Text

Evacuation Time Estimate for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
	ML13214A046
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/31/2013
From:	; IEM
To:	Boone C; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
	NL-13-1601 IEM/TEC12-1002
	Download: ML13214A046 (142)
	v • d • e

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Update Enclosure Evacuation Time Estimate for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

November 2012, Revised July 2013 Evacuation Time Estimates for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant IEM/TEC12-1002

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. NAVTEQTM is a trademark of NAVTEQ.

This page intentionally left blank.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT EXECUTIVE

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 plume exposure pathway 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 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP). 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 Criteriafor Development 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, three population segments have been analyzed in this report:

permanent residents and transient population; transit dependent permanent residents, and school populations. No special facilities were found within the EPZ. 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 FNP are estimated to be 7,188. 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 4,734, which includes 600 transient workers at FNP. The school populations identified in the FNP EPZ include six schools, which are a combination of both public and private. In these analyses, IEM contacted the schools within the EPZ area to collect current enrollment and staff figures. The total peak population for the schools in the 10-mile EPZ is estimated to be 3,225. Transit dependent permanent residents in the 10-mile EPZ are estimated to be 94. This study also considered the voluntary evacuees, who are also known as shadow evacuees and consist of 20% of the residents within 10 to 15 miles from FNP.

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 26 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 26 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 NRC. Criteriafor 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 Pagei1

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant projections. A total of 156 evacuation scenarios were considered as part of this study to represent different wind, temporal, and seasonal weather conditions.

Both 100% and 90% ETEs for each scenario were collected. The 100% ETEs for 2012 normal weather conditions ranged from 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 20 minutes. The 100% ETEs for 2012 adverse weather conditions ranged from 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 5 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 20 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 30 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 50 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 30 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 50 minutes. 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 FNP:

" 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 (TCPs) to facilitate flow in the high volume intersections where vehicles might otherwise have to slow down due to congestion.

" Work with local and state road/transportation departments to suggest improvements to the road infrastructure near the intersections of Ross Clark Circle with U.S. Hwy 84, Alabama Hwy 52 (AL-52), and Cottonwood Road (AL-53) may contribute to reduced congestion and lower ETEs.

" Consider routing evacuees from some zones in Alabama such as B-10 and C-10 to other roads in order to distribute traffic evenly and to reduce traffic congestion.

" The regional stakeholders should continue using and updating, as necessary, the existing regional evacuation plans.

Note:

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

IEM 2012 Page iiii Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 Methodology .................................................................. 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 ............................................................................. 11 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. Transien t F acilities ................................................................................................................ 22 3.3. Transit Dependent Permanent Residents .................................................... 23 3.4. Special Facility and School Populations ........................................................ 24 3.5. Vehicle Occupancy Rate .................................................................................. 26 3.6. Summary of Demand Estimation ................................................................. 26 4.0 Evacuation Roadw ay Netw ork .................................................................. 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 Methodology ................................................ 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 .................................................................................. 45 IEM 2012 Page iii

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 5.2. Evacuation Simulation ................................................................................... 46 5.2.1. T he D em and M odel ........................................................................................................ 47 5.2.2. The Netw ork M odel ......................................................................................................... 47 5 .2.3. The Im pact M odel ................................................................................................................ 53 6.0 Analysis of Evacuation Tim es .................................................................. 55 6.1. Summary of ETE Results for General Public ............................................. 55 6.2. Discussion of Scenario Results ...................................................................... 58 6 .2 .1. G eneral T rend s ..................................................................................................................... 58 6.2.2. Evacuation Area: 0-2 Miles ............................................................................................. 59 6.2.3. Evacuation Area: 0-5 Miles ............................................................................................. 59 6.2.4. Evacuation Area: 0-10 Miles ........................................................................................... 60 6.3. ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents ........................ 60 6.4. ETE Results for School Population ............................................................... 61 6.5. Example M odel Output .................................................................................. 61 7.0 Supplem ental Analysis ............................................................................ 64 7.1. Confirmation of Evacuation .......................................................................... 64 7.2. Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating M easures .............................................................................................................. 65 8.0 Sensitivity Study on Population Change ................................................ 70 9.0 Conclusion and Recom m endations ........................................................ 72 9.1. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 73 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 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Tables and Figures Figure 1: Farley Nuclear Plant Site Location............................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: FNP EPZ Boundary and ProtectiveAction Zones ................................................................... 4 Table 1: ETE Comparison Chart....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled* ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: EvacuationAreas for an Evacuation Keyhole With and Without the 2-Mile Zone............. 13 Figure 3: An Example of the Area Ratio Method Applied to a Census Block Divided into Sub-Areas

............................... o................ * .......1........................................................................................o .* .................. 1 6 Table 4: 2012 PermanentResident PopulationDistributions by Sector and Ring ........................ 17 Figure 4:2012 FNP Sector and Ring PermanentResident PopulationMap .................................... 18 Table 5: 2012 PermanentResident PopulationDistributionsby Zones ........................................... 19 Table 6: Transient PopulationDistributionby Sector and Ring......................................................... 20 Figure 5: FNP Sector and Ring Transient Populations Map ................................................................ 21 Table 7: Transient PopulationDistributionby Zones .......................................................................... 21 Table 8: Peak and Average Transient Population............................................................................... 22 Table 9: Transit Dependent PermanentResidents ............................................................................... 23 Table 10: Transit Dependent PermanentResident Evacuation Information ................................... 24 Table 11: School Locations............................................................................................................................ 24 Table 12: School Evacuation Information............................................................................................... 25 Figure 6: Map of Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................... 25 Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by PopulationCategories........................................................... 26 Table 14: PopulationSummary Table .................................................................................................... 26 Table 15: Vehicle Summary Table ......................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7: FNP Evacuation Network ......................................................................................................... 30 Table 16: Reception Centers ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 8: FNP Alabama Evacuation Routes.......................................................................................... 33 Figure 9: FNP Georgia Evacuation Routes............................................................................................. 34 Table 17: Intersection Control Type ....................................................................................................... 35 Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections.............................................................. 37 Figure 10: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Transients,Special Facilities(SeriesA) ........... 40 Page v IEM 20+/-22012 Page v

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning Hom e (Series B) ............................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 12: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences with Family Members Returning Hom e (S eries C) ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 19: Trip Generation Estimate for Different Evacuation Activity Series .................................. 41 Figure 13: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems ...................................... 43 Figure 14: Distributionof Trip Generation Times by PopulationGroup ............................................. 44 Table 20: Trip Generation Time for TransitDependent PermanentResidents................................ 45 Table 21: Trip Generation Time for Populationin Schools................................................................... 45 Figure 15: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM .............................................................................. 46 Figure 16: Roadway Type ClassificationMethod .................................................................................. 48 Table 22: Grade Adjustment Factors (fG) ..................................................................................................... 49 Table 23: Adjustment (fnp) for Effect of No-PassingZones on Average Travel Speed on Two-Way S egm ents .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 24:2012 100%ETEs in Minutes.................................................................................................. 56 Table 25:2012 90% ETEs in Minutes .................................................................................................... 57 Table 26: Transit Dependent PermanentResident Evacuation Information ................................... 61 Table 27: School Evacuation Times .......................................................................................................... 61 Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percentsat Exit Roads ............................................................. 62 Figure 17: Mobilization and Evacuation Curve .................................................................................... 62 Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes................................................................. 63 Table 30: Traffic Control Points for the FNP EPZ ................................................................................... 65 Figure 18: Traffic Control Points in and around the FNP EPZ ............................................................. 69 Table 31: PotentialCongestion Points for the FNP EPZ...................................................................... 72 Table 32: GeographicalBoundaries of FNP EPZ Evacuation Zones ................................................. B-1 Figure 19: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant................................................ B-3 Figure 20: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant................................................. B-4 Figure 21: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant............................................ B-5 Figure 22: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant................................................ B-6 Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs ........................................................................... B-7 Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics............................................................................................. B-7 IEM 2012 Page Page vi vi IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 35: Household Size .............................................................................................................................. C-2 Figure 23: H ouseholdSize ............................................................................................................................ C-2 Table 36: Percentageof Cars Used to Evacuate During the Day............................................................ C-3 Figure 24: Number of cars used to evacuate duringthe day .................................................................. C-3 Table 37: Percentageof Cars Used to Evacuate at Night ........................................................................ C-4 Figure 25: Number of cars used to evacuate at night.............................................................................. C-4 Table 38: Percentageof Cars Used to Evacuate on Weekends ........................................................ C-5 Figure 26: Number of cars used to evacuate on weekends ............................................................. C-5 Table 39: Percentagewho rely on public transportationto evacuate ................................................... C-6 Figure 27: Number who rely on public transportationto evacuate........................................................ C-6 Table 40: Percentageof Respondents who indicatedthere are commuters in the family ................ C-7 Figure 28: Number who commutes at least 4 times per week ............................................................... C-7 Table 41: Time to Return Home from Work ............................................................................................... C-8 Figure 29: Time to return home from work ................................................................................................ C-8 Table 42: Percentagewho would Evacuate or Wait ................................................................................. C-9 Table 43: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparationsduringthe Day .................................................. C-9 Figure 30: Time to complete evacuationspreparationsduringthe day ................................................ C-9 Table 44: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparationsat Night ........................................................... C-10 Figure 31: Time to complete evacuation preparationsat night........................................................... C-10 Table 45: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparationson Weekends ............................................ C-11 Figure 32: Time to complete evacuation preparationson weekends ............................................ C-11 Table 46: Percentageof Respondents who indicateda family member needs assistance............ C-12 Figure 33: Number of family members who require evacuation assistance................................. C-12 Table 47: Percentageof Respondents who indicateda family member needs assistance..... C-13 Figure 34: Type of EvacuationAssistance Required........................................................................ C-13 Table 48: NUREG/CR-7002 ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................ E-1 Page vii IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page vii

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page viii Page viii IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 11.0, INT :*":*'"

RO DUCTI1ON: ," ,,,,,,,,,, * ,,,i The Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, also known as Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), is owned by Alabama Power and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). In order to ensure the safety of the public living in the vicinity of FNP, 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 Criteriafor 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 FNP. 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 numbers3 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 FNP emergency management personnel to effectively plan for an accidental event at the plant.

1.1. Site Location FNP is located on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River in the northeastern corner of Houston County, Alabama. The City of Blakely, Georgia is approximately 14 miles northeast of the plant and is the nearest significant population center from the plant. The City of Dothan, Alabama is approximately 15 miles west of the plant. Figure 1 shows the location of the FNP site.

2 NRC. Criteriafor 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 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 1: Farley Nuclear Plant Site Location IEM 20i2 Page 22 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 1.2. Emergency Planning Zone The plume exposure pathway EPZ includes the majority of the 10-mile geographic area surrounding FNP. The land within the plume exposure pathway is divided by the Chattahoochee River. The FNP EPZ covers portions of Houston and Henry Counties in Alabama, and Early County in Georgia. The EPZ is primarily a rural farming and lumber harvesting area. Transient population in the EPZ is minimal with the exception of recreational users along the Chattahoochee River, and hunters.

The State of Alabama Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan4 , the State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) 5 , and the Joseph M. Farley 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 19 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) known as protective action zones (PAZ).6 The PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from FNP's 2012 emergency information calendar7 , the county REPs8 , and discussions with both SNC and FNP 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 FNP. 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 Alabama Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan - Nuclear Power Plants - Alabama Emergency Management Agency. Revision 15 - July 2009.

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

6 Protective Action Zone is also referred to as "Zone" in this document.

72012 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

S State of Georgia REP Plan, Blakely-Early County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents Involving the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. January 2009.

Dothan-Houston County Emergency Management Agency Standard Operating Guidelines for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Incidents.

Page 3 IEM 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page 3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT I

Figure 2: FNP EPZ Boundary and Protective Action Zones 1.3. Comparison with Previous ETE Study Table 1 identifies information that is useful in comparing the 2008 and 2012 ETE studies.

Note that the 2008 ETE study was modeled using both 2007 and 2010 estimated population data. For comparison purpose, Table 1 lists the information for the 2010 estimated population from the 2008 study, as well as the 2012 population from this study.

Table 1: ETE Comparison Chart Permanent Residents

- Total Population 10,358 7,188

- Vehicle Occupancy Rate 2.5 1.5-1.6 IEM 2012 Page 4 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ETLE Element Previous ETE (for 20:10) Updated ETE(for 2012)

Transit Dependent Population

- Total Population 0 94

- Number of Buses 0 245

- Number of Ambulances 0 36

- Number of Special Equipped Vehicles 9 0 67 Transient Population

- Total Population 5,239 4,73410 Special Facilities 11

- Total Population 0 0

- Number of Buses N/A N/A

- Other Transportation Resources N/A N/A Schools

- Total Student Population 3,002 2,952

- Number of Buses 57 52 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 VISUM 10 VISUM11 Scenarios Combination of time Combination of time (weekday, weeknight, (weekday, weeknight, weekend) and weather weekend) and weather (adverse and normal) (adverse and normal) 9 The number of special equipped vehicles includes both buses with lifts and special medical transport vehicles, per discussion with county emergency management agencies.

