ML13007A119
| ML13007A119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/2012 |
| From: | KLD Engineering, PC |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-12-441 KLD TR-482, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML13007A119 (69) | |
Text
Enclosure B L-12-441 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates (386 Pages Follow)
SKLD Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for FirstEnergy, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com October, 2012 Final Report, Rev. 2 KLD TR -482 SIGNATURE LIST Flrs~bray~i~clear Operating Companyý!or4r'v~m
?¶, Emiergency Rosponse I Date 6~~/ ~P'dul oSlate Emergency nnagerment Office Date 0 lawn County 6emrgwicy Managementi Agency e Lucas Cqdnty Emergency Manjagement Agency Date KU) Erflaboallm P.C -Lead Analy Dal KL'nalnealdng, P.C -Senior project Manascr Data L Oavis$Bgsse NJudea PouWer Stntlon evacuatlan inme EslPnot@KltoEnslneohtag P.C.ARv. 2 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION
..................................................................................................................................
1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ......................................................................................................
1-2 1.2 The Davis-Besse Nuclear Pow er Station Location ......................................................................
1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities
.................................................................................................................
1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study ..............................................................................................
1-8 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS .............................................................................................
2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ...........................................................................................................................
2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions ..........................................................................................
2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions .....................................................................................................................
2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION .......................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents
.................................................................................................................
3-2 3.2 Shadow Population
....................................................................................................................
3-8 3.3 Transient Population
................................................................................................................
3-11 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................
3-15 3.5 M edical Facilities
......................................................................................................................
3-19 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population
..............................................................
3-19 3.7 Special Events ...........................................................................................................................
3-19 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 Highw ay ........................................................................
4-4 4.3 Application to the DBNPS Study Area ........................................................................................
4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................
4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................
4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................
4-7 4.3.4 Intersections
......................................................................................................................
4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................
4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E ..........................................................................................
5-1 5.1 Background
.................................................................................................................................
5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations
....................................................................................................
5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ...................................................
5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution
....................................................................
5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................
5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation
.................................................................................
5-16 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas .................................................
5-18 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS
.....................................................................
6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................
7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation
.........................................................................
7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation
......................................................................................................................
7-2 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 ....................................................................................
7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results .........................................................................................................
7-4 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ...................................................................................................
7-5 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 Special Facility Dem and .............................................................................................................
8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .......................................................
8-5 8.5 Special Needs Population
.........................................................................................................
8-10 8.6 Correctional Facilities
...............................................................................................................
8-13 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY ...............................................................................................
9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES ......................................................................................................................
10-1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS
..........................................................................
11-1 12 CONFIRM ATION TIM E ......................................................................................................................
12-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ...............................................................................
A-1 B. DTRAD: DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ........................................
B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL ..........................................................................................
C-1 C.1 M ethodology
..............................................................................................................................
C-S C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram .............................................................................................
C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ...................................................................................................
C-S 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 with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..............................................
C-1S D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE
...........................................................................
D-1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA .......................................................................................................................
E-1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ...........................................................................................................................
F-1 F.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................................................
F-1 F.2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan .......................................................................................
F-2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................
F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results ...........................................................................................
F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response .............................................................................................................
F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results .................................................................................................
F-10 F.4 Conclusions
..............................................................................................................................
F-13 Attachm ent A: Telephone Survey Instrum ent .................................................................................
F-14 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .....................................................................................................
G-1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................
G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................
G-3 H. EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................
H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .................................
J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW ORK .............................................................................................
K-1 L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES
......................................................................................................................
L-1 M .EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................
M -1 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 Population W ho Relocate ..........................................................................................................................
M -2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population
.....................................................................
M-3 M.4 Effects on the ETE of Flooding along State Route 19 ...............................................................
M-4 N .ETE CRITERIA CH ECKLIST ...................................................................................................................
N -1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Location .........................................................................
1-4 Figure 1-2. DBNPS Link-Node Analysis Network .......................................................................................
1-9 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology
.......................................................................................
2-4 Figure 3-1. Davis-Besse EPZ ......................................................................................................................
3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector .............................................................................
3-6 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................
3-7 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector .................................................................................................
3-9 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ...................................................................................................
3-10 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................
3-13 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................
3-14 Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................
3-17 Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................
3-18 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams .........................................................................................................
4-10 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ..............................................................
5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities
.......................................................................................
5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution
......................................................
5-15 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions
.......................................................................
5-19 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Region ..............................................................................................................................
5-22 Figure 6-1. Davis-Besse Site EPZ Subareas ................................................................................................
6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology
.....................................................................................
7-13 Figure 7-2. Davis-Besse Shadow Evacuation Region ...............................................................................
7-14 Figure 7-3. Roadway Closure (Scenario
- 14) ............................................................................................
7-15 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................
7-16 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................
7-17 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................
7-18 Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 1 for Region R03 ......................................................
7-19 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 2 for Region R03 ......................................................
7-19 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 3 for Region R03 ......................................................
7-20 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 4 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-20 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario S for Region R03 ....................................................
7-21 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 6 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-21 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 7 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-22 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 8 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-22 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 9 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-23 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 10 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-23 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 11 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-24 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 12 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-24 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates
-Scenario 13 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-25 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimate -Scenario 14 for Region 03 ......................................................
7-25 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations
......................................................................
8-14 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................
8-15 Figure 10-1. General Population Reception Centers ..............................................................................
10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map of the Northwestern Quadrant of the EPZ (Subareas 1-3 & 10-11) ...........................................................................................................
