Text

Evacuation Time Estimate Update
	ML13214A047
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	07/31/2013
From:	Boone C; IEM
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
	NL-13-1604 IEM/TEC12-1001
	Download: ML13214A047 (133)
	v • d • e

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Update Enclosure Evacuation Time Estimate for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant

November 2012, Revised July 2013 Evacuation Time Estimates for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant IEM/TEC12-1001

Prepared For Mr. Chris Boone Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

P. 0. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Voice: (205) 992-6635 Prepared By IEM, Inc.

2400 Ellis Road Suite 200 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Voice: (919) 990-8191 Prepared Under Purchase Order: SNC 10030793, Item # 001 PTV Vision is a registered trademark of PTV AG. TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau. NAVTEQ TM is a trademark of NAVTEQ.

This page intentionally left blank.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

[EXEoUTIVO

SUMMARY

In order to ensure the safety of the public living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in the nation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires the plants to update their evacuation times estimates (ETEs) within the 10-mile radius emergency planning zone (EPZ) as local conditions change (e.g., significant changes in population, change in the type of effectiveness of public notification system, etc.).

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) contracted IEM to estimate evacuation times for the 2012 populations within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ surrounding the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP). This document describes the methods used to obtain population data and to estimate evacuation times. It also reports the estimated population figures, evacuation road network information, and ETEs.

In compliance with the guidelines outlined in the NRC's Criteria for Dev'elopmnent of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies (NUREG/CR-7002), this report breaks down the population by geographic areas and protective action zones (PAZ).I As described in NUREG/CR-7002, four population segments have been identified in this report:

permanent residents and transient population; transit dependent permanent residents; special facility residents; and school populations. The permanent resident population is made up of individuals residing in the 10-mile EPZ. The total year 2012 permanent resident populations within the 10-mile EPZ for HNP are estimated to be 8,609. The transient population consists of workers employed within the area, recreational sportsmen, and visitors. The total transient population within the 10-mile EPZ is estimated to be 1,841, which includes 657 workers at HNP. The populations of two public schools and one state-sponsored special facility in the HNP EPZ were identified.

In these analyses, the study team contacted the schools and the special facility within the EPZ area to collect current enrollment and staff figures. The total peak population for the schools is estimated at 977, and the special facility is estimated to be 66. Transit dependent permanent residents in the 10-mile EPZ are estimated to be 74. This study also considered the voluntary evacuees, who are also known as shadow evacuees that reside within 10 to 15 miles from HNP.

IEM used PTV Vision VISUM-a computer traffic simulation model-to perform the ETE analyses. For the analyses, the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ was divided into 17 unique geographic areas based on two-mile, five-mile, and ten-mile radius rings, the 16 22.5-degree PAZs, as well as keyhole and staged evacuation logic. In order to represent the most realistic emergency scenarios, evacuations for the 17 geographic evacuation areas were modeled individually for the midweek daytime, midweek -

weekend evening, and weekend daytime scenarios. Each of these scenarios was then considered under both normal and adverse weather conditions using the 2012 population estimations. A total of 102 evacuation scenarios were considered to represent different wind, temporal, seasonal and weather conditions.

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

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7002/ (last accessed October 12, 2012).

IEM 2012 Page i

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Both 100% and 90% ETEs for each scenario were collected. The 100% ETEs for 2012 normal weather conditions ranged from 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 50 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 35 minutes. The 100% ETEs for 2012 adverse weather conditions ranged from 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 55 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 55 minutes. The 90% ETEs for 2012 normal weather conditions ranged from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 35 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 45 minutes. The 90% ETEs for 2012 adverse weather conditions ranged from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 40 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months . The factors that contributed to the variations in ETEs between scenarios include differences in the number of evacuating vehicles, the capacity of the evacuation routes used, and the distance from the origin zones to the EPZ boundary.

Based on the data gathered and the results of the evacuation simulations, the existing evacuation strategy is functional for the 2012 conditions, given the lack of severe congestion or very high ETEs. However, the following recommendations will help emergency managers to improve the evacuation times from an event at HNP:

" ETEs can also be reduced by implementing additional measures that will shorten the elapsed time between the incident's occurrence and the time the public uses to take the required protective action-especially for the recreational area users, such as hunters and fishermen.

" Continue working through existing public outreach efforts to educate residents of how best to evacuate the EPZ and to clearly identify the location of the reception centers.

" Use traffic control points (TCP) to facilitate flow in populated areas where vehicles might otherwise have to slow down due to congestion and intersection control.

" Alter Evacuation Route 1, use SR-15 to get to CR-337 (Lyons-Center Road) instead of using CR-i 15 (Aimwell Road Ext). SR-15 is a straight wide road and has a major intersection with U.S. Hwy 1. CR-i 15 (Aimwell Road Ext) is paved but is a minor road and has a couple major curves.

" Developing comprehensive regional evacuation plans and/or working with local and state road/transportation departments to suggest improvements to the road infrastructure can contribute to a more successful evacuation.

Note:

This report was updated in July 2013 to modify the assumptions for school evacuation timing to be consistent with NUREG/CR-7002.

Page ii IEM 20+/-2 Page ii IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................

I 1.1.

Site Location......................................................................................................

1 1.2.

Emergency Planning Zone...............................................................................

3 1.3.

Comparison with Previous ETE Study...........................................................

4 2.0 Assum ptions and M ethodology..................................................................

7 2.1.

General Assumptions.........................................................................................

7 2.2.

M ethodology......................................................................................................

8 2.3.

Sources of Data.................................................................................................

8 2.4.

Scenarios M odeled.............................................................................................

9 2.5.

Evacuation Areas M odeled.............................................................................

12 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation........................................

15 3.1.

Permanent Residents......................................................................................

15 3.1.1. Auto-Owning Population..................................................................................................

17 3.1.2. Non-Auto-Owning Population.........................................................................................

17 3.1.3. Resident Population Summary.........................................................................................

17 3.2.

Transient Populations.....................................................................................

19 3.2.1. T ransient F acilities................................................................................................................

2 2 3.3.

Transit Dependent Permanent Residents......................................................

22 3.4.

Special Facility and School Populations........................................................

23 3.5.

Vehicle Occupancy Rate..................................................................................

25 3.6.

Sum mary of Demand Estimation.................................................................

26 4.0 Evacuation Roadw ay Network..................................................................

29 4.1.

Network Definition..........................................................................................

30 4.2.

Evacuation Route Descriptions......................................................................

31 4.3.

Evacuation Network Characteristics.............................................................

35 5.0 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate M ethodology................................................

39 5.1.

Loading of the Evacuation Network.............................................................

39 5.1.1. Trip Generation Events and Activities..............................................................................

39 5.1.2. Trip Generation Time Estimate......................................................................................

42 5.1.3. Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents.................................

44 5.1.4. Trip Generation Time for Schools and Special Facilities................................................

45 IEM 20:12 Page ill

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 5.2.

Evacuation Simulation...................................................................................

46 5.2.1. T he D em and M odel.........................................................................................................

47 5.2.2. T he N etw ork M odel.........................................................................................................

47 5.2.3. T he Im pact M odel................................................................................................................

5 1 6.0 Analysis of Evacuation Tim es..................................................................

53 6.1.

Summary of ETE Results for General Public.............................................

53 6.2.

Discussion of Scenario Results......................................................................

56 6.2.1. G eneral T rend s.....................................................................................................................

5 6 6.2.2. E vacuation A rea: 0-2 M iles.............................................................................................

56 6.2.3. E vacuation A rea: 0-5 M iles.............................................................................................

57 6.2.4. Evacuation A rea: 0-10 M iles...........................................................................................

57 6.3.

ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents........................ 58 6.4.

ETE Results for Special Facility and School Populations...........................

58 6.5.

Example Model Output..................................................................................

58 7.0 Supplem ental Analysis............................................................................

6i 7.1.

Confirmation of Evacuation..........................................................................

61 7.2.

Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures...............................................................................................................

62 8.0 Sensitivity Study on Population Change................................................

65 9.0 Conclusion and Recom m endations........................................................

67 9.1.

Summary of Recommendations....................................................................

68 Appendix A: Geographical Boundaries of Evacuation Zones........................

A-1 Appendix B: Evacuation Network Links (Detailed Information)....................

B-1 Appendix C: Telephone Survey..........................................................................

C-1 Introduction...................................................................................................................

C-1 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan..................................................................

C-1 Survey Results...............................................................................................................

C-2 Appendix D: PTV Vision Quality Assurance and Industry Acceptance Inform ation...........................................................................................................

D-1 Appendix E: ETE Review Criteria Checklist.......................................................

E-1 Page iv IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figures and Tables Figure 1: Hatch Nuclear Plant Site Location............................................................................................

2 Figure 2: HNP EPZ Boundary and Protective Action Zones..................................................................

4 Table 1: ETE Com parison Chart.......................................................................................................................

4 Table 2: ETE Scenarios M odeled*............................................................................................................

10 Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole.............................................................

13 Figure 3: Example of the Area Ratio Method Applied to a Census Block Divided into Sub-Areas..... 16 Table 4: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Sector and Ring........................

17 Figure 4:2012 HNP Sector and Ring Permanent Resident Population Map...................................

18 Table 5: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Zones...........................................

19 Table 6: Transient Population Distribution by Sector and Ring.........................................................

20 Figure 5: HNP Sector and Ring Transient Populations Map................................................................

21 Table 7: Transient Population Distribution by Zones..........................................................................

21 Table 8: Peak and Average Transient Population...............................................................................

22 Table 9: Transit Dependent Permanent Residents...............................................................................

23 Table 10: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Information...................................

23 Table 11: Special Facility and School Locations...................................................................................

24 Table 12: Special Facility and School Evacuation Information...........................................................

24 Figure 6: Map of Special Facilities and Schools within the EPZ.........................................................

25 Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by Population Categories...........................................................

26 Table 14: Population Summary Table....................................................................................................

26 Table 15: Vehicle Sum m ary Table.........................................................................................................

27 Figure 7: HNP Evacuation Network..........................................................................................................

30 Table 16: Reception Centers.........................................................................................................................

33 Figure 8: Evacuation Routes with Numbers and Reception Centers.................................................

34 Table 17: Intersection Control Type.......................................................................................................

35 Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections..............................................................

37 Figure 9: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Transients, Special Facilities (Series A)........ 40 Figure 10: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning H om e (Series B)...............................................................................................................................................

40 IEM 2012 Page v IEM 2012 Page v

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences with Family Members Returning H om e (S eries C)...............................................................................................................................................

4 1 Table 19: Trip Generation Estimate for Different Evacuation Activity Series..................................

41 Figure 12: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems......................................

43 Figure 13: Distribution of Trip Generation Times by Population Group.............................................

44 Table 20: Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents................................

45 Table 21: Trip Generation Time for Population in Special Facilities and Schools............................

45 Figure 14: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM.............................................................................

46 Figure 15: Roadway Type Classification Method..................................................................................

48 Table 22: Grade Adjustment Factors (fG)....................................................................................................

49 Table 23: Adjustment (fnp) for Effect of No-Passing Zones on Average Travel Speed on Two-Way S eg m ents..........................................................................................................................................................

5 0 Table 24: 2012 100% ETEs in Minutes..................................................................................................

54 Table 25:2012 90% ETEs in Minutes....................................................................................................

55 Table 26: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Times...............................................

58 Table 27: Special Facility and School Evacuation Times.....................................................................

58 Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percents at Exit Roads.............................................................

59 Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes.................................................................

59 Figure 16: Mobilization and Evacuation Curve....................................................................................

60 Table 30: Traffic Control Points for the HNP EPZ...................................................................................

62 Figure 17: Traffic Control Points in and around HNP EPZ...................................................................

64 Table 31: Potential Congestion Points for the HNP EPZ.....................................................................

67 Table 32: Geographical Boundaries of HNP EPZ Evacuation Zones......................................................

A-1 Figure 18: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant...........................................

B-1 Figure 19: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant.................................................

B-2 Figure 20: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant................................................

B-3 Figure 21: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant................................................

B-4 Table 33: Glossary of Attributes for Roadway Characteristics........................................................

B-5 Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics........................................................................................

B-5 Table 35: H ousehold Size..............................................................................................................................

C-2 Figure 22: H ousehold Size............................................................................................................................

C-2 Page vi IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 36: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate During the Day............................................................

C-3 Figure 23: Number of cars used to evacuate during the day..................................................................

C-3 Table 37: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate at Night........................................................................

C-4 Figure 24: Number of cars used to evacuate at night..............................................................................

C-4 Table 38: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate on Weekends........................................................

C-5 Figure 25: Number of cars used to evacuate on weekends.............................................................

C-5 Table 39: Percentage who rely on public transportation to evacuate...................................................

C-6 Figure 26: Number who rely on public transportation to evacuate........................................................

C-6 Table 40: Percentage of Respondents who indicated there are commuters in the family................ C-7 Figure 27: Number who commutes at least 4 times per week...............................................................

C-7 Table 41: Time to Return Home from Work..........................................................................................

C-8 Figure 28: Tim e to return hom e from work................................................................................................

C-8 Table 42: Percentage who would Evacuate or Wait..........................................................................

C-8 Table 43: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations during the Day..................................................

C-9 Figure 29: Time to complete evacuation preparations during the day..................................................

C-9 Table 44: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations at Night...........................................................

C-10 Figure 30: Time to complete evacuation preparations at night...........................................................

C-10 Table 45: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations on Weekends............................................

C-11 Figure 31: Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends............................................

C-11 Table 46: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance.....

C-12 Figure 32: Number of family members who require evacuation assistance................................

C-12 Table 47: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance............ C-13 Figure 33: Type of Evacuation Assistance Required........................................................................

C-13 Table 48: NUREG/CR-7002 ETE Review Criteria Checklist.................................................................

E-1 IEM 20i2 Page vii IEM 2012 Page vii

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant This page intentionally left blank.

Page viii IEM 2012 Page viii IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 1.0IINTRODUCTION The Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, also known as Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), is jointly owned by Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electrical Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton. The plant is operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). In order to ensure the safety of the public living in the vicinity of HNP, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires nuclear power plants in the nation to conduct evacuation studies for the population within the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) at regular intervals. This population evacuation study fulfills regulatory requirements outlined in the NRC Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies (NUREG/CR-7002).2 SNC contracted IEM to perform a population evacuation study for the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway EPZ surrounding HNP. This document presents the results of that study. It describes the assumptions and methodologies used by IEM to obtain population and evacuation network data and to perform evacuation time estimates (ETE) analyses. ETEs in this evacuation study incorporate the actual population numbers' for the year 2012. This document reports the updated population figures, evacuation road network information, and ETEs.

The study is consistent with the requirements specified in NUREG/CR-7002 guidelines.

The study is intended to provide information for State and local officials, and HNP emergency management personnel to effectively plan for an accidental event at the plant.

1.1. Site Location HNP is located on the southern bank of the Altamaha River along U.S. Hwy 1 in Appling County, Georgia. The City of Baxley is approximately 11 miles south of the plant and is the nearest significant population center from the plant. The City of Hazlehurst is approximately 15 miles west; the City of Reidsville is approximately 18 miles east; and the cities of Vidalia and Lyons are approximately 20 miles north of the plant. The plant is approximately 75 miles west-southwest of Savannah, Georgia.

Figure lshows the location of the HNP site.

2 NRC. Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies (NUREG/CR-7002) guidelines. November 2011.

3 SNC 2012 first-quarter population estimates IEM 2012 Page I

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT LEGEND ONashville HNP Tennessee 0 state Capital 0

Town/City North Carolina State Boundary South Carolina AtlantaoColumbia Atlanta 0

MO NT Alabama M n SAO Macon 0Ida*

TOOMBSfl Montgomery G e o r g a a Vidalia Lyons D

9 Y

Uvalda Savannah APPLING Hazlehurst, 9 Reidsville Baxley Hatch EPZ F I o r i d a 40 20 0

40M1 I

I j

70 35 0

70Kmn I ich = 82 M or 132 Km (a*rox.)

FH1:5gHe,0e Figure 1: Hatch Nuclear Plant Site Location Page 2 IEM 2012 Page 2 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 1.2. Emergency Planning Zone The plume exposure pathway EPZ includes the majority of the 10-mile geographic area surrounding HNP. The land within the plume exposure pathway is divided almost equally by the Altamaha River. The HNP EPZ covers portions of Appling, Toombs, Jeff Davis, and Tattnall counties in Georgia. The EPZ is primarily a rural farming and lumber harvesting area with no concentrated population centers. The transient population in the EPZ is minimal with the exception of recreational users along the Altamaha River and hunters at both the Bullard Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the Moody Forest Natural Area.

The State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) 4 and the HNP Emergency Plan are the bases for the geographical and political boundaries for the EPZ. For evacuation and emergency response planning purposes, the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway EPZ has been divided into 16 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) known as protective action zones (PAZ).5 The PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from HNP's 2012 emergency information calendar 6, the county REPs 7, and discussions with both SNC and HNP representatives. The PAZs were selected based on existing political boundaries and prominent physical features--either natural (e.g., rivers and lakes) or man-made (e.g., roads and bridges)-to enhance direction and coordination of the public in the affected area. Figure 2 shows a map of the PAZs for HNP. Appendix A of this document contains boundary descriptions of the PAZs within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ of the plant.

4 State of Georgia REP - Annex A - Plant Hatch. Georgia Emergency Management Agency. July 2011 5 Protective Action Zone is also referred to as "Zone" in this document.

6 2012 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

7 State of Georgia REP Plan, Appling County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Jeff Davis County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Tattnall County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Toombs County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

IEM 2012 Page 3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 2: HNP EPZ Boundary and Protective Action Zones 1.3. Comparison with Previous ETE Study Table 1 identifies information that is useful in comparing the 2007 and 2012 ETE studies.

Note that the 2007 ETE study was modeled using both 2007 and 2010 estimated population data. For comparison purposes, Table 1 lists the information for the 2010 estimated population from the 2007 study, as well as the 2012 population from this study.

Table 1: ETE Comparison Chart Permanent Residents

- Total Population 7,988 8,609

- Vehicle Ratio 2.6 1.7-1.8 Page 4 IEM 2012 Page 4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

EEle1mont..