10 Due to more available data received in 2012, the total population for the transient population has been adjusted to separate transient workers and resident workers. This separation decreases the total number of transient in the 2012 report.

" No special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

IEM 20:12 Page 5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT ETE Element Previous ETE (for 2010):.. UWpdated ETE (for 2012)

Assumptions e One

Vehicle occupancy rates pevaouationd vehie for residents are based on per household for tlpoesre residents telephone survey

Mobilization time for

rsdn Mobilization n time rnin for nd ransent resient resident and transient res and trasiednt tident population are based on population are based on tlpoesre literature 12 telephone survey

No shadow evacuation N 20%

ml of residents in 10-15 igaesao consieredmile ring are shadow considered evacuees 12 Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating Protective Actions for ChemicalAgent Emergencies (ORNL-6615). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

Page 6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 12.0 ASSUMPTIONS AN1D 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 receive initial notification the same time as the general public within the EPZ.

" 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 FNP. The vehicle occupancy rates and trip generation times of shadow evacuees are consistent with those of the 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 Page 7 2012 IEM 2012 Page 7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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% 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 FNP site.1 3 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 Alabama and the State of Georgia REPs.

" The 19 PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from State of Alabama REP 14 Plan , State the county of Georgia REPs1 7 REP Plan 15,with

, and discussions FNP'sSNC 2012 andemergency information calendar' 6 ,

FNP representatives.

" The 2012 population estimates, as well as business location data, were obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the 2012 Plant Farley Tone Alert Radio (TAR) 18 Database, and the population estimates obtained from Synergos Technologies, Inc.

" The peak and average estimated employment level at the plant 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 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.

13PTV Vision can be found online at http://www.ptvamerica.con.

14State of Alabama Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan - Nuclear Power Plants - Alabama Emergency Management Agency. Revision 15 - July 2009.

15State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan - Annex B - Plant Farley. Georgia Emergency Management Agency. January 2009.

162012 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

17State of Georgia REP Plan, Blakely-Early County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents Involving the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. January 2009.

Dothan-Houston County Emergency Management Agency Standard Operating Guidelines for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Incidents.

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

Page 8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

" Roadway and intersection approach capacities were calculated using the concepts and procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual19 published by the Transportation Research Board.

" Warning diffusion and mobilization times were based on the data presented in Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies2 0 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 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.

Alabama Emergency Management Agency

Dothan/Houston County Emergency Management Agency

Henry County Emergency Management Agency

Early County Emergency Management Agency

Georgia 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%.

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.

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

20 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 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled*

Scenario Day Time Weather 1 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 variationscenarios were not modeled. However, due to a potentialfor more recreational population during the fall months, peak recreationalpopulation 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:

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.

Page 10IEM 201 Page 10O IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

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.

2.5. Evacuation Areas Modeled NUREG/CR-7002 recommends that the EPZ be subdivided into evacuation areas for performing the evacuation time estimate analyses. 2 1 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, 26 unique areas were defined by IEM for the FNP EPZ, in 21 NUREG/CR-7002. Table 1-4, p. 8 .

Page ii 20i2 IEM 2012 Page 11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT agreement with the SNC personnel. As shown in the lower part of Table 3, separate 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.

IEM 2012 Page 12 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 3: Evacuation Areas for an Evacuation Keyhole With and Without the 2-Mile Zone Affected PAZs Evacuation A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 1-5 J-5 K-5 B-10 C-10 D-IO E-IO F-IO G-1O H-IO i-10 J-lO K-IO (ERPAs) Area A 0-2 miles X A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, F-5,1-5, J-5, 0-5 miles X X X X X X X X X K-5 All Evacuation 0-10 miles, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Zones Full EPZ Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind Wind Affected PAZs (ERPAs)

Direction (from) A B-S C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 1-5 J-5 K-5 B-1.0 C-10 D-IO E-iO F-IO GIO I-1-10 I-JlO K-IO B-5, C-5 N X X B-5, C-5 NNE X X C-5, D-5 NE X X D-5 ENE X D-5, E-5 E X X E-5, F-5 ESE X X E-5, F-5 SE X X F-5 SSE X F-5, I-5 S X X F-5, I-5 SSW X X I-5 SW X 1-5, J-5 WSW X X 1-5, J-5 W X X Page 1.3 IEM 201.2 IEM 2012 Page 13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Affected PAZs Evacuation AecPAs ea A B-5 C-S D-5 E-5 F-5 1-5 J-5 K-5 B-1O C-10 D-IO E-IO F-10 G-IO H-IO 1-j0 J-1O K-IO (ERPAs) Area J-5 WNW X J-5, K-5 NW X X J-5, K-5 NNW x x Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5-miles downwind Wind Affected PAZs (ERPAs)

Direction (from) A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F- I-5 J-5 K-5 B-IO C-10 D-IO E-1O F-jo G-10 H-IO 1-10 J-lO K-jO A, B-5, C-5 N X X X A, B-5, C-5 NNE X X X A, C-5, D-5 NE X X X A, D-5 ENE X X A, D-5, E-5 E X X X A, E-5, F-5 ESE X X X A, E-5, F-5 SE X X X A, F-5 SSE X X A, F-5,I-5 S X X X A, F-5, 1-5 SSW X X X A, I-5 SW X X A, 1-5, J-5 WSW X X X A, I-5, J-5 W X X X A, J-5 WNW X X A,J-5, K-5 NW X X X A,J-5, K-5 NNW X X X IEM 20+/-2 14 Page 1.4 Page IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 3.0 POPULATION AND VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATION:

IEM identified three population segments 22 within the EPZ surrounding FNP, as specified in the NUREG/CR-7002 guidelines. These populations include the permanent residents and transient population, transit dependent permanent 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). The school populations consist of students and staff, and may require additional consideration in the event of an evacuation. Populations at six schools in the FNP EPZ were identified.

FNP is located in a rural area of Alabama. There are no concentrated population centers, and there is minimal transient population within the 10-mile EPZ. The transient facilities include the five major employers, which includes FNP and the parks/hunter/boater recreational attraction sites. There are no special facility populations within the 10-mile EPZ. 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 Chattahoochee River.

IEM derived the 2012 permanent population estimates, as well as business location data, from 2010 Census, the 2012 Plant Farley 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 individual facilities. The recreational visitors' population figures were based on discussions with the FNP's emergency planning staff and contact with individual parks. 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 JEM used GIS software to process the geographic data and associated population counts for census blocks in each of the counties surrounding FNP. LEM then aggregated these populations over each zone to generate a permanent resident population count, which is comprised of the nighttime population.

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

IEM 2012 Page 15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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, JEM 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 3illustrates 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: An Example of the Area Ratio Method Applied to a Census Block Divided into Sub-Areas Page 16 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 3.1.1. Auto-Owning Population LEM collected information for auto-owning population by conducting a telephone survey of the residents within the FNP EPZ. The survey indicates an average household size of 2.1 persons for the FNP EPZ. The collected data also indicate that more than 97% 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 1.5 to 1.6 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 2-3% 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 Population Mile Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Population 0-2 14 14 2-3 86 100 3-4 258 358 4-5 649 1,007 5-6 850 1,857 6-7 857 2,714 7-8 1,294 4,008 8-9 1,308 5,316 9-10 1,752 7,068 10-11 2,213 9,281 Page 17 IEM 2012 IEM Page 17

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 11-12 2,409 11,690 12-13 2,539 14,229 13-14 3,573 17,802 14-15 7,322 25,124 Figure 4: 2012 FNP Sector and Ring Permanent Resident Population Map P~idi~ 1~ IEM 2012 Page 12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 5 shows the distribution of the permanent resident population by zone.

Table 5: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Zones Pe26rmanent Resident Zone Population A-AL 15 A-GA 2 B-5 78 B-1O 294 C-5 174 C-10 818 D-5 139 D-10 1,690 E-5 153 E-1O 1,560 F-5 283 F-10 592 G-10 113 H-1O 127 I-5 313 1-10 95 J-5 127 J-jO 267 K-5 1 K-1O 347 3.2. Transient Populations The transient population for the FNP EPZ area is derived from a combination of daytime populations, recreational populations, and employment data. The employment data was obtained from Synergos Technologies and 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 FNP site considers users of parks and waterways, primarily boaters on the Chattahoochee River. Through conversations with FNP's emergency planning staff and with staff from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's IEM 2012 Page 19

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Mobile office, IEM estimated there will be approximately 120 hunters/boaters throughout the EPZ on weekdays during the hunting season and approximately 575 hunters/boaters on peak weekends during the hunting season. In addition, there will be approximately 20 park visitors at parks during the weekdays, and 90 park visitors on the weekends.

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 Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Population 0-2 608 608 2-3 74 683 3-4 484 1,167 4-5 235 1,402 5-6 463 1,865 6-7 513 2,378 7-8 784 3,162 8-9 603 3,765 9-10 764 4,529 IEM 20+/-2 Page 20 Page 20 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 5: FNP 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-AL 604 A-GA 4 B-5 71 B-1O 251 C-5 37 C-10 332 D-5 32 D-1O 1,280 E-5 31 E-10 711 Page 21 IEM 2012 IEM 20:12 Page 21

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Zone Transient Population iI I

F-5 261 F-10 189 G-1O 41 H-IO 74 1-5 114 1-10 37 J-5 79 J-10 95 K-5 242 K-10 248 3.2.1. Transient Facilities The transient facilities consist of the five major employers, which includes the FNP site, and a few parks/hunter/boater recreational attraction sites. FNP is the largest employer in the EPZ, which has peak number of workers at 800 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 to one fifth of peak recreational population is expected for the weekday scenarios and few visitors during the night. Table 8 shows the transient facilities' peak and average transient populations.

Table 8: Peak and Average Transient Population i T Peak Average Percent of Facility Type Facility Name County Zone Population Population Resident Employer Farley Nuclear Plant 23 Houston A-AL 800 264 25%

Employer Georgia-Pacific Paper Early K-5 320 250 25%

Employer Maverick C & P Early J-5 60 31 25%

Employer Republic Conduit Early K-:O 112 52 20%

Employer Qualico Steel Houston E-10 180 55 20%

Employer AMX Trucking Houston D-1O 100 49 20%

Boat Landing Gordon Boat Camp Houston B-5 100 16 50%

Boat Landing Navy Yard Landing Early K-10 50 8 50%

23 There are approximately 800 daytime employees and approximately 68 night and weekend employees.

Approximately 600 employees may evacuate the facility during a daytime incident and it is possible that no one may evacuate during a nighttime or weekend incident.

Page 22 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Facility Name County Zone RePopulaton Peak Aveag Population Percentof Resident Facility Type BoatColumbia Lock and Early 1-5 100 16 50%

BotLnig Dam 6 Boat Landing Odom Creek Landing Early G-10 25 4 50%

Park Omusee Public Use Area Houston F-5 75 86 80%

Park/Boat Coheelee Creek Public Early G-10 40 15 70%

Landing Use Area 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 FNP EPZ was obtained from the county EMAs through SNC emergency planning staff. As shown in Table 9 there are 94 transit dependent permanent residents in the 10-mile EPZ. A roster of these individuals is maintained in the 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 Houston County Henry County Early County Wheelchair 22 1 8 Transportation 44 2 13 Immobile 3 0 1 To evacuate the transit dependent permanent residents, the counties have 245 buses that will travel their regular routes to provide transportation to those individuals lacking personal transportation.24 In addition, there are 49 lift-equipped buses, 36 ambulances, and 18 special transport vehicles. The special equipped vehicles will be dispatched by the EMA Directors directly to the homes of non-ambulatory individuals requiring special and 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.

24 State of Georgia REP Plan, Blakely-Early County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents Involving the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. January 2009.

Dothan-Houston County Emergency Management Agency Standard Operating Guidelines for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Incidents.

Page 23 IEM 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page 23

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 10: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Information Transit Dependent:Categor .Numberf Nber

. Loading Population Mobilization Time Vehicles.Tm Wheelchair 31 67 15 min 5 min Transportation 59 245 15 min 2 min Immobile 4 36 10 min 10 min 3.4. Special Facility and School Populations No special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were found within the EPZ; however, IEM identified six schools within the EPZ (Table 11). The key information for evacuating the populations at the school facilities is shown in Table 12. The information shown includes the enrollment, number of evacuation vehicles and its mobilization time, evacuee loading time and distance from the facility to the EPZ boundary.

Although the schools will require special consideration in an evacuation, it is estimated there are a sufficient number of evacuation vehicles available and no return trips are needed. The evacuation vehicles for the six schools will be dispatched from each county school bus depot as needed. All busses carrying students from the schools will check in at the Houston County Farm Center in Dothan, prior to their final destination. Figure 6 shows the location of these facilities.