10-3 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 10-3. Evacuation Route Map for the Southeastern Quadrant of the EPZ (Subareas 4-9) ...........
10-4 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-DTRAD 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 with 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 within the EPZ ............................................................................................................
E-3 Figure E-2. M edical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................
E-5 Figure E-3. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ .............................................................................................
E-7 Figure E-4. Cam pgrounds within the EPZ ..................................................................................................
E-9 Figure E-5. Recreational Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................
E-11 Figure E-6. M arinas within the EPZ ...................................................................................................
E-13 Figure E-7. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ......................................................................................
E-15 Figure E-8. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ..............................................................................
E-17 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................
F-4 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. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School
............................................................
F-10 Figure F-10. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ............................................................................................
F-11 Figure F-11. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation
................................................................................
F-12 Figure F-12. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ............................................................................
F-13 Figure G-1. Davis-Besse Traffic Control Points ..........................................................................................
G-4 Figure H-1. Region RO ..............................................................................................................................
H-4 Figure H-2. Region R02 .............................................................................................................................
H-5 Figure H-3. Region R03 .............................................................................................................................
H-6 Figure H-4. Region R04 .............................................................................................................................
H-7 Figure H-5. Region R05 .............................................................................................................................
H-8 Figure H-6. Region R06 .............................................................................................................................
H-9 Figure H-7. Region R07 ...........................................................................................................................
H-iO Figure H-8. Region R08 ...........................................................................................................................
H-11 Figure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................
H-12 Figure H- .i. Region RIO .........................................................................................................................
H-13 Figure H-11. Region R ib ..........................................................................................................................
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 RiS .........................................................................................................................
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 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.Fvacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure H-20. Region R20 .........................................................................................................................
H-23 Figure H-21. Region R21 ..........................................................................................................................
H-24 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario
- 1) ..............
J-7 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario
- 2) ...............................
J-7 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario
- 3) ..............
J-8 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario
- 4) ..........................
J-8 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario
- 5) .................................................................................................................................
J-9 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario
- 6) ................
J-9 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario
- 7) ............................
J-0 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario
- 8) .........................
J-10 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario
- 9) ..........
i J-1 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario
- 10) .......................
i J-1 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario
- 11) .........................
J-12 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather (Scenario
- 12) .............................................................................................................................
J-12 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario
- 13) ............................................................................................................................................
J-13 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Im pact ((Scenario
- 14) ................................................................................................................................
J- 3 Figure K-1. Link-Node Analysis Network Overview ...................................................................................
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-1l. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 10 ..................................................................................
K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 21 ..................................................................................
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-i5. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 14 ..................................................................................
K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 15 ..................................................................................
K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 16 ..................................................................................
K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 17 ..................................................................................
K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 18 ..................................................................................
K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 20 ..................................................................................
K-22 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 21 ..................................................................................
K-23 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 22 ..................................................................................
K-24 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 23 ..................................................................................
K-25 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 24 ..................................................................................
K-26 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 25 ..................................................................................
K-27 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 26 ..................................................................................
K-28 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 27 ..................................................................................
K-29 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 28 ..................................................................................
K-30 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 28 .................................................................................
K-31 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 30 ..................................................................................
K-32 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 31 ..................................................................................
K-33 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 32 ..................................................................................
K-34 List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction
...........................................................................................................
1-1 Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics
...........................................................................................................
1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons
..........................................................................................................
1-10 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions
...............................................................................................
2-3 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather .................................................................................
2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population
.......................................................................................
3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea ......................................................
3-5 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector .............................................................................
3-8 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles .....................................................................
3-12 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Employees and Employee Vehicles .....................................................
3-16 Table 3-6. Davis-Besse Site External Traffic ............................................................................................
3-21 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand ...........................................................................................
3-22 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand .................................................................................................
3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities
................................................................................
5-3 Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................
5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ...................................................
5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ..................................................................
5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate .......................................................
5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ......................................................
5-10 Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................
5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions
.............................................................................................
5-13 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation
.....................
5-20 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation
.......................
5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ...........................................................................................
6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions
...............................................................................................
6-5 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios
............................................
6-6 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario ..................................................................................................
6-7 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population
...........................
7-8 Table 7-2 Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population
...........................
7-9 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent ETE of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .....................
7-10 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent ETE of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ...................
7-11 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................
7-12 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates
..............................................................................
8-16 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates
...................................................................................
8-17 Table 8-3. School Reception Centers ......................................................................................................
8-18 Table 8-4. Special Facility Transit Demand .............................................................................................
8-19 Table 8-5. Transportation Resources
......................................................................................................
8-20 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions
..........................................................................................................
8-21 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates
-Good Weather ..............................................................
8-22 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Tim e Estim ates -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 Weather ........................................
8-26 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates
-Rain ........................................................
8-27 Table 8-13. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates
-Snow ......................................................
8-28 Table 12-i. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation
..............
12-2 Table A-i. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ...............................................................................
A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................
C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ...........................................................................
C-3 Table C-3. G lossary ....................................................................................................................................
C-7 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................................
E-2 Table E-2. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................................
E-4 Table E-3. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................................
E-6 Table E-4. Cam pgrounds w ithin the EPZ ...................................................................................................
E-8 Table E-5. Recreational Facilities within the EPZ .....................................
E-10 Table E-6. M arinas w ithin the EPZ .....................................................................................................