Previous ETE (for::20 10)*.

ý ý,!iUpdiate6d;:&Eý(,fo.'20,L2)7 Transit Dependent Population

- Total Population 0

74

- Number of Buses 0

139

- Number of Ambulances 0

21

- Number of Special Equipped Vehicles 0

7 Transient Population

- Total Population 1,600 1,841 Special Facilities

- Total Population 72 66

- Number of Buses 2

2

- Other Transportation Resources Private vehicles Private vehicles Schools

- Total Student Population 927 830

- Number of Buses 19 19 Shadow Evacuation Percent Estimated 0

20%

Special Event(s)

- Population N/A N/A

- Location N/A N/A

- Duration N/A N/A Adverse Weather (rain, snow, ice, fog)

Heavy rain Heavy rain Evacuation Model - name and version VISUMIO VISUM11 Scenarios Combination of time Combination of time Assumptions (Weekday, Weeknight, Weekend) and weather (adverse and normal)

" One evacuation vehicle per household for residents

Mobilization time for resident and transient population are based on literature8

" No shadow evacuation considered (Weekday, Weeknight, Weekend) and weather (adverse and normal)

Vehicle occupancy rates for residents are based on telephone survey

Mobilization time for resident and transient population are based on telephone survey

20% of residents in 10-15 mile ring are shadow evacuees 8 Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies (ORNL-6615). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

IEM 2012 Page 5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 6 IEM 2012 Page 6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2.0 ASSUMPTIO NS AND METHODOLOGY 2.1. General Assumptions IEM made the following general assumptions to model the population evacuation study:

" The ETEs include the times associated with warning diffusion, public mobilization, and travel time out of the EPZ. The ETE is measured from the time that instructions were first made available to the public within the EPZ (e.g., initial emergency alert system [EAS] broadcast). Mobilization of the public begins after initial notification.

" Following initial notification, all persons within the EPZ will evacuate. 100% ETE will be considered as the time when all evacuating vehicles are outside the EPZ. 90%

ETE will be considered as the time when 90% of the evacuating vehicles are outside the EPZ.

Existing lane utilization patterns will prevail during the course of the evacuation.

There will be traffic control points (TCP) in the network to allow efficient flow of traffic toward the reception centers.

" Reception centers are modeled as defined in the 2012 emergency information calendar.

" Non-auto-owning households will evacuate with neighbors, friends, and relatives, or they will be evacuated through coordinated efforts by State and county emergency management officials. This is also consistent with the 2012 emergency information calendar and county REPs.

" The major adverse weather condition in the area is considered as heavy rain. To model the population evacuation during adverse weather conditions, the free flow speeds are reduced by 15%, and the road capacities are reduced by 10%.

" The evacuation is ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented.

" Schools and special facilities receive initial notification the same time as the rest of the EPZ, which is consistent with NUREG/CR 7002.

" A shadow evacuation of 20% of the permanent resident population was assumed to occur in areas outside of the evacuation area being assessed extending to 15 miles from the HNP. The vehicle occupancy rates and trip generation times of shadow evacuees are consistent with those of residents within the EPZ.

" Information such as the number of vehicles by the residents during the evacuation and mobilization times are estimated based on a telephone survey on the residents within the EPZ.

Located in a rural area, there is little pass-through traffic and the majority of the trips are home-work trips made by the local residents within the EPZ. Due to this nature, IEM assumed that minimum background traffic would exist after the evacuees start to IEM 2012 Page 7 IEM 2012 Page 7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT load into the roadway network. No significant impact of pass-through traffic on the ETEs is expected.

" Buses used to evacuate schools and special facilities are loaded to capacity.

Shadow evacuation of 20 percent of the residents in 10-15 mile ring would occur when an evacuation order is issued.

2.2. Methodology IEM used PTV Vision VISUM (version 11), a computer simulation model, to perform the ETEs for the HNP site.9 PTV Vision is the leading software suite for transportation planning and operations analyses used in more than 70 countries. Detailed information on the evacuation time analysis methodology using PTV Vision is provided in Section 5.2.

PTV Vision quality assurance and industry acceptance information is provided in Appendix D.

2.3. Sources of Data The most up-to-date data sources were reviewed and analyzed to prepare appropriate input data for running the traffic simulation and providing the best ETEs. The data sources are explained below:

" Geographical and political boundaries for the EPZ were obtained from the State of Georgia REP.

" The 16 PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from the State of Georgia REP°0,

HNP's 2012 emergency information calendar, the county REPs 12, and discussions with SNC and HNP representatives.

" The 2012 population estimates, as well as business location data, were obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the 2012 Plant Hatch Tone Alert Radio (TAR)

Database, and the population estimates from Synergos Technologies, Inc.13 The peak and average estimated employment level at HNP obtained from the SNC representatives reflects office or operations personnel.

Roadway geometric data was obtained from PTV. PTV data is based on high-quality, regularly updated, NAVTEQ street network data. NAVTEQ networks are detailed 9 PTV Vision can be found online at http://www.ptvamerica.com.

10 State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan - Annex B - Plant Farley. Georgia Emergency Management Agency. January 2009.

11 2012 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

12State of Georgia REP Plan, Appling County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011 State of Georgia REP Plan, Jeff Davis County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Tattnall County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Toombs County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

13 Synergos Technologies, Inc. Online: http://www.synergos-tech.com.

Page 8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT and include neighborhood streets in every community in North America. This data was validated by IEM during a "ground truthing" field trip in April 2012.

" Roadway and intersection approach capacities were calculated using the concepts and procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual14 published by the Transportation Research Board.

" Warning diffusion and mobilization times were based on the data presented in Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies15 published by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The data in this report was collected during evacuations executed in response to large-scale chemical spills, and explicitly incorporates the time required for communication of the warning (warning diffusion) and the time required for an individual to respond to the warning (mobilization). The data collected in this meta-study were based on transient and permanent populations.

Section 5.1.1 of this report provides more information on warning diffusion and mobilization time assumptions.

" Vehicle occupancy rates for the different population categories were derived based on telephone survey and discussions with the counties' and plant's emergency planning staffs. Section 3.0 provides more information on population and vehicle demand assumptions.

" Agencies participating in the study are provided below. These agencies participated in an initial briefing for the study and provided input regarding specifics for the data and assumptions for the ETE within their jurisdiction.

Georgia Emergency Management Agency

Appling County Emergency Management Agency

Toombs County Emergency Management Agency

Tattnall County Emergency Management Agency

Jeff Davis County Emergency Management Agency 2.4. Scenarios Modeled In accordance with NUREG/CR-7002 guidelines, ETEs for each of the evacuation areas (refer to Table 3) have been prepared for different temporal and weather conditions.

Based on the discussion with the SNC emergency planning staff, estimates have been prepared for both normal and adverse weather conditions for midweek daytime, midweek

- weekend night, and weekend daytime.

Normal weather refers to conditions where roads are clear and dry and visibility is not impaired. Adverse weather refers to rainy or snowy conditions where road capacities are reduced by 10% and speed limits are reduced by 15%.

14 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity, Manual. Washington, D.C. 2000.

IS Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies (ORNL-6615). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

IEM 2012 Page 9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Evacuation conditions are modeled for the populations of the year 2012. Table 2 presents the snapshot of the ETE scenarios that were modeled for the study.

Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled*

Scenario Day Time Weather I

Midweek Daytime Normal 2

Midweek Daytime Adverse 3

Midweek and Weekend Night Normal 4

Midweek and Weekend Night Adverse 5

Weekend Daytime Normal 6

Weekend Daytime Adverse

Per discussions with SNC emergency planning staff, special events and seasonal variation scenarios were not modeled. However, due to a potential for more recreational population during the fall months, peak recreational population numbers were used for the weekend scenarios (5 and 6).

The various population components for different scenarios are summarized below:

" Midweek Daytime - Normal Weather: This situation represents a typical normal weather weekday period when the workforce is at a full daytime level. Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

" Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

The plant site employment is at an estimated peak daytime level.

Workplaces are fully staffed at daytime levels.

Schools are in session.

Recreational activities, such as hunting and fishing, are at daytime levels.

" Midweek Daytime - Adverse Weather: This situation represents an adverse weather weekday period when the workforce is at a full daytime level. Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

" Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

The plant site employment is at an estimated peak daytime level.

Workplaces are fully staffed at daytime levels.

Schools are in session.

" Midweek and Weekend Evening - Normal Weather: This situation reflects a typical normal weather evening period when the workforce is at a nighttime level.

Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

a Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

Page 10 iEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

The plant site is staffed at an estimated peak nighttime level.

Workplaces are at nighttime levels.

Schools are closed.

There are no recreational (hunting and fishing) activities.

" Midweek and Weekend Evening - Adverse Weather: This situation reflects an adverse weather evening period when the workforce is at a nighttime level.

Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

The plant site is staffed at an estimated peak nighttime level.

" Workplaces are at nighttime levels.

" Schools are closed.

There are no recreational (hunting and fishing) activities.

" Weekend Daytime - Normal Weather: The normal weather weekend situation represents a daytime period when recreational activities are at peak levels. This condition would most likely occur during any weekend day during the hunting season. Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

The plant site is at an estimated peak weekend level.

Workplaces are at weekend levels.

Schools are closed.

Recreational (hunting and fishing) activities are at a peak estimated level.

" Weekend Daytime - Adverse Weather: The adverse weather weekend situation represents a daytime period when recreational activities are at peak levels. This condition would most likely occur during any weekend day during the hunting season. Assumptions on the population levels for this condition include the following:

Permanent residents within the EPZ will evacuate from their places of residence.

The plant site is at an estimated peak weekend level.

Workplaces are at weekend levels.

Schools are closed.

Recreational (hunting and fishing) activities are at a peak estimated level.

IEM 20+/-2 Page ii IEM 2012 Page 11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 2.5. Evacuation Areas Modeled NUREG/CR-7002 recommends that the EPZ be subdivided into evacuation areas for performing the evacuation time estimate analyses. 16 As indicated in Table 3, each evacuation area includes one or more affected PAZ's to support the various evacuation logic including keyhole and staged evacuations. Based on the geography and political boundaries in the EPZ, 17 unique areas were defined by IEM for the HNP EPZ, in agreement with the SNC personnel. As shown in the lower part of Table 3, separates evacuation areas are modeled for the 0-2 mile zone and the 2-5 mile zone to support protective action decision making for a staged evacuation.

16NUREG/CR-7002. Table 1-4, p. 8.

Page 12 IEM 2012 Page 12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole Affected PAZs Evacuation A

B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 B-oI C-1o D-0I E-0I F-OI G-IO I-H-10 1-10 J--O K-0I L-1O (ERPAs)

Area A

0-2 miles X

A, B-5, C-5, D-5, 0-5 miles x

x x

E-5 All 16 0-jo

miles, Evacuation Full EPZ X X X

X X

X Zones Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind Wind Affected PAZs (ERPAs)

Direction (from)

A B-5 C-5 D-6 E-5 B-IO C-10 D-1O E-jO F-IO G-10 H-10 1-10 J-jO K-IO L-1O B-5, C-5 N

X X

B-5, C-5 NNE X

X C-5 NE X

C-5 ENE X

C-5 E

X C-5, D-5 ESE X

x C-5, D-5 SE X

X D-5, E-5 SSE X

X D-5, E-5 S

X X

E-5 SSW X

E-5 SW x

E-5, B-5 WSW X

X E-5, B-5 W

X X

IEM 2012 Page 13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Affected PAZs Evacuation Al B-5 C-5 ID-5I E-5 I B-0I C-o0 D-0I E-IO F-OI G-IO H-0I 1-10 J-l0 K-0I L-IO (ERPAs)

Area

[11i_

B-5 WNW X

B-5 NW X

B-5 NNW X

Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind Wind Affected PAZs (ERPAs)

Direction (from)

A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 B-IO C-jO D-jO E-jO F-1O G-jO H-iO 140 J-lO K-IO L-IO A, B-5, C-5 N

X X

X A, B-5, C-5 NNE X

X X

A, C-5 NE X

X A, C-5 ENE X

X A, C-5 E

X X

A, C-5, D-5 ESE X

X X

A, C-5, D-5 SE X

X X

A, D-5, E-5 SSE X

X X

A, D-5, E-5 S

X X

X A, E-5 SSW X

X A, E-5 SW X

X A, E-5, B-5 WSW X

X X

A, E-5, B-5 W

X X

X A, B-5 WNW X

X A, B-5 NW X

X A, B-5 NNW X

X Page 14 IEM 2012 Page 14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT J3, 0:PoPULAT1.ON AND V EH"ICLE"DE'MANID EB iM*ATIV0N IEM identified four population segments 17 within the EPZ surrounding HNP, as specified in the NUREG/CR-7002 guidelines. These populations include the permanent residents and transient population, transit dependent permanent residents, special facility residents, and school populations. The permanent resident population is made up of individuals residing in the 10-mile EPZ. The transient population is comprised of individuals working and/or visiting within the EPZ but not living there. For instance, the transient population consists of workers employed within the area, recreational sportsmen, and visitors to the area. The transit dependent population includes permanent residents who do not have access to a vehicle or are dependent upon help from outside the home to evacuate (e.g., lift equipped vehicles or ambulances). Populations at two public schools and one state-sponsored facility (categorized as a special facility) in the HNP EPZ were identified. The schools and special facility populations may require additional consideration in the event of an evacuation.

HNP is located in a rural area of Georgia. There are no concentrated population centers, and there is minimal transient population within the 10-mile EPZ. The transient facilities include the various employers, the HNP, and the parks/hunter/boater recreational attraction sites. The majority of the population consists of permanent residents, workers, school students, and a varying number of recreational visitors who are mainly located on or around the Altamaha River, Bullard Creek WMA, and the Moody Forest Natural Area.

IEM derived the 2012 permanent population estimates, as well as business location data, from 2010 Census, the 2012 Plant Hatch TAR Database, the SNC 2012 first-quarter population estimates, and the population estimates obtained from Synergos Technologies, Inc. Local school data was obtained through contact with the individual facilities. The recreational visitors' population figures were based on discussions with the HNP's emergency planning staff, and staff from the Toombs County Forestry Office. After discussion with the appropriate facilities and the site emergency planning personnel, it was estimated that the 2010 school and recreational user information applies to the year 2012 since no major change in the land use pattern within the EPZ. These population estimates formed the basis for determining the evacuee demand used in the analyses for any given evacuation scenario. The populations from these sources were assigned to each applicable zone.

3.1. Permanent Residents IEM used GIS software to process the geographic data and associated population counts for census blocks in each of the counties surrounding HNP. IEM then aggregated these populations over each zone to generate a permanent resident population count, which is comprised of the nighttime population.

17 Special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were not identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

IEM 20:12 Page 15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT To calculate population by each zone and radial sector, census block populations were aggregated within each of the sectors. Since boundaries of the sectors do not follow census block boundaries, many of the blocks had to be divided into sub-areas based on sector boundaries. To do this, IEM overlaid the census blocks with the zones and 10-mile radius sectors. The blocks were then split into sub-areas and allocated the block population to the sub-areas based on an area ratio method. The populations of the block sub-areas within the sector boundaries were then aggregated for each radius sector.

The area ratio method assigns each sub-area a portion of the block population based on the ratio of the area of each block part to the area of the entire block. For example, if a particular sub-area contains one-fourth the area of the total block area, the sub-area receives one-fourth of the block's total population. Figure 3 illustrates this principle, in which one-fourth of the total area is located in the sub-area and it includes one-fourth of the population. The area ratio method assumes that the population within the block is evenly distributed, a reasonable assumption in most cases.

The populations of the block sub-areas within the sector boundaries were then aggregated for each sector. This method was also used in the few instances in which the zone boundaries did not follow block boundaries, making it necessary to split blocks along a particular zone boundary. Additionally, the permanent resident population is divided into auto-owning versus non-auto-owning populations.

Figure 3: Example of the Area Ratio Method Applied to a Census Block Divided into Sub-Areas Page 16 IEM 2012 Page 16 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 3.1.1. Auto-Owning Population IEM collected information for auto-owning population by conducting a telephone survey of the residents within the HNP EPZ. The survey indicates an average household size of 2.4 persons for the HNP EPZ. The collected data also indicate that 99% of the households within the EPZ have at least one vehicle per household. Additionally, the respondents indicated that each household would use an average of 1.3 to 1.4 vehicles during the evacuation depending on the day of the week and time of the day.

3.1.2. Non-Auto-Owning Population The telephone survey indicates that 1% of the households within the EPZ do not own a vehicle. It is assumed that privately-owned vehicles of friends and/or relatives will be available to evacuate the majority of this population component. This assumption is used since it provides the most realistic representation of evacuation traffic generated from the non-auto-owning households. For an estimate of the vehicle demand associated with the non-auto-owning population, IEM assumed one vehicle would be made available to evacuate each household. This is based on the assumptions stated above that a family would use a vehicle from neighbors, friends, and relatives, or they will be evacuated through coordinated efforts by county emergency management officials.

3.1.3. Resident Population Summary Table 4 shows the distribution of the 2012 total permanent resident population (including the shadow evacuation population in the 10 to 15 mile area) by sector and ring, while Figure 4 presents the same data for 2-5 mile, 5-10 mile, and 10-15 mile 22.5 degree sectors graphically. Note that the population numbers in the box outside the 15 mile radius do not include the population within the 2 mile radius.

Table 4: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Sector and Ring Cumnulative Population Mile Subtotal by Ring Population Populationi 0-2 288 288 2-3 499 787 3-4 445

.232 4-5 541 1773 5-6 823 2596 6-7 1,147 3,743 7-8 1,202 4,945 8-9 1,503 6,448 9-10 2,418 8,866 10-41 4,496 13,362 IEM 2012 Page 17 IEM 2012 Page 17

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 11-12 5,660 19,022 12-13 4,185 23,207 13-14 3,201 26,408 14-15 4,526 30,934 Figure 4: 2012 HNP Sector and Ring Permanent Resident Population Map Page 18 IEM 2012 Page 18 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 5 shows the distribution of the permanent resident population by zone.

