation model and it therefore supports dynamic route selection.

o Decrease in the number of vehicles loaded to evacuate transit dependents.

o Lower transient population estimate.

o Double-counting of residents is minimized in this study by only counting employees and transients who are non-EPZ residents.

o County and State TCPs that are listed in the emergency plans are modeled in this study. This improves the performance of those key intersections.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Prvos 0T td urn td Population data from Synergos ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census Resident Population Technologies blocks; area ratio method used.

Basis Population = 35,588 (est. for 2010)

Population = 35,927 Resident Population 2.5 persons/household, 1 vehicle 2.27 persons/household, 1.20 Vehiclen POcpuati

/household yielding 2.5 evacuating vehicles/household yielding:

Vehicle Occupancy persons/vehicle 1.89 persons/vehicle.

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

Rev. 1

-I Toi Prviu ET Std urn T td Employee Population From 2006, first-quarter population estimates obtained from Synergos Technologies, Inc.

Employees =3,680 Employee estimates based on information provided about major employers in EPZ, supplemented by telephone calls to individual employers.

1.05 employees per vehicle based on telephone survey results.

Employees = 2,918 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey.

Estimated 11% of households have no Attlo

,3 epewod o

vehile.Onevehcle er ranit-A total of 1,130 people who do not vehicle. One vehicle per transit-have access to a vehicle, requiring at Transit-Dependent dependent household is added to the leas8es to evacue.

An Population model to represent the use of a adtionalu59shomebounsec n fried'sor amiy mmbe's ar r a additional 59 homebound special needs friend's or family member's car or a public evacuation vehicle, persons needed special transportation to evacuate (51 require a bus, 8 require an ambulance).

Transient estimates based on Transient estimates based upon discussions with Progress Energy, local information provided about transient emergency managers and information attractions in EPZ, observations of the Tuansient on Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife facilities during the road survey, tourist Population Refuge and supplemented by information and internet searches. See previous report.

Section 3 for details.

Transients = 18,715 Transients = 380 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ.

within the EPZ.

Special Facilities Special Facility Population = 1,438 Current census = 454 Population (includes staff)

Buses Required = 9 Patients: 25 / vehicle Wheelchair Vans Required = 31 Staff: 1 / vehicle (capacity 4 per bus)

Ambulances Required = 70 Local school data was obtained from School population based on commercially available geographic information provided by each county information system (GIS) data and within the EPZ. Includes Coker College through contact with individual and Daycares.

School Population facilities.

School enrollment = 8,918 School enrollment = 8,531, Buses required = 173 52 students per bus.

Commuter college students 1.05 per College 1.5 students per vehicle vehicle, on average.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

-I Toi PrvosEESuyCurn 0

td Voluntary evacuation from within EPZ in areas outside region to be evacuated Not considered 20 percent of the population within the EPZ, but not within the Evacuation Region (see Figure 2-1) 20% of people outside of the EPZ within Shadow Evacuation Not considered the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)

Network Size 1,873 links 487 links; 332 nodes Geometric data from NAVTEQ street Field surveys conducted in April 2012.

Roadway Geometric network data and validated by field Roads and intersections were video Data surveys conducted in 2006.

archived.

Road capacities based on 2000 HCM.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Relocation Center.

Relocation Center.

Not applicable - one vehicle added 50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing per household with no vehicles of persons will evacuate with a neighbor their own.

or friend.

Notification complete within 45 minutes Notification complete within 90 Trip generation time based on minutes.Trpgnrtotiebsdn residential telephone survey of specific Trip Generation curves adapted from pre-trip mobilization activities:

data collected during evacuations in Residents with commuters returning Trip Generation for response to chemical spills. One leave between 20 and 255 minutes.

Evacuation mobilization curve for all population groups.

Residents without commuters returning Triups.

gleave between 10 and 165 minutes.

Trip generation betw een 5 and 140 E p o e s a d t a s e t e v minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 5 and 120 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Good weather and adverse weather Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity conditions. The capacity and free flow and free flow speed of all links in the Weather speed of all links in the network are network are reduced by 10% in the reduced by 25% and 40% respectively event of rain and 20% for snow.

for adverse weather.

Modeling PTV Vision VISUM and VISSIM DYNEV II System -Version 4.0.15.0 Modeling

____simulation models DYNIVI__System-_Version_4.0.15.0 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

-I Toi rvos..