Table 11: School Locations Facility'Name Address City County Zone Ashford Elementary School 100 Barfield Street Ashford Houston D-1O Ashford High School 607 Church Street Ashford Houston D-10 Houston County High School 202 W Church Street Columbia Houston F-5 Webb Elementary School 178 Depot Street Webb Houston E-1O Houston County Career and Technical Center 801 Eighth Avenue Ashford Houston D-10 Ashford Academy 1100 N Broadway Street Ashford Houston D-10 IEM 2012 Page 24 Page 24 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 12: School Evacuation Information Student Staff Ashford Elementary School 842 88 0% 17 25 min 15 min 6mi Ashford High School 814 66 20% 13 25 min 15 min 6 ml Houston County High School 461 25 20% 8 25 min 15 min 11 ml Webb Elementary School 501 33 0% 10 25 min 15 min I mi Houston County Career and 134 16 100% 0 N/A N/A 6mi Technical Center Ashford Academy 200 45 0% 4 10 min 30 min 6.5 ml Figure 6: Map of Schools within the EPZ Page 25 2012 IEM 2012 Page 25

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 3.5. Vehicle Occupancy Rate Different vehicle occupancy rates (VOR) were used for the various categories of population (e.g., 1.5-1.6 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 1.25). Table 13 shows the VORs by different population categories used for the evacuation modeling.

Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by Population Categories Population Category Population Subtype Vehiicl Occupancy RAate Auto-Owning Permanent 1.5-1.6 Permanent Residents Non-Auto-Owning Permanent 2.1 Transients Work Force Transients 1.25 Recreational Transients 1.5 Students 52 Staff 1.25 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 its peak level during the weekday because the majority is workers. There are also significant amount of transient population during the weekend, when the recreational population is at its peak level. The transient evacuees during the night are mainly the night shift workers of several industries within the EPZ. The shadow evacuees, who are assumed to be 20% of residents in the 10-15 mile ring, remain the same for weeknight and weekend. They are relatively less during the weekday because portion of the residents commute to work or school. As 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 SPermanent Transit. Shadow Scenario residetnts T ts Schools Dependent population Weekday 3,981 4,208 3,225 94 2,403 Weeknight 7,188 383 - 94 3,587 Weekend 7,188 1,003 94 3,587 Page 26 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 15: Vehicle Summary Table Permanent Transit- Shadow Scenario residents nts Schools dependant population Weekday 4,040 3,366 660 - 2,030 Weeknight 4,467 292 - - 2,229 Weekend 4,635 716 - - 2,313 Page 27 IEM 2012 Page 27

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 28 Page 28 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT '

EVACTION

.4.0. RAD WAY NETWOORK The evacuation routes were modeled based on the information provided in the FNP 2012 emergency information calendar. Additional information regarding the evacuation routes was obtained from the past FNP 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 FNP 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 2012 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.

Page 29 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 29

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Reception Center Figure 7: FNP 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 NAVTEQ 25 and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 26. 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 25 PTV America, Inc. "NAVTEQ Data for PTV VISION." Online:

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

26 Georgia Department of Transportation. Online: http://www.dot.state.ga.us. GDOT road network data was downloaded from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse Web site: https://gisl.state.ga.us/index.asp. No such information was readily available on the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) website.

Page 30 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT section using a Global Positioning System (GPS)-enabled device. The GPS allowed 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 Henry and Houston Counties in Alabama, and Early County in Georgia. The evacuation routes were originally developed by the Alabama and Georgia Emergency Management Agencies 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 84. Examples of major arterials are Alabama State Road 95 (AL-95), Alabama State Road 52 (AL-52), Georgia State Road 62 (SR-62), and Georgia State Road 370 (SR-370). An example of a connector road is Bill Yance Road in Alabama. The connector roads, although not part of the evacuation routes described in the calendar, actually load the evacuee population onto the evacuation Page 31 IEM 2012 IEM 201.2 Page 31.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT routes. Figure 8 shows the evacuation routes in Alabama and Figure 9 shows the evacuation routes in Georgia.

Each evacuation route leads to one of two designated reception centers listed in Table 16 and shown graphically in both figures.

Table M6: Reception Centers State:: .ReceptIon . EvacuationRoutes Limt Ed. 2012 Emergency din Center A .Infor matin Caleindar Go west on U.S. Hwy 84 or AL-52 to Ross Clark Houston County 1701 E Cottonwood Circle in Dothan. Then go south on Ross Clark Alabama Farm Center Road Circle to Houston County Farm Center located Dothan, AL 36301 at the intersection of Ross Clark Circle and Cottonwood Road (AL-53)

G Early County 12020 Columbia Go east to SR-39. Then go north to Blakely or Georgia High School Street take SR-62 into Blakely.

High chool Blakely, GA 39823 IEM 2012 Page 32 Page 32 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 8: FNP Alabama Evacuation Routes Page 33 2012 IEM 2012 Page 33

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 9: FNP Georgia Evacuation Routes IEM 2012 Page 34 Page 34 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 4.3. Evacuation Network Characteristics The evacuation network, as modeled using the NAVTEQ street network data, contains 1,077 links27 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 454 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 50-65 mph. The major and minor arterial or connector roads generally have a posted speed limit of 35-45 mph. On some of the roads, especially the highways, the posted speed limit decreases to 25 mph near city limit boundaries. Unpaved roads or dirt roads have randomly posted speed limits, so a speed limit of 20-25 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 84 west towards Ross Clark Circle in Dothan, Alabama, and U.S. Hwy 84 east toward Jakin, Georgia. AL-52 and GA SR-62 also have two lanes in the direction of evacuation along some sections (due to the presence of passing lanes). U.S. Hwy 84 has three lanes available in the direction of evacuation as it approaches Ross Clark Circle in Dothan.

Traffic control along the evacuation routes is mostly managed using stop signs. In Alabama, traffic lights were found along AL-95 (approaching center of Columbia), along AL-52 (approaching Dothan), along Ross Clark Circle (in Dothan), at the intersection of Broadway and Old U.S. Hwy 84 (in Ashford), and along U.S. Hwy 84 (approaching Dothan). In Georgia, a traffic light was found at the intersection of Church Street and Columbia Road in Blakely.

The number of intersections for different control types during the evacuation is listed in Table 17. There are 68 intersections that will be manned controlled and are modeled as actuated signal controlled, with varied cycle length. A few observed timing traffic signals in the network will be replaced by manned control during the evacuation.

Table 17: Intersection Control Type Control Type Number of Intersections Stop sign Control 223 Signal Control 3 Manned Control 68 27 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.

Page 35 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 35

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT The key information for the ten highest volume intersections is listed in Table 18. Most of these intersections are not planned to be manned controlled, due to their relative distance from the FNP site. When minor roads intersect with the major roads, they are typically stop sign controlled. It is recommended to set up traffic control points at these intersections to facilitate the traffic flow from minor roads. Many of the ten highest volume intersection lie along U.S. Hwy 84, which serve as a backbone highway to transport evacuees in Appling County.

IEM 2012 Page 36 Page 36 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections Location. Control Type Cycle Green Time Evacuation Direction TurnTurning Length Capacity LaneQueue

(# vehicle)*

US-84 at CR-36 Stop sign N/A N/A Right turn from CR-36 to US-84; left turn I from US-84 to CR-36 US-84 at US-431 Actuated Signal Vary 0 - 90 sec Left turn from US-84 to US-431 7 US-431 at SR-53 Actuated Signal Vary 0 - 90 min Left turn from US-431 to SR-53 22 SR-53 at Houston County Manned Vary 0-5m Left and right turn from SR-53 to 0 reception center Houston County reception center CR-36 at SR-53 Stop sign N/A N/A Left turn from CR-36 to SR-53 J Ross Clark Cir at US-431 Actuated Signal Vary 0 - 45 sec Left turn from Ross Clark Cir to US-431 0 Bluffspring Road at US-84 Stop sign N/A N/A Right turn from Bluffspring Road toUS- 0 84 CR-57 at US-84 Stop sign N/A N/A Right turn from CR-57 Road toUS-84 0 CR-55/N Broadway at US-84 Stop sign N/A N/A Right turn from CR-55 Road toUS-84 2 Enon Road at SR-52 Manned Vary 0-2 min Enon Road at SR-52 2

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page 38 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 5.0, -EV:AICUi*AT:IO N TIMEI ESTi MAT E MIETHODOLOGY 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 the 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 the 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 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12, 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:

Page 39 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 39

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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:

1- 2: Receive notification

2 - 3: Prepare to leave work/facilities

3 - 4: Travel home

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 10. They will be notified of the event and will leave their activities.

1 2 3 Figure 10: 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 11.

1 2 5 Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning Home (Series B)

The results of a phone survey suggest around 25% 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 12 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 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 1H

1. 2H,H nmnmnmmmnmmm People at Home Figure 12: 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 B (1--+2 +2--*5) 2 C Max:f(ic -2c+ c-+3c+3c-.4c),(IH-42H+2H---.5))

Page 41 2012 IEM 2012 Page 41

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 ProtectiveActions for ChemicalAgent Emergencies (EPACAE).28 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 FNP 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 13. Any loss in capability of the ANS components would potentially increase the notification times and, as a result, ETEs.

28 Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating ProtectiveActions for ChemicalAgent Emergencies (ORNL-6615), Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

Page 42 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 100%

-0 90%

0) 80%

a-W 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Minutes from Warning Start Figure 13: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems 2 9 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.

29 Ibid.

Page 43 IEM 2012 IEM Page 43

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 14 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% ; .- --- - --- --

90% t C

.2 90%*

I w 70%

C

/

6i 50%

I - Residents with Returning Members (Day)

C

.2 40%]

+/ .. 1-- Residents without Returning Members (Day) a 0

/

- -- - Residents without Returning Members (Night)

0. 30%

I 4.' -- Residents without Returning Members (Weekend)

C 6,

U I-10%~ -I-

- ý -Workers 10%

/

/ - . Recretional Population I - ý11 , 4 ý .

0% ý*4ý 0 1?0 + + 70 'ro 60 110 100 *ý1 ";> -1 *0 1

.0-10 Minutes after Warning Figure 14: 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 FNP EPZ are estimated at 94. 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.

IEM 20+/-2 Page 44 Page 44 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 20: Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents TransitD0ependent CntAsTrpGneration

.i Category, Time Houston Residents will evacuate by special equipped 36 minutes vehicles Wheelchair Henry Residents vehicles will evacuate by special equipped 36 minutes Early Residents will evacuate by special equipped 36 minutes vehicles Houston Residents will evacuate by school bus 36 minutes Transportation Henry Residents will evacuate by school bus 36 minutes Early Residents will evacuate by school bus 46 minutes Houston Residents will evacuate by ambulance 46 minutes Immobile Henry Residents will evacuate by ambulance 46 minutes Early Residents will evacuate by ambulance 46 minutes 5.1.4. Trip Generation Time for Schools As described in Section 3.4, there are six schools within the FNP EPZ. IEM assumed that it will take 40 minutes (from the start of the notification) for loading the students onto evacuation vehicles and another 5 minutes for the school staff to be ready to leave. Table 21 shows the assumptions for determining the trip generation time for the school population. The trip generation times for the schools were determined by consulting with relevant personnel at the facilities.

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

Trip generation time forplus School Staff Ashford Elementary Staff will not leave until students (40 minutes)

School students have evacuated. 5 minutes 5 minutes Students will evacuate in 40 School Students Ashford High School minutes. 40 minutes Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for School Staff Ashford High School students have evacuatedi students 5 minutes (40 minutes) plus School Students Houston County High Students will evacuate in 40 40 minutes School minutes.

tHouston County High Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for SchoolStaff School students have evacuatedi students 5 minutes(40 minutes) plus Page 45 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 45

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT School Students weDD eiementary btuaents wiii evacuate in 4u 40 minutes School minutes.

Trip generation time forplus School Staff Webb Elementary Staff will not leave until students (40 minutes)

School students have evacuated. 5 minutes 5 minutes School Students Houston County Career Students will evacuate in 40 40 minutes and Technical Center minutes.

Trip generation time forplus School Staff Houston County Career Staff will not leave until students (40 minutes) and Technical Center students have evacuated. s minutes 5 minutes School Students Ashford Academy Students will evacuate in 40 40 minutes minutes.

Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for School Staff Ashford Academy students have evacuatedi students (40 minutes) plus 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 15 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

" Unks

" Speed Limits

Capacities t ,Results

- Listing an statlstics calcuate attribtes of networlk objects and routes

Indicator matrIcesaevacuation trime estimnates, queutin analysis, timeapaece diagras I Figure 15: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM IEM 2012 Page 46 Page 46 IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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.: 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 the following 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.

30 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 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 16: Roadway Type Classification Method IEM 20+/-2 Page 48 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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.

0 Full access controlled road: Capacity = 1700 + FFS

10 with maximum of 2400

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 *fG - 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 an adjustment factor for grades and an adjustment value for no passing zones. fG can be found from Table 22 31 . 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) 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 31 FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, Appendix N: Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity, Rural Tow-lane Capacity, Table 6, http://www.lfhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn3.cfm IEM 2012 Page 49

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 2332. If no other information is available, one may assume the two-way flow rate is in the range 10 1-300 pcph, with a no passing zone percentage of 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 in.Average Travel Speed (mph),.