Table 5: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Zones Permanent Resident Population' A

B-5 B-10 C-5 C-10 D-5 D-10 E-5 E-10 F-10 G-10 H-1O 1-10 J-lO K-10 L-1O 288 736 341 601 282 667 1,690 246 1,019 489 274 330 582 794 94 176 3.2. Transient Populations The transient population for the HNP EPZ area is derived from recreation populations, and employment data. The employment data was obtained from Synergos Technologies.

These populations were combined with other contributors, such as the percentage of the population that is of working age, to daytime population estimations and assigned to population centroids in a manner similar to the permanent resident populations. The daytime populations incorporate employment and workforce information, such as county working-age population and unemployment statistics.

The recreational population shown for the HNP site considers the use of Bullard Creek WMA and Moody Forest Natural Area by hunters, fishermen, and boaters on the Altamaha River. Through conversations with HNP's emergency planning staff and with staff from the Toombs County Forestry Office, JEM estimated there will be approximately 43 hunters/boaters throughout the EPZ on weekdays during the hunting season and approximately 305 hunters/boaters on peak weekends.

IEM 2012 Page 19 IEM 2012 Page 19

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.5 was used to estimate the number of vehicles used by recreational area users, such as hunters and fishermen.

Table 6 shows the distribution of the transient population by sector and ring, while Figure 5 presents the same data for 0-2 mile, 2-5 mile, and 5-10 mile 22.5 degree sectors graphically. Note that the population numbers in the box outside the 15 mile radius do not include the population within the 2 mile radius.

Table 6: Transient Population Distribution by Sector and Ring Cumnulative Population Miles Subtotal by Ring.

Poulation Poplulation.

0-2 692 692 2-3 41 733 3-4 52 785 4-5 70 855 5-6 108 963 6-7 156 1,119 7-8 190 1,309 8-9 213 1,522 9-10 304 1,826 Page 20 IEM 2012 Page 20 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 5: HNP Sector and Ring Transient Populations Map Table 7 shows the distribution of the transient population by zone.

Table 7: Transient Population Distribution by Zones A

692 B-5 148 B-10 40 C-5 55 C-10 112 D-5 84 D-10 116 E-5 22 E-10 251 F-10 26 IEM 2012 Page 21 IEM 2012 Page 21

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT G-1O 154 H-10 26 1-10 49 J-1O 51 K-10 14 L-IO 1

3.2.1. Transient Facilities As shown in Table 8, the transient facilities include the HNP site and parks/hunter/boater recreational attraction sites. HNP is the only large employer in the EPZ, which has peak number of workers at 675 during the weekdays. The peak recreational population occurs on fall weekend periods during the hunting season (normally mid-September through early January). It is estimated that approximately one-seventh of the peak recreational population is expected for other scenarios (weekday and weeknight). Table 8 shows the transient facilities' peak and average transient populations.

Table 8: Peak and Average Transient Population Peak Average.

Percentof Facility Type Facility Name County Zone Population Population Resident Employer Hatch Nuclear Plant Appling A

675 287 5%

Hunting Bullard Creek WMA Jeff Davis G-IO 195 33 50%

Hunting Moody Forest Natural Area Appling B-5 190 32 50%

Boat Landing Eason Bluff Appling B-1O 25 4

50%

Boat Landing Davis Appling B-10 25 4

50%

Boat Landing Morris Appling B-5 25 4

50%

Boat Landing Deans Appling A

25 4

50%

Boat Landing Red Bluff Jeff Davis G-IO 25 4

50%

Boat Landing Town Bluff Jeff Davis G-1O 25 4

50%

Boat Landing R4 - Altamaha River Toombs A

25 4

50%

Boat Landing Gray's Landing Toombs D-5 25 4

50%

Boat Landing McNatt Falls Landing Toombs H-10 25 4

50%

3.3. Transit Dependent Permanent Residents The transit dependent population includes permanent residents who do not have access to a vehicle or are dependent upon help from outside the home to evacuate (e.g., lift equipped vehicles or ambulances). The transit dependent permanent resident population in the HNP EPZ was obtained from the county EMAs through SNC emergency planning staff. As shown in Table 9 there are 74 transit dependent permanent residents in the 10-Page 22 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT mile EPZ. A roster of these individuals is maintained in the Appling, Jeff Davis, Toombs, and Tattnall County EOCs. The EMA Directors maintain coordination with the County Departments of Family and Children Services on maintenance of the roster and dispatching emergency transportation to evacuate as needed.

Table 9: Transit Dependent Permanent Residents Transit Dependent Category Appling County Jeff Davis County ToomlbsCotnty Tattnail County Wheelchair 2

5 6

1 Transportation 36 6

18 0

Immobile 0

0 0

0 To evacuate the transit dependent permanent residents, the counties have 139 buses that will travel their regular routes to provide transportation to those individuals lacking personal transportation. In addition, there are 21 ambulances and 7 special transport vehicles. The special equipped vehicles will be dispatched directly to the homes of non-ambulatory individuals requiring special or medical transportation means. The key information for evacuating the transit dependent population is shown in Table 10. The information shown includes the number of transit dependent permanent residents by category, number of evacuation vehicles by type and mobilization time, and evacuee loading time.

Table 10: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Information Transit Dependent, Category Population Number of Mobilization Time Loading Vehicles Time Wheelchair 14 7

15 min 5 min Transportation 60 139 15 min 2 min Immobile 0

21 10 min 10 min 3.4. Special Facility and School Populations As shown in Table 11, LEM has identified one special facility and two public schools within the EPZ. The special facility, AMIkids Baxley Wilderness Institute (BWI) 18, is a state-sponsored special school for at-risk and troubled kids. The two public schools are Altamaha Elementary School (AES) in Baxley (Appling County) and Toombs Central Elementary School (TCES) in Toombs Central (Toombs County). Figure 6 shows the location of these facilities.

Table 12 lists the key information for evacuating the population at these facilities. The information shown includes the enrollment, number of evacuation vehicles and its 18 http://www.amikids.org/

IEM 2012 Page 23 IEM 20:12 Page 23

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT mobilization time, evacuee loading time and distance from the facility to the EPZ boundary.

Although the schools and the special facility will require special consideration in an evacuation, it is estimated there are a sufficient number of evacuation vehicles and no return trips are needed. The evacuation vehicles at BWI are on-site, whereas the evacuation vehicles for AES and TCES will be dispatched from the school bus depot in each county. All evacuees from the schools will check in at the reception centers first, prior to being evacuated to their final destination. The BWI evacuees will check in by radio and directly evacuate to the designated receiving facility.

Table 11: Special Facility and School Locations Facility Name Address' City County Zone AMIkids Baxley Wilderness Institute 1510 Deen's Landing Road Baxley Appling C-5 Altamaha Elementary School 344 Altamaha School Road Baxley Appling C-5 Toombs Central Elementary School 6287 US Hwy 1 S Toombs Central Toombs J-10 Table 12: Special Facility and School Evacuation Information Population Number Mobilizati Lading Distance School Name N

b to EPZ Student Staff of Buses Time Time Boundary AMIkids Baxley Wilderness Institute 30 36 2

10 min 30 min 12 mi Altamaha Elementary School 300 51 6

25 min 15 min 7 mi Toombs Central Elementary School 530 96 11 25 min 15 min 2 mi Page 24 IEM 2012 Page 24 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 6: Map of Special Facilities and Schools within the EPZ 3.5. Vehicle Occupancy Rate Different vehicle occupancy rates (VOR) were used for the various categories of population (e.g., 1.3-1.4 vehicles per household for permanent residents; 1.5 people per vehicle for recreational area users). All workers were assumed to evacuate with a VOR of 1.25, whereas the recreational population was assumed to evacuate with a VOR of 1.5.

After consultation with SNC emergency planners, students were assumed to evacuate via buses at a rate of 52 students per bus, with the remaining school population departing in their own cars (occupancy rate of 1.0). Table 13 shows the VORs by different population categories used for the evacuation modeling.

IEM 2012 Page 25 IEM 2012 Page 25

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by Population Categories Population Category Population Subtype Vehicl, Occupancy. Rate Permanent Residents Auto-Owning Permanent 1.7-1.8 Non-Auto-Owning Permanent 2.4 Work Force Transients 1.25 Transients Recreational Transients 1.5 Students 15 Special Facility Staff 1.

Staff 1.0 Students 52 Staff 1.0 3.6. Summary of Demand Estimation The total evacuation population and vehicles for different types and different scenarios are summarized in Table 14 and Table 15. There are more resident evacuees during the night and weekend because people do not need to commute to work or school at those times. Transient evacuees are at peak levels during the weekday because the majority is workers. There is also a significant amount of transient population during the weekend, when the recreational population is at its peak level. It is assumed that there are few transient evacuees during the night. Because the only special facility, BWI, is a 24/7 run facility, the population for the special facility remains the same for all three scenarios.

The shadow evacuees, who are assumed to be 20% of residents in 10-15 mile ring, remain the same for the weeknight and weekend scenarios. There are fewer shadow evacuees during the weekday because a portion of the residents commute to work or school. Since the vehicle occupancy rates for residents (including shadow evacuees) and transient population are determined by telephone survey and vary by scenario, the evacuation can be different for different scenarios, even if the population remains the same.

Table 14: Population Summary Table Permanent Special Transit Shadow Transients Seilschools:Dpnet pplto Scenario residents facilities Dependent population Weekday 6,069 1,536 66 977 74 3,129 Weeknight 8,609 0

66 0

74 4,465 Weekend 8,609 305 66 0

74 4,465 Page 26 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 15: Vehicle Summary Table P Iermhanent Special Transit

'Shadow Scenario resideht Transients fcil Schools

c residehts facilities Dependent population Weekday 4,645 1,229 38 164 2,354 Weeknight 4,798 0

38 0

2,474 Weekend 5,051 204 38 0

2,604 IEM 2012 Page 27

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 28 IEM 2012 Page 28 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 4.0 EVACUATION -ROADWAY NETWORK The evacuation routes were modeled based on the information provided in the HNP 2012 emergency information calendar. Additional information regarding the evacuation routes was obtained from the past HNP ETE report and the county REPs. Maps and descriptions in both documents were used by IEM as the basis of network verification activity. IEM personnel also met with the HNP emergency response planning staff and county emergency preparedness officials regarding additional information and clarifications.

The 2012 emergency information calendar included a detailed description of the evacuation routes for each zone within the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway EPZ.

It provided descriptive information on recommended protective actions and the names and locations of reception centers for each PAZ. The map in the calendar clearly marks the evacuation routes and the direction of evacuation towards the respective reception centers. The reception centers are located well beyond the 10-mile EPZ.

IEM personnel drove along the designated evacuation routes in the direction of an evacuation, as marked on the emergency information calendar to collect complete and accurate information about the physical state of the roads. Any differences between information indicated in the calendar, NAVTEQ data, and existing field conditions were noted and were incorporated into the analyses, as necessary. Figure 7 shows the entire evacuation network (including the routes for shadow evacuees) that is modeled.

IEM 2012 Page 29 IEM 2012 Page 29

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT lReception Ceti Figure 7: HNP Evacuation Network 4.1. Network Definition IEM performed a complete review of the evacuation roadway network. The evacuation network was developed using published evacuation routes and GIS road network data representing roads available from NAVTEQ19 and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT).20 The high accuracy NAVTEQ street network GIS data, obtained for the PTV Vision simulation software, was used for field validation purposes and to build the digital evacuation network database. The GDOT data was used to supplement the NAVTEQ data where required. To ensure the accuracy of this data, the entire evacuation network, including those roads outside the 10-mile EPZ leading to the reception centers, was verified by traveling each route in the network in the direction of evacuation and collecting detailed information regarding the properties of each road section using a Global Positioning System (GPS)-enabled device. The GPS allowed 19 PTV America, Inc. "NAVTEQ Data for PTV VISION." Online:

http://www.ptvamerica.com/navteq-tiles/index.html.

20 Georgia Department of Transportation. Online http://www.dot.state.ga.us/. Georgia Deportment of Transportation road network data was downloaded from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse Web site: https://gisl.state.ga.us/index.asp.

Page 30 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT locating-with a high degree of precision-any sections that had changed in channelization, curvature, speed limits, or other necessary network information.

The specific network attributes that were collected during the field trip included number of lanes, speed, turns, traffic controls, pavement type and width, shoulder width, and any other information required to model the traffic capacity of each link in the network. The information collected during the field visit is listed as follows.

" Land width (in feet, field observation)

" Shoulder width (in feet, field observation)

" Number of lanes (field observation)

" FFS (in mph, field observation)

" Speed limit (in mph, field observation)

" Intersection control method.: actuated signal, fixed timing signal, stop sign controlled, yield sign controlled, uncontrolled (field observation)

Intersection layout (taking pictures)

" Toll gates and lane channelization (taking picture)

" Access control: whether road has full access control (field observation)

" Median type: divided or undivided cross section (road has divided cross section with

>=4 ft median or curbed barrier median, note that two way left turn lanes can be considered as >4 ft median for evacuation scenarios) (field observation)

" Pavement type: whether the road is paved or not (field observation)

" Terrain type: level, rolling or mountainous area (field observation)

" Separation line: whether the two travel directions are separated by center lines (field observation) 4.2. Evacuation Route Descriptions The evacuation network modeled for the ETE analyses covers Appling, Jeff Davis, Tattnall, and Toombs Counties in Georgia. The evacuation routes were originally developed by the Georgia Emergency Management Agency and county emergency officials. The evacuation route network is composed of three kinds of roads: highways, major arterial (roads connecting to highways), and minor arterial or connector roads (residential roads connecting to major arterial roads).

An example of a highway in the EPZ is U. S. Hwy 1. Examples of major arterials are State Road 56 (SR-56), Lennox Road (CR-538), and Cedar Crossing Road (SR-107). An example of a connector road is Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The connector roads, although not part of the evacuation routes described in the calendar, actually load the evacuee population onto the evacuation routes. The following items are descriptions of each evacuation route as mentioned in the calendar (see also Figure 8).

IEM 20+/-2 Page 31 IEM 2012 Page 31

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Evacuation Route 1 (Toombs County, west of U.S. Hwy 1)

U.S. Hwy 1, north to County Road 115 (Aimwell Road Extension), west to County Road 337 (Lyons-Center Road), north to Toombs County High School:

County Road 364 (Cedar Crossing-Alston Road), north to County Road 78 (Cedar Crossing-Vidalia Road), north to U.S. Hwy 1

" County Road 97 (South Thompson Road), north to U.S. Hwy 1

County Road 78 (Cedar Crossing-Vidalia Road), north to U.S. Hwy 1

" Georgia Hwy 56, east to U.S. Hwy 1

Georgia Hwy 147, west to U.S. Hwy 1

County Road 336 (Old River Road), east to U.S. Hwy 1 Evacuation Route 2 (Toombs County, east of U.S. Hwy 1)

Georgia Hwy 178, north to U.S. Hwy 1, south to Parker Avenue, west to County Road 337 (Lyons-Center Road), south to Toombs County High School:

" Georgia Hwy 147, east to Georgia Hwy 178

Georgia Hwy 56, east to Georgia Hwy 178

County Road 332 (Marvin Church Road), north to County Road 333 (Johnson Corner Road), north to Georgia Hwy 178 Evacuation Route 3 (Tattnall County)

Georgia Hwy 147, northeast to Reidsville Middle School:

Georgia Hwy 178, north to Georgia Hwy 147

County Road 184 (P.E. Davis Road), County Road 185 (Halleluiah Trail), County Road 183 (Honey Dew Road), northeast to Elza District Road to Hwy 147

County Road 186 (Edwin Phillips Road), County Road 189, (Peach Tree Road),

east to County Road 192, (Cedar Haw Road), north to Hwy 147

County Road 626 (Maple Drive), County Road 187 (Catherine T. Sanders Road),

south to County Road 188 (Old River Road), east to Hwy 178, north to Hwy 147 Evacuation Route 4 (Appling County)

U.S. Hwy 1, south to Georgia Hwy 15, south to Appling County Comprehensive High School:

County Road 3 (west River Road), east to U.S. Hwy 1

County Road 538 (Altamaha School Road), south to U.S. Hwy 1 Page 32 IEM 2012 Page 32 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN i. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT County Road 537 (Ten Mile Road), south to Georgia Hwy 144, south to U.S.

Hwy 1

County Road 1 (Nails Ferry Extension Road), south to County Road 1 (Nails Ferry Road), south to U.S. Hwy 1 Evacuation Route 5 (Jeff Davis County)

County Road 203 (Altamaha Road), west to U.S. Hwy 341, south to U.S. Hwy 23 (Contos Boulevard), south to Jefferson Street (Alma Hwy), north to Broxton Hwy, west to Jeff Davis High School:

County Road 245 (Owl Head Road), east to County Road 185 (Graham Road),

south to County Road 203 (Altamaha Road)

County Road 223 (Bullard Creek Road), west to County Road 185 (Graham Road), south to County Road 203 (Altamaha Road)

County Road 185 (Graham Road), south to County Road 203 (Altamaha Road)

County Road 185 (Graham Road), north to County Road 203 (Altamaha Road)

County Road 301 (Will Waters Road), west to U.S. Hwy 341

County Road 182 (Mt. Zion Church Road), south to U.S. Hwy 341, east to U.S.

Hwy 23 (Contos Boulevard)

Each evacuation route leads to one of four designated reception centers. Table 16 lists the designated reception centers, their physical addresses, and associated evacuation route numbers, as listed in the 2012 emergency information calendar. Figure 8 illustrates the designated evacuation routes with numbers that lead to the designated reception areas.

Table 16: Reception Centers Reception: Center Address Evacuation Routes Toombs County High School 600 Bulldog Road 1, 2 Lyons, GA 30436 Reidsville Middle School 148 W. Brazell Street 3

Reidsville, GA 30453 Appling County Comprehensive 482 Blackshear Hwy 4

High School Baxley, GA 31513 Jeff Davis High School 1.56 Collins Street 5

Hazlehurst, GA 31539 IEM 2012 Page 33 IEM 2012 Page 33

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

/.i\\,i Too\\,bsCo.