T StdCurn TSuyI Special Events None considered Darlington NASCAR race Peak Special Event Population = 60,000 (including residents)

Peak number transients =

15,000 transient vehicles 13 Regions and 16 Scenarios 32 Regions (central sector wind Evacuation Cases producing 204 unique cases for 2006 direction and each adjacent sector population and 104 for 2010 technique used) and 14 Scenarios population estimate.

producing 448 unique cases.

ETE reported for 90th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time ETE results presented by Evacuation pe rte popul an. Reslt Estimates Reporting Area and Scenario.

percentile population. Results presented by Region and Scenario.

9 0 th percentile: Winter Weekday

Midday, 2010, Winter, Weekday, Midday, Good Weather: 2:35 Good Weather: 12:05 Summer Weekend, Midday, Evacuation Time 2010, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:25 Estimates for the Good Weather: 8:55 entire EPZ (Report does not state whether 9 0 th 1 0 0 th percentile: Winter Weekday or 1 0 0 th percentile ETE)

Midday, Good Weather: 4:25 Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

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

2.1 Data Estimates

1. 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 the U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies and surveys of major employers in the EPZ.

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

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

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

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.27 persons per household and 1.20 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.05 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Special Events: Data for transients attending a race weekend at the Darlington Raceway was provided by track officials, averaging at 4 persons per vehicle.

c. Transient attractions: 2 transients per vehicle for golf courses, based on information from individual facilities. A total of 173 transients in 113 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

5.

A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1. The two seasons used are winter and summer; winter is when schools are in session and summer is when schools are not in session.

6. Scenario 14 considers the closure of section of SR 151 southbound located directly south of the intersection with S. 5th Street in Hartsville.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5

Summer

Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6

Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7

Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8

Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9

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

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Darlington NASCAR Race Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Closure on SR 151 Southbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

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

Rev. 1

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

Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

c.

ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

2.

It is assumed that everyone within the group of 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. 48 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 55 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 26 percent (48% x 55% = 26%) 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.

7. Buses, vans, wheelchair vans and ambulances will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles (t is assumed that drivers are available for these vehicles):

a.

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

b. Based on information provided, for most daycares parents will pick up children prior to evacuation; those daycares that do evacuate their students will provide transportation.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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 relocation 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 relocation 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 relocation 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 emergencies2, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

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

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

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

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 3; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.

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

8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik 4). 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.

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).

3 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.

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

Robinson 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. School bus speeds are capped at 45 mph in the calculation of ETE, in order to ensure compliance with South Carolina state laws.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Rain 90%

90%

No Effect Snow 80%

80%

Clear driveway before leaving home (See Figure F-13)

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

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

Rev. 1

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

1.

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

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

3. An estimate of potential double-counting of people and 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 general population characteristics of the Robinson Nuclear Plant EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

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

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

Employees - people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to 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 summer evenings. For this reason, employees were treated separately from transients.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population Robinson Nuclear Plant 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

groups are presented for each zone and by polar coordinate representation (population distribution figures). The RNP EPZ is subdivided into 11 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 (2.27 persons/household -

See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.20 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 the Robinson Nuclear Plant. The population distribution figures were constructed using GIS software.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 3-2 KLD En2ineering. P.C.

Fvacuatinn Time Fstimate Rev-I I

Figure 3-1. RNP EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2000 Pouato 201 Poplaio A-0 2,161 2,282 A-1 670 670 A-2 852 1,426 B-1 12,721 16,584 B-2 8,998 5,645 c-1 2,555 2,578 C-2 1,903 1,931 D-1 1,039 1,114 D-2 1,409 1,196 E-1 295 395 E-2 1,931 2,106 EPZ Population Growth:

4.03%

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone A-0 2,282 1,210 A-1 670 353 A-2 1,426 759 B-1 16,584 8,927 B-2 5,645 2,992 c-i 2,578 1,366 C-2 1,931 1,023 D-1 1,114 591 D-2 1,196 642 E-1 395 208 E-2 2,106 1,118 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW F1-8-1 N

F-768 NNE o

/

152 I0 WNW F69-0 I

22 6:

0 WS 0

F892I SW Resident Population ENE

'I E

E1 ESE 262 1,1 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary 9

S F1,105 2,567 N

Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 572 572 1-2 1,071 1,643 2-3 3,482 5,125 3-4 4,004 9,129 4-5 5,664 14,793 5-6 7,409 22,202 6-7 4,393 26,595 7 -8 4,000 30,595 8-9 2,264 32,859 9-10 1,986 34,845 10 - EPZ 1,082 35,927 Total:

35,927 W

E Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW 0

N o4087 0

NNE 805 WNW 367 25s ENE 1T 4-4 51 W

I I-0 I

n 32 '

I1 E

wsw

-473

122, ESE 139 SSw 632-S 1 359 Resident Vehicles Miles subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 305 305 1-2 569 874 2-3 1,838 2,712 3 -4 2,118 4,830 4 - 5 2,997 7,827 5-6 4,078 11r905 6-7 2,333 14238 7-8 2,123 16,361 8 - 9 1,202 17,563 9 - 10 1,054 18,617 10 - EPZ 572 19,189 Total 19,189 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

21 0

0 0

0 77 0

o

.14 E

W Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

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

Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the RNP (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 Seco Poplaio EvcaigVhce N

175 93 NNE 906 484 NE 651 345 ENE 919 490 E

1,577 837 ESE 1,298 689 SE 1,154 612 SSE 1,312 693 S

738 395 SSW 6,076 3,220 SW 828 440 WSW 430 233 W

1,261 674 WNW 382 207 NW 304 165 NNW 19 11 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 906 WNW 382 w

wsw ENE F

919--

143 11 E

638 560 F1,5771 49 641 ESE SE 1, 154 E n

S-,

EPZ Boundary toll1 Miles SSW

~

L J~SSE 6,076 1,31 738-1 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 1,688 1,688 11-12 2,427 4,115 12 - 13 2,451 6,566 13 - 14 5,557 12,123 14-15 5,907 18,030 Total:

18,030 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N NNW NNE F48-4 WNW 207 w

674 WSW 233 ENE F490--

78 E

337 298 83 86 ESE SE EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW SSE 3220 S

F3957 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 906 906 11-12 1,290 2,196 12-13 1,301 3,497 13 - 14 2,948 6,445 14-15 3,143 9,588 Total:

9,588 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector 3-9 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at hotels and motels. The RNP EPZ includes the following types of facilities that attract transients:

Lodging Facilities Golf Courses

" Coker College Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 173 transients in 113 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

Two golf courses within the EPZ were located. One golf course, Hartsville Country Club was determined to be predominantly local usage and no transients were assigned. The second golf course, Fox Golf Club was contacted to determine the number of golfers and vehicles at each facility on a typical peak day, and the number of golfers that travels from outside the area. A total of 20 transients and 10 vehicles are assigned to golf courses within the EPZ.

Coker College provided student enrollment numbers as of August 2012 which is 1,100 students, 875 of which attend the campus within the EPZ. The remainder of those students attend the three satellite campuses outside the EPZ. Students who reside on campus, out of the 875 EPZ students, were reported at 525, with 425 vehicles. These students have been included as a part of the permanent population in Table 3-2. There are 100 students (included in the 525 total) without personal vehicles. Assuming 50% ride share with friends, 50 students have been assigned to the campus as transit dependent. 1 bus has been assigned to Coker College for these students. Commuting students for the campus were reported at 350 students. Using the same percentages estimated for the employees as travel habits mimic those of employees, 53.5% of these students are assumed to live within the EPZ, 187 students in 178 vehicles which have been included in the transient populations.

The Darlington County emergency plans included sites for three boat landings within the EPZ.

No transients were assigned to the landings as they were also determined to be predominantly for local usage.

The previous ETE Report included estimates of transients within the Robinson EPZ at approximately 18,000 people. This number includes employees, motel guests and transient estimates from 2006. The previous report also estimated transients at the Sandhills State Forest and Wildlife Refuge but the majority of the park is located outside the EPZ. No transients were assigned to this facility as the major attractions, hunting, camping and hiking, take place outside the EPZ. Local authorities and RNP confirmed that such a high number of transients could not be substantiated.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-5 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas and the transient students. Also included in this table are the lodging facilities. The number of transients and transient vehicles listed is the result of peak usage details while subtracting out the local population.

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.

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ZoeTaset rasetVhce A-0 A-1 A-2 B-1 282 252 B-2 78 39 C-1 C-2 20 10 D-1 D-2 E-1 E-2 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW N

0

=-

NNE o"-.