Two-Way Demaqd;Flow Rate, /No-Passing Zones(%)

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 32 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 JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Reduction in-Averag&,TaveI1Speed (mph).

TwomWay Dremand FlOw Rate, NqPassing Zones$(%)

vo(ocph)"

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 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 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 #9 (node 0017 to node 7791, shown in Figure 19 and Page 51 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page 51

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs Atribute .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.

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

) as a segment of GA- 134 is a rural single lane road located in a level area with approximate 50% 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 #196 (node 0373 to 7496, shown in Figure 19 and IEM 2012 Page 52 Page 52 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs 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.

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

) as a segment of U.S. Hwy 84 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.

Page 53 IEM 2012 IEM 20+/-2 Page 53

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 54 Page 54 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 16.0 ANALYSIS 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 FNP 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.

Page 55 IEM IEM 2012 Page 55

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 24: 2012 100% ETEs in Minutes Normal! Weather .. Adverse Weathder 0ffý4e6ted6E-RP*

.. :eteda.ERP..

.* .Ar,0a T.MidWeekend MdweMidweek WeekendMiweMidweek Daytime Daytime Weekend Weekend Daytime Daytime Evening Evening A 2-mile ring 125 125 120 125 125 125 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, 5-mile ring 190 180 185 190 180 190 F-5, I-5, J-5, K-5 All Evacuation Zones 10-mile EPZ 200 195 195 205 195 200 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5, C-5 N 140 135 145 140 135 150 B-5, C-5 NNE 140 135 145 140 135 150 C-5, D-5 NE 135 135 135 135 135 135 D-5 ENE 130 130 130 130 130 130 D-5, E-5 E 135 135 135 135 135 135 E-5, F-5 ESE 180 160 170 185 160 175 E-5, F-5 SE 180 160 170 185 160 175 F-5 SSE 180 160 170 185 160 175 F-5, I-5 S 180 165 175 185 165 180 F-5, I-5 SSW 180 165 175 185 165 180 I-5 SW 140 130 150 140 130 150 1-5, J-5 WSW 145 135 150 145 140 155 1-5, J-5 W 145 135 150 145 140 155 J-5 WNW 130 130 130 135 130 135 J-5, K-5 NW 175 170 170 175 170 170 J-5, K-5 NNW 175 170 170 175 170 170 Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A, B-5, C-5 N 140 135 145 140 135 150 A, B-5, C-5 NNE 140 135 145 140 135 150 A, C-5, D-5 NE 135 135 135 135 135 135 A, D-5 ENE 130 130 130 130 130 130 A, D-5, E-5 E 135 135 135 135 135 135 A, E-5, F-5 ESE 180 160 170 185 160 175 A, E-5, F-5 SE 180 160 170 185 160 175 A, F-5 SSE 180 160 170 185 160 175 A, F-5, I-5 S 180 165 175 185 165 180 A, F-5, I-5 SSW 180 165 175 185 165 180 Page 56 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Normal[Weather Adve"rse Weather:

Affected4ERPAS. Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Daytime IWeekend

. Evening Daytime Daytime Weekend Evening Daytime A, 1-5 SW 140 130 150 140 130 150 A, 1-5, J-5 WSW 145 135 150 145 140 155 A, I-5, J-5 W 145 135 150 145 140 155 A,J-5 WNW 130 130 130 135 130 135 A, J-5, K-5 NW 175 170 170 175 170 170 A, J-5, K-5 NNW 175 170 170 175 170 170 Table 25: 2012 90% ETEs in Minutes Normal Weather Adverse Wather Affected ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend MidWeekend Weeke Mide Weekend Daytime Daytime Evening Daytime Daytime Evening A 2-mile ring 95 90 90 95 90 90 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, 5-mile ring 95 95 105 95 95 105 F-5, 1-5, J-5, K-5 All Evacuation Zones 10-mile EPZ 105 95 110 110 95 110 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5, C-5 N 95 95 100 95 95 105 B-5, C-5 NNE 95 95 100 95 95 105 C-5, D-5 NE 95 90 95 95 95 95 D-5 ENE 95 90 90 95 90 95 D-5, E-5 E 95 95 95 95 95 95 E-5, F-5 ESE 95 100 110 95 100 110 E-5, F-5 SE 95 100 110 95 100 110 F-5 SSE 95 100 110 100 05 110 F-5, I-5 S 95 100 .05 95 100 110 F-5, I-5 SSW 95 100 105 95 100 110 I-5 SW 90 90 95 95 90 100 1-5, J-5 WSW 95 90 100 95 90 100 1-5, J-5 W 95 90 100 95 90 100 J-5 WNW 95 90 95 95 95 95 J-5, K-5 NW 90 90 90 90 90 95 J-5, K-5 NNW 90 90 90 90 90 95 IEM 2012 Page 57

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Normal Weather Advers ether s Area Midweek Midweek ArectedERw:ek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Daytime Evening Daytime Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A, B-5, C-5 N 95 95 100 95 95 105 A, B-5, C-5 NNE 95 95 100 95 95 105 A, C-5, D-5 NE 95 90 95 95 95 95 A, D-5 ENE 95 90 90 95 90 95 A, D-5, E-5 E 95 95 95 95 95 95 A, E-5, F-5 ESE 95 100 110 95 100 110 A, E-5, F-5 SE 95 100 110 95 100 110 A, F-5 SSE 95 100 110 100 105 110 A, F-5, I-5 S 95 100 105 95 100 110 A, F-5, I-5 SSW 95 100 105 95 100 110 A, I-5 SW 90 90 95 95 90 100 A, 1-5, J-5 WSW 95 90 100 95 90 100 A, I-5, J-5 W 95 90 100 95 90 100 A, J-5 WNW 95 90 95 95 95 95 A, J-5, K-5 NW 90 90 90 90 90 95 A, J-5, K-5 NNW 90 90 90 90 90 95 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 5 minutes from the corresponding scenarios in normal weather. The adverse weather conditions have little impacts on ETEs, with no more than a 5 minute increase for all the scenarios. The increase is due more to the reduced speeds than to the reduced roadway capacities.

" For most areas, the weekday scenario produced the highest evacuation times. This is due to the increased amount of transients workers on the weekday. However, the weekend scenarios for some of the 0-5 mile and 2-5 mile areas that include evacuating zones B-5, F-5, or 1-5 produced higher evacuation times than weekday and Page 58 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT weekend. This is due to the high concentration of recreational transients in the areas (hunters and boaters) on the weekend. The recreational 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 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 FNP. In addition, Zone A includes a small number of permanent residents, non-plant employees, and recreational visitors in the Georgia side of area for hunting and other activities along the Chattahoochee River. For the weekday scenario, the plant workforce was modeled to reflect 600 employees who would evacuate during an event, excluding another 200 emergency personnel, who will not evacuate. For the weeknight and weekend scenarios, the 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 evacuation times for the 2-mile radius under different scenarios vary very little, though the weekday appeared to be a little bit longer than others. The evacuation times are relatively low and were affected by the loading times and available speed limits, not by congestion in the network. Population west of the Chattahoochee River will evacuate to the Houston/Henry County Evacuation Center in Alabama, primarily using Pleasant Grove Road to US-84. Population east of the Chattahoochee River will primarily use SR-370 to SR-62 to exit the EPZ for the Early County reception center in Georgia.

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 E-5, F-5, 1-5, J-5 and K-5. There are several evacuation routes leading out of the EPZ; however, a large portion of the evacuating population will converge on SR-62, SR-52 and US-84.

The population from zones A-AL, B-5, C-5, D-5 and E-5 will converge on US-84 and travel south to the Houston/Henry County reception center. The population from zones E-5 and F-5 will converge on SR-52 and US-84 and travel south to the Houston/Henry County reception center. The population from zone 1-5 as well as A-GA will primarily use State Route 62 to exit the EPZ and travel north to the Early County Reception Center.

Population from zones J-5 and K-5 will primarily use State Route 273, State Route 370, Cedar Springs Hwy, and State Route 62 to exit EPZ and travel north to the Early County Reception Center.

Evacuation times for the entire 5-mile EPZ are similar to maximum evacuation times for all subzones for each scenario. The 100% ETEs for 0-5 mi scenarios are substantially longer than those for the 2-mile radius scenarios, whereas the 90% ETEs are merely slightly longer than the corresponding 2-mile ones. This is mainly due to the increased population, especially the recreational population in 2-5 mi ring. 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.

Page 59 2012 IEM 2012 Page 59

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 6.2.4. Evacuation Area: 0-10 Miles The evacuation times of the entire 10-mile EPZ was slightly longer than those of 0-5 mile area, due to the additional evacuees from 5-10 mile area.

Zones A-AL, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, F-5, B-10, C-10, D-10, E-10, and F-10 will converge on SR-52 and US-84 and travel south to the Houston/Henry County reception center.

Zones A-GA, 1-5, G-10, H-10 and 1-10 will evacuate to the Early County Reception Center and will primarily use the SR-62 to leave the EPZ. Zones J-5, K-5, J-10 and K-10 will evacuate to the Early 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 Cedar Springs Hwy, State Route 39, Ades Springs Road and State Route 62 to exit the EPZ.

Population for this area includes permanent residents, transient employees, FNP employees, recreational visitors to the Chattahoochee River, park visitors, and hunters.

The area also includes Ashford Elementary School, Ashford High School, Houston County Career and Technical Center, Ashford Academy, Houston County High School, and Webb Elementary School. The population for these schools was only considered for the weekday scenario. Recreational activities were considered at peak levels for the weekend scenario.

These evacuation times are mainly influenced by three factors: 1) the higher warning and diffusion times for recreational population in the area; 2) possible moderate congestions on some such as Ross Clark Circle, US-84 and Alabama Hwy 52 (leading to Houston/Henry County reception center), and State Route 62 leading to Early County reception center; 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).

IEM 20i2 Page 60 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 26: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Information Transit Dependent Vehicle, Category. .. ETE Special Equipped Vehicle 55 min Bus 55 min Ambulance 65 min 6.4. ETE Results for School Population The ETEs, average travel speed, and travel for the school populations when evacuating full EPZ on the weekday under normal weather conditions are shown in Table 27: School Evacuation Times. The bus queue occurs due to several buses loading students simultaneously at the schools. Houston County High School has a large number of evacuation vehicles and is located farther away from the designated evacuation route than other schools. Therefore, it takes longer time to evacuate out of the EPZ. Because a large number of evacuation vehicles are expected in a short period from the schools in Ashford, AL, congestion occurs in the town.

Table 27: School Evacuation Times Outbound Travel Time to. Bus Queue SchoolName Travel Speed: EPZ Boundary Length Ashford Elementary School 21 mph 17 min 850 75 min Ashford High School 15 mph 24 min 650 95 min Houston County High School 13 mph 52 min 400 120 min Webb Elementary School 10 mph 6 min 500 70 min Houston County Career and 10mph 35 mi 0 95mi Technical Center Ashford Academy 16 mph 25 min 200 85 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 roads are listed in Table 28. The highest exit traffic volume occurs on US Hwy 84, which is the back bone of the evacuation route to the Houston County Reception Center. The network wide average travel time from the origins to the reception centers is 30 minutes. The total number of vehicle exit the EPZ is 9,476 and is higher than the total number of vehicles (excluding shadow evacuees) loaded into the network, because some shadow evacuees would use the exit links to drive away from FNP. The mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited IEM 2012 Page 61

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT the EPZ are plotted in Figure 17. The average speeds for the two evacuation routes leading to two designated evacuation routes are shown in Table 29.

Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percents at Exit Roads GA-62 1,102 61.0% 37.2% 1.6% 0).0%

GA-273 186 61.8% 35.5% 0.5% 0.0%

GA-363 409 73.6% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Fryer Road 189 57.1% 41.8% 1.1% 0.0%

Watson Bridge Road 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

AL-52 2,669 42.9% 56.0% 1.1% 0.0%

US Hwy 84 4,919 62.8% 32.0% 5.1% 0.1%

100% . . . . . . .. . . .

90%

70%

U

>n 70%-

w 016 60%

a 50%

IL 40%

. 30%

E 20% - Mobilized O 10% - Exited 0% T 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Minutes After Public Warning Figure 17: Mobilization and Evacuation Curve IEM 2012 Page 6262 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes Evacuation Route Average Speed (mph)

To Houston County Reception Center 30 To Early County Reception Center 37 Page 63 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 63

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 7.0 .SutPPLEMWENTAL 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.

As noted in the county REPs3 3 , 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, the Alabama Department of Conservation/Marine Police, 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.

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.

33 State of Georgia REP Plan, Blakely-Early County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents Involving the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. January 2009.

Dothan-Houston County Emergency Management Agency Standard Operating Guidelines for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Incidents.