E-12 Table E-7. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................
E-14 Table E-8. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ .................................................................................
E-16 Table F-i. Davis-Besse Telephone Survey Sampling Plan .........................................................................
F-2 Table G-1. Existing Traffic Control Points Modeled in DYNEV II ...............................................................
G-2 Table H-1. Percent of Subarea 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 Evacuation Route Travel Time (min) for Region R03, Scenario I ..........................
J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .........................
J-6 Table K-i. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics
......................................................................
K-35 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled
...........................................
K-71 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ...................................
M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ....................................................
M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation with Population Change .................................................................................
M -3 Table M-4. Evacuation Time Estimates for the Flooding of State Route 19 ...........................................
M-4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist
............................................................................................
N-i Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Davis-Besse Site located in Ottawa County, Ohio. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Davis-Besse 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.Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in November, 2010 and extended over a period of 2 years. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence: " Attended "kick-off" meetings with Davis-Besse personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and local 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 Davis-Besse Site, 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.* 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 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents." Following Federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 12 Subareas.
These Subareas are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define 21 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 scenario, rifle matches at Camp Perry, was considered.
One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on State Route 2 for the duration of the evacuation." Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated." As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is: " A rapidly escalating accident at the Davis-Besse Site that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented." While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the a 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 294 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 21 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (21 x 14 = 294). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 beyond the EPZ that extends from the EPZ boundary to a distance of approximately 15 miles from the plant 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 radius evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place.
Once 90% of the 2-mile radius is evacuated, those people between 2 and 5 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 following federal guidelines were adhered to in computing the ETE presented in this study: " NUREG/CR-7002
-"Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies"" 10CFR50, Appendix E -"Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities"" Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 -"Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants"" Supplement 2 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 -"Criteria for Preparation Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants -Criteria for Emergency Planning in an Early Site Permit Application"" NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" -Section 13.3 -"Emergency Planning"" NUREG/CR-6863
-"Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants"" Regulatory Guide 1.206 -"Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" -Section C.1.13.3 -"Emergency Planning"" NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 3 , "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants -Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents" The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE has been identified as the value 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.
The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.
Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by Lucas and Ottawa County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and the State of Ohio Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and identifies critical intersections.
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 Davis-Besse Site showing the layout of the 12 Subareas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ." Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Subarea based on the 2010 Census data." Table 6-1 defines each of the 21 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Subarea.* 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 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively.
These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the shadow region. These tables include results for staged evacuation.
- Tables 7-3 and Table 7-4 presents clearance times for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.
- Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather." Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather.* Figure H-7 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R07) 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 294 unique cases -a combination of 21 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 document these ETE for the 9 0 th and 100th percentiles for both a regular and staged evacuation respectively.
These ETE range from 1:40 (hr:min) to 3:05 at the 9 0 th percentile.
- Inspection of Table 7-1 and 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile.
This is the result of the long tail of the evacuation curve caused by those evacuees who take longer to mobilize.
See Figure 7-7." Staged evacuation results indicate that this strategy does not decrease evacuation times within 2 miles. The ETE for the 2 mile region reflects the trip mobilization time. There is no extensive congestion that would cause delays to people departing the 2 mile region." The National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry have a negligible effect on the evacuation time for the Davis-Besse EPZ.* Special population ETEs were computed for schools, medical facilities and transit-dependent persons. These ETE are within a similar range as the general population ETE.See Section 8.* The general population ETE at the 100th percentile closely parallels the trip generation time...further evidence of the long evacuation tail. See Table M-1.* The general population ETE is not significantly impacted by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 6-1. Davis-Besse Site EPZ Subareas Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 795 812 2 1,120 1,313 3 2,549 2,589 4 254 257 5 5,513 5,370 6 147 162 7 1,883 1,085 8 1,991 1,637 9 5,783 5,898 10 107 _11 1,365 1,280 12 EPZ Population Growth: -5.1%Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions N Refer to Region R02 R04 ~ NNE, NE, ENE, E, E:SE SE, SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W Refer to Region R01 ROS ~ WNW M I I_NW, NNW Refer to Region R02 R0N RNNE R09 NE, ENE R09 E, ESE RISE SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W Refer to Region R01 RII WNW R12 NW R13 NNW R14 N R15 NNE R16 N NE, ENE R17 E, ESE R18 SE SSE, S, SSW, SW, WSW, W Refer to Region R02 WNW, NW Refer to Region R12 NNW Refer to Region R13 R19 N R0 NNE, NE, ENE, E, ESE _R21 WNW NW, NNW Refer to Region R19~~Su barea (s)aSchelter'in"-