WNW FE0l1 S0 I

ENE I-

-07 WSW 0

o-i E

ESE 0

SSW 0

S E--

2,

SE

-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

0 0

0 0 0 0

100 0

0 0

0 E

Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0

0 1-2 0

0 2-3 0

0 3-4 0

0 4-5 21 21 5-6 261 282 6-7 78 360 7-8 0

360 8-9 0

360 9-10 20 380 10 - EPZ 0

380 Total:

380 W

Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW

-s--0 N

L0I 7

NNE 0

WNW rn 0

WSW 0

ENE E

ESE

-S0 SSW 0

S FI0 10 N

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

0 1-2 0

0 2-3 0

0 3-4 0

0 4-5 21 21 5-6 231 252 6-7 39 291 7-8 0

291 8-9 0

291 9-10 10 301 10 - EPZ 0

301 Total:

301 Boundary 0

E W

Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

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

" Those who live and work in the EPZ

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

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

Data provided by Darlington and Chesterfield counties and the previous ETE report were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data or were not able to provide information from phone calls made to facilities.

In Table E-4, the Employees (Max/Shift) is multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.05 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. For employers that did not provide percentage of non-EPZ employers, 53.5% was used. This was based on data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics interactive website 1 which is able to calculate the average inflow/outflow of employees within a specified area.

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.

http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/

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

Rev. 1

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles A-0 289 275 A-1 A-2 B-1 1,719 1,638 B-2 70 67 C-i 45 43 C-2 75 71 D-i D-2 E-i E-2 720 685 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

N NNW

-0 0

NNE 0

WNW

-236 I ENE I

L W

WSW 01

-i I

-J E

E64--

ESE I

0 SSW

-0 S

289 SE

-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

0 0

0 0 00 100 0

0

, )0 E

Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 289 289 1-2 0

289 2-3 0

289 3-4 0

289 4-5 347 636 5-6 1,417 2,053 6-7 306 21359 7-8 559 2,918 8-9 0

2,918 9 - 10 0

2,918 10 - EPZ 0

2,918 Total:

2,918 W

Inset 0- 2 Miles S

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

3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

NNW w-0--]

N 0-1-

NNE 0

S WNW E2-2-4 ENE I

a-L W

WSW wsw 0

E 61 I

ESE 900 0

SSW 0 0 S

EZZI SE 787 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

0 0

Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 275 275 1-2 0

275 2-3 0

275 3-4 0

275 4-5 330 605 5-6 1,3S1 1'956 6-7 291 2,247 7-8 532 2,779 8-9 0

2,779 9 - 10 0

2,779 10 - EPZ 0

2,779 Total:

2,779 W

Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

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

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

Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; and ambulances, up to 1 person for critical care and 2 for non-critical.

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 1, US 15, 1-120 and SR 151. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (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 11,216 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - a NASCAR race at Darlington Raceway. This is by far the special event in the area and is considered by local emergency management personnel to be the most likely to impede an evacuation. The largest event occurs on the second weekend in May. Data was obtained from Darlington County and the raceway. Transient attendance is reported at approximately 60,000 people in 15,000 vehicles.

The website http:Hwww.darlingtonraceway.com/ also provided information for events held at the raceway and traffic patterns.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-6. RNP EPZ External Traffic UpNoe DnNde RodNa e

Diecin PVI KFctr2

-Fcor oul Etral AAD Voum Traffic3 8018 18 SR 151 SB 12,698 0.116 0.5 736 1,472 8206 344 SR 151 NB 12,698 0.116 0.5 736 1,472 8087 87 US 1 EB 4,732 0.136 0.5 322 644 8101 101 US 1 WB 4,732 0.136 0.5 322 644 8168 168 1-20 EB 25,569 0.107 0.5 1,368 2,736 8184 184 1-20 WB 25,569 0.107 0.5 1,368 2,736 8074 74 US 15 WB 6,400 0.118 0.5 378 756 8061 61 US 15 EB 6,400 0.118 0.5 378 756

'Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2HCM 2010 Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section and Section

8. Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population -

are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 53,146 people and 35,954 vehicles are considered in this study.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand A-0 2,282 72

-289

-2,643 A-1 670 21 691 A-2 1,426 45 1,471 B-1 16,584 522 95 1,719 300 6,797 187 26,204 B-2 5,645 178 78 70 154 431 6,556 C-1 2,578 81 45 214 2,918 C-2 1,931 61 20 75 400 2,487 D-1 1,114 35 13 1,162 D-2 1,196 38 0

1,234 E-i 395 0

395 E-2 2,106 77 720 876 3,779 Shadow 3,606 3,606 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

NOTE: Special Facilities include both medical facilities.

NOTE: Transient students only for Coker College are listed separately. The remaining students are all included in the school enrollment numbers.