LEGEND "x /

'\\......-'Vidalia t\\

Lyons/

HNP T.o... County ---

I-Relocation Center

\\.*. *........ "High School UihlcooT aEvacuation Route Roads M o m;,

US Highway (3

State Road

[]County Road Reidsville Middle zone Boundary County Boundar, 47 56-1 k10 M'1 MONT 147

-10ide TOOMBS TATTNA G-1o JEFF AP PLI NG

.. eff Dav-is Co C -5 Hazlhr 0

Jeff Davis Hatch EPZ High School/

Baxl/

W a

A-ppling Co.

3 1.5 0

3 M ApplingCounty i,

High School.1' 4MI r8.6 Km (appr

.)

i 1:340,000 Figure 8: Evacuation Routes with Numbers and Reception Centers Page 34 IEM 20i2 Page 34 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 4.3. Evacuation Network Characteristics The evacuation network, as modeled using the NAVTEQ street network data, contains 321 links2' in the direction of evacuation and includes the connector roads. The total length of the modeled network, again in the direction of evacuation and all the way to the reception centers, is about 620 miles. Detailed information regarding the roads that make up the evacuation network is provided in Appendix B.

The state highways generally have a posted speed limit of 55-65 mph. The major and minor arterial or connector roads generally have a posted speed limit of 55 mph. On some of the roads, especially the highways, the posted speed limit decreases to 35-25 mph near city limit boundaries. Unpaved roads or dirt roads have randomly posted speed limits, so a speed limit of 35 mph was assumed for modeling purposes based on comfortable and safe driving speeds achieved by IEM personnel on these roads during field verification.

Most of the links in the evacuation network (including some highways) generally have one lane available in the direction of evacuation. There are no interstates within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ. Two roads in the EPZ have network links with two lanes in the direction of evacuation-U.S. Hwy 341 west toward Hazlehurst and U.S.

Hwy 1 south of HNP in the direction of Baxley.

Traffic control along the evacuation routes is mostly managed using stop signs. Traffic lights were found along U.S. Hwy 1 (approaching Baxley) in the direction of Appling County Comprehensive High School and along U.S. Hwy 341 (approaching Hazlehurst) and East Jefferson Street in the direction of Jeff Davis High School.

The number of intersections for different control types during the evacuation is listed in Table 17. There are 52 intersections that will be manned controlled and are modeled as actuated signal controlled, with varied cycle length. No fixed timing traffic signal is observed in the evacuation network.

Table 17: Intersection Control Type Control Type Number of Intersections Stop sign Control 98 Signal Control 0

Manned Control 52 The key information for the ten highest volume intersections is listed in Table 18. Most of these intersections are manned controlled. The only exception is the intersection of U.S. Hwy 1 at Sursson Street, which collect some residents in northern Baxley and is stop sign controlled to turning traffic into U.S. Hwy 1. Due to the high volume on U.S. Hwy 1, it is recommend setting up a traffic control point at this intersection. The majority of 2'! A link is defined as a road section where its characteristics (e.g., speed limit and number of lanes) are constant. An intersection starts a new link or ends a link.

IEM 2012 Page 35

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT the ten highest volume intersection lie along U.S. Hwy 1, which serve as a backbone highway to transport evacuees in Appling County.

Page 36 IEM 20+/-2 Page 36 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections CycleTurning Lane Location Cycle Green Time Evacuation Direction Turn Queue capacity Length

(# vehicle)*

GA-15 at Appling County High School Vary 0 -5 min Right turn from GA-15 to Appling County High 0

Access Road School GA-15 at Appling County High/Primary Vary 0- 5 min Right turn from GA-15 to Appling County Primary 10 School Access Road School U.S. HWY I at GA-15 Vary 0-5 min Left turn from U.S. Hwy I 27 U.S. HWY I at Zoar Road/Bay Street Vary 0 -5 min Right turn from Zoar Road to U.S. Hwy I 0

U.S. HWY I at U.S. Hwy 341 Vary 0-2 min Left and right turn from US-421 to U.S. Hwy I 0

U.S. Hwy I at GA-144 Vary 0-2 min Left turn from GA-1144 to U.S. Hwy I I

U.S. Hwy I at CR-i/Nails Ferry Road Vary 0 - 2 min Right turn from CR-1 to U.S. Hwy 1 3

U.S. Hwy I at Sursson Street N/A N/A Right turn from Sursson Street to U.S. Hwy 1 0

SR-15/SR-29 exit of U.S. Hwy I (South Vary 0-2 min Left turn from U.S. Hwy I to SR-15; Left turn from 2-5 Thompson Road)

S Thompson Road to SR-15 Bulldog Road/Lyons Center Road at Vary 0-5rin Left and right turn from Bulldog Road to Toombs Toombs County High School Access Road County High School 0

Queue capacity for turning lane of the evacuation direction IEM 2012 Page 37

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 38 IEM 2012 Page 38 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 5.0 EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY ETEs are developed using VISUM 11, one of the core components of the PTV Vision software suite. VISUM is used to estimate evacuation times for different scenarios (e.g.,

day vs. night or normal vs. adverse weather) for user-defined spatial networks.

Information provided by PTV Vision includes evacuation or clearance times, operational characteristics (e.g., average evacuation speed, average distance traveled), points of congestion, and other data necessary to evaluate evacuation plans.

The evacuation network was defined based on the information provided in 2012 emergency information calendar. IEM subject matter experts drove the designated routes to ensure complete and accurate information about the state of the roads and to evaluate the appropriate selection of routes given the current conditions onsite.

Evacuation demand (in term number of vehicles) loaded onto the network is based on the data and methods described above in Section 3.0. Loading times for the evacuation network are described below. Additional details about the methodology are included in the following sections.

5.1. Loading of the Evacuation Network In the event of an emergency, the public notification will mark the beginning of the evacuation times. So, public behavior (how long it takes the population to learn of the emergency and begin to evacuate) will impact the ETEs. The loading time distributions, also known as "trip generation times," described in this section are measured from the public notification, rather than from the occurrence of a hypothetical event.

5.1.1. Trip Generation Events and Activities NUREG/CR-7002 requires planners estimate the amount of time for the public to begin evacuating. These elapsed times are represented as statistical distributions to reflect the variety of activities the public may undertake before evacuating. In addition, separate distributions are prepared for each population group, because, for example, a person evacuating from home will behave differently than someone who is at work, fishing, or in a nursing home, This is due to differences in their available alert systems and also systematic differences in their pre-evacuation preparations.

(i) Evacuation Events and Activities Series for Different Population Groups The trip generation process consists of a series of events and activities. Each event occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity. Activities are undertaken over a period of time. As shown in Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11, different population groups have different events and activity series for evacuation.

In these figures, circles represent events. Each event is coded by a number, which represents the following:

IEM 2012 Page 39

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

1. First notification of public

2. Individual's awareness of incident

3. Leave work/facilities

4. Arrive home

5. Leave home An arrow indicates an activity. The following describe the activities that take place between each event:

0 1 -

2: Receive notification E 2 -

3: Prepare to leave work/facilities 0 3 -- 4: Travel home z

2 -

5: Prepare to leave home Transient evacuees, including travelers, boaters, hunters, and employees living outside the EPZ, will follow Series A as shown in Figure 9. They will be notified of the event and will leave their activities.

1 2

3 cýc-o Figure 9: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Transients, Special Facilities (Series A)

Households that do not have to wait for household members to return home will be notified of the emergency and leave home, following Series B, shown in Figure 10.

1 2

5 Figure 10: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning Home (Series B)

The results of a phone survey suggest around 32% of residences have regular commuters who would wait for household members to return home before evacuating. This portion of the population will follow series C in Figure 11 to evacuate. Note the activities of the people at home (denoted with a subscript H) can be undertaken in parallel with those of the commuter (denoted with a subscript C). Specifically, an adult member of a household Page 40 IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT can prepare to leave home while others are traveling home from work. In this instance, the household members would be able to evacuate sooner than a household that prepares to leave home after all members have returned home.

Commuters 1c 2c 3c 4c 01 5

1N 2K, People at Home Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences with Family Members Returning Home (Series C)

(ii) Calculation of Composite Distribution for Events and Activities Series in Evacuation As indicated by NUREG/CR-7002, activities may be in sequence (i.e., an activity will be undertaken upon completion of a preceding event) or may be in parallel (i.e., two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Given the assumption the time distribution of each activity is independent, the combined trip generation time required for individual activities undertaken in sequence would be the sum of the times required for each activity. On the other hand, the combined trip generation time required for individual activities undertaken in parallel would be the maximum of the times required for each activity. Table 19 shows the approach for estimating trip generation for different evacuation activity series.

Table 19: Trip Generation Estimate for Different Evacuation Activity Series A

(1--2 + 2-*3)

B

[1 -2 +2--5)

C Max: ((Ic-+2 c+ 2 c -- 3c + 3c --.4 c), (IH-*2 H+2 H -5))

IEM 20i2 Page 41.

IEM 2012 Page 41

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 5.1.2. Trip Generation Time Estimate Trip generation consists of two phases of activities: notification (i.e., activity 1 -- 2) and mobilization, which includes the rest of the activities. The notification process includes transmitting information and receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted. IEM adopted the time distribution for notification presented in Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies (EPACAE).22 This data was collected during evacuations executed in response to large-scale chemical spills and explicitly incorporates the time required for the communication of the warning. The data collected in this meta-study was based on transient, permanent, and special populations and is therefore appropriate to use as "general" notification curves for all three population types.

The underlying assumption in applying the EPACAE notification curves to a nuclear ETE study is the public perception of radiological emergencies is similar to that of a chemical event. These curves were developed from the empirical data collected from real-life evacuations in response to actual events, and no similar study developed specifically for radiological events is readily available. In the absence of such a study, empirical data from similar events was deemed to be more justifiable than estimating or hypothesizing about the public response to a nuclear event. IEM has successfully used this data for multiple ETE studies in the past, both for nuclear and chemical incidents or accident scenarios.

Since the EPACAE notification distribution of times depends on the warning system employed, IEM personnel incorporated the planned alert and notification systems (ANS) around the site, based on discussions with Southern Nuclear personnel. These discussions revealed the basic ANS within the HNP EPZ will include sirens, Emergency Alert Systems (EAS) (including local radio and television stations) and a rapid calling capability (RCC). The notification time distributions for these warning systems are shown in Figure 12. Any loss in capability of the ANS components would potentially increase the notification times and, as a result, ETEs.

22 Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies (ORNL-6615), Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

Page 42 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 100%

w

6. 0%

71 0%

7 60%________

40%

50%

C

0 60%

e.

40%

0 30%

a.10%

0%

-I -

1---- -

-- 4 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Minutes from Warning Start Figure 12: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems 23 Notification times for hunters, boaters, and park visitors were increased by 45 minutes to allow time for local emergency officials to patrol the forest, river, or park with loud speakers to warn visitors.

Generally, the information required to estimate the second phase of trip generation, the mobilization process, was obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents, supplemented by mobilization time estimated for similar sites. See Appendix C for details about the survey and its raw data.

Mobilization times will vary from one individual to the next depending on where they are, what they are doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons, including commuters, shoppers, and other travelers, will return home to join the other members of their households for evacuation upon receiving notification of an emergency. Therefore, the time elapsed for those people to travel home should be considered as part of the mobilization time before evacuation can begin.

23 Ibid.

IEM 2012 Page 43 IEM 2012 Page 43

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 13 presents the distribution of trip generation times (i.e., the combination of notification and mobilization times) for different population groups. These curves were obtained by applying the methodology described in Table 19 to the activities of each population group.

100%

C.

.C 40

.2 It 70%K

,4/

I I

/¸ ¸ 4_

-j;

/

60%

I I

I

/

1

/

-- +-

Residents with Returning Members (Day)

/

B -

Residents without Returning Members (Day)

/

- -*- - Residents without Returning Members (Night) 30%

20%

10%

0%

+- Residents without Returning Members (Weekend)

-Workers Recretional Population Minutes after Warning Figure 13: Distribution of Trip Generation Times by Population Group 5.1.3. Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents As described in Section 3.3, the transit dependent permanent residents in the HNP EPZ are estimated at 74. Table 20 shows the assumptions for determining the trip generation time for evacuating the transit dependent population. The trip generation time for the transit dependent population was determined by consulting with relevant EMA personnel and the SNC planning staff.

Page 44 IEM 2012 Page 44 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 20: Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents Transit Dependent CutAsm o

Trip Generation

CatgoryCounty Assumptions.Tm, category Time Appling Residents will evacuate by special equipped 20 minutes vehicles Jeff Davis Residents will evacuate by special equipped 20 minutes vehicles Wheelchair Tattnall Residents will evacuate by special equipped 20 minutes vehicles Toombs Residents will evacuate by special equipped 20 minutes vehicles Appling Residents will evacuate by school bus and 17 minutes standard vans Jeff Davis Residents will evacuate by school bus and 17 minutes standard vans Transportation Residents will evacuate by school bus and 17 minutes standard vans Toombs Residents will evacuate by school bus and 17 minutes standard vans Appling Residents will evacuate by ambulance 20 minutes Jeff Davis Residents will evacuate by ambulance 20 minutes Immobile Tattnall Residents will evacuate by ambulance 20 minutes Toombs Residents will evacuate by ambulance 20 minutes 5.1.4. Trip Generation Time for Schools and Special Facilities As described in Section 3.4, there is one special facility and two schools within the HNP EPZ. Table 21 shows the assumptions for determining trip generation times for the population segments associated with these facilities. The trip generation times for the schools and the special facilities were determined by consulting with relevant personnel at the facilities.

Table 21: Trip Generation Time for Population in Special Facilities and Schools Facility Category Facility Name Assumptions Trip Generation Time School Students Altamaha Elementary Students will evacuate in 40 40 minutes School minutes.

f Altamaha Elementary Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for SchoolStaff AStahaEle a

staenots lave ecunti.

students (40 minutes) plus School students have evacuated.

5 minutes IEM 2012 Page 45

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT School Students ioomos uentrai stuaents wil evacuate in 40 40 minutes Elementary School minutes.

Toombs Central Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for School Staff Elementary School students have evacuated, students (40 minutes) plus 5 minutes Special Facility AMikids Baxley Wildness Students will evacuate in 40 40 minutes Students Institute minutes.

Special Facility AMIkids Baxley Wildness Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for Staff Institute students have evacuated.

5 minutes 5 minutes 5.2. Evacuation Simulation Evacuations were simulated using the population and vehicle demand data, evacuation network data, and loading distribution data discussed in the previous sections. VISUM 11 was used to simulate evacuations. Figure 14 describes the framework of the analysis and three of its main features: the demand model, the network model, and the impact model.

Network Model Contains Supply Data:

Transport Systems

" Subareas

" Nodes

" Links

" Speed Umits

" Capacities I

Results

" Usng and s s

calcul attributes of network objects and routes

" Indicator matrices: evacuation time estimates, queuing analysis, time4pace diagrams J

U J

Figure 14: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM Page 46 IEM 2012 Page 46 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 5.2.1. The Demand Model The demand model contains the travel demand data. The total number of vehicles originating from a zone is calculated by dividing a population with its expected vehicle occupancy rate. The total number of vehicles originating from a zone is then distributed to different time intervals based on the loading distribution curve for the zone. The loading distribution curve for the zone depends on the warning system available for that zone. The travel demand is described by an origin-destination (GD) matrix. The OD matrix refers to a time interval and the total number of vehicles departing in that time interval.

5.2.2. The Network Model The network model describes the relevant supply data of an evacuation network. The supply data consists of subareas, nodes, links, speed limits, and capacities. The subareas describe areas with particular boundaries based on demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictions. They represent the origin and destination of trips within the evacuation network. Nodes define positions of intersections in the evacuation network. Links connect nodes and, therefore, describe the road infrastructure. Every network object is described by its attributes (e.g., speed limits and capacities for the links). The travel time of a vehicle on a given link depends on the permitted speed and the capacity (i.e., the traffic volume a road can handle before the formation of a traffic jam) of the link. The roadway capacities used in the evacuation analysis were calculated using the field collected road attributes and capacity calculation methodology from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.2 4 The details of roadway capacity calculation method are presented as follows.

(i) Roadway Capacity Calculation Method IEM estimated roadway capacity based on road type and free flow speed. Using the characteristics data field (e.g., access control, median type, number of lanes in one direction, pavement type), roadway is categorized into five types: 1) full access controlled road; 2) rural multilane highway; 3) urban multilane highway; 4) single lane road; 5) unpaved road. The classification method is shown in the flow chart below.

24 U.S. Federal Highway Administration. "Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual, Appendix N -

Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity." Online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn.htm.

IEM 2012 Page 47

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 15: Roadway Type Classification Method Page 48 IEM 2012 Page 48 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Once the roadway type is determined, the capacity (in vehicle per lane per hour) can be calculated for each road segment using the following method.

Full access controlled road: Capacity = 1700 + FFS

10 with maximum of 2400 0 Rural multilane highway: Capacity = 1000 + FFS

20 with maximum of 2200

" Urban multilane highway: Capacity = 1900

" Single lane road: Capacity = 1700 *fG - VNp

" Unpaved road: Capacity = 800 *fc - VNp The unit for capacity of the above formula is pcplph (passenger car per lane per hour).

One need is to multiply this value by number of lanes to obtain the capacity for all lanes in the unit of pcph (passenger car per hour). No heavy vehicle factor adjustment should be made to the adjustment because VISUM needs capacity as an input in passenger car units and heavy vehicles are modeled as different vehicle groups than the passenger cars.

Peak hour factor (PHF) should not be considered for adjusting capacity in modeling, as modeling time step is typically less than 15 min (e.g., 5 min).

FFS (definition: The desired speed of drivers in low volume conditions and in the absence of traffic control devices or other adverse conditions.) is the key to estimate capacity and is a required input for modeling. It can be directly estimated in the field and is typically 5-10 mph higher than the speed limit.

fG and VNp are adjustment factor for grades and adjustment value for no passing zones. fG can be found from Table 2225. If no other information is available, one may assume the two-way flow rate is in the range 0-600 pcph.