IEM 2012 Page 64 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 18. The responsibility of supervising traffic controls during an evacuation will be shared between the State's and counties' emergency management and law enforcement agency personnel, 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 FNP EPZ Map TrafficControl' Location Point/Post Operation Control Description State ID 1 48 Houston County Sheriff 3840 E. Cook Road and I Lamp Brothers Alabama Road tSheriff 4185 Hunter Road and 10031 N. State 51 Houston County H 95 Alabama 3 53 HostnCony3928 Ed Tolar Road and 4415 N. State Alabama Houston County Sheriff Hwy 95 2475 Nuclear Plant Road and 1 Alabama 454 Houston County Sheriff Macedonia Road 5 37 North Main Street (AL-95) and State Hwy Alabama 7Houston County Sheriff 134 (Henry County 53) 6 38 Houston County Sheriff 12412 N. State Hwy 95 and 16742 E. Alabama State Hwy 52 517 Pea Market Road and 7841 Bill Alabama 739 Houston County Sheriff Yance Road 8 840 Houston County Huston ounty Sheriff heriff Rd3832 E. State Hwy. 52 and 315 Jesse RoadAlbm Alabama 9 41 Houston County Sheriff 3564 Cedar Springs Road and 1766 Alabama 41Hustn CuntySheiffEbenezer Road 10 42 Houston County Sheriff 2898 Road Cedar Springs Road and 1 King Alabama 11 43 Houston County Sheriff 2141 Cedar Springs Road and 3239 Alabama Edsel Deese Road 34 Section C. Traffic Control Points. Received from SNC October 30, 2012.

State of Georgia REP Plan, Blakely-Early County Emergency Management Agency Radiological Emergency Plan for Nuclear Incidents/Accidents Involving the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant. January 2009.

Page 65 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page 65

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 1308 Cedar Springs Road and 2465 N.

12 44 Houston County Sheriff Alabama County Road 33 i Cedar Springs Road and 1869 Pleasant 13 45 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Grove Road 2697 N. County 75 Road and 1530 14 46 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Bruner Pond Road 1372 N. County 75 Road and I Ed Tolar 15 47 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Road 306 N. County 75 Road and I Liberty 16 49 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Road 6190 Pansey Road and 150 E. Cook 17 50 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Road 2195 N. County 81 Road and 2213 N.

18 52 Houston County Sheriff Alabama State Hwy 95 Henry Co. - State Hwy 95 and County 19 36 Henry County Sheriff Alabama Road 112 (1st Road N. of Foster Creek)

Henry Co. - County Road 77 and County 20 35 Henry County Sheriff Alabama Road 53 Henry Co. - County Road 63 and County 21 34 Henry County Sheriff Alabama Road 77 (County Road 6) 7188 E. County Road 22 and 7160 N.

22 33 Houston County Sheriff Alabama County Road 55 1245 Randall Wade Road and 2241 Bill 23 32 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Yance Road 4260 Enon Road and 7695 E. State Hwy 24 30 Houston County Sheriff Alabama 52 2626 Enon Road and 4230 Glen 25 29 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Lawrence Road 26 28 Houston County Sheriff 1366 Enon Road Alabama 1 Broadway Avenue (County Road 55) 27 27 Houston County Sheriff and 7076 E. State Hwy 52 (Plan says Alabama 7076 E. US Hwy 84) 489 Battles Road and 1230 Broadway 28 26 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Avenue 1890 Silcox Road and 1 Enterprise 29 25 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Church Road 2208 S. County Road 33 and 1026 30 24 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Enterprise Church Road 6220 Lucy Grade Road (County Road 24) 31 23 Houston County Sheriff Alabama and 3935 S. County 55 Road IEM 2012 Page 66 Page 66 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

.Map Tafcoto Location Pontrol -operaton- 3Desctiption- State IDtPoi t #W Oea~o oto 1110 Antioch Church Road and 1221 32 22 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Coot Adams Road 795 Bobby Hill (or Hall) Road (Creek 33 21 Houston County Sheriff Church Road) and 5096 S. Rocky Creek Alabama Road 4894 E. County Road 8 and 4565 S.

34 20 Houston County Sheriff Alabama County Road 75 6526 E. County Road 8 and 3271 S.

35 19 Houston County Sheriff Alabama County Road 81 8222 E. County Road 8 and 3435 S.

36 18 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Springhill Church Road 10616 E. County Road 8 and 4593 S.

37 17 Houston County Sheriff Alabama County Road 85 38 15 Houston County Sheriff 3090 S. State Hwy 95 Alabama 39 16 Houston County Sheriff 2468 Barksdale Road Alabama I N. County Road 33 and 899 N.

40 55 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Broadway Street 399 Main Street and 799 N. Broadway 41 56 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Street 399 Church Street and 499 N. Broadway 42 57 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Street 1994 Old Hwy 84 and 299 N. Broadway 43 58 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Street I Wallace Buie Road and 635 Webb to 44 31 Houston County Sheriff Alabama Kinsey Road Hwy 62 at Chattahoochee River 45 1 Early County Sheriff Georgia (Early/Houston County Line) 46 2 Early County Sheriff Hwy 62 at Hwy 370 Georgia 47 3 Early County Sheriff Hwy 62 at County Road 25 (Martin Road) Georgia Hwy 62 at County Road 145 (Rock Hill 48 4 Early County Sheriff Georgia Road)

Hwy 62 (Columbia Road) at Reception 49 5 Early County Sheriff Georgia Center (Early County High School)

Hwy 363 (Cedar Springs Road) at 50 6 Early County Sheriff Georgia Chattahoochee Street Hwy 363 (Cedar Springs Hwy) at County 51 7 Early County Sheriff Georgia Road 25 (Martin Road)

Hwy 363 (Cedar Springs Hwy) at County 52 8 Early County Sheriff Georgia Road 279 (Damascus Hilton Road)

Page 67 IEM 2012 Page 67

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Location! peai onontrt6 Description..::_n State Pit/Ps C ro ID.

Road) Georgia~l 53 9 Early County Sheriff Hwy 363 (Cedar Springs Hwy) at County Georgia Road 284 (Allen Chapel Road) 54 10Erly ount Sheiff Hwy 370 at County Road 1803 (Dowry Road) Georgia 55 11 Early County Sheriff Hwy 370 at Hwy 273 Georgia 56 12 Early County Sheriff County Road 50 48 (Spooner Quarter Road) Road) at County Road Georgia (Kilarney 57 1EalConySUS Hwy 84 at Chattahoochee River Georgia 713 Early County Sheriff (Early/Houston County Line) 58 14 Early County Sheriff US Hwy at Howards Mill Road Georgia 59 5919B 11 HotnHnSIntersection Houston/Henry Sheriff - Sherman Brunson Road anlBllbCerymoa Alabama and Billy Cherry Road 60 27B Houston/Henry Sheriff Jordan Avenue at Bluff Springs Alabama 61 27C Houston/Henry Sheriff Jordan Avenue at Crawford Alabama 62 33B Houston/Henry Sheriff Henry County -County Road 55 and County Road 49 Alabama 63 34B Houston/Henry Sheriff Henry County - Henry County 55 and Alabama County 6 64 36B Houston/Henry Sheriff Henry County Road 79 Alabama 65 38B Houston/Henry Sheriff State Hwy 52 at County Road 22 Alabama 66 40B Houston/Henry Sheriff Hudson Road at Ebenezer Road Alabama 67 49B Houston/Henry Sheriff State Hwy 84 at County Road 75 Alabama 68 54B Houston/Henry Sheriff Goodson Road at Macedonia Church Alabama Road Page 68 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 18: Traffic Control Points in and around the FNP EPZ Page 69 IEM 2012 2012 Page 69

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 8.0 SE..NS.I...TIVITY S...TUDY ON :POPULATiON HA NG 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 FNP 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 2012 Page 70 Page 70 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 71 IEM 2012 Page 71

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT S:;:i~ ;I.ilS ANiDI .REcOMMIEND'ATi.'N~s",,,

The ETEs developed for 26 evacuation areas within the 10-mile FNP 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 120 minutes to 200 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 125 minutes to 200 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. The 90% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 90 minutes to 110 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 90 minutes to 110 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. For most cases, 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 listed 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 advisable 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 FNP EPZ I Operation.Contro"l -Description' Houston County SR-52/Columbia Hwy at US-431/SR-210/Ross Clark Cir Houston County US- 84/E Main Street at US-431/SR-210/Ross Clark Cir Houston County US-431/SR-210/Ross Clark Cir at SR-53/E Cottonwood 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 72 Page 72 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 9.1. Summary of Recommendations The following recommendations will help emergency managers to improve the evacuation times from an event at FNP:

" 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 the high volume intersections where vehicles might otherwise have to slow down due to congestion.

" Work with local and state road/transportation departments to suggest improvements to the road infrastructure near the intersections of Ross Clark Circle with U.S. Hwy 84, Alabama Hwy 52 (AL-52), and Cottonwood Road (AL-53), which may contribute to reduced congestion and lower ETEs.

" Consider routing evacuees from some zones in Alabama such as B-10 and C-10 to other roads in order to distribute traffic evenly and to reduce traffic congestion.

" The regional stakeholders should continue using and updating, as necessary, the existing regional evacuation plans.

Page 73 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 73

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT APPENDI.X1 A: GEOGRAPH ICAL BO.UNDARIES OF EVA CUATiON[

ZONES "

Table 32: Geographical Boundaries of FNP EPZ Evacuation Zones Evacuation""""

Zovnes Zone Boundaries L-andmark Descriptions North: Hunter Road, then line due east to Chattahoochee River A-AL West: Macedonia Road and Jackson Creek Includes Farley Nuclear Plant South: Cedar Creek East: Chattahoochee River A-GA North, South, East - 2 mile boundary West - Chattahoochee River North: Cedar Creek and Ed Tolar Road West: Cook Road B-5 South: Pansey Road, then Mixon Road, then County Gordon Boat Ramp Road 81, then Main Street in Gordon, then Boat Landing Road East: Chattahoochee River North: Pansey Road, then Mixon Road, then County Road 81, then Main Street in Gordon, then Boat Landing Road B-IO West: Fire Tower Road Includes town of Gordon South: County Road 8, then County Road 85, then Greenhouse Road, then creek turning east to Chattahoochee River East: Chattahoochee River North: Lamp Brothers Road, Jackson Creek, and Cedar Creek C-5 West: County Road 75 South: Pansey Road and Ed Tolar Road East: Cook Road and Alabama Hwy 95 North: Pansey Road, then County Road 75, then U.S.

Hwy 84, then McDaniel Road, then Cosby Road, then Meadows Road, then Garrett Road, then Buster Road C-10 West: County Road 55 South: Coot Adams Road, then Bowen Road, then County Road 8 East: Fire Tower Road, to U.S. Hwy 84, to Mixon Road Page A-i IEM 2012 Page A-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

....... Zone Boundaries Landmarký Dbscdriptions Zones:.

North: Nuclear Plant Road, then County Road 33, then Edsel Deese Road West: Cedar Springs Road D-5 South: Pleasant Grove Road, then Bruner Pond Road, then County Road 75, then Ed Tolar Road, then Paul Lamp Road and Lamp Brothers Road East: Jackson Creek North: Edsel Deese Road, then Ben Ivey Road, then Johnniee Ingram Road West: Enon Road, then Bluffspring Road, then Bluff Springs Road, then U.S. Hwy 84, then Broadway Avenue, becoming Avon Road Includes town of Ashford, D-1O South: Aspen Road becoming Enterprise Church Road, Ingram Lake, and Enterprise then County Road 33, then Lucy Grade Road, Church then County Road 55, then Buster Road, to Garrett Road, to Meadows Road, to Cosby Road, to McDaniel Road, to U.S. Hwy 84 East: County Road 75, to Bruner Pond Road, to Cedar Springs Road North: Hunter Road, then County Road 33, then Alabama Hwy 52, then Jesse Road, then Ebenezer Road E-5 West: Cedar Springs Road Hunters Cemetery South: Edsel Deese Road, to County Road 33, to Nuclear Plant Road East: Macedonia Road North: Bill Yance Road, to J D Love Road, to County Road 22 West: Gilley Mill Road, to Webb Kinsey Road, to Enon E-10 Road Qualico Steel, Webb South: Ingram Road, to Ben Ivey Road, to Edsel Deese Elementary School Road East: Cedar Springs Road, to Ebenezer Road, to Jesse Road North: Northern boundary of Columbia, to Omussee Creek, to Alabama Hwy 52, to Bill Yance Road West: Jesse Road, to Alabama Hwy 52, to County Road F-5 33 Includes town of Columbia, F-5 33Omussee Creek State Park South: Hunter Road, then line east to Chattahoochee River East: Chattahoochee River IEM 20i2 Page A-2 Page A-2 IEM 201L2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

va*uatlones " Zone BOundaries LandmarkOescrlptions Zoneis North: County Road 112, Alabama Hwy 95, County Roads 277 and 77, then County Road 63, then Alabama Hwy 134 West: County Road 56/55 F-1O South: County Road 22, then J D Love Road, then Bill Spring Hill Church Yance Road, then Alabama Hwy 52, then Omussee Creek, then northern boundary of Columbia East: Chattahoochee River North: 10 mile boundary Includes Coheelee Creek Park G-10 West: Chattahoochee River and boat landing, and Camp South and East: Georgia Hwy 62 E-TU-NAKE North and West: Georgia Hwy 62 H-1O South: County Road 1691 East: 10 mile boundary North: County Road 1691 I-jO West: County Road 13 South: Power line from Farley Nuclear Plant East: 10 mile boundary North: Power line from Farley Nuclear Plant West: 2 mile boundary J-5 South: Georgia Hwy 370 East: 5 mile boundary, Georgia Hwy 363, and County Road 26 North: Power line from Farley Nuclear Plant jo West: County Road 26 and Georgia Hwy 363 Green Cemetery, Cedar South: Georgia Hwy 273/Cedar Springs Road Springs Church East: 10 mile boundary North: 2 mile boundary K-5 West: Chattahoochee River South/Southeast: 5 mile boundary East/Northeast: Georgia Hwy 370 North: Cedar Springs Road/Georgia Hwy 273 K-1O Northwest: 5 mile boundary Navy Yard Landing, Republic Southwest: Chattahoochee River Conduit East/Southeast: 10 mile boundary Page A-3 2012 IEM 2012 Page A-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page A-4 Page A-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT APPEDV PNE ! X!:*

B: EV A V A' ACUATIO N: N ETWORK

-' . . L*i INKS *i *'s,(D:ETAI O: * ...LED INiFOR*MAT~iON!)"_-

The detailed map for the evacuation network with legible values for nodes and links are provided in Figure 19through Figure 22. In addition, detailed information for each roadway link is listed in Page B-I.