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Special Event Roadway Impact -14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on Route 2 1 1_ 1 1 Eastbound Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Eire Midweek Weekend Midee Weekend Midweek]Weekend Weekend Scnaio () (2) (3)] (4) (5)(6) (7) (8) (10) (11)] (12 (13) (14)Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rin Good Rin Good Good RiSnw Good RiSnw Good special Roadway WeatherIRi WeatherIRi Weather Weather RanSo Weather]Ri So Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ RO1 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 R02 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:50 1:50 1:50 2:45 1:50 2:15 2:15 R03 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:15 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:25 2:45 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 [2:15 2:15 2:25 2:251 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:50 1:45 1:45 2:45 1:45 2:25 2:15 ROS 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:00 1:50 j 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:15 2:15 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 3:00 2:05 2:10 2:10 R07 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 3:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 R08 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:20 2:20 R09 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:15 3:05 2:00 2:00 2:55 2:00 2:25 2:20 R10 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:40 1:45 2:25 2:20 R11 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:00 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:20 2:35 R12 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:05 2:10 2:15 3:05 2:00 2:00 2:55 2:00 2:25 2:35 R13 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:10 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:00 2:05 2:55 2:00 2:25 2:40 5-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 1:55 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 2:10 RIS 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:05 2:05 3:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 R16 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:15 2:15 3:05 2:00 2:05 2:55 2:00 2:15 2:15 R17 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:O5 2:10 2:15 3:05 2:00 2:00 2:55 2:00 2:20 2:20 R18 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:55 1 1:55 , 1:55 2:50 1:55 2:20 2:20 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:20 2:30 2:30 3:25 2:25 2:30 3:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 R20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:15 2:25 2:25 3:20 2:25 2:25 3:20 2:25 2:30 2:25 R21 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:20 2:20 3:10 2:20 2:20 3:10 2:20 2:20 2:20 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer summeWinWet erter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MidweekMidweek Weekend 2-Mile Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekendl 4:3 4:3 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Goo Godod°od°odl Good Special Roadway Regioai Godaoo i oonGo Rain Snow WahrRain Snow Wahr Event Impact Weather RanWeather RanWeather WeatherIWetrWahr Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:45 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:34 5:34 4:35 4:35 4:35 2-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R06 4:45 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 R07 4:45 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 ROB 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:45 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R09 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R10 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R11 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R12 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R13 4:40 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 S-Mile Ring and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 4:40 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:45 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R15 4:45 4:45 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 4:45 5:50 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:45 R16 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R17 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R18 4:40 4:40 4:40 14:40 4:40 4:40 14:40 ,5:40 14:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:40 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R21 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 7-3. Staged Evacuation Results -90 Percent ETE of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MidUt ed Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend WeekendI Scnaio (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) [(6) (7)] (8) (9) (10) (11i) (12) (13) (14)Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Ran Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Weathe SpeiapRadwa Weather RanWeather Weather Weather I I WahrI IWeather Event Ipc Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles RO1 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 R02 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 R04 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 ROS 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to S-Miles R19 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 R20 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 R21 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:35 1:40 2:25 2:15 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 0-4. Staged Evacuation Results -100 Percent ETE of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MidUn ed Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend WeekendI Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening IMidday Midday Region Goodla OoodI Good Good1 Go G ood d Roadway Weather Weather RanWeather Weather RIn Sno Iete RInSo Weather Eet Impact Unstaged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R04 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 ROS 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R19 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R20 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 R21 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 5:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates
-Good Weather Bataan Memorial Elementary School 90 15 5.7 35 10 Immaculate Conception School 90 15 5.7 35 10 Jefferson Elementary School 90 15 2.7 35 5 Oak Harbor High School 90 15 4.4 35 8 Oak Harbor Middle School 90 15 3.9 35 7 Ottawa County Christian Academy 90 15 4.9 35 9 Port Clinton High School 90 15 3 32 6 Port Clinton Middle School 90 15 2.7 35 5 R.C. Waters Elementary School 90 15 3.7 35 7 St. Boniface Catholic Church 90 15 3.8 35 7 Jerusalem Elementary School 2 90 15 0 35 0 Maximum for EPZ: 13.1 13.1 13.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 13.1 13.1 7.8 7 R 23 23 23 14 14 14 23 23 14 14 6.8 1 12 Maximum: Average: Average for EPZ: J 1 Buses traveled along state routes to host facilities.
The state speed limit for a state route in Ohio is 35mph.2 Jerusalem Elementary School is located outside the EPZ.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates
-Good Weather 1 90 2.98 15.8 11.32 30 13.88 1 18.51 5 10 1 25.44 1 30 20 2 110 2.98 21.8 8.20 30 3 130 2.98 24 7.45 30 4 150 2.98 23.8 7.51 30 1 90 5.04 44 6.87 30 21 2 110 5.04 41.8 7.23 30 3 130 5.04 43.1 7.02 30 22 1 90 11.72 46.5 15.12 30 23 1 90 12.04 56.5 12.79 30 1 90 8.02 30.6 15.73 30 24 2 110 8.02 35.9 13.40 30 1 90 9.37 62.8 8.95 30 25 2 110 9.37 62.8 8.95 30 26 1 90 2.42 55.2 2.63 30 Maximum ETE: Average ETE: 13.88 18.51 5 10 25.44 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 25.44 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 25.44 30 7.80 10.40 5 10 17.37 30 7.80 10.40 5 10 17.37 30 7.80 10.40 5 10 17.37 30 7.80 10.40 5 10 24.81 30 10.77 14.36 5 10 26.67 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 31.07 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 31.07 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 27.40 30 13.88 18.51 5 10 27.40 30 4.84 6.45 5 10 9.12 30 Maximum ETE: Average ETE: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure H-7. Region R07 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, located in Ottawa County, Ohio. ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.
In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Government agencies.
Most important of these are: Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November, 2011.Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required.
Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.
Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkeole Naur of Stakhle Interactio FirstEnergy emergency planning personnel Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies Obtain Lucas County Radiological Emergency Lucas County Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Plans for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and special facility data Obtain Ottawa County Radiological Emergency Ottawa County Emergency Management Agency Preparedness Plans for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and special facility data Obtain State of Ohio Radiological Emergency Ohio State Emergency Management Office Preparedness Plans for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Local and State Police Agencies Obtain existing traffic management plans Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
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 FirstEnergy.