Table 22: Grade Adjustment Factors (fG)

Two-Way Flow Level Rolling:

Mountainous Rates (pcph) 0-600 1.00 0.71 0.57

>600-1,200 1.00 0.93 0.85

>1,200 1.00 0.99 0.99 25 FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, Appendix N: Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity, Rural Tow-lane Capacity, Table 6, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanLappn3.cfm IEM 2012 Page 49

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT VNP can be calculated as VNp =fNP / 0.00776, wherefNp is the adjustment factor for no-passing zones on average travel speed and can be found in Table 23-6. If no other information is available, one may assume the two-way flow rate is in the range 101-300 pch, no passing zone percent is 50% for separated roads and 90% for non-separated roads.

Table 23: Adjustment (fnp) for Effect of No-Passing Zones on Average Travel Speed on Two-Way Segments Reduction inAverage Travel: Speed (mph)

Two-Way Demand Flow Rate, No-PassingZones (%)

vp(pcph) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0-100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101-300 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.5 301-500 0.0 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 501-700 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 701-900 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 901-1,100 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 1,101-1,300 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1,301-1,500 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1,501-1,700 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1,701-1,900 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1,901-2,100 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 2,101-2,300 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 2,301-2,500 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 26 FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, Appendix N: Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity. Rural Tow-lane Capacity, Table 8, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn3.cfm Page 50 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Reduction InAverage Travel Speed (mph)

Two-Way Demand: Flow Rate, No-PasSing Zones.(%)

vp(pcph) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2,501-2,700 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 2,701-2,900 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 2,901-3,100 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 3,101-3,300 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

>3,300 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (ii)

Roadway Capacity Calculation Example Link #1 (node 0055 to node 0057, shown in Figure 18 and Table 34) as a segment of U.S.

Hwy 1 is a rural single lane road located in a level area with approximate 50 percent no-passing zones and the two-way traffic is estimated in a range of 101-300. Therefore, its capacity is estimated as 1700

1.0 - 1.9/0.00776 = 1455 pcph.

Another example is link #157 (node 6096 to 6103, shown in Figure 19 and Table 34) as a segment of U.S. Hwy 341/GA 27 is a rural multi-lane highway with two lanes in each direction and free flow speed of 65 mph. Therefore, its capacity is estimated as 2

max (2200, 1000 + 65

20) = 4400 pcph.

5.2.3. The Impact Model The impact model takes its input data from the demand model and the network model.

PTV Vision provides different impact models to analyze and evaluate the evacuation network. A user model simulates the behavior of travelers. It calculates traffic volumes and service indicators, such as travel time. The VISUM traffic assignment procedure chosen for this analysis simulates the movement of vehicles on the network as time passes in the evacuation and outputs volumes for each link at each time after analyzing the queuing behavior. This time-dynamic functionality allows for loading of the network via distributions, as when using a range of mobilization times.

The ETEs are measured by noting the time and counting the number of vehicles passes the boundary of the EPZ. VISUM displays the calculated results in graphic and tabular forms and allows graphical analysis of results. In this way, for example, routes per OD pair, traffic flow, and isochrones can be displayed and analyzed. Using the outputs from VISUM, IEM modeler was able to ensure that the traffic simulation model is in equilibrium, by checking whether the number of vehicles entering the roadway network is equal to the number of vehicles exiting the network.

IEM 2012 Page 51

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 52 IEM 2012 Page 52 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 6.0. ANA.LYSIS. OF EVACUATION= Times/

Evacuation times were estimated in order to give emergency planners in the area an approximate time required for evacuation of various parts of the footprint. The estimates were derived by using population (demand) data to determine the number of vehicles and then modeling the travel of the vehicles along the evacuation routes from their origin to their assigned reception center. Both 100% and 90% ETE were studied. The 100% ETE is the time between public notification and when the last evacuating vehicle exits the EPZ. On the other hand, 90% ETE is the time between public notification and when 90%

of the evacuating vehicles exit the EPZ.

The ETEs are composed of two components. The first is loading (or "trip generation")

time, which is the time required for residents within the area to prepare and then begin their evacuation. Loading times depend, in part, on how long it takes evacuees to receive the warning and is, thus, dependent on the warning systems in their area. The trip generation times estimated for the HNP EPZ are described in detail in Section 5.1. The second component of an ETE is travel time, which is the time between the resident's departure and when they cross the EPZ boundary. The travel time is determined via the evacuation model.

As a part of the analysis, zones in the study area were grouped to represent the different areas that might need to be evacuated during an incident, so that the decision makers could more effectively order evacuations based on the scenarios and potential wind direction. These areas are discussed in more detail in Section 1.2.

Each zone had been assigned a set of evacuation routes by State and local EMA planners, and these route restrictions were reflected in the modeling of the scenarios. These guidelines generally route evacuees based on the county these are located at the time of the incident. The evacuation routes are described in more detail in Section 4.2.

6.1. Summary of ETE Results for General Public The evacuation time estimate results are displayed in Table 24 and Table 25. Evacuation times listed include warning diffusion, public mobilization, and travel time out of the EPZ. It is important to note that the evacuation time is the time from the moment at which public notification begins-not the start time of a hypothetical event.

IEM 20i2 Page 53 IEM 2012 Page 53

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 24: 2012 100% ETEs in Minutes 27 Normal Weather Adverse.Weathet Affected ERPAs Area Midweek week Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend DWeekend Wke Mide Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime DaytIme Evening Daytime A

2-mile ring 170 170 170 175 175 175 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5 5-mile ring 175 175 180 180 180 180 All 10-mile EPZ 185 195 215 190 215 235 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5,C-5 N

170 170 175 175 175 175 B-5,C-5 NNE 170 170 175 175 175 175 C-5 NE 170 170 170 170 175 175 C-5 ENE 170 170 170 170 175 175 C-5 E

170 170 170 170 175 175 C-5,D-5 ESE 175 175 175 175 180 180 C-5,D-5 SE 175 175 175 175 180 180 D-5,E-5 SSE 175 175 175 175 175 180 D-5,E-5 S

175 175 175 175 175 180 E-5 SSW 160 165 165 165 165 165 E-5 SW 160 165 165 165 165 165 E-5,B-5 WSW 170 170 170 170 170 175 E-5,B-5 W

170 170 170 170 170 175 B-5 WNW 170 170 170 170 170 175 B-5 NW 170 170 170 170 170 175 B-5 NNW 170 170 170 170 170 175 Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A,B-5,C-5 N

175 175 175 175 175 180 A,B-5,C-5 NNE 175 175 175 175 175 180 A,C-5 NE 175 175 175 175 175 175 A,C-5 ENE 175 175 175 175 175 175 A,C-5 E

175 175 175 175 175 175 A,C-5,D-5 ESE 175 175 180 180 180 180 A,C-5,D-5 SE 175 175 180 180 180 180 A,D-5,E-5 SSE 175 175 175 180 180 180 A,D-5,E-5 S

175 175 175 180 180 180 A,E-5 SSW 170 170 170 175 175 175 A,E-5 SW 170 170 170 175 175 175 27 Note: The scenarios are each considered individually; if combinations of the geographic evacuation areas are to be evacuated together, the larger of the two numbers should be used as the evacuation time. For example, if zones A, B-5, and E-5 (combination of 5-mile NE and 5-mile SE scenarios) were to be evacuated on a normal 2012 weekday, the ETE would be the greater of the two ETEs or 130 minutes.

Page 54 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT NormalWeather AdverseWeatler Affected ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend D

Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Daytme Evening Daytime A,E-5,B-5 WSW 175 175 175 175 175 175 A,E-5,B-5 W

175 175 175 175 175 175 A,B-5 WNW 175 175 175 175 175 175 A,B-5 NW 175 175 175 175 175 175 A,B-5 NNW 175 175 175 175 175 175 Table 25: 2012 90% ETEs in Minutes Normal Weather Adverse Weather Affected ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend WedWeekend Mide Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Daytime Evening Daytime A

2-mile ring 95 105 110 100 105 110 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5 5-mile ring 110 115 120 110 115 120 All 10-mile EPZ 140 155 165 150 165 180 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5,C-5 N

110 110 120 110 115 120 B-5,C-5 NNE 110 110 120 110 115 120 C-5 NE 105 110 110 110 110 110 C-5 ENE 105 110 110 110 110 110 C-5 E

105 110 110 110 110 110 C-5,D-5 ESE 110 110 115 110 115 115 C-5,D-5 SE 110 110 115 110 115 115 D-5,E-5 SSE 105 110 110 110 110 115 D-5,E-5 S

105 110 110 110 110 115 E-5 SSW 100 100 100 100 100 100 E-5 SW 100 100 100 100 100 100 E-5,B-5 WSW 110 110 115 110 110 115 E-5,B-5 W

110 110 115 110 110 115 B-5 WNW 105 110 115 110 110 115 B-5 NW 105 110 115 110 110 115 B-5 NNW 105 110 115 110 110 115 Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A,B-5,C-5 N

110 115 120 110 115 120 A,B-5,C-5 NNE 110 115 120 110 115 120 A,C-5 NE 105 110 115 105 115 11S A,C-5 ENE 105 110 115 105 115 115 IEM 2012 Page 55

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Normal Weather Adverse*Wather Affected ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Aa

[MidWeekend Weeke Mide Weekend DaytlrneIEvening Daytime Daytime Evening Daytime A,C-5 E

105 110 115 105 115 115 A,C-5,D-5 ESE 110 115 115 110 115 115 A,C-5,D-5 SE 110 115 115 110 115 115 A,D-5,E-5 SSE 105 110 115 110 115 115 A,D-5,E-5 S

105 110 115 110 115 115 A,E-5 SSW 100 105 110 105 110 115 A,E-5 SW 100 105 110 105 110 115 A,E-5,B-5 WSW 105 110 120 110 115 120 A,E-5,B-5 W

105 110 120 110 115 120 A,B-5 WNW 105 110 120 110 110 120 A,B-5 NW 105 110 120 110 110 120 A,B-5 NNW 105 110 120 110 110 120 6.2. Discussion of Scenario Results 6.2.1. General Trends

" The ETEs in both normal and adverse weather are mainly driven more by the warning system and available speeds rather than the roadway capacities because the vehicular demand is low compared to the available roadway capacities in most parts of the network.

" The ETEs for scenarios in adverse weather increased in a range of 0 to 15 minutes from the corresponding scenarios in normal weather. The adverse weather conditions have little impacts on ETEs, increasing with no more than a 5 minute increase for the majority of the scenarios. The increase is due more to the reduced available speeds than to reduced roadway capacities.

" For each area, the weekend scenario produced the highest evacuation times. This is due to the increased amount of recreational transients in the area (hunters and boaters) on the weekend. This population has a higher warning and diffusion time than other populations - up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 35 minutes, compared to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 5 minutes for permanent residents.

6.2.2. Evacuation Area: 0-2 Miles The majority of the population in the Zone A evacuation area consists of employees of HNP. In addition, Zone A includes a small number of permanent residents, non-plant employees, and recreational visitors in the area for hunting and other activities along the Altamaha River. For the weekday scenarios, the plant workforce was modeled to reflect 475 employees who would evacuate during an event, excluding another 200 emergency personnel, who will not evacuate. For the weeknight and weekend scenarios, the Page 56 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT workforce for the plant was modeled such that all employees were emergency personnel and would remain during an event. For the weekend scenario, the recreational population was at its peak.

The longest evacuation times for the 2-mile radius occurred in the weekend scenario. The evacuation times are relatively low and were affected by the loading times and available speed limits, not by congestion in the network. Evacuees in the 2-mile radius will generally use U.S. Hwy 1 to leave the EPZ. Population north of the Altamaha River will evacuate to the Toombs County reception Center and population south of the Altamaha River will evacuate to the Appling County Reception Center.

6.2.3. Evacuation Area: 0-5 Miles This area includes the entire 5-mile EPZ, consisting of zones A, B-5, C-5, D-5 and E-5.

There are several evacuation routes leading out of the EPZ; however, a portion of the evacuating population will converge on U.S. Hwy 1. Population from zones D-5 and E-5 will converge on U.S. Hwy 1 and travel north to the Toombs County Reception Center.

Population from zone B-5 and C-5 will converge on U.S. Hwy 1 and travel south to the Appling County Reception Center. Evacuation times for the entire 5-mile EPZ are similar to maximum evacuation times for all subzones for each scenario, and are slightly longer than evacuation times for the 2-mile radius scenarios. The evacuation times indicate that as the traffic converges for the evacuation of the entire 5-mile boundary, the road network will continue to provide sufficient capacity in both normal and adverse weather.

6.2.4. Evacuation Area: 0-10 Miles The evacuation times of the entire 10-mile EPZ was noticeably longer than those of 0-5 mile area, due to the additional evacuees from 5-10 mile area. This is especially true for the weekend scenarios, when the recreational populations are at their peak level.

Zones B-5, C-5, B-10, C-10, D-10, and E-10 will evacuate to the Appling County Reception Center and will primarily use U.S. Hwy 1 and Hwy 1 to leave the EPZ. Zones F-10 and G-10 will evacuate to the Jeff Davis County Reception Center and will primarily use the Altamaha School road to leave the EPZ. Zones D-5, H-10 and 1-10 will evacuate to the Toombs County Reception Center, primarily using U.S. Hwy 1, County Road 364 (Cedar Crossing), and County Road 336 (Old River Road). Zones E-5, J-10 and K-10 evacuating to Toombs County will primarily use U.S. Hwy 1, Hwy 147, County Road 332, and County Road 333. Zone L-10 will evacuate the EPZ to Tattnall County Reception Center primarily using Old River Road.

Population for this area includes permanent residents, transients working in the EPZ, the Toombs Central Elementary School, the Altamaha Elementary School, the AMIkids Baxley Wilderness Institute, and recreational visitors including boaters on the Altamaha River and hunters in the Bullard Creek Wildlife Management Area. The population for the Toombs Central School and Altamaha School was only considered for the weekday scenario. Hunting activities in the Bullard Creek Wildlife Management Area were considered at peak levels for the weekend scenario.

IEM 2012 Page 57 IEM 2012 Page 57

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT These evacuation times are mainly influenced by three factors: 1) the higher warning and diffusion times for hunters in the area; 2) moderate congestions on the roads and intersections at Baxley (e.g., intersection U.S. Hwy 1 and Parker Street); 3) larger evacuation population resulting in larger chance of having a few evacuees who need extensive long loading time.

6.3. ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents The ETEs for the transit dependent population are shown in Table 26. Note that the ETEs for the transit dependent population counts from the notification time of vehicles dispatched for this population group (assuming one hour earlier than the general public).

Table 26: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Times Transit Dependent Vehicle Category ETE Special Equipped Vehicle/Lift-Equipped Bus 50 min School Bus/Standard Van 55 min Ambulance 50 min 6.4. ETE Results for Special Facility and School Populations The ETEs, average travel speed, and travel time for special facility and school populations when evacuating full EPZ on the weekday under normal weather conditions are shown in Table 27. The bus queue occurs due to several buses loading students simultaneously. TCES is located near the northern boundary of the EPZ and it only takes an average of 6 minutes for the evacuees to travel 2 miles to the boundary. The BWI and AES evacuees take longer time to evacuate because they need to travel a longer distance to the EPZ boundary, and will encounter traffic congestion in Baxley.

Table 27: Special Facility and School Evacuation Times Outbound.

Travel Time to:

Bus Queue Travel Speed EPZ Boundary Length AMIkids Baxley Wilderness Institute 11 mph 67 min 0 ft.

140 min Altamaha Elementary School 8 mph 52 min 400 ft.

130 min Toombs Central Elementary School 21 mph 6 min 550 ft.

60 min 6.5. Example Model Output Some example model outputs are presented as follows for the weekday, full EPZ, normal weather evacuation scenario. The total volumes and hourly percents at each exit road are listed in Table 28. Due to the high concentration of population located along U.S. Hwy 1 Page 58 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT in Appling County, the highest evacuation exit traffic is observed at a segment of U.S.

Hwy 1 crossing the southern EPZ boundary near Baxley. The network wide average travel time from the origins to the reception centers is 46 minutes. The total number of vehicles exiting the EPZ is 6,210 and is the a little more than total number of vehicles of residents, transient and special facility loaded into the network due to the additional vehicles for shadow evacuees. The mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ are plotted in Figure 16. The average speeds for the five designated evacuation routes are shown in Table 29.

Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percents at Exit Roads Total Hour 1 Hour 2 Hour 3 Hour 4 Volume Percent Percent Percent Percent Cr-185/Philadelphia Church Road 1

100.0%

0.0%

Cr-186 143 61.3%

32.4%

6.3%

0.0%

Cedar Crossing-Vidalia Road 793 58.3%

34.4%

7.3%

0.0%

Cr-185/Hammond Powell Road 171 58.6%

34.6%

6.8%

0.0%

Martin Luther King Jr Avenue 312 37.0%

32.5%

30.0%

0.0%

Moody Altman Road 202 75.2%

19.7%

5.1%

0.0%

Johnson Corner Road 460 62.3%

31.6%

6.4%

0.0%

Altamaha Road 225 60.6%

32.0%

6.9%

0.0%

US I (Lyons) 388 72.6%

22.5%

4.6%

0.0%

US 1 (Baxley) 2717 39.4%

36.0%

24.3%

0.1%

Ten Mile Road 201 74.4%

16.0%

12.2%

0.0%

SR 178 168 58.8%

32.1%

7.6%

0.0%

Cr-245/Bill Quarterman Road 77 56.7%

35.0%

6.7%

0.0%

Cr-301/Leon a Wildes Road 118 64.1%

30.4%

6.5%

0.0%

Ten Mile Road 104 45.7%

53.1%

0.0%

Lamar Crosby Road 130 69.3%

24.8%

5.0%

0.0%

Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes Evacuation Route Average Speed (mph) 1 45 2

43 3

41 IEM 2012 Page 59

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 4

34 5

44 U

0

-W 26.

E a

10m 90%-

80%~

70%

70%-

.5O%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0

-T T

1 1 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Minutes after Public Warning Figure 16: Mobilization and Evacuation Curve 200 Page 60 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 17.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS The analyses related to confirmation of evacuation and potential mitigating measures to effectively manage the traffic flow were performed and are provided in the following sections.