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

Rev. 1

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand A-0 1,210 6

275 1,491 A-i 353 2

355 A-2 759 4

763 B-1 8,927 36 70 1,638 84 248 178 11,181 B-2 2,992 12 43 67 35 24 3,173 C-1 1,366 6

43 18 1,433 C-2 1,023 6

10 71 20 1,130 D-1 591 4

2 597 D-2 642 4

646 E-i 208 208 E-2 1,118 6

685 34 1,843 Shadow 1,918 11,216 13,134 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

NOTE: Transient students only for Coker College are listed separately. The remaining students are all included in the school enrollment numbers.

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

Rev. 1

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

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

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

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

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

" Lane width Shoulder width

" Pavement condition

" Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

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

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

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.

Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by "uninterrupted" flow; and (2) approaches to at-grade intersections where flow can be "interrupted" by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.

The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:

3600 G

L 3600) where:

Qcap,m

=

Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Robinson 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,

/m = fm(hsat, F1, F2,.... )

where:

hsat

=

Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1, F2

=

The various known factors influencing hm fm()

=

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 Ž- hsat 2Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &

Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Robinson Nuclear Plant 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.

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

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, 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 Robinson 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.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the RNP Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:

2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.

The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:

" Two-Lane roads: Local, State Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h).

This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.

Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:

Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain"; some are "rolling terrain".

"Class I1" 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 Robinson 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 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

FreeSpeed (mph):

55 60 65 70+

Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h):

2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio.

The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area.

In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed.

Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

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

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

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

"The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system."

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Robinson Nuclear Plant 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax

-- Qs AI Vf-R vc, Density, vpm

-- Density, vpm I

kf lopt k I Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG/CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating event will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time assuming that:

1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren notification.

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

3.

ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

It is emphasized that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:

1.

Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863.

2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this one-hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are likely to be higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert notification system available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 320 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an emergency event.

The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and word-of-mouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day - families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:

Event Number 1

2 3

4 5

Event Description Notification Awareness of Situation Depart Work Arrive Home Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below:

Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities A

i i

i 1-42 Receive Notification 1

24-3 Prepare to Leave Work 2

2,3 -44 Travel Home 3

2,44-5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4

N/A Snow Clearance 5

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.

0 S

An Event is a 'state' that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)

An Activity is a 'process' that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)

As such, a completed Activity changes the 'state' of an individual (e.g. the activity, 'travel home' changes the state from 'depart work' to 'arrive home'). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an 'Event Sequence'; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-1(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5-1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5-1(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 5-1(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.

It is seen from Figure 5-1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequentially (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

1 A111111 2

3 As 4

5 Residents Residents k

w 1

2W 2

W IW WHouseholds wait for Commuters' Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 5

qw

-W

-W Residents, 1

2 Transients away from Residence 4

5 A

Return to residence, then evacuate L

-~w

~w Residents, Transients at Residence 1

Af 2

5 Residents at home; transients evacuate directly qW

-W

_W 1

2 3, 5 W

-qW I~W ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1.*

2 Receive Notification 2 --

3 Prepare to Leave Work 2, 3

, 4 Travel Home 2, 4.---1 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 1d Activities Consume Time

1. Notification

2. Aware of situation

3. Depart work

4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip 1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions - not scalar numbers).

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity I -+

2 In accordance with the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, 100% of the population is notified within 45 minutes. It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the event within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below:

Table 5-2. lime Distribution for Notifying the Public Ease Tim Pecn of (Minutes)

Pouato Notfie 0

0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Distribution No. 2. PreDare to Leave Work: Activity 2 -+ 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 -- 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is also applicable for residents who need time to leave stores, restaurants, parks and other locations within the EPZ. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work 0

0%

45 92.9%

5 15.7%

50 94.0%

10 37.6%

55 94.0%

15 52.5%

60 98.4%

20 64.8%

75 99.2%

25 69.2%

90 100.0%

30 82.1%

35 83.5%

40 85.7%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the "Don't know" responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 -- 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home 0

0 45 86.7%

5 29.1%

50 87.3%

10 44.6%

55 87.6%

15 55.9%

60 96.0%

20 61.3%

75 96.6%

25 63.0%

90 98.0%

30 80.8%

105 98.6%

35 81.6%

120 100.0%

40 82.5%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home:

Activity 2, 4 -+ 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate 0

0%

15 26.6%

30 65.7%

45 73.1%

ou-r

,*1.n7o OU VI.V70 75 94.1%

90 95.5%

105 95.7%

120 98.2%

135 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance.