- b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Ohio EMA, Ottawa County EMA and Lucas County EMA to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.
- c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.d. Obtained demographic data from census, state and local agencies.e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.
- f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.
- 2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.
These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.
- 4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.5. Used existing subareas to define Evacuation Areas or Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 12 Subareas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous subareas for which ETE are calculated.
The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.
- 6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.a. Estimated the traffic demand within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and within its "Shadow Region", by location, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 FirstEnergy and from the telephone survey.b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1)to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacities of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes. All references to "HCM" pertain to this 2010 edition.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 Evacuation Region and for each Evacuation Scenario.e. Specified selected candidate destinations of evacuation travel for each "origin" location where trips are generated, that are consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the Power Station.8. Executed the DYNEV II system to compute the estimates of evacuation routing and ETE for all residents, transients and employees
("general population")
with access to private vehicles.
Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.
- 9. Documented these ETE in formats responsive to the guidance in NUREG/CR-7002.
- 10. Employed the results generated by DYNEV II to calculate the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.
1.2 The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Location The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) is located along the coast of Lake Erie in Carroll Township, Ottawa County, Ohio. The site is approximately 20 miles northwest of Sandusky, OH and 25 miles east of Toledo, OH. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is located in Ottawa and Lucas Counties in Ohio. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding DBNPS. This map identifies the major communities in the area, the 2-, 5- and 10-mile circles centered at DBNPS, and the major roads. Figure 1-2 displays the area within 15 miles of DBNPS.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 1-1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Location Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
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 within the Shadow Region consisting 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, and include: Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics
- Number of lanes 0 Posted speed* Lane width 0 Actual free speed* Shoulder type & width
- Abutting land use* Interchange geometries a Control devices* Lane channelization
& queuing 0 Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)
- Geometrics:
curves, grades (>4%)
- Traffic signal type* Unusual characteristics:
Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure.
No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures, based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections.
For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph -not a material difference
-for two-lane highways.
Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. DYNEV II is described in Appendices A, B and C.As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM, 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. The road survey identified several two-lane highway segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are assigned reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. The capacities of all links are identified in 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 are independent of the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary based on the traffic volume on competing approaches).
Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings accordingly.
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 over time with traffic volume. TCPs 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 data input to the DYNEV II system.Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.
Developing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software.
The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Evacuation 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).Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 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 Assessment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B." A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if alternative uncongested routes are available.
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 Level of Service (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 while viewing the animation display.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 technical terms.An evaluation of the original I-DYNEV model is provided in the following references: " 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 plant.DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to expedite the movement of vehicles.
These countermeasures may then be Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 tested with the model.1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2003 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows: " The use of 20 percent as the factor for shadow evacuation as required by NUREG guidelines.
- Staged evacuation is considered." The highway representation is updated to reflect current conditions." Trip generation distributions were recomputed using a new methodology.
- ETE (9 0 th percentile) for summer weekend cases are lower by about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for the full EPZ, as a result of a significant decrease in the number of transients estimated to be in the EPZ. The estimated transient population data used in the 2003 study was adapted from 1986 surveys and estimates of transient activity.
Detailed data for some transient attractions (Port Clinton, Crane Creek State Park -now part of Magee Marsh Wildlife Area -MMWA, Camp Perry) were not available in 1986. As a result, roadway traffic counts were conducted in these areas to estimate the number of vehicles, which was then multiplied by average household size to estimate the number of transients.
This methodology resulted in 7,300 transients and 2,600 vehicles for MMWA in the 2003 study, versus 2,500 transients and 1,500 vehicles (provided by the MMWA supervisor).
A similar methodology resulted in a 2003 estimate of 13,300 transients and 5,342 transient vehicles in Port Clinton, versus 4,422 transients and 1,980 transient vehicles in this study. Using traffic count data lead to overestimates as permanent resident vehicles (which are estimated separately) are included in the counts and repeat trips for the same vehicle cannot be reliably estimated.
The 2003 study used the transient attendance at Camp Perry during the national rifle and pistol matches as a typical attendance for a summer weekend; this study considers the national matches as a special event and uses a more representative transient estimate for a typical summer weekend. The transient population estimates in the 1986 and 2003 studies were overly conservative, in hindsight.
The recent data collection efforts for transients conducted in support of this study have a more reliable basis. The lower population results in less traffic congestion in Port Clinton, higher average travel speeds, and lower ETE. The ETE for winter scenarios are not materially affected, as there is little transient activity during the winter.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 1-2. DBNPS Link-Node Analysis Network Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic .Prviu ET Std Curn td Resident Population Basis ArcGIS Software using 1990 and 2000 US Census Data; population extrapolated to 2003.Population
= 20,807 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population
= 20,403 2.22 persons per household, 2.48 persons per household, 1.2 evacuating 1.28 evacuating vehicles per Resident Population vehicles per household, yielding:
2.1 persons
12 vcaigvhce e Vehicle Occupancy per householel household, yielding 1.73 persons per evacuating vehicle.________________per evacuating vehicle.Employee estimates based on information Employee estimates based on from the Ohio State University Data Center information provided about Employee employment in the EPZ. 1.0 employee per major employers in EPZ. 1.05 Population vehicle derived from 2000 Census. employees per vehicle based on telephone survey results.Employees
= 4,700 Employees
= 853 Transit-Dependent population estimated using population estimates and results of telephone survey.A total of 427 people who do not Transit-Dependent population estimated have access to a personal using 2003 population estimates and results vehicle, require 14 buses to Transit-Dependent of a 1986 telephone survey. evacuate.