7.1. Confirmation of Evacuation The confirmation of evacuation process determines if the evacuation has been completed.

The time required for confirmation of evacuation is dependent upon the method employed. The most time-consuming method typically employed is to use ground vehicles. The time required involves the driving time for each route selected.

Informing people to leave some standard signs on their doors or windows, such as tying a white cloth to the front doorknob of the house or to the mailbox (as mentioned in the 2012 emergency information calendar), when they leave their houses would help the authorities in the confirmation of evacuation. Presence of TCPs and Access Control Points (ACPs) at strategic locations within the evacuation network could provide real-time feedback regarding the progress of the evacuation process. All evacuees are recommended to register in at the designated county reception centers as they arrive. This procedure helps the authorities to account for the population within the designated county. This can be accounted as one of the means of confirmation of evacuation, only under the assumption that all the evacuees would actually report to the reception centers and nowhere else. Telephoning people at their homes could also be considered as a possible means of ensuring completion of evacuation.

28 As noted in the county REPs, evacuation confirmation will be accomplished by the county Sheriffs Department and supporting law enforcement agency personnel that will traverse roadways throughout the affected area to ensure that the residential population has evacuated their homes. Personnel from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Section and the county EMAs will ensure that hunters and fishermen within the 10-mile EPZ are notified and evacuated from the waterways and recreational areas. Additional assistance is available from other State agencies as requested (i.e.,

Georgia Forestry Commission and Department of Transportation).

The actual time associated with the confirmation process would depend on both the number of personnel and the amount of equipment available. These resources may change significantly under various emergency conditions.

28 State of Georgia REP Plan, Appling County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011 State of Georgia REP Plan, Jeff Davis County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Tattnall County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Toombs County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidednts involving Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant. July 2011.

IEM 20:12 Page 61

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 7.2. Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures In order to efficiently promote smooth movement of traffic flow during an evacuation, several TCPs have been identified by the plant and county emergency response planning personnel. The TCPs are listed in Table 30 and shown graphically in Figure 17. The responsibility of supervising traffic controls during an evacuation will be shared between the State and county emergency management and law enforcement agencies, as available.

Each TCP will be manned and/or road blocks will be established to direct evacuees out of the EPZ and to deny access into the affected area. Also, route markers will be placed along the evacuation routes at critical intersections and road block locations to promote more efficient traffic flow out from the EPZ.

Table 30: Traffic Control Points for the HNP EPZ Location Operation Control Description ID 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Appling County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff U.S. Hwy I at South end of Altamaha River Bridge U.S. Hwy I at CR-3 (West River Road)

U.S. Hwy I at CR-538 (Altamaha School Road)

CR-591 (Ben Carter Road) at CR-538 (Lennox Road)

CR-537 (Ten Mile Road) at CR-538 (Lennox Road)

CR-537 (Ten Mile Road) at CR-339 (Oscar Tippins Road)

GA-144 at CR-537 (Ten Mile Road)

GA-15 at Elementary Complex GA-15 at Appling County Comprehensive High School U.S. Hwy I at GA-15 U.S. Hwy I. at U.S. HWY 341 U.S. Hwy I at GA-144 GA-144 at CR-537 (Ten Mile Road)

U.S. Hwy I at CR-1 (Nails Ferry Road)

CR-538 (Altamaha School Road) at CR-i (Nails Ferry Road)

CR-i (Nails Ferry Extension Road) at CR-3 (West River Road)

U.S. HWY 341 and GA-289/CR-576 (Graham-Zoar Road)

Intersection of County Roads 188, 189 and 190 CR-187 at CR-185 (Graham Road)

CR-301 (Mt. Zion Road) at CR-185 (Graham Road)

CR-203 (Altamaha Road) at CR-185 (Graham Road)

CR-245 (Own Head Road) at CR-185 (Graham Road)

Page 62 IEM 2012 Page 62 IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Locati'*:on io Operation Control Description ID, 23 24 25 26 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 33 Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Jeff Davis County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff 34 Toombs County Sheriff 35 Toombs County Sheriff 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Toombs County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff Tattnall County Sheriff CR-185 (Graham Road) at CR-223 (Philadelphia Church)

U.S. HWY 341 at US-23 (Contos Boulevard)

U.S. HWY 341 at Gill Street US-23 (Contos Boulevard) at Jefferson Street Jefferson Street at Tallahassee Street West Jefferson Street at Collins Street U.S. Hwy I at North end of Altamaha River Bridge U.S. Hwy I at GA-147 CR-336 (Old River Road) at CR-57 (Hitchcock Road)

CR-336 (Old River Road) at Toombs/Montgomery County Line GA-56 at CR-65 (George Davis Road)

GA-56 at CR-364 (Cedar Crossing-Alston Road)

CR-78 (Cedar Crossing-Vidalia Road) at CR-364 (Cedar Crossing-Alston Road)

CR-97 (South Thompson Road) at CR-78 (Cedar Crossing-Vidalia Road)

U.S. Hwy I at GA-56 U.S. Hwy I at (Ten-Mile Boundary) (South of CR-103)

U.S. Hwy I at GA-15 (South Thompson)

U.S. Hwy I at CR-115 (Hardens Chapel Road)

CR-115 (Hardens Chapel Road) at CR-337 (Lyons/Center Road)

CR-337 (Lyons/Center Road) at Toombs County High School CR-337 (Lyons/Center Road) at Parker Avenue U.S. Hwy I at Parker Avenue U.S. Hwy I at GA-178 (in Lyons)

GA-56 at CR-333 (Johnson Corner Road)

GA-147 at CR-332 (Marvin Church Road)

GA-178 at GA-147 Hwy 147 & Elza District Road Elza District Road & CR-188 (Old River Road)

CR-188 (Old River Road) & Hwy 178 CR-192 (Cedar Haw Road) & Hwy 178 CR-192 (Cedar Haw Road) CR-189 (Peach Tree Road)

Hwy 147 & Hwy 178 IEM 20+/-2 Page 63 IEM 2012 Page 63

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 54 Tattnall County Sheriff Hwy 147 & Hwy 280 55 Tattnall County Sheriff GA Hwy 23 at County High School LEGEND

w,,;da.--

Too nbs'Co.

HNP SL~yons Relocation Center

/ ¶omrns County 42 TCP

/

/ Hi.Scho,,4143 Evacuation Route Roads S'

i 3

US Highway M orQ mery o'

Moer 4

(

(6 State Road

\\/

Tattn~ll Co.

[~]

County Road S

"\\

[15 Zone Boundary 3

R1i7e j County Boundary 9

1!eidsvilleMi hchool l*........

Uvalda /

3 5/3 310 m5I L

(Je48 147

~~5 Rei RIO-,B Dav is

/'Hatch EPZ Co.

High School Wayne 0*

C O.i I

-"1 30 I

1' B lf' I

64 5 0

4Km N"

I1 inich = 5.7 Mi or 9 Km {approx.)

______________t_

360,000 Figure 17: Traffic Control Points in and around HNP EPZ Page 64 IEM 2012 Page 64 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

ý8. 0 SEENiSIT IVI=T Y STU: DY 0ON P O PU: L A*TTON :C A N G.E:'

ETEs vary with factors such as population, roadway networks and vehicle occupancy rates. In response to new federal regulations, IEM conducted a population sensitivity analysis for HNP to address the uncertainty in population data by estimating the anticipated impact of a population change on ETEs. This sensitivity analysis will provide a basis for decisions on future ETE update thresholds.

IEM increased the residential population (for both EPZ and shadow evacuees) to determine the population value that will cause ETE values to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less for the scenario with the longest ETE. This scenario is evacuating the entire EPZ during the weekday under adverse weather conditions. The base ETE for this scenario is 200 minutes, and hence the threshold for triggering an ETE update is 30 minutes increase in ETE. IEM found that an increase of 30 minutes occurs with a permanent resident population increase of 161% or 6,409 people within the EPZ (along with the increase of shadow evacuees with the same percentage).

IEM 20+/-2 Page 65 IEM 2012 Page 65

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 66 IEM 2012 Page 66 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

9.0 CONCLUSION

AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The ETEs developed for 17 evacuation areas within the 10-mile HNP EPZ measured the time from the public notification to when the last evacuating vehicle exited the EPZ boundary.

The 100% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 170 minutes to 215 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 175 minutes to 235 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. The 90% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 95 minutes to 165 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 100 minutes to 180 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. Variations in ETEs between scenarios generally correlated to differences in the number of evacuating vehicles, the capacity of the evacuation routes, the roadway conditions, or the distance from the origin zones to the EPZ boundary. The weekend scenario produced the highest evacuation times due to the longer mobilization time for the higher number of recreational transients in the area (hunters and boaters) on the weekend.

The analysis shows that the capacity of the roadway network within the EPZ is adequate to accommodate the population for all scenarios. However, there are a few areas that could become congested during an evacuation. Several intersections where two heavily-traveled evacuation routes converge were identified from the models as possible congestion points. These potential traffic congestion points are listed in Table 31. The congestion points 2, 4, and 5 in the table are all outside of the EPZ, but the traffic congestion at these intersections might create a spillback toward and within the 10-mile EPZ. This spillback might put people at risk, so it is advised that these intersections are controlled in a way to facilitate a smoother evacuation to reception centers. Providing an efficient and effective flow of traffic through these intersections will ensure that the evacuees in route to reception centers are outside of the EPZ before encountering the potential congestion points.

Table 31: Potential Congestion Points for the HNP EPZ S. No.

Operation Control Description I

Appling County U.S. Hwy I at County Road I 2

Appling County U.S. Hwy I at Ga. Hwy 144 3

Toombs County U.S. Hwy I at Ga. Hwy 178 4

Toombs County U.S. Hwy I at Ga. Hwy 56 5

Jeff Davis County U.S. Hwy 341 at Altamaha Road In conclusion, based on the data gathered and the results of the evacuation study conducted, IEM believes that the existing evacuation strategy is functional for the year 2012 conditions, given the lack of severe congestion or very high ETEs.

IEM 2012 Page 67 IEM 2012 Page 67

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 9.1. Summary of Recommendations The following recommendations will help emergency managers to improve the evacuation times from an event at HNP:

" ETEs can also be reduced by implementing additional measures that will shorten the elapsed time between the incident's occurrence and the time the public uses to take the required protective action-especially for the recreational area users, such as hunters and fishermen.

" Continue working through existing public outreach efforts to educate residents of how best to evacuate the EPZ and to clearly identify the location of the reception centers.

" Use TCPs to facilitate flow in populated areas where vehicles might otherwise have to slow due to congestion and traffic signals.

" Alter Evacuation Route 1, use SR-15 to get to CR-337 (Lyons-Center Road) instead of using CR-115 (Aimwell Road Ext). SR-15 is a straight wide road and has a major intersection with U.S. Hwy 1. CR-1 15 (Aimwell Road Ext) is paved but is a minor road and has a couple major curves.

" Developing comprehensive regional evacuation plans and/or working with local and state road/transportation departments to suggest improvements to the road infrastructure can contribute to a more successful evacuation.

Page 68 IEM 2012 Page 68 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT AP PEN.DIX A: GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIIES OF E.VAcuATIO0N ZONES Table 32: Geographical Boundaries of HNP EPZ Evacuation Zones Evacuation Zone Boundaries Landmark Descriptions Zones I

North - Altamaha River HNP, Deen's Landing, Altamaha A

SRiver Bridge Landing, Boy Scout South, East, and West mile boundary Camp North mile boundary and Altamaha River West - U.S. Hwy I Includes Davis Landing and Morris B-5 St - U.S. Hwy Landing, Moody Forest Natural South - Lennox Road Area East - Davis Landing Road North - Altamaha River West - Davis Landing Road B-10 South - Ten Mile Road and Fire Tower Road Includes Eason Bluff Landing East - Oscar Tippins Road and then 10-mile boundary North - Altamaha River and 2-mile boundary C-5 West - Appling/Jeff Davis County Line nclad tha Em ey C-5 outh-Alamaa Scool oadSchool and the AMIkids Baxley South - Altamaha School Road Wilderness Institute East - U.S. Hwy 1 North - Ten Mile Road and Fire Tower Road West/Northwest - Ten Mile Road C-10 South/Southeast - Manning Williams Road, Lookout Tower then 10-mile boundary, and then to Old Field Cemetery Road East - Oscar Tippins Road North - Georgia Hwy 56 D-5 West - Grays Landing Road and Hitchcock Road Includes Grays Landing, Cedar South - Altamaha River Crossing East - U.S. Hwy 1 North - Altamaha School Road West - U.S. Hwy 1 D-10 South - Georgia Power transmission line then Ten Mile Church the 10-mile boundary East/Northeast - Ten Mile Road IEM 20+/-2 Page A-i IEM 2012 Page A-L

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Evacuation Zone Boundaries Land mark Descriptions Zones..

North - C. V. Alexander Road and Roderick Clifton Road and Maxwell O'Neal Road and Knight Road E-5 West - U.S. Hwy I Marvin Church South mile boundary and Altamaha River East - David Bell Road, Providence Church/Old River Road, and 5-mile boundary North - Altamaha School Road West - Appling/Jeff Davis County line and Oil E-10 Well Road Sellers Cemetery, Midway Church South - Georgia Power transmission line East - U.S. Hwy 1 North - Altamaha Road and Bullard Creek Road F-10 West - Graham Road South and East - Jeff Davis and Appling County Lines North - Altamaha River West - Graham Road and then 10-mile Includes Red Bluff and Town Bluff G-1O boundary landings, Bullard Creek WMA, South - Altamaha Road and Bullard Creek Philadelphia Church Road East - Jeff Davis and Appling County Lines North - Georgia Hwy 56 Includes Grays Landing and McNatt H-1O West - Toombs/Montgomery County Line Falls Landing South - Altamaha River East - Grays Landing Road and Hitchcock Road North mile boundary West - Georgia Hwy 56 and 1-10 Toombs/Montgomery County Line South - Georgia Hwy 56 East - U.S. Hwy 1 North mile boundary West - U.S. Hwy 1 and David Bell Road South - C. V. Alexander Road and Roderick Includes Toombs Central School J-1O Clifton Road and Maxwell O'Neal Road and Knight Road East/Southeast - Georgia Hwy 178 and Georgia Hwy 147 North - Georgia Hwy 147 Northwest - Georgia Hwy 147 West mile boundary and Providence Church/Old River Road South - Altamaha River East - Toombs/Tattnall County Line Page A-2 IEM 2012 Page A-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Evacuaones ZoneBoundaries Landmark Descriptions North - Georgia Hwy 147 L-0 West - Tattnall/Toombs County Line South - Altamaha River East - 10 mile boundary IEM 2012 Page A-3 IEM 2012 Page A-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page A-4 IEM 20+/-2 Page A-4 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT The detailed map for the evacuation network with legible values for nodes and links are provided in Figure 18 through Figure 21. In addition, detailed information for each roadway link is listed in Table 34.

Figure 18: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant IEM 2012 Page B-i IEM 201.2 Page B-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

[Jf aisH hS Ap li i Ciounty i

i gh Schooii.l Figure 19: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant Page B-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 0*

Figure 20: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant IEM 2012 Page 8-3 IEM 2012 Page B-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 21: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant Page BA IEM 2012 Page B-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Attributes for Roadway Characteristics Attribute Definition Link #

The unique identifier for each roadway segment between two nodes.

U-Node Upstream node number for associated link.

D-Node Downstream node number for associated link.

Length Length of the roadway segment.

Lane Width Width of lane for the link.

Number of Lanes Number of lanes in the direction of travel.

As defined in the ETE study such as Interstate, major arterial, minor Roadway Type arterial, etc.

The equivalent hourly rate at which vehicles can traverse an intersection Saturation Flow Rate approach under prevailing conditions, assuming that the green signal is available at all times and no lost times are experienced in vehicles per hour of green per lane.

FFS Free flow speed over the link.

Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 0055 0057 0069 0069 0069 0081 0239 0239 0239 0240 0449 0449 0449 0626 0626 0057 1710 0714 2096 6758 0082 0240 0630 2096 0462 1197 1286 1660 0630 1508 2.293 0.855 2.145 3.353 2.244 0.037 0.075 0.408 6.416 3.126 0.810 0.942 1.474 0.639 3.429 12 10 10 12 10 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 1455 800 800 1455 800 1455 4400 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 800 1455 1455 55 35 35 55 35 50 65 40 55 55 55 55 35 45 55 IEM 2012 Page 6-5 IEM 2012 Page B-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation Link #

U-Node D-Node Width of Roadway Type Flow.Rate FFS (ml)

(ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(mph) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 0630 0631 0631 0729 0631 2096 0714 0851 0811 2091 0811 2325 0811 4546 0819 8724 0819 9117 0819 9187 0821 0081 0821 0082 0824 0462 0824 1197 0824 1695 0824 9916 0834 0847 0847 1007 0847 1337 0848 8701 0848 8723 0848 9257 0848 9898 1197 6640 1286 6484 1286 6640 1286 9775 1337 1341 1337 1602 1341 1360 1614 8761 1614 9741 1614 9775 6.103 5.323 2.068 0.903 8.759 4.581 5.735 1.630 1.948 2.398 0.055 0.040 5.887 4.988 4.188 2.052 0.235 1.559 2.522 3.328 3.607 5.604 5.069 2.587 1.461 1.581 0.668 0.277 1.625 0.552 6.623 1.196 1.612 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 10 12 12 10 10 12 12 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 1455 1455 1455 8oo 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 800 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1455 800 1455 1455 800 800 1455 1455 1455 55 45 55 35 45 45 45 45 35 55 45 45 55 55 45 55 55 35 55 55 45 45 55 35 45 35 55 55 35 35 55 55 55 Page B-6 IEM 2012 Page B-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation FFS Link #

U-Node D-Node Width of, Roadway Type:

Flow Rate m)

(ift)

Lanes (pcph)

(mh 49 1695 4546 3.279 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 50 1695 6640 3.427 10 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 35 51 2053 0821 3.467 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 52 2053 0875 3.285 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 53 2053 7799 4.677 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 54 2053 8761 0.151 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 55 2091 0240 0.912 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 50 56 2091 0626 0.474 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 57 2091 5938 0.093 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 50 58 2279 2280 1.466 11 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 40 59 2313 2327 0.327 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 60 2313 7183 2.746 10 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 35 61 2325 2338 5.700 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 62 2325 5891 1.412 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 63 2325 8600 1.697 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 64 2327 7277 2.577 10 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 35 65 2338 3305 1.527 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 66 2410 0478 2.151 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 67 2410 2411 0.791 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 68 2410 6411 0.718 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 69 2410 6769 1.249 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 70 2411 0490 1.619 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 71 2411 6429 1.041 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 72 2411 6434 1.115 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 73 3019 0765 1.057 10 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 35 74 3064 6278 1.235 12 1

Unpaved Road 800 40 75 3064 6289 0.634 11 1

Single-Lane Road 1292 40 76 3256 3258 1.164 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 77 3256 6157 0.459 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 78 3451 6157 6.232 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 45 79 3451 6278 1.437 12 1

Unpaved Road 800 40 80 3517 6157 2.693 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 55 81 3549 3793 2.483 10 1

Unpaved Road 800 35 IEM 2012 Page B-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 3627 3645 3627 3716 3627 3793 3674 3937 3793 2528 3804 2528 4176 4523 4324 4328 4324 6450 4324 6461 4328 6461 4344 2327 4344 6096 4344 6868 4437 3405 4437 5373 4464 4523 4464 5152 4523 4806 4806 4937 4806 6240 4843 5991 4875 4893 4925 4437 4925 4928 4928 5365 4928 5392 4928 7076 4937 5205 5060 5542 5060 5894 5063 5064 5063 7487 0.826 0.272 2.053 1.444 0.857 1.459 0.636 0.463 1.390 0.391 0.586 2.597 5.950 1.700 0.621 0.461 0.781 1.506 2.090 0.766 5.387 0.559 0.750 0.583 0.580 0.781 0.121 0.897 0.813 1.477 1.419 0.252 0.963 12 12 12 10 12 10 10 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 11 12 12 11 12 10 12 10 12 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road 1455 1455 1455 800 1455 800 800 4400 4400 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1292 1455 800 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1292 1455 1455 1292 1455 800 1455 800 4400 1455 45 45 45 35 55 35 35 65 65 35 55 45 45 45 40 40 55 40 55 45 45 50 35 40 45 45 40 45 35 55 35 65 45 Page B-B IEM 2012 Page B-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Lane Number

r Length Saturaion.

FFS:

Link #

U-Node D-Node Width of Roadway.Type Flow Rate FF (mi)

(ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(mph) 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 5064 3064 5064 6214 5065 3580 5065 3645 5067 3645 5067 3646 5067 5075 5075 5710 5075 5991 5379 5392 5391 5542 5392 7075 5409 5411 5409 5915 5409 6153 5411 4186 5411 5419 5419 5429 5429 5634 5542 6663 5634 9277 5700 5701 5707 3948 5707 5709 5709 2528 5709 5916 5710 3451 5710 5060 5795 6787 5795 6866 5798 0765 5798 5698 5799 2313 0.878 2.222 0.436 0.286 0.010 0.394 1.519 4.846 1.789 1.332 0.363 0.777 0.829 4.742 2.051 0.865 5.496 2.463 10.949 1.874 0.592 0.492 0.628 0.760 0.438 2.390 6.087 3.100 0.704 0.674 0.969 1.285 7.481 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 12 10 12 12 12 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Unpaved Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 1455 1455 800 4400 4200 800 4400 1455 4400 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 800 800 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 1292 800 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 4400 1455 1455 1292 1455 45 55 35 65 55 45 65 55 65 45 45 45 55 55 35 35 55 35 55 55 45 35 35 55 55 55 55 55 65 55 55 35 45 IEM 2012 Page B-9 IEM 20:12 Page B-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 5799 6478 5915 5916 5916 9283 5938 0249 5938 2338 5938 4473 6033 6141 6033 7075 6096 4937 6096 6103 6096 6240 6103 7984 6103 8092 6141 3517 6141 6175 6157 4893 6170 4464 6170 5710 6170 6186 6175 4806 6175 4893 6175 6180 6179 5164 6179 6180 6179 6181 6180 6181 6181 6182 6182 3937 6182 6186 6186 3937 6278 7479 6315 3517 6315 6323 0.804 2.246 1.450 1.489 0.513 4.041 3.026 0.241 1.180 3.296 5.431 0.014 3.795 1.442 2.616 1.840 1.177 1.422 0.290 2.130 0.027 2.141 0.562 0.519 0.775 1.653 0.605 0.649 1.349 0.859 0.321 2.316 2.517 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 10 12 10 10 12 12 Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 4400 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 4400 4400 4400 4400 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 800 1455 800 1455 800 800 1455 1455 65 40 55 50 45 45 55 55 45 65 65 60 65 35 55 45 55 55 55 55 45 55 45 55 55 35 55 35 55 35 35 45 55 Page B-jO IEM 2012 Page 13-1O IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Lane Number Saturation I

Length FFS Lik# UNde -oeWidth of

'Roadway Ty~pe Flow! Rate Link #

U-Node D-Node (mt)

(ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(mph) 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 6315 7076 6323 3517 6323 6326 6326 3256 6326 4723 6326 8701 6341 0478 6341 0490 6341 7365 6404 6410 6404 9544 6411 9740 6411 9741 6412 6214 6429 6434 6429 6769 6434 6484 6434 9775 6450 9283 6468 6478 6478 9508 6484 0490 6663 6461 6663 7013 6787 4328 6787 7254 6799 6806 6806 7252 6806 9283 6860 5700 6860 5915 6860 9277 6864 7076 1.187 0.359 2.223 1.558 2.470 4.138 2.016 0.762 2.050 0.196 1.797 2.791 1.036 0.188 1.046 0.451 1.354 1.406 0.924 3.708 4.001 2.162 0.743 0.602 0.088 0.721 0.253 1.194 1.097 0.676 2.793 2.336 3.356 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 11 12 11 12 11 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy 1455 1292 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 4400 1455 1455 1292 800 800 800 1292 1292 1455 4400 1292 1455 1292 4400 1292 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 4200 55 35 55 45 35 55 45 40 45 45 65 55 55 35 35 35 35 35 40 45 65 40 55 40 65 40 35 55 55 55 55 45 55 IEM 2012 Page B-lI IEM 2012 Page B-11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 6865 5634 6865 5700 6865 6866 6866 7252 6867 6868 6868 0765 7075 7076 7252 7254 7254 4323 7325 0057 7325 6214 7325 8810 7325 9935 7365 7367 7369 3414 7369 7383 7370 0081 7370 2584 7370 7369 7382 7383 7382 9454 7382 9740 7383 6163 7418 6033 7418 6240 7418 7421 7421 5392 7421 5798 7424 5429 7424 7426 7424 9454 7426 5429 7426 6404 3.314 0.805 0.338 0.175 0.321 5.195 0.230 0.008 0.527 2.168 0.614 0.759 4.839 0.769 2.128 0.891 9.908 3.051 0.149 0.081 2.772 6.376 3.017 0.151 0.137 0.887 0.735 1.744 0.200 0.127 2.898 0.149 9.899 12 12 12 11 10 12 12 10 11 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road 1455 1455 1455 1292 1292 1455 1455 1292 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 4400 1455 4200 1455 55 55 55 40 35 55 55 35 40 55 55 55 50 35 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 55 45 55 55 55 55 55 45 65 45 55 45 Page B-12 IEM 2012 Page 13-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation FFS.

Link #

U-Node D-Node Width of Roadway Type Flow Ratei (ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(Mph) 247 7426 8598 4.081 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 55 248 7429 5895 0.727 12 1

Single-Lane Road 1455 50 249 7429 6450 1.688 12 2

Multi-Lane Hwy 4400 65 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 7429 7430 7430 5391 7430 5991 7502 8701 7954 0082 7984 8092 8162 1730 8162 2280 8162 2307 8162 8811 8164 5063 8164 5065 8164 7479 8647 0008 8701 2280 8723 8724 8724 0008 8761 4546 8810 6456 8810 8811 8811 8814 8814 6524 8814 8817 8817 1156 8817 1363 8817 8818 8818 8820 8818 9899 8818 9909 8820 8723 0.183 2.004 0.330 7.504 2.981 6.084 0.736 2.918 1.451 3.104 0.591 1.143 2.404 3.950 2.181 0.062 0.337 0.644 1.038 0.749 1.583 0.802 1.825 0.773 1.805 0.222 1.505 1.164 1.719 4.487 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 4400 1455 4400 1455 1455 800 800 1455 1292 1455 4400 4400 800 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 800 1455 1455 800 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 65 50 65 45 45 40 35 55 40 55 65 65 40 45 45 35 45 45 35 55 55 35 55 45 35 55 55 55 55 55 IEM 2012 Page B-13 IEM 2012 Page 13-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation FFS Link #

U-Nde DNode (m)

Width Of Roadway Type Flow'Rate.

(ml)

(ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(mph) 280 8820 9185 281 9117 0008 282 9117 9144 283 9144 4086 284 9144 7789 285 9185 2096 286 9185 9187 287 9187 0631 288 9187 9199 289 9199 9144 290 9199 9543 291 9277 9278 292 9454 0892 293 9587 5795 294 9587 5799 295 9587 6404 296 9587 8092 297 9740 0478 298 9741 6769 299 9898 6528 300 9898 9899 301 9899 1343 302 9909 1156 303 9909 6758 304 9910 0055 305 9910 6758 306 9910 9912 307 9912 0055 308 9912 0069 309 9912 0714 310 9915 0462 311 9915 0714 312 9915 0834 3.407 2.692 2.194 4.280 1.287 2.607 2.716 1.928 5.419 3.722 1.092 1.729 6.449 0.224 0.208 9.638 2.690 2.703 0.028 1.102 0.168 0.650 1.369 0.927 0.917 0.801 0.502 1.022 1.078 1.659 6.026 1.383 1.098 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 12 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Multi-Lane Hwy Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 1455 1455 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 800 1292 4400 4400 4400 4400 1455 1292 800 1455 1455 800 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 1455 55 45 45 45 35 55 55 55 55 45 45 35 35 65 65 65 65 50 35 35 55 45 35 55 35 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 Page B-14 IEM 2012 Page B-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation-"

FS*

Link #

U-Node D-Nole Width of Roadway Type Flow Rate Lnd (mi)

(ft)

Lanes (pcph)

(mph) 313 9915 9916 314 9916 0834 315 9935 1341 316 9935 7365 317 9935 9940 318 9940 6477 319 9940 9943 320 9943 1197 321 9943 1660 1.120 12 1.731 10 1.898 12 3.005 12 1.344 12 1.480 10 0.879 12 1.488 12 1.565 12 1

1 I

I I

I 1

Single-Lane Road Unpaved Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road Single-Lane Road 1455 800 1455 1455 1455 1292 1455 1455 1455 55 35 55 45 50 35 55 55 45 IEM 2012 Page B-IS IEM 2012 Page B-15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT APP

.NDIX C.: TELEPHONE SURVEY Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the area surrounding the HNP requires the identification of travel patterns, available vehicles, and household size of the people who live or work in the area. Specific data is needed in developing ETEs in order to effectively quantify mobilization time and vehicle usage for residents responding to an evacuation advisory. A telephone survey was conducted to interview a sample of residents who live within the 10-mile EPZ of the proposed nuclear power plant site to acquire information required for the ETE study.

IEM secured the services of Survey Technology & Research Center (STR) in Allentown, Pennsylvania to conduct the telephone survey and provide data to IEM for analysis.

Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan A survey instrument/questionnaire was developed by IEM, and was reviewed and approved by Southern Nuclear project personnel. The approved survey questionnaire was used to interview a sample of residents who live or work within 10 miles of the site to acquire information required for the ETE study. To achieve a representative sample of households living in the EPZ, respondents were randomly selected to participate in the survey. STR fielded the telephone survey and provided data to IEM for analysis. Calls were conducted in the early evening hours from Wednesday, June 6, 2012 to Monday, June 11, 2012. Only residents 18 years of age and older were allowed to participate in the survey. Telephone calls were made during weekday evenings and on weekends in an attempt to reach households with both workers and non-workers. To ensure the highest quality of work was performed, a quality assurance plan was implemented in this survey process that included call-taker training, telephone monitoring by IEM, and extensive data quality control checks.

The sampling frame consisted of a list of households within the study area. The survey required over 550 completed surveys in order to achieve the desired margin of error of 4 percentage points or less. However, there were not enough telephone listings available in the databases used by STR to attain this sample size. Several efforts were made to get a more comprehensive listing. With the available telephone numbers, the survey effort produced a total of 225 completed surveys, resulting in a margin of error of 6.5% with 95% confidence level.

IEM 2012 Page C-I.

IEM 2012 Page C-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Survey Results

1. How many people live in your home?

Table 35: Household Size 1

18%

2 44%

3 21%

4 12%

5 or more 5%

100%-

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

44%

18%

21%

12%

4 5%

4 5 or more 1

2 3

Household Size Figure 22: Household Size Page C-2 IEM 2012 Page C-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

2. If instructed to evacuate, how many cars would your family use to evacuate...

a. During the day?

Table 36: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate During the Day 2

28%

3 or more 7%

None 1%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

28%

7%

0%

1 2

3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate duringthe day Figure 23: Number of cars used to evacuate during the day IEM 2012 Page C-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

b. At night?

Table 37: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate at Night 2

25%

3 or more 5%

None 1%

100% -,

80%

60% -

40%

20%-

0%-

69%

25%

5%

1%

I 2

3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate at night Figure 24: Number of cars used to evacuate at night Page CA IEM 2012 Page C-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

c. On most weekends?

Table 38: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate on Weekends 1

65%

2 29%

3 or more 6%

None 0%

100% -

80%-

60%-

40%-

20%-

no/

65%

29%

6%

0%

U70 1

2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate on weekends Figure 25: Number of cars used to evacuate on weekends IEM 2012 Page C-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

3. Does anyone in your family rely on public transportation in the event of an evacuation?

Table 39: Percentage who rely on public transportation to evacuate 2

<1%

3 0%

4 0%

5 or more

<1%

None 97%

97%

100%-

80%-

60%-

40%-

20%-

no/-

2%

<1%

0%

<1%

1 2

3 4

5or None more Numberwho rely on public transportation to evacuate Figure 26: Number who rely on public transportation to evacuate Page C-6 IEM 20+/-2 Page C-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

4. How many people in your family commute to a job, or to college, at least 4 times a week?

Table 40: Percentage of Respondents who indicated there are commuters in the family 2

18%

3 8%

4 1%

5 or more 1%

None 48%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

48%

24%

18%

8%

M 1%

1%

1 2

3 4

5or N

more Numberwho commute at least4 times per week one Figure 27: Number who commutes at least 4 times per week IEM 2012 Page C-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

5. How long would it take each family member who works to return home, including the preparation time to leave work and the travel time back home?

Table 41: Time to Return Home from Work 6-10 minutes 9%

11-15 minutes 10%

More than 15 minutes 75%

Time to return home from work 0 1-5 minutes 1

6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes

More than 15 minutes Figure 28: Time to return home from work

6. Would the people at home evacuate on their own, or wait for family members to come home before evacuating?

Table 42: Percentage who would Evacuate or Wait

-vacuate on own bZ5/o Await the return of family members 32%

Page C-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

7. If you had to evacuate, how long would it take for the family to pack clothing, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations...

a. During the day?

Table 43: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations during the Day Z-o minutes f 'o 6-10 minutes 11%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 74%

Time to complete evacuation preparations during the day 0 1-5 minutes 8 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes

More than 15 minutes Figure 29: Time to complete evacuation preparations during the day IEM 2012 Page C-9 IEM 2012 Page C-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

b. At night?

Table 44: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations at Night 1-5 minutes 7%

6-10 minutes 10%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 75%

Time to complete evacuation preparations at night E 1-5 minutes E 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes

More than 15 minutes Figure 30: Time to complete evacuation preparations at night Page C-jO IEM 2012 Page G-10 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

c. On most weekends?

Table 45: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations on Weekends L-* minutes ro 6-10 minutes 11%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 75%

Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends N 1-5 minutes

6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes

More than 15 minutes Figure 31: Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends IEM 2012 Page C-11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

8. Do any family members require assistance because they don't drive or cannot drive? If so, how many?

Table 46: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance 1

12%

2 2%

3 0%

4 0%

5 or more 0%

None 85%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

n o/L 85%

12%

2%

0%

1 2

3 4

5or None more Numberof family members who require evacuation assistance Figure 32: Number of family members who require evacuation assistance Page C-12 IEM 2012 Page C-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

9. What type of assistance is needed?

Table 47: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance JUST a rlae, no speciai accommoaauons i15/0 A wheelchair van 18%

An ambulance with medical equipment and personnel to provide special 0%

medical attention.

An ambulance that can carry a stretcher, but no special medical attention is 0%

required.

Other 3%

Other "0

0 o-Ambulance w/no medicalattention ci)

UC 0%

4 Ambulance w/medical attention

-18%

o Awheelchairvan 0) i--

Justa ride 78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 33: Type of Evacuation Assistance Required Other types of assistance requested include:

I have epilepsy, my mother has Alzheimer's and we have to get my brother from about 5 miles away IEM 2012 Page C-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page C-14 IEM 2012 Page C-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT APPENDIbXQ D: PTV VISION QUALITY ASSURANCE AND INDUSTARY ACCEPTANCE INFORMATION" March 28, 2006 traffic mobility logistics.

Akhil Chauhan Transportation Analyst/Modeler IEM, Inc.

8555 United Plaza Blvd.

Baton Rouge, LA 70809 RE: PTV Vision Quality Assurance and Industry Acceptance

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

Per your request, I am providing the following information concerning quality assurance and industry acceptance of the PTV Vision traffic simulation and transportation planning software.

PTV AG has performed extensive research and development of the PTV Vision software since 1992. The basis of the VISSIM simulation model is the car-following and lane-changing models developed at the University of Karlsruhe, Germany since 1974. The first commercial release of VISSIM was in 1993. The VISSIM simulation model components have been validated by PTV for accuracy-and performance based on field data in Germany and the United States.