IEM 2012 Page B-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs Attriltite 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.

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

IEM 2012 Page B-2 Page B-2 IEM 20.t2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 19: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant Page 8-3 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 20: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant IEM 2012 Page BA B-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 21: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant Page B-5 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Figure 22: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant IEM 2012 Page 8-6 Page B-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs AttriuWte 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.

Roadway Type As defined in the ETE study such as Interstate, major arterial, minor 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 0001 0018 0.671 11 Single lane road 1292 40 2 0001 0380 1.151 11 Single lane road 1292 40 3 0001 0410 0.699 11 Single lane road 1292 40 4 0001 0416 5.709 11 Single lane road 1292 40 5 0010 0017 2.012 11 Single lane road 1292 40 6 0010 7795 2.308 11 Single lane road 1292 40 7 0010 9977 3.711 11 Single lane road 1292 40 8 0017 0438 2.441 9 Single lane road 1292 40 9 0017 7791 3.826 12 Single lane road 1455 45 10 0017 7795 2.982 12 Single lane road 1455 45 11 0018 0032 0.923 12 Single lane road 1455 55 12 0018 0078 5.713 12 Single lane road 1455 45 13 0020 0042 2.870 12 Single lane road 1455 55 14 0031 0033 1.494 12 Single lane road 1455 55 15 0031 0059 1.593 12 Single lane road 1455 55 Page B-7 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT LaneNme Satuiratian Link#- Node DNode ngth- .. NWidth Roadway Type FlowRate FF, (ml)...f.Lanes m .ane . .. (peph..(mph)**

16 0031 0097 1.542 12 Single lane road 1455 45 17 0032 0116 5.523 12 Single lane road 1455 55 18 0032 0128 5.808 12 Single lane road 1455 45 19 0033 0099 1.551 12 Single lane road 1455 45 20 0033 1903 3.665 12 Single lane road 1455 55 21 0034 0092 4.297 11 Single lane road 1292 40 22 0041 0052 0.272 12 Single lane road 1455 55 23 0041 0090 3.694 12 Single lane road 1455 55 24 0041 0438 0.970 12 Single lane road 1455 45 25 0042 0082 0.902 12 Single lane road 1455 45 26 0042 7795 1.925 12 Single lane road 1455 45 27 0047 0070 1.017 11 Single lane road 1292 40 28 0052 0115 1.777 12 Single lane road 1455 45 29 0052 4165 0.999 12 Single lane road 1455 45 30 0059 0061 0.254 12 Single lane road 1455 55 31 0059 0087 2.670 12 Single lane road 1455 45 32 0061 0100 1.135 12 Single lane road 1455 45 33 0061 4165 1.055 12 Single lane road 1455 45 34 0070 0089 2.298 12 Single lane road 1455 55 35 0070 0380 5.974 12 Single lane road 1455 55 36 0078 0086 3.165 10 Single lane road 1292 35 37 0078 0123 1.859 12 Single lane road 1455 45 38 0082 0090 1.165 12 Single lane road 1455 45 39 0082 0101 2.544 12 Single lane road 1455 55 40 0086 0089 1.311 11 Single lane road 1292 40 41 0086 0118 1.519 11 Single lane road 1292 35 42 0087 0438 1.348 10 Single lane road 1292 35 43 0089 0092 0.418 11 Single lane road 1292 40 44 0089 0098 0.654 12 Single lane road 1455 55 45 0090 4084 0.156 12 Single lane road 1455 55 46 0092 0098 0.459 11 Single lane road 1292 40 B-8 IEM 2012 Page B-8 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Link,# .'-Node * :"..." "L

" o-Nde Width' Nm I* e= r. Rodwy ,Sat,6**uRati FF,

(*""*cmi

' :"* f

..... u.,

of tanes *:- ... yp (,p"p )

Fowat (.L.

.mph.)

47 0097 0099 1.511 12 Single lane road 1455 45 48 0097 0100 1.717 12 Single lane road 1455 45 49 0097 0143 1.243 12 Single lane road 1455 45 50 0098 0101 0.434 12 Single lane road 1455 55 51 0098 0104 0.444 12 Single lane road 1455 45 52 0099 0153 1.566 12 Single lane road 1455 45 53 0100 0115 1.824 12 Single lane road 1455 45 54 0100 0138 1.117 12 Single lane road 1455 45 55 0101 0155 2.387 12 Single lane road 1455 55 56 0104 0118 2.163 12 Single lane road 1455 45 57 0104 0162 3.161 11 Single lane road 1292 35 58 0109 0114 2.472 12 Single lane road 1455 45 59 0109 0132 1.684 12 Single lane road 1455 55 60 0109 4084 0.724 12 Single lane road 1455 55 61 0114 0115 0.823 12 Single lane road 1455 45 62 0114 0147 1.001 12 Single lane road 1455 45 63 0115 0137 0.812 12 Single lane road 1455 45 64 0116 0128 2.307 12 Single lane road 1455 45 65 0116 0158 2.399 12 Single lane road 1455 55 66 0116 0431 0.747 12 Single lane road 1455 45 67 0118 0123 2.218 12 Single lane road 1455 45 68 0118 0140 1.265 11 Single lane road 1292 35 69 0123 0128 1.776 12 Single lane road 1455 45 70 0123 0145 1.295 12 Single lane road 1455 45 71 0128 0148 1.318 12 Single lane road 1455 45 72 0132 0147 1.046 12 Single lane road 1455 55 73 0132 0201 1.579 12 Single lane road 1455 45 74 0137 0138 1.556 10 Unpaved 800 25 75 0137 0159 0.651 12 Single lane road 1455 45 76 0138 0143 1.755 11 Single lane road 1292 40 77 0138 0165 0.876 12 Single lane road 1455 45 Page B-9 IEM 2012 IEM 20:12 Page B-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 78 0140 0145 2.217 12 Unpaved 800 30 79 0140 0170 1.370 11 Single lane road 1292 35 80 0143 0153 1.614 11 Single lane road 1292 40 81 0145 0148 1.769 12 Unpaved 800 30 82 0145 0161 1.300 12 Single lane road 1455 45 83 0147 0148 0.281 12 Single lane road 1455 55 84 0148 0159 1.076 12 Single lane road 1455 50 85 0148 0163 1.319 12 Single lane road 1455 45 86 0148 0204 1.416 12 Single lane road 1455 45 87 0153 0177 0.639 12 Single lane road 1455 45 88 0153 2751 4.483 12 Single lane road 1455 55 89 0155 0162 1.367 10 Unpaved 800 30 90 0155 0247 5.032 12 Single lane road 1455 55 91 0158 0163 2.870 11 Single lane road 1292 35 92 0158 0187 1.432 12 Single lane road 1455 55 93 0159 0165 1.164 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 94 0159 0208 1.375 12 Single lane road 1455 45 95 0161 0164 1.568 9 Unpaved 800 30 96 0161 0176 0.950 12 Single lane road 1455 45 97 0162 0247 4.666 12 Single lane road 1455 45 98 0163 0164 0.033 11 Single lane road 1292 35 99 0163 0190 1.478 11 Single lane road 1292 35 100 0164 0175 1.242 12 Unpaved 800 30 101 0165 0166 0.051 12 Single lane road 1455 55 102 0166 0177 3.036 12 Single lane road 1455 55 103 0166 0219 1.441 12 Single lane road 1455 45 104 0168 0169 0.421 12 Single lane road 1455 45 105 0168 0258 2.563 12 Single lane road 1455 55 106 0168 4084 2.372 12 Single lane road 1455 55 107 0169 0201 2.091 12 Single lane road 1455 45 108 0169 0266 2.613 11 Single lane road 1292 40 IEM 2012 Page B-jO Page B-10 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 109 0170 0162 0.658 10 Unpaved 800 30 110 0170 0202 2.459 11 Single lane road 1292 35 111 0175 0176 0.856 12 Unpaved 800 30 112 0175 0235 3.048 11 Single lane road 1292 35 113 0176 0182 0.511 12 Single lane road 1455 45 114 0177 0233 1.638 11 Single lane road 1292 40 115 0177 2078 3.365 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 116 0179 7960 5.993 12 Single lane road 1455 45 117 0182 0202 1.846 12 Single lane road 1455 45 118 0182 0232 2.687 12 Single lane road 1455 45 119 0187 0190 2.080 11 Single lane road 1292 35 120 0187 0210 1.783 12 Single lane road 1455 55 121 0190 0206 1.188 11 Single lane road 1292 35 122 0201 0204 1.600 12 Single lane road 1455 45 123 0201 0205 0.203 12 Single lane road 1455 45 124 0202 0238 1.695 12 Single lane road 1455 45 125 0204 0208 0.625 12 Single lane road 1455 45 126 0205 0252 1.797 12 Single lane road 1455 45 127 0205 0265 1.797 12 Single lane road 1455 45 128 0206 0210 1.422 10 Unpaved 800 30 129 0206 0241 1.413 11 Single lane road 1292 35 130 0208 0219 1.783 12 Single lane road 1455 45 131 0208 0251 1.431 12 Single lane road 1455 45 132 0210 0255 1.764 12 Single lane road 1455 55 133 0219 0242 0.369 12 Single lane road 1455 45 134 0232 0235 1.283 12 Single lane road 1455 55 135 0232 0238 2.022 12 Single lane road 1455 55 136 0232 0269 2.072 12 Single lane road 1455 45 137 0233 0280 1.285 12 Single lane road 1455 45 138 0233 7496 3.973 12 Single lane road 1455 45 139 0235 0241 1.115 12 Single lane road 1455 55 Page B-il IEM 2012 IEM 20:12 Page B-1.1.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

NdLn~gth

- L. ne Number Saturation FF.

~ink,:

L.t*W-Node

. d. W.idth "of, "s Radway.Type FlwoRate (mh)

.(PPh) R 140 0238 0259 2.000 12 Single lane road 1455 55 141 0238 0281 2.295 12 Single lane road 1455 45 142 0241 0255 1.667 12 Single lane road 1455 55 143 0241 0272 2.293 11 Single lane road 1292 35 144 0242 0233 2.516 12 Single lane road 1455 45 145 0242 0263 0.871 12 Single lane road 1455 45 146 0247 0259 0.635 12 Single lane road 1455 55 147 0251 0252 1.216 12 Single lane road 1455 45 148 0251 0263 1.813 12 Single lane road 1455 45 149 0251 0286 0.853 12 Single lane road 1455 45 150 0252 0268 0.325 12 Single lane road 1455 45 151 0255 0362 0.675 12 Single lane road 1455 55 152 0255 0435 1.056 12 Single lane road 1455 55 153 0258 0266 1.191 12 Single lane road 1455 45 154 0258 0313 1.540 12 Single lane road 1455 55 155 0259 0296 3.111 12 Single lane road 1455 55 156 0263 0280 3.284 12 Single lane road 1455 45 157 0263 0379 2.381 11 Single lane road 1292 40 158 0265 0268 1.263 12 Single lane road 1455 45 159 0265 0292 0.858 12 Single lane road 1455 45 160 0266 0265 1.197 12 Single lane road 1455 45 161 0268 0279 0.447 12 Single lane road 1455 45 162 0269 0272 0.357 12 Single lane road 1455 45 163 0269 0281 2.514 12 Single lane road 1455 45 164 0269 0305 2.547 12 Single lane road 1455 45 165 0272 0274 0.094 12 Single lane road 1455 45 166 0274 0293 2.996 12 Single lane road 1455 45 167 0279 0286 0.783 12 Single lane road 1455 45 168 0279 0330 1.533 12 Single lane road 1455 45 169 0280 0383 2.061 12 Single lane road 1455 45 170 0281 0296 0.974 12 Single lane road 1455 45 IEM 2012 Page ~-12 Page B-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

'.:. . : . . . . . . - .. . " * : " " ; " " ' . . , * " ". . . . '*: * * : , : I.