An additional 125 Population Transit-Dependents
= 585 homebound special needs Buses required = 20 persons need special transportation to evacuate (35 require bus, 68 require wheelchair-accessible transportation and 22 require an ambulance).
Transient estimates based upon information provided about Transient data was collected through transient attractions in EPZ, Transient contacts with local parks, AADT traffic data supplemented by observations Population and license plate surveys. of the facilities during the road Transients
= 26,083 survey and from aerial photography.
= 15,886 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 I* Toi Prviu ET Std Curn0T td Special Facilities Population Special Facility population was not considered because it is incorporated in with the U.S. Census data.Special facility population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ.Medical Facilities:
Current census = 184 Buses Required = 3 Wheelchair Bus Required = 9 Ambulances Required = 17 Correctional Facilities:
Total Population:
48 Buses Required:
2 School population based on information provided by each School Population School Enrollment
= 4,157 county within the EPZ.School Enrollment
= 3,990 Buses Required = 75 Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas Not considered.
the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be Figure 2-1)evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered.
within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)Network Size 305 Links; 126 Nodes. 753 Links; 508 Nodes.Field surveys conducted in November 2010. Major intersections were video archived.
GIS shape-files of signal Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in 2002. locaion s hand roadway locations and roadway Data Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. characteristics created during road survey.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Direct evacuation to designated Reception Direct evacuation to designated Center. Reception Center.50 percent of transit-dependent persons will 50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing ride out with a neighbor or friend. persons will ride out with a neighbor or friend.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Toi rvosEES td CurnIT Stud Trip Generation for Evacuation Trip Generation curves adapted from 1986 telephone survey of Davis-Besse EPZ in Ottawa County, Ohio.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:
Residents with commuters returning leave between 25 and 270 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 10 and 210 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 10 and 105 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Normal, Rain, Flood or Snow. The capacity cap aind fr flow spe Weather and free flow speed of all links in the network all paclinks in the netflow speed r of are reduced by 20% in the event of rain and reduced by 10% in the event of 25% for snow.rain and 20% for snow.DYNEV II System -Version Modeling I-DYNEV System: TRAD and PC-DYNEV 4.0.0.0 4.0.0.0 National Rifle Matches at Camp Special Events None considered.
Perry.Special Event Population
= 1,890 additional transients.
21 Regions (central sector wind 10 Regions (single sector wind direction direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases used) and 11 Scenarios producing 110 unique sector technique used) and 14 cases. Scenarios producing 294 unique cases.ETE reported for 50th, 90th and 100t' ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time erepte for 50 p 90 percentile population.
Results Estimates Reporting percentile popuatio.
presented by Region and Region and Scenario.
Scenario.Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation lime Good Weather: 2:20 Good Weather: 2:15 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 9 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 4:20 Good Weather: 2:25 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.
2.1 Data Estimates 1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from 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 offices of emergency management 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 2.22 persons per household and 1.28 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for special facilities is as follows: a. Employees:
1.05 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.
- b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data collection from local transient facilities.
- c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.22 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
2.2 Study
Methodological Assumptions
- 1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario.
The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.
A Region is defined as a group of Subareas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate.
A Scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.
- 2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR-7002.
- 3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002.
These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the subareas included within these underlying configurations.
- 5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted"keyhole" evacuate.
20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate.
20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate.
See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages.
Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered.
These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane eastbound on State Route 2, east of the Route 53 (Fremont Road) interchange.
- 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 1). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.
'Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1cnaio Sumerso jiWeek MDday WeGoodrNonea 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 4 Summer Miweeken, idy anNn 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 62 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 Camp Perry 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good National Rifle Match Roadway Impact -14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on Route 2 1_ 1 1 1 Eastbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
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 Subareas forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. 47 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 44 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 21 percent (47% x 44% = 21%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.
- 5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters.
It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate.
Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available.
The objectives of these TCP are: a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.
- f. 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 will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles: a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated reception centers.b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.
- c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to reception centers.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 2-5 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
- e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.
- g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips
("waves")
of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.
- h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3 , which cites previous evacuation experience, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.
- 9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered.
Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.10. 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.3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Rain 90%90%No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home (Source: Telephone Survey)*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.
Roads are assumed to be passable.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 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 Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).
- 2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.3. An estimate of potential double-counting of vehicles.Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates.
Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.Throughout the year, visitors, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g., a few hours, a few days or one or two weeks).Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.
The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed.
For example: " A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper." A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.
Analysis of the population characteristics of the Davis-Besse Site EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups: " Permanent residents
-people who are year round residents of the EPZ." Transients
-people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.* Employees
-people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Subarea and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The Davis-Besse Site EPZ has been subdivided into 12 Subareas.
The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2
3.1 Permanent
Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest (2010) U.S. Census data.The average household size (2.22 persons/household
-See Figure F-I) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.28 vehicles/household
-See Figure F-8) were adopted from the telephone survey results.Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Subarea.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 Davis-Besse Site.This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere.
A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows: " Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer.* Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e., 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval.* Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season.
Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Figure 3-1. Davis-Besse EPZ Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 1 795 812 2 1,120 1,313 3 2,549 2,589 4 254 257 5 5,513 5,370 6 147 162 7 1,883 1,085 8 1,991 1,637 5,783 5,898 10 107 11 1,365 1,280 12 EPZ Population Growth: -5.1%1Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, 2003 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subarea 1 812 469 2 1,313 758 3 2,589 1,487 4 257 149 5 5,370 3,089 6 162 94 7 1,085 623 8 1,637 945 9 5,898 3,406 10 -11 1,280 737 NOTE: Subarea 12 encompasses population in this Subarea.the Lake Erie portion of the EPZ. There is no resident Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW r2-9--- 0 N NNE r-WNW I I-W 1 6 :241 24 106 24 WSW 'I SW Resident Population
% ENE lit 0°-I E 0 332 ESE E 97, s to EPZ Boundary" 41 SSW 4 205 0 S 1 569 Miles Su~otatl by R 2 f Cumulative Total, 0-1 160 160 1-2 483 643 2-3 283 926 3-4 s16 1,442 4-S 736 2,178 S-6 1,27 3,456 6-7 3,93o 7,3 7-5 1.633 9.019 3-9 2,218 11,237 9 -10 5,466 16,703 10 -EPZ 3,700 20,403 Total: 20,403 W Insot 2 miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW 1 71 NNE 0 -WNW 789 I I W 670 138 WSW 1 R815t F861 Resident Vehicles ENE E ESE 245 Z Boundary SSW " 0 2S F90-1-Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 94 94 1-2 278 372 2-3 163 535 3-4 298 833 4-5 425 1,258 5-6 735 1,993 6-7 2,263 4,256 7-8 937 5,193 8-9 1,280 6,473 9-10 3,153 9,626 10 -EPZ 2,131 11,757 Total: 11,757 W Inset 2Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
3.2 Shadow
Population A proportion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the Davis-Besse Site 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, evacuation vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population.
Table 3-3 presents estimates of the shadow population and vehicles.Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector N NNE NE ENE E 1,583 912 ESE 3,596 2,067 SE 518 298 SSE 280 160 S 2,289 1,318 SSW 1,104 628 SW 2,750 1,588 WSW -W 3,266 1,883 WNW 1,234 712 NW 2,305 1,333 NNW 3-8 KID Engineering, P.C.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW NNE WNW w wSw 2,305 ENE 0 0 E 933 597 53 B'559 9 677 ESE 0 SE F18]EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW ---_ ._ ' SSE S 280 F2,289 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ- 11 784 784 11- 12 2,204 2,988 12-13 4,196 7,184 13- 14 5,863 13,047 14- 15 5,878 18,925 Total: 18,925 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW NNE w-0 WNW 712 ww 1,33 ENE 0E 0 0 E 537 344 31 91 898 52389 ESE 0 SE-EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW --.. _C .. _-I SSE 628 S 160 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ- 11 451 451 11- 12 1,269 1,720 12-13 2,415 4,135 13-14 3,372 7,507 14-15 3,392 10,899 Total: 10,899 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
3.3 Transient
Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).
Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The Davis-Besse Site EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:
- Lodging Facilities" Marinas* Wildlife Areas Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms, and the number of vehicles per room for each facility.
These numbers were used to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles for transients at each of these facilities.
A total of 4,930 transients in 2,154 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.The Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge and Magee Marsh are within the EPZ. Both of these parks draw transients into the EPZ. Most of the coastal area within the EPZ consists of marshland that is managed as wildlife refuges. There are also many lakes and creeks in the area. Our estimate of tourist population is based on a survey of tourist facilities and of recreational areas attracting day trips, on information provided by state emergency management agencies and on estimates made using overhead imagery of the facilities.
There is a golf course and many marinas within the EPZ. It is assumed that transients visiting the golf course facilities travel two per vehicle. It is further assumed that transients visit marinas as a family and a vehicle occupancy of 2.22 transients per vehicle is used (average household size within the EPZ according to telephone survey results).
At boat ramps, two passenger car equivalents are used to model vehicles pulling trailers.Other major transient population attractions in the area are the Jet Express boat terminal in Port Clinton which provides access to Put in Bay and the Ottawa County Fairgrounds which hosts numerous events.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Tables E-3 through E-6 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas.Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Subarea. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector. Transient population estimates presented here define the maximum number of transients expected in each category.
The population in each category varies by season, by day of the week, and by time of day. These variations are presented in Section 6.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Subarea ~ ~ ~ .Trnintrnien 1 1,531 771 2 200 100 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 607 317 6 426 191 7 900 415 8 707 248 9 8,715 3,232 10 2,700 1,600 11 100 50 12 0 0 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW 0 NNE~0-0 , -0, WNW'0 11 t o W 270 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 2000 SW 0 Transient Population ENE 0[32* E] ' ESE 1,31-I* 0 SSW -i 0 o ---SSE s-4-26_-10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 2 1,181 1,181 2-3 350 1,531 3-4 12 1,543 4-5 200 1,743 5-6 3,490 5,233 6-7 621 5,854 7-8 926 6,780 8-9 668 7,448 9- 10 7,027 14,475 10- EPZ 1,411 15,886 Total: 15,886 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW 0 N-' 0 NNE 0 -WNW /330 W : I 1,600 I WSW F10-0* 0 SSW 217 1 0 1 SSE S 306 N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 1-2 591 591 2-3 180 771 3-4 8 779 4-5 100 879 5-6 1,966 2,845 6-7 311 3,156 7-8 343 3,499 8-9 408 3,907.9-10 2,392 6,299 10- EPZ 625 6,924 Total: 6,924 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles 5 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
3.4 Employees
Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:
0 S 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.
A list of major employers in the EPZ is presented in Appendix E. Employers were contacted to determine the number of employees and the number of employees living outside of the EPZ.Those employees who live and work within the EPZ are already counted as part of the resident population group.A vehicle occupancy of 1.05 employees per vehicle, obtained from the telephone survey, was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.
Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by Subarea. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Employees and Employee Vehicles Subara Empoyes Epoe 1 306 291 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 134 128 5 174 166 6 86 82 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 153 146 10 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 0 3-16 KID Engineering, P.C.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 NNW 0 N NNE---0 -0 0 -WNW w~o I-W WSW Employees ENE 0 r E 0 ESE SESE w-SSW* 0 --- SSE 442 1 _, 10 Mile to EPZ Boundary N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 306 306 1- 2 -306 2-3 306 3-4 306 4-5 86 392 5-6 97 489 6-7 77 566 7-8 566 8-9 -566 9- 10 134 700 10r-EPZ 153 853 Total: 853 W E Inset 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 N NNW 0 0-NNE 0 -WNW Eoili WSW Employee Vehicles ENE , E 0 ESE , 0 SSW I -M_j_ 10 Mile to EP)Z Boundary 0-S N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 291 291 1-2 291 2-3 291 3-4 291 4-5 82 373 5-6 93 466 6-7 73 539 7-8 539 8-9 -539 9-10 128 667 10- EPZ 146 813 Total: 813 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2
3.5 Medical
Facilities Data on residents at medical facilities is presented in Appendix E. Chapter 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.
The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depends on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people, leaving room for accompanying attendants.
3.6 Total
Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the study area at the time of an accident.
After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate.
These through vehicles are assumed to travel on major routes traversing the analysis network (See Figures 1-2 and K-1): 1-80, US Route 20, and US Route 6. These routes traverse the analysis network (but not within the EPZ) and it is assumed that they will not be closed during an emergency.
It is assumed that this traffic will continue to traverse these routes throughout the evacuation.
Route 2 is not considered to avoid double counting.
Most of the people using Route 2 live, work or recreate within the EPZ. Through traffic is more likely to use the higher speed, higher capacity 1-80 which parallels Route 2 through the area.Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Highway Performance Monitoring System database to estimate the number of vehicles per hour. 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 5.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, roughly equivalent to the duration of the evacuation to estimate the total source vehicles loaded on the analysis network.As indicated, there are 36,850 vehicles traversing the shadow region on the indicated routes.3.7 Special Events One special event is considered:
The National Rifle Matches take place annually at Camp Perry.Discussions with Davis-Besse personnel indicate the competition draws about 8,000 people on the peak day of the event. Most people visiting the event will stay in local hotels and some will arrive for a day and then leave the EPZ. If we assume that most of these people stay at local hotels (all hotel rooms are occupied) and campgrounds (90 percent of campgrounds are occupied by Rifle Match visitors), where we are already counting them, we can estimate the additional daily traffic that would be present: (a) Number of estimated people at campgrounds 1,180 (b) Number of estimated people at hotels 4,930 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 2 (c) Event transients 8,000 -[(a)+(b)](d) Event vehicles (2.22 persons/veh) 1,890 851 No public transportation is provided for this event and was therefore not considered in this study.3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively.
This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups -transit-dependent, special facility and school population
-are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 45,763 people and 58,753 vehicles (includes external traffic) are considered in this study.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-6. Davis-Besse Site External Traffic 8079 79 1-80 Westbound 41,990 0.107 0.5 2,246 12,353 8069 69 1-80 Eastbound 41,990 0.107 0.5 2,246 12,353 8051 51 US-20 Westbound 20,651 0.107 0.5 552 3,036 8059 59 US-20 Eastbound 20,651 0.107 0.5 552 3,036 8053 53 US-6 Eastbound 20,651 0.107 0.5 552 3,036 RAq I K-A Wp'cthni inrl 7n rArI n 1n7 n1l;Sources: 1. Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2. HCM 2010 3. The hourly volume for US-20 and US-6 was divided in half because the roadways merge and then diverge.Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 1 812 17 1,531 306 0 0 0 0 2,666 2 1,313 28 200 0 0 0 0 0 1,541 3 2,589 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,643 4 257 5 0 134 0 0 0 0 396 5 5,370 112 607 174 93 1,670 0 0 8,026 6 162 3 426 86 0 0 0 0 677 7 1,085 23 900 0 0 0 0 0 2,008 8 1,637 34 707 0 0 0 0 0 2,378 9 5,898 124 8,715 153 139 1,876 0 0 16,905 10 0 0 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 2,700 11 1,280 27 100 0 0 0 0 0 1,407 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 631 3,785 0 4,416 1.2.Special Facilities includes both medical facilities and correctional facilities Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 1 469 0 771 291 0 0 0 0 1,530 2 758 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 850 3 1,487 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,493 4 149 0 0 128 0 0 0 0 276 5 3,089 6 317 166 19 66 0 0 3,669 6 94 0 191 82 0 0 0 0 366 7 623 4 415 0 0 0 0 0 1,044 8 945 4 248 0 0 0 0 0 1,195 9 3,406 8 3,232 146 26 70 0 0 6,881 10 0 0 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 1,644 11 737 2 50 0 0 0 0 0 755 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 20 2,180 36,850 39,050--- , -I--- ......iu ......es. r ................
pse evnI.:-Ie.
twierto--P-
...a..I-f- 0 rui- dUU-ILI.:fld-I I ..... J l L.UII 1401c: muses represented as two passenger venicies.
me rtoaec;tionoturauuiLionaiiniurmaLion.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 2