A comprehensive quality assurance procedure is conducted before each service pack and major software release by PTV, ensuring consistency of the results within acceptable stochastic variation. A summary of changes/improvements/fixes for each service pack are provided in the releasenotes_..._e.txt file included with any service pack.

There are over 430 users of the VISSIM simulation software in North America and over 800 users worldwide. There are over 200 users of the VISUM planning software in North America and over 600 user worldwide.

In total, there are over 850 VISSIM licenses and over 350 VISUM licenses within North America. PTV Vision is accepted and used by over 90 academic agencies in the United States and Canada, 18 State Department of Transportation agencies in United States, 3 Provincial Transport Ministries in Canada, and the Federal Highway Administration.

PTV America, Inc.

1300 N Market Street, Suite 603 Wilmingtonr, DE 19801-1809 Phone:

302-654-4384 Fax:

302-691-4740 www.ptvamerica.com IEM 2012 Page D-i IEM 2012 Page D-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT The following public agencies are currently using VISSIM:

Arkansas State Highway Dept,

CALTRANS, Colorado DOT, Florida DOT, Idaho DOT,

" Kansas DOT, Louisiana DOT, Michigan DOT, Missouri DOT, Nevada DOT, New Mexico DOT, NYSDOT.

Ohio DOT, Oregon DOT, South Carolina DOT,

UDOT,

" Washington DOT traffic mobility logistics.

PTV America, Inc.

1300 N Market Street, Suite 603 Wilminqton, DE 19801-1809 Phone:

302-654-4384 Fax:

302-691-4740 www.ptvamerica.com The following public agencies are currently using VISUM:

AGFTC, Fort Edward NY BMPO, Bend OR BMTS, Binghamton NY CAMPO, Corvallis OR CDTC, Albany NY El Paso MPO, El Paso TX Farmington MPO, Farmington NM KMPO, Coeur D'Alene ID Las Cruces MPO, Las Cruces NM LCOG, Eugene OR METRO, Portland OR MWVCOG, Salem OR NOCTC, Goshen NY PPACG, Colorado Springs CO RATS, Rockford IL Santa Fe MPO, Santa Fe NM Skagit COG, Mount Vernon WA Southwest WA RTC, Vancouver WA SRTC, Spokane WA WVTC, Wenatchee, WA YVCOG, Yakima WA Page D-2 IEM 2012 Page D-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT If you have any questions about the PTV Vision software, feel free to contact me at 302-654-4384.

Sincerely yours, Kiel Ova, P.E., PTOE Project Manager traffic mobility logistics.

PrV America, Inc.

1300 N Nlaikct Stieet, Suite 603 I.lilirniglon, DF 193s01,1809 Phonec:

302-654 -4 384 wvvw.ptvamerica.com IEM 2012 Page D-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page D-4 IEM 20+/-2 Page D-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT APPENDI1X E: ETE REVIEW CARITERIA CHEC KLIST 294 Table 48: NUREG/CR-7002 ETE Review Criteria Checklist Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 1.0 Introduction

a.

The emergency planning zone (EPZ)

Yes Section 1.1 Site Location and surrounding area should be Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone described.

b.

A map should be included that Yes Figure 2: HNP EPZ Boundary and Protective identifies primary features of the site, Action Zones including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c.

A comparison of the current and Yes Section 1.3 ETE Comparison Chart previous ETE should be provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 1-1, "ETE Comparison," of NUREG/CR-7002.

1.1 Approach

a.

A discussion of the approach and Yes Section 2.2 Methodology level of detail obtained during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.

Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation (and sub-sections)

Section 4.0 Evacuation Roadway Network Section 4.3 Evacuation Network Characteristics Section 5.2 Evacuation Simulation

b.

Sources of demographic data for Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data schools, special facilities, large employers, and special events should be identified.

c.

Discussion should be presented on Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network use of traffic control plans in the Characteristics analysis.

Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures 30 29 NRC. Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies. NUREG/CR-7002. November 2011.

Online: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7002/ (last accessed October 12, 2012).

IEM 2012 Page E-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

d.

Traffic simulation models used for Yes Section 2.2 Methodology the analyses should be identified by Section 5.0 Evacuation Time Estimate name and version.

Methodology

e.

Methods used to address data Yes Section 8.0 Sensitivity Study on Population uncertainties should be described.

Change 1.2 Assumptions

a.

The planning basis for the ETE Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions.

includes the assumption that the evacuation is ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented.

b.

Assumptions consistent with Table 1-Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions 2, "General Assumptions," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a.

The ten scenarios in Table 1-3, Yes Section 2.4 Scenarios Modeled Evacuation Scenarios, should be Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a.

A discussion should be provided on Yes Section 2.5 Evacuation Area Modeled the approach used in development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a.

A map of the EPZ with emergency Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone response planning areas (ERPAs)

Figure 2: HNP EPZ Boundary and Protective should be included.

Action Zones

b.

A table should be provided identifying Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone the ERPAs considered for each ETE Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged calculation by downwind direction in Evacuation Keyhole each sector.

30 Because the HNP EPZ does not have any population centers, traffic control plans have not been produced.

However, Section 4.3 discusses traffic control points.

Page E-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

c.

A table similar to Table 1-4, Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-Evacuation Keyhole 7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/5 mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a.

Demand estimation should be Yes Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle developed for the four population Demand Estimation (and subsections) groups, including permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools.

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a.

The US Census should be the source Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data of the population values, or another Section 3.1 Permanent Residents credible source should be provided.

b.

Population values should be adjusted Yes Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle as necessary for growth to reflect Demand Estimation population estimates to the year of the ETE.

c.

A sector diagram should be included, Yes Figure 4: 2012 HNP Sector and Ring similar to Figure 2-1, "Population by Permanent Resident Population Map Sector," of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a.

The persons per vehicle value should Yes Section 3.1 Permanent Residents be between I and 2 or justification should be provided for other values.

b.

Major employers should be listed.

Yes Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation Section 3.2 Transient Populations 2.1.2 Transient Population

a.

A list of facilities which attract Yes Section 3.2 Transient Populations transient populations should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.

IEM 2012 Page E-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b.

The average population during the Yes Section 3.2 Transient Populations.

season should be used, itemized and Peak recreational population numbers were totaled for each scenario, used for the fall weekend scenarios. Off-peak are estimated for other scenarios.

c.

The percent of permanent residents Yes Section 3.2 Transient Populations assumed to be at facilities should be estimated.

d.

The number of people per vehicle Yes Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy Rate should be provided. Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e.

A sector diagram should be included, Yes Figure 5: HNP Sector and Ring Transient similar to Figure 2-1 of NUREG/CR-Populations Map 7002, showing the population distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a.

The methodology used to determine Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent the number of transit dependent Residents residents should be discussed.

b.

Transportation resources needed to Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent evacuate this group should be Residents quantified.

c.

The county/local evacuation plans for Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent transit dependent residents should be Residents used in the analysis.

d.

The methodology used to determine Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent the number of people with disabilities Residents and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.

e.

Capacities should be provided for all Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent types of transportation resources. Bus Residents seating capacity of 50% should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

Page E-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

f.

An estimate of this population should Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent be provided and information should Residents be provided that the existing registration programs were used in developing the estimate.

g.

A summary table of the total number Yes Table 10: Transit Dependent Permanent of buses, ambulances, or other Resident Evacuation Information transport needed to support evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a.

A list of special facilities, including Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School the type of facility, location, and Populations average population should be provided. Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.

b.

A discussion should be provided on Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data how special facility data was obtained.

c.

The number of wheelchair and bed-Yes There are no special facilities in the EPZ bound individuals should be provided, with wheelchair and bed-bound individuals.

d.

An estimate of the number and Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School capacity of vehicles needed to Populations support the evacuation of the facility Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy Rate should be provided.

e.

The logistics for mobilizing specially Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School trained staff (e.g., medical support or Populations security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a.

A list of schools including name, Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School location, student population, and Populations transportation resources required to Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy Rate support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.

b.

Transportation resources for Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School elementary and middle schools are Populations based on 100% of the school capacity.

IEM 2012 Page E-5 IEM 20:12 Page E-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

c.

The estimate of high school students N/A There are no high schools in the 10-mile who will use their personal vehicle to EPZ.

evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be provided.

d.

The need for return trips should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School identified if necessary.

Populations 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a.

A complete list of special events N/A No special events were studied.

should be provided and includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b.

The special event that encompasses N/A No special events were studied.

the peak transient population should be analyzed in the ETE.

c.

The percent of permanent residents N/A No special events were studied.

attending the event should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a.

A shadow evacuation of 20 percent Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions should be included for areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles from the NPP.

b.

Population estimates for the shadow Yes Section 3.1.3. Resident Population evacuation in the 10 to 15 mile area Summary beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c.

The loading of the shadow evacuation Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions onto the roadway network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a.

The volume of background traffic and Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions.

pass-through traffic should be based It is assumed that little pass-through and on the average daytime traffic. Values background traffic would exist after the may be reduced for nighttime evacuees start to load into the roadway scenarios, network.

Page E-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b.

Pass-through traffic should be Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions.

assumed to have stopped entering It is assumed that little pass-through and the EPZ about two hours after the background traffic would exist after the evacuees start to load into the roadway network.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a.

A summary table should be provided Yes Section 3.6 Summary of Demand that identifies the total populations Estimation and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a.

The method(s) used to assess Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model roadway capacity should be discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a.

A field survey of key routes within the Yes Section 4.1. Network Definition EPZ has been conducted.

b.

Information should be provided Yes Section 4.1 Network Definition describing the extent of the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

c.

A table similar to that in Appendix A, Yes Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics "Roadway Characteristics," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

d.

Calculations for a representative Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model roadway segment should be provided.

e.

A legible map of the roadway system Yes Appendix B: Evacuation Network Lines that identifies node numbers and (Detailed Information) segments used to develop the ETE Figure 18 through Figure 21 should be provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR-7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis IEM 2012 Page E-7 IEM 2012 Page E-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a.

The approach used to calculate the Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model roadway capacity for the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b.

The capacity analysis identifies where Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model field information should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a.

A list of intersections should be Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network provided that includes the total Characteristics numbers of intersections modeled Table 17: Intersection Control Type that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b.

Characteristics for the 10 highest Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network volume intersections within the EPZ Characteristics are provided including the location, Table 18: Information for Ten Highest signal cycle length, and turn lane Volume Intersections queue capacity.

c.

Discussion should be provided on N/A There are no fixed timing traffic signals in how time signal cycle is used in the the network.

calculations.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a.

The adverse weather condition should Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions be identified and the effect of adverse weather on mobilization should be considered.

Because there are few extreme weather conditions such as heavy snow at the HNP, no significant impacts of adverse weather on mobilization are expected.

b.

The speed and capacity reduction Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions factors identified in Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be used or a basis should be provided for other values.

c.

The study identifies assumptions for N/A Because there are few extreme weather snow removal on streets and conditions such as heavy snow at the HNP, driveways, when applicable, no significant impacts of adverse weather on mobilization are expected.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time Page E-8 IEM 2012 Page E-8 IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a.

The process used to develop trip Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation generation times should be identified.

Network

b.

When telephone surveys are used, Yes Appendix C: Telephone Survey the scope of the survey, area of the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c.

Data obtained from telephone Yes Appendix C: Telephone Survey surveys should be summarized.

d.

The trip generation time for each Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation population group should be Network developed from site specific information.

4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a.

Permanent residents are assumed to Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation evacuate from their homes but are Network not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip generation time includes the assumption that a percentage of residents will need to return home prior to evacuating.

b.

Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 5.1.2 Trip Generation Time time and method used to notify Estimate transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c.

The trip generation time accounts for N/A No Hotels are found within the EPZ.

transients potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d.

Effect of public transportation N/A No Special events are expected.

resources used during special events where a large number of transients are expected should be considered.

e.

The trip generation time for the Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation transient population should be Network integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents IEM 2012 Page E-9 IEM 2012 Page E-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a.

If available, existing plans and bus Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent routes are used in the ETE analysis. If Residents new plans are developed with the There are no specialized bus routes or pick-ETE, they should have been agreed up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be upon by the responsible authorities, picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

b.

Discussion should be included on the Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent means of evacuating ambulatory and Residents non-ambulatory residents.

c.

The number, location and availability Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent of buses, and other resources needed Residents to support the demand estimation are provided.

d.

Logistical details, such as the time to Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent obtain buses, brief drivers and initiate Residents the bus route are provided.

There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

e.

Discussion should identify the time Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent estimated for transit dependent Residents residents to prepare and then travel Section 5.1.3 Trip Generation Time for to a bus pickup point, and describes Transit Dependent Permanent Residents the expected means of travel to the pickup point.

Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

f.

The number of bus stops and time Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent needed to load passengers should be Residents discussed.

There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

g.

A map of bus routes should be N/A There are no specialized bus routes or pick-

included, up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

Page E-IO IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin 1. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

h.

The trip generation time for non-Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent Permanent ambulatory persons includes the time Residents to mobilize ambulances or special Section 5.13 Trip Generation Time for vehicles, time to drive to the home of Transit Dependent Permanent Residents residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit provided.

Dependent Permanent Residents There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

Information should be provided to N/A No return trips are expected.

support analysis of return trips, if necessary.

4.1.3 Special Facilities

a.

Information on evacuation logistics Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School and mobilization times should be Populations provided.

b.

Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special Facility inbound and outbound speeds.

and School Populations No return trips are expected

c.

The number of wheelchair and bed-N/A N/A bound individuals should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.

d.

Time for loading of residents should Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School be provided.

Populations

e.

Information should be provided that Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School indicates whether the evacuation can Populations be completed in a single trip or if No return trips are expected additional trips are needed.

f.

If return trips are needed, the N/A No return trips are expected destination of vehicles should be provided.

g.

Discussion should be provided on Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School whether special facility residents are Populations expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h.

Supporting information should be N/A No return trips are expected provided to quantify the time elements for the return trips.

IEM 2012 Page E-1.1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 4.1.4 Schools

a.

Information on evacuation logistics Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School and mobilization times should be Populations provided.

Section 5.1.4 Trip Generation Time for Schools Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special Facility and School Population

b.

Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special Facility inbound and outbound speeds.

and School Population

c.

Time for loading of students should Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School be provided.

Populations Section 5.1.4 Trip Generation Time for Schools

d.

Information should be provided that Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School indicates whether the evacuation can Populations be completed in a single trip or if No return trips are expected additional trips are needed.

e.

If return trips are needed, the N/A No return trips are expected destination of school buses should be provided.

f.

If used, reception centers should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School identified. Discussion should be Populations provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

g.

Supporting information should be N/A No return trips are expected.

provided to quantify the time elements for the return trips.

4.2 ETE Modeling

a.

General information about the model Yes Section 5.2 Evacuation Simulation should be provided and demonstrates its use in ETE studies.

b.

If a traffic simulation model is not N/A A traffic simulation model is used for ETE used to conduct the ETE calculation, study.

sufficient detail should be provided to validate the analytical approach used.

All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input Page E-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a.

Traffic simulation model assumptions Yes Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy and a representative set of model Section 3.6 Summary of Demand inputs should be provided.

Estimation Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation Network Section 5.2 Evacuation Simulation

b.

A glossary of terms should be Yes Appendix B: Evacuation Network Lines provided for the key performance (Detailed Information) measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a.

A discussion regarding whether the Yes Section 5.2.3 The Impact Model traffic simulation model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b.

The minimum following model Yes Section 6.5 Example Model Output outputs should be provided to support review:

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit mode.

2. Network wide average travel time.

3. Longest Queue length for the 10 intersections with the highest traffic volume.

4. Total vehicles exiting the network.

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

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

c.

Color coded roadway maps should be N/A No extensive LOS E or LOS F was observed.

provided for various times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E" and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a.

The ETE should include the time to Yes Section 6.0 Analysis of Evacuation Times evacuate 90% and 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population.

IEM 201.2 Page E-1.3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin 1. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b.

The ETE for 100% of the general Yes Section 6.1 Summary of ETE Results for public should include all members of General Public the general public. Any reductions or truncated data should be explained.

c.

Tables should be provided for the 90 Yes Section 6.1 Summary of ETE Results for and 100 percent ETEs similar to Table General Public 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Table 24: 100% ETEs in Minutes Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002.

Table 25: 90% ETEs in Minutes

d.

ETEs should be provided for the 100 Yes Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit percent evacuation of special Dependent Permanent Residents facilities, transit dependent, and Section 6.4 ETE Results for School school populations.

Populations 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a.

Information that responsible Yes Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic Management authorities have approved the traffic Locations and Other Potential Mitigating control plan used in the analysis Measures should be provided.

b.

A discussion of adjustments or Yes Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic Management additions to the traffic control plan Locations and Other Potential Mitigating that affect the ETE should be Measures provided.

5.2 Enhancements In Evacuation Time

a.

The results of assessments for Yes Section 9.0 Conclusion and improvement of evacuation time Recommendations should be provided.

b.

A statement or discussion regarding Yes Section 9.0 Conclusion and presentation of enhancements to Recommendations local authorities should be provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a.

A list of agencies contacted and the Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data extent of interaction with these agencies should be discussed.

b.

Information should be provided on Yes The ETE has been reviewed and no any unresolved issues that may affect unresolved issues were found.

the ETE.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a.

A discussion of when an updated ETE Yes Section 8.0 Sensitivity Study on Population analysis is required to be performed Change and submitted to the NRC.

Page E-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Edwin I. Hatch Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a.

A map of congregate care centers Yes Figure 7: HNP Evacuation Network and reception centers should be provided.

b.

If return trips are required, N/A No return trips are expected assumptions used to estimate return times for buses should be provided.

c.

It should be clearly stated if it is N/A The congregate care centers are located assumed that passengers are left at adjacent to the reception centers. No the reception center and are taken by separate buses are required.

separate buses to the congregate care center.

IEM 20+/-2 Page E-i5 IEM 2012 Page E-15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page E-16 IEM 2012 Page E-16 IEM 2012

ML13214A047

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

9.0 CONCLUSION

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

Navigation menu

ML13214A047

Text

SUMMARY

9.0 CONCLUSION

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

Navigation menu

Search