... h v, Nue mber Saturaio - FFS.

Link#", .. Node .Mode ' n Width* of ' Re'adway*:T*y *' FRwR te. 77

. . *.t

. . , .,.. ( h) 171 0286 0335 1.285 12 Single lane road 1455 45 172 0286 0379 2.467 12 Single lane road 1455 45 173 0292 0325 1.207 12 Single lane road 1455 45 174 0292 0329 1.072 12 Single lane road 1455 45 175 0293 0302 1.329 12 Single lane road 1455 45 176 0296 0314 1.450 12 Single lane road 1455 55 177 0302 0305 2.620 10 Unpaved 800 25 178 0302 0339 3.425 12 Single lane road 1455 45 179 0305 0324 1.911 12 Single lane road 1455 45 180 0313 0325 2.229 11 Unpaved 800 30 181 0313 0432 1.501 12 Single lane road 1455 55 182 0314 0324 2.914 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 183 0324 0339 0.791 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 184 0324 0376 1.969 12 Single lane road 1455 55 185 0325 0441 1.423 12 Single lane road 1455 45 186 0325 0446 1.624 12 Single lane road 1455 45 187 0329 0330 1.540 12 Single lane road 1455 45 188 0329 0449 1.335 12 Single lane road 1455 45 189 0330 0335 0.058 12 Single lane road 1455 45 190 0335 0436 1.197 12 Single lane road 1455 45 191 0339 0419 8.523 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 192 0362 0274 2.829 11 Single lane road 1292 35 193 0362 0293 1.952 12 Single lane road 1455 55 194 0373 0383 0.642 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 195 0373 2777 2.935 12 Single lane road 1455 45 196 0373 7496 1.214 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 197 0379 0382 0.052 12 Single lane road 1455 45 198 0380 0393 0.000 11 Single lane road 1292 35 199 0382 0417 0.324 11 Single lane road 1292 40 200 0382 0436 1.632 11 Single lane road 1292 35 201 0383 0398 0.492 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 Page B-13 2012 IEM 20:12 Page B134

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Lane Saturation Number FFS Link # U-Node. D-Node Leng Width of Lanes Roadway Type, FlowRdate ,. .

(ml) (ft)

(pcph). (mp) 202 0388 0428 0.000 12 Single lane road 1455 45 203 0391 0393 0.000 11 Single lane road 1292 30 204 0393 0410 0.000 11 Single lane road 1292 35 205 0398 0417 1.911 11 Single lane road 1292 40 206 0398 0442 1.438 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 207 0410 0420 0.000 11 Single lane road 1292 35 208 0417 0456 0.486 11 Single lane road 1292 40 209 0417 0462 1.564 12 Single lane road 1455 45 210 0432 0441 1.913 12 Single lane road 1455 45 211 0432 0530 2.186 12 Single lane road 1455 55 212 0436 0462 0.299 12 Single lane road 1455 45 213 0436 0484 1.870 12 Single lane road 1455 45 214 0441 0446 1.215 12 Single lane road 1455 45 215 0441 0550 2.292 12 Single lane road 1455 45 216 0442 0456 0.417 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 217 0442 0538 2.222 12 Single lane road 1455 55 218 0446 0449 0.791 12 Single lane road 1455 45 219 0449 0484 0.693 12 Single lane road 1455 45 220 0456 0472 1.439 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 221 0456 0540 1.845 12 Single lane road 1455 45 222 0462 0472 0.384 12 Single lane road 1455 45 223 0462 0486 0.946 12 Single lane road 1455 45 224 0472 0486 0.994 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 225 0472 0507 0.741 12 Single lane road 1455 45 226 0484 0514 0.678 12 Single lane road 1455 45 227 0484 0550 2.664 12 Single lane road 1455 45 228 0486 0502 0.795 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 229 0502 0507 1.786 12 Single lane road 1455 50 230 0502 0514 0.208 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 231 0507 0540 2.132 10 Unpaved 800 30 232 0514 0521 0.602 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 IEM 20+/-2 Page B-14 Page B-1.4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 233 0514 0626 4.722 12 Single lane road 1455 45 234 0521 0553 1.641 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 235 0521 0644 4.500 12 Single lane road 1455 50 236 0522 0557 0.925 11 Single lane road 1292 40 237 0530 0556 1.080 12 Single lane road 1455 45 238 0530 0557 1.279 12 Single lane road 1455 45 239 0538 0540 0.962 12 Single lane road 1455 45 240 0538 0559 0.510 12 Single lane road 1455 45 241 0538 2777 1.861 12 Single lane road 1455 45 242 0540 0434 1.584 12 Single lane road 1455 45 243 0550 0552 0.299 12 Single lane road 1455 45 244 0550 0554 0.148 12 Single lane road 1455 45 245 0552 0554 0.304 12 Single lane road 1455 45 246 0552 0556 1.773 12 Single lane road 1455 45 247 0553 0558 0.149 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 248 0553 0640 3.635 12 Single lane road 1455 50 249 0554 0558 0.173 12 Single lane road 1455 45 250 0556 0572 1.061 12 Single lane road 1455 45 251 0557 0583 0.933 12 Single lane road 1455 55 252 0558 0573 1.356 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 253 0572 0573 0.091 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 254 0572 0578 2.805 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 255 0573 0638 3.327 12 Single lane road 1455 45 256 0578 0581 0.051 12 Single lane road 1455 45 257 0578 0583 0.371 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 258 0581 0536 5.993 12 Single lane road 1455 45 259 0581 4045 2.181 12 Single lane road 1455 45 260 0583 0314 2.525 12 Single lane road 1455 50 261 0618 0434 1.183 12 Single lane road 1455 45 262 0618 0624 0.409 9 Unpaved 800 25 263 0623 0624 0.352 12 Single lane road 1455 50 Page B-IS IEM 2012 IEM 20:12 Page B-15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Link L,

Nd od D-NodeRo Length Lan Width.

N e RbadwayType Saturation Flbw Rate F (ml, (ft) of Lanes (pcph) (mph) 264 0623 4276 0.405 12 Single lane road 1455 45 265 0623 6502 2.802 12 Single lane road 1455 45 266 0624 0626 1.632 12 Single lane road 1455 50 267 0626 0644 2.904 12 Single lane road 1455 50 268 0637 0638 0.687 12 Single lane road 1455 50 269 0638 0640 0.330 12 Single lane road 1455 50 270 0638 4794 0.955 11 Single lane road 1292 40 271 0640 0641 0.254 12 Single lane road 1455 50 272 0641 0644 1.021 12 Single lane road 1455 50 273 0641 4794 0.785 11 Single lane road 1292 40 274 0644 0647 0.128 12 Single lane road 1455 45 275 0970 4199 2.712 11 Single lane road 1292 40 276 1299 5861 0.518 10 Single lane road 1292 35 277 1692 2449 0.474 10 Single lane road 1292 35 278 1832 1869 1.226 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 279 1832 3809 2.493 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 280 1832 7804 0.778 12 Single lane road 1455 45 281 1869 1882 0.501 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 282 1869 7800 2.128 12 Single lane road 1455 50 283 1882 1903 0.958 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 284 1882 7791 6.054 12 Single lane road 1455 50 285 1886 5924 1.793 10 Single lane road 1292 35 286 1903 0535 6.533 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 287 1998 0535 1.868 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 288 2007 7509 2.153 11 Single lane road 1292 40 289 2061 2100 0.718 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 290 2061 2841 0.718 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 65 291 2061 4586 1.200 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 292 2078 2084 0.263 12 Multi-lane Hwy 6600 55 293 2078 2841 0.940 12 Multi-lane Hwy 6600 60 294 2084 2110 0.196 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 IEM 2012 Page B-16 Page B-16 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 295 2084 2751 2.613 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 296 2084 7496 1.452 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 297 2100 2121 0.826 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 298 2100 4533 1.581 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 299 2110 2121 0.724 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 300 2110 3260 1.298 12 Single lane road 1455 55 301 2121 7509 1.448 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 302 2161 3888 0.763 12 Single lane road 1455 45 303 2168 2169 0.017 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 304 2169 2513 0.348 10 Single lane road 1292 35 305 2169 7509 3.137 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4200 55 306 2243 3245 2.706 12 Single lane road 1455 45 307 2243 4045 6.980 12 Single lane road 1455 45 308 2243 6064 0.033 11 Single lane road 1292 35 309 2382 3983 4.911 10 Single lane road 1292 35 310 2449 2561 1.189 10 Single lane road 1292 35 311 2513 3326 2.185 10 Single lane road 1292 25 312 2561 2777 1.555 10 Single lane road 1292 25 313 2561 3465 1.351 10 Single lane road 1292 35 314 2751 0535 0.377 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 315 2777 3334 2.190 10 Single lane road 1292 35 316 2841 4218 0.005 11 Single lane road 1292 35 317 2854 1299 2.302 10 Single lane road 1292 35 318 2854 2243 0.692 12 Single lane road 1455 50 319 2854 6826 4.953 12 Single lane road 1455 55 320 3245 0536 0.619 12 Single lane road 1455 45 321 3245 4045 5.357 10 Single lane road 1292 35 322 3259 2007 0.017 11 Single lane road 1292 35 323 3259 3260 0.019 12 Single lane road 1455 50 324 3259 6793 0.411 12 Single lane road 1455 45 325 3259 7496 0.428 10 Single lane road 1292 35 IEM 212 Pae B_

IEM 2012 Page B-17

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Lane Saturation FFS Lennth. L ane Numeri Roadway Type Flow Ratew Link

UNode

... Node (ml)..

(mi Width (ft) of Lanes ( (mph) 326 3260 2007 0.019 11 Single lane road 1292 35 327 3334 0434 0.151 12 Single lane road 1455 45 328 3334 4217 1.671 10 Single lane road 1292 35 329 3465 4217 1.942 10 Single lane road 1292 25 330 3465 4334 1.550 10 Single lane road 1292 25 331 3888 0179 2.051 11 Single lane road 1292 40 332 3888 9353 6.129 12 Single lane road 1455 55 333 3983 9977 2.032 10 Single lane road 1292 35 334 4010 4013 1.892 12 Single lane road 1455 45 335 4010 4794 2.302 10 Single lane road 1292 35 336 4012 4013 0.295 12 Single lane road 1455 50 337 4013 5924 1.760 10 Single lane road 1292 35 338 4020 4794 0.955 11 Single lane road 1292 35 339 4165 0087 1.071 11 Single lane road 1292 40 340 4217 4334 1.451 11 Single lane road 1292 35 341 4319 9977 0.130 11 Single lane road 1292 35 342 4467 0179 6.492 12 Single lane road 1455 55 343 4775 1299 0.815 10 Single lane road 1292 35 344 4794 5924 4.887 11 Single lane road 1292 40 345 4884 2708 0.602 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 346 4884 4886 0.208 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 347 4884 7580 0.019 11 Single lane road 1292 35 348 4886 4887 0.794 12 Multi-lane Hwy 4400 60 349 4886 7578 0.020 11 Single lane road 1292 35 350 5861 0536 1.797 12 Single lane road 1455 45 351 5861 5924 2.030 10 Single lane road 1292 35 352 6485 3326 2.817 10 Single lane road 1292 35 353 6485 4334 0.214 11 Single lane road 1292 35 354 6485 6796 1.841 12 Single lane road 1455 45 355 6793 2449 0.091 11 Single lane road 1292 35 356 6793 2513 0.215 11 Single lane road 1292 35 IEM 2012 Page B-18 Page 13-18 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 357 6793 6796 0.364 12 +/- Single lane road 1455 45 358 6796 3326 0.118 10 I Single lane road 1292 35 359 6796 3465 1.201 11 I Single lane road 1292 35 360 7781 0259 1.108 12 I Single lane road 1455 45 361 7791 0087 3.210 10 +/- Single lane road 1292 35 362 7791 4319 1.228 10 +/- Single lane road 1292 35 363 7800 4319 3.556 10 +/- Single lane road 1292 35 364 7800 7804 1.420 12 +/- Single lane road 1455 50 365 7804 3983 1.644 10 I Single lane road 1292 35 Page B-19 IEM 2012 Page B-19

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT JAPPEN.DI!!X C::TE.LEPHH;ONE SURVEY Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the area surrounding the FNP 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 TEM 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 emergency planning zone (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 251 completed surveys, resulting in a margin of error at 6.1% with 95% confidence level.