It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6.

Note that those respondents (70%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 2-3" of Snow

~m.I~usmuu CumulJIIatuive Peren 0

70%

15 76.7%

30 87.0%

45 89.7%

60 94.8%

75 95.2%

90 95.7%

105 95.9%

120 97.5%

135 97.9%

150 97.9%

165 97.9%

180 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Mobilization Activities 100%

C 0

4, 0

C CL 0.

C 80%

60%

40%

20%

Notification

-Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home Prepare Home Time to Clear Snow 0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min) 180 210 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions. As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the work-to-home trip (Activity 3 -+ 4) must precede Activity 4 -+ 5.

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 5-7 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events Distribumiong" Aoit T

Distribution a

Event D Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Disrbto Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A

to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

l B

Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

E Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses.

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

These "outliers" must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;

2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.

The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered "outliers" for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used:

1)

It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);

3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.

special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean

noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps "a" to "d" are repeated.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5-3.

100.0%

90.0%

80.0% -

70.0%

60.0%

/

£ 50.0%

40.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

LA q Ui UL Lq Ui Lu UL LA ui LA Lq Lq LA LA L L

n-r-

rJ PN rC r-A r4 r, LA L

0 r,

0 r4 r,-"

Center of Interval (minutes)

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

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:

)0 Most of the real data is to the left of the "normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;

> The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off" slower than the comparable "normal" curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential -

preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.

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

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

2. Zones comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the 2 mile region is cleared

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary

5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in zones beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 9 0th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:

a. Identify the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for the zones comprising the two mile region. This value, Tscen, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:

i. The non-shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance).

ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen*

iii.

Following time Tscen, the balance of trips are generated:

1.

by stepping up and then following the non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen5 is < max trip generation time) or

2.

by stepping up to 100% (if Tscen is > max trip generation time)

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement "approximately 9 0 th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen* is 2:00 for non-snow scenarios and 2:15 for snow scenarios.

3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile two-mile evacuation time is 120 minutes for good weather or rain and 135 minutes for snow scenarios. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution. Following time Tscen*, the Robinson Nuclear Plant 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

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

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

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Annex 1 of the South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan states that South Carolina Department of Natural Resources will alert persons boating or fishing on Lake Robinson.

As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes (which is also in accordance with Darlington County RERP (Appendix A) and the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual). Table 5-9 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . It is assumed that this 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation 1

1!)

470 UW 170 2

15 23%

23%

0%

13%

0%

10%

3 15 35%

35%

4%

28%

3%

21%

4 15 22%

22%

10%

24%

7%

21%

5 15 10%

10%

15%

14%

13%

15%

6 15 4%

4%

17%

10%

14%

12%

7 15 1%

1%

16%

4%

14%

6%

8 15 1%

1%

12%

1%

13%

3%

9 15 0%

0%

9%

1%

9%

3%

10 30 0%

0%

10%

3%

13%

4%

11 30 0%

0%

5%

0%

7%

1%

12 30 0%

0%

1%

0%

3%

2%

13 30 0%

0%

1%

0%

2%

1%

14 60 0%

0%

2%

0%

15 600 0%

0%

NOTE:

Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

100

.E 2

80 m

60 CC V

go C

Q.0 C.

0CL

.4-0 q

20 I0 0

Trip Generation Distributions

-Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm with Snow 70ýO 60 0

120 180 240 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min) 300 360 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation

[,z~ntm~

[liD]

[*

Percen~ta of] Totala,".

Trip Genratd ithn,-diated Time Period**

Reidnt Residents0 Reidnt wit Wihu eietsWt ihu Tim Duato Comtr Comtr omtr nw CmuesSo 1

15 0%

0%

2 15 0%

3%

0%

2%

3 15 1%

6%

1%

4%

4 15 2%

4%

1%

5%

5 15 3%

3%

6 15 3%

2%

7 15 3%

1%

3%

1%

8 15 3%

0%

3%

1%

9 15 68%

78%

2%

0%

10 30 10%

3%

71%

78%

11 30 5%

0%

7%

1%

12 30 1%

0%

3%

2%

13 30 1%

0%

2%

1%

14 60 0%

0%

2%

0%

15 600 0%

0%

Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation

-Employees

/ Transients Residents with no Commuters

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

-Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow) 100 80 Uj C

40 20 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min) 0 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Robinson Nuclear Plant Evacuation Time Estimate 5-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 1

ML12363A056

Text

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

Search