Page C-i IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Survey Results

1. How many people live in your home?

Table 35: Household Size 2 53%

3 11%

4 8%

5 or more 4%

100%-

80%

53%

60%

40%

23%

20% - 11% 8%

4%

0%-

1 2 3 4 5 or more Household Size Figure 23: Household Size IEM 2012 Page C-2 Page C-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 1 b1/%

2 28%

3 or more 6%

None 3%

100%

80%

63%

60%

40% 28%

20%

6% 3 0%

1 2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate duringthe day Figure 24: Number of cars used to evacuate during the day IEM 2012 Page C-3 2012 Page C-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

b. At night?

Table 37: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate at Night 1 69%

2 23%

3 or more 6%

None 2%

100%

80%- 69%

60%-

40%-

23%

20%- 6%

2%

0%-

1 2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate at night Figure 25: Number of cars used to evacuate at night IEM 2012 Page CA Page C-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

c. On most weekends?

Table 38: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate on Weekends 1 63%

2 27%

3 or more 7%

None 2%

100%

80%

63%

60%

40% 27%

20% 70/

0% ] - 2%

1 2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate on weekends Figure 26: Number of cars used to evacuate on weekends Page C-5 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page C-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 1 2%

2 <1%

3 0%

4 <1%

5 or more 0%

None 97%

97%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% 2% <1% 0% <1% 0%

nOl

'UO 1 2 3 4 5or None more Numberwho rely on public transportation to evacuate Figure 27: Number who rely on public transportation to evacuate IEM 2012 Page C-6 Page C-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 1 25%

2 16%

3 6%

4 1%

5 or more 0%

None 52%

100%

80%

52%

60%

40% 25%

16%

20% 6%

1% 0%

0%

2 3 4 5or N 1 one more Number who commute at least 4 times per week Figure 28: Number who commutes at least 4 times per week Page C-7 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 1-5 minutes 5%

6-10 minutes 8%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 79%

Time to return home from work N 1-5 minutes N 6-10 minutes W 11-15 minutes More than 15 minutes Figure 29: Time to return home from work IEM 2012 Page C-S Page C-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

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 Await the return of family members 25%

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 1-5 minutes 6%

6-10 minutes 10%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 76%

Time to complete evacuation preparations during the day U 1-5 minutes 8 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes W1 More U than 15 minutes Figure 30: Time to complete evacuations preparations during the day Page C-9 IEM 2012 Page C-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

b. At night?

Table 44: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations at Night 1-5 minutes 4%

6-10 minutes 11%

11-15 minutes 10%

More than 15 minutes 75%

Time to complete evacuation preparations at night 4%

N 1-5 minutes 1 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes

More than 15 minutes Figure 31: Time to complete evacuation preparations at night IEM 2012 Page C-b Page C-10 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

c. On most weekends?

Table 45: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations on Weekends 1-5 minutes 5%

6-10 minutes 10%

11-15 minutes 10%

More than 15 minutes 75%

Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends 0 1-5 minutes 16-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 0 More than 15 minutes Figure 32: Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends Page C-li 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY 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 2 4%

3 0%

4 <1%

5 or more 0%

None 81%

100%

81%

80%

60%

40%

15%

20% 4% 0% <1% 0%

no/_

1 2 3 4 5or None more Numberof family members who require evacuation assistance Figure 33: Number of family members who require evacuation assistance IEM 2012 Page C-12 Page C-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT

9. What type of assistance is needed?

Table 47: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance Just a ride, no special accommodations 75%

A wheelchair van 4%

An ambulance with medical equipment and personnel to provide special 6%

medical attention.

An ambulance that can carry a stretcher, but no special medical attention is 6%

required.

Other 8%

Other U8%

Er Ambulance w/no medicalattention U 6%

C M

41 Ambulance w/medical attention U6%

0 0)

Awheelchairvan P4%

r.

Just a ride 75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 34: Type of Evacuation Assistance Required Other types of assistance requested include:

" only hand or arm assistance

" son across the street needs help walking

" blind wife

" she has Alzheimer's and needs assistance Page C-13 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 C-14 Page C-14 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT APPENIDIX D: PTV VISION QUALITY ASSURANCE ANDtb INDUS.TRYACCEPTANCE 1INFORMATION March 28, 2006 4 ýA traffic mobility logistics.

PTV America, Inc.

Akhil Chauhan 1300 NMarket Street, Suite 603 Transportation Analyst/Modeler Wilmington, DE 19801-1809 IEM, Inc.

8555 United Plaza Blvd. Phone: 302-654-4384 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Fax: 302-691-4740 www.ptvamerica.com 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.

Page D-1.

IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page D-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT The following public agencies are currently using VISSIM:

traffic mobility logistics.

Arkansas State Highway Dept,

CALTRANS, PTI/America, Inc.

Colorado DOT, 1300 N Market Street, Suite 603 Wilmington, DE 19801-1809

Florida DOT,

Idaho DOT, Phone: 302-654-4384

Kansas DOT, Fax; 302-691-4740

Louisiana DOT, www.ptvamerica.com

Michigan DOT,

Missouri DOT,

" Nevada DOT,

New Mexico DOT,

NYSDOT.

" Ohio DOT,

Oregon DOT,

South Carolina DOT,

UDOT,

Washington DOT 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

MVVVCOG, 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 IEM 20+/-2 Page D-2 Page D-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT If you have any questions about the PTV Vision software, feel free to contact me at 302-654-4384. traffic mobility logistics.

Sincerely yours, PTV America, Inc.

1300 N M~rk-K Stt.,M, Suite 403 Wilfning*on, DE 19301-1809 Phorc. 302-664-4384 Kiel Ova, P.E., PTOE Fax. 302-691-4740 Project Manager www.ptvamerica.com Page D-3 2012 IEM 2012 Page D-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 D-4 Page D-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT APPEND*IiX- E: ETE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST 3 5 Table 48: NUREG/CR-7002 ETE Review Criteria Checklist Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in 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 described. Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone

b. Amap should be included that Yes Figure 2: FNP EPZ Boundary and identifies primary features of the site, Protective 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.i Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level Yes Section 2.2 Methodology 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.

35 NRC. Criteriafor 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).

Page E-i 2012 IEM 20:12 Page E-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

c. Discussion should be presented on use Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network of traffic control plans in the analysis. Characteristics Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other 36 Potential Mitigating Measures (Because the FNP EPZ does not have any population centers, traffic control plans have not been produced.However, the sections listed above, discuss traffic control points)

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

e. Methods used to address data Yes Section 8.0 Sensitivity Study on uncertainties should be described. Population 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 36 Because the FNP EPZ does not have any major population centers, traffic control plans have not been produced.

However, Section 4.3 discusses traffic control points.

IEM 2012 Page E-2 Page E-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a. A discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 2.5 Evacuation Area Modeled 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: FNP EPZ Boundary and should be included. Protective Action Zones

b. Atable 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.

c. Atable similar to Table 1-4, Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR- Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged 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 sub-sections) 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 of Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data the population values, or another 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. Asector diagram should be included, Yes Figure 4: 2012 FNP 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. Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy Rate Page E-3 2012 IEM 201.2 Page E-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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.

b. The average population during the Yes Section 3.2 Transient Populations.

season totaled should used, itemized and for eachbescenario. Peak erainlpplto population numbers Pa recreational ubr were 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 ifso, discussion on why values vary should be provided.

e. Asector diagram should be included, Yes Figure 5: FNP 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 the number of transit dependent Permanent Residents residents should be discussed.

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

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

IEM 2012 Page E-4 Page E-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

d. The methodology used to determine Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent the number of people with disabilities Permanent 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 types of transportation resources. Bus Permanent Residents seating capacity of 50% should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.

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

g. A summary table of the total number Yes Table JO: 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 the N/A No special facilities, as defined in the type of facility, location, and average NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the population should be provided. Special EPZ.

facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.

b. A discussion should be provided on N/A No special facilities, as defined in the how special facility data was obtained. NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the EPZ.

c. The number of wheelchair and bed- N/A No special facilities, as defined in the bound individuals should be provided. NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the EPZ.

d. An estimate of the number and N/A No special facilities, as defined in the capacity of vehicles needed to support NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the the evacuation of the facility should be EPZ.

provided.

Page E-5 IEM 2012 IEM 20+/-2 Page E-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

e. The logistics for mobilizing specially N/A No special facilities, as defined in the trained staff (e.g., medical support or NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the security support for prisons, jails, and EPZ.

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.

c. The estimate of high school students Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School who will use their personal vehicle to Populations 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. Ashadow 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.

Page E-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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.

b. Pass-through traffic should be Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions assumed to have stopped entering the It is assumed that little pass-through and EPZ about two hours after the initial 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 roadway Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model 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 "Roadway Characteristics," of Characteristics NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

Page E-7 IEM 2012 IEM 20t2 Page E-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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 19 through Figure 22 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

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. Alist 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 how Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network time signal cycle is used in the Characteristics calculations.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions be identified and the effect of adverse Section 2.4 Scenarios Modeled weather on mobilization should be considered. Because there are few extreme weather conditions such as heavy snow at the FNP, no significant impacts of adverse weather on mobilization are expected.

IEM 2012 Page E-8 Page E-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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 driveways, when applicable. FNP, no significant impacts of adverse weather on mobilization are expected.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

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, the Yes Appendix C: Telephone Survey scope of the survey, area of the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

c. Data obtained from telephone surveys Yes Appendix C: Telephone Survey should be summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation population group should be developed Network 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 not Network 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 were found within the EPZ transients potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

Page E-9

[EM 2012 IEM 2012 Page E-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M.Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

a. If available, existing plans and bus Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent routes are used in the ETE analysis. if Permanent Residents new plans are developed with the ETE, There are no specialized bus routes or they should have been agreed upon by pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents the responsible authorities, will be 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 means of evacuating ambulatory and Permanent Residents non-ambulatory residents.

c. The number, location and availability Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent of buses, and other resources needed Permanent Residents to support the demand estimation are provided.

d. Logistical details, such as the time to Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent obtain buses, brief drivers and initiate Permanent 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.

IEM 2012 Page E-iO Page E-IO IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

e. Discussion should identify the time Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent estimated for transit dependent Permanent Residents residents to prepare and then travel to Section 5.1.3 Trip Generation Time for a bus pickup point, and describes the Transit Dependent Permanent Residents 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 needed to load passengers should be Permanent 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 included. 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.

h. The trip generation time for non- Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent ambulatory persons includes the time Permanent Residents to mobilize ambulances or special Section 5.1.3 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 Round trips are not required.

support analysis of return trips, if necessary.

4.1.3 Special Facilities Page E-11 2012 IEM 20:12 Page E-13.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed in Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

a. Information on evacuation logistics N/A No special facilities, as defined by and mobilization times should be NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the provided. 10-mile EPZ.

b. Discussion should be provided on the N/A No special facilities, as defined by inbound and outbound speeds. NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the l0-mile EPZ.

c. The number of wheelchair and bed- N/A No special facilities, as defined by bound individuals should be provided, NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the and the logistics of evacuating these 10-mile EPZ.

residents should be discussed.

d. Time for loading of residents should N/A No special facilities, as defined by be provided. NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

e. Information should be provided that N/A No special facilities, as defined by indicates whether the evacuation can NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the be completed in a single trip or if 10-mile EPZ.

additional trips are needed.

f. If return trips are needed, the N/A No special facilities, as defined by destination of vehicles should be NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the provided. 10-mile EPZ.

g. Discussion should be provided on N/A No special facilities, as defined by whether special facility residents are NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the expected to pass through the 10-mile EPZ.

reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

h. Supporting information should be N/A No special facilities, as defined by provided to quantify the time elements NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the for the return trips. 10-mile EPZ.

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 School Population.

b. Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special inbound and outbound speeds. Facility and School Population No return trips are expected.

Page E-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M.Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

c. Time for loading of students should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School provided. Populations Section 5.1.4 Trip Generation for Schools No return trips are expected.

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 was used for used to conduct the ETE calculation, the ETE 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

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. Aglossary of terms should be provided Yes Appendix B: Evacuation Network Lines for the key performance measures (Detailed Information) and parameters used in the analysis.

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output IEM 2012 Page E-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comment Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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 outputs Yes Section 6.5 Example Model Output 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 provided for various times (i.e., at 2, 4, observed.

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.

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public Yes Section 6.1 Summary of ETE Results for should include all members of the General Public 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 Page EPopulEti201 Page E-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Joseph M. Farley Addressed In Comments Nuclear Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible Yes Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic authorities have approved the traffic Management Locations and Other control plan used in the analysis Potential Mitigating Measures should be provided.

b. A discussion of adjustments or Yes Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic additions to the traffic control plan Management Locations and Other that affect the ETE should be provided. Potential Mitigating Measures 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 local Recommendations 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 any Yes The ETE has been reviewed and no unresolved issues that may affect the unresolved issues were found.

ETE.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE Yes Section 8.0 Sensitivity Study on analysis is required to be performed Population Change and submitted to the NRC.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and Yes Figure 7: FNP Evacuation Network 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 ifit 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.

Page E-15 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page E-15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 E-16 Page E-1.6 IEM 2012

NL-13-1601, Evacuation Time Estimate for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

Text

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

Navigation menu

NL-13-1601, Evacuation Time Estimate for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

Text

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

Navigation menu

Search