View source for LR-N12-0366, Enclosure 1 to LR-N12-0366, Salem - Hope Creek Kld TR-499, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Cover Through Chapter 5

{{Adams
| number = ML13052A677
| issue date = 11/30/2012
| title = Enclosure 1 to LR-N12-0366, Salem - Hope Creek Kld TR-499, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Cover Through Chapter 5
| author name = 
| author affiliation = KLD Engineering, PC
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR, PSEG Nuclear, LLC
| docket = 05000272, 05000311, 05000354
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = LR-N12-0366
| document report number = KLD TR-499, Rev. 0
| document type = Report, Technical
| page count = 103
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 1 LR-N12-0366 Salem -Hope Creek Evacuation Time Estimate Study (Please see the following document -498 pages)
KLD__KLENGINEERINGR.
Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for PSEG Nuclear, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR -499 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY .............................................................................................................................
ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION 
..................................................................................................................................
1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ......................................................................................................
1-1 1.2 Salem -Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location ..........................................................
1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities 
.................................................................................................................
1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study ..............................................................................................
1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS .............................................................................................
2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ...........................................................................................................................
2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions ..........................................................................................
2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions .....................................................................................................................
2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION .......................................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents 
.................................................................................................................
3-2 3.2 Shadow Population 
....................................................................................................................
3-8 3.3 Transient Population 
................................................................................................................
3-12 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................
3-16 3.5 M edical Facilities 
......................................................................................................................
3-20 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population 
..............................................................
3-20 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................
3-20 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................
3-23 4 ESTIM ATIO N OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................
4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections 
..............................................................
4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highw ay ........................................................................
4-4 4.3 Application to the Salem -Hope Creek Study Area .....................................................................
4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads ................................................................................................................
4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................
4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................
4-7 4.3.4 Intersections 
......................................................................................................................
4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................
4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E ..........................................................................................
5-1 5.1 Background 
................................................................................................................................
5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations 
.....................................................................................................
5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ...................................................
5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution 
....................................................................
5-14 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................
5-15 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation 
.................................................................................
5-19 5.5 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas .........................................................
5-20 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATIO N FO R EVACUATION SCENARIOS 
.....................................................................
6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATIO N EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................
7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation 
.........................................................................
7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation 
......................................................................................................................
7-1 Salem-Hope Creek NGS i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation 
.....................................................................
7-2 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................
7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results ....................................................................................
7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results .........................................................................................................
7-5 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ...................................................................................................
7-6 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES 
.................................
8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................
8-2 8.2 School Population 
-Transit Dem and .........................................................................................
8-4 8.3 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................
8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .......................................................
8-4 8.5 Special Needs Population 
.........................................................................................................
8-10 8.6 Correctional Facilities 
...............................................................................................................
8-11 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY ..............................................................................................
9-1 10 EVACUATION RO UTES ..................................................................................................................
10-i 11 SURVEILLANCE O F EVACUATIO N OPERATIONS 
.......................................................................
11-i 12 CONFIRM ATION TIM E .................................................................................................. 
.... 12-i 13 OBSERVATIO NS ............................................................................................................................
13-1 A. GLOSSARY O F TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ..............................................................................
A-i B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ....................................................
B-i C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATIO N M ODEL .........................................................................................
C-i C.1 M ethodology 
..............................................................................................................................
C-5 C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram ............................................................................................
C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ..................................................... 
: ..................................................
C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent ..............................................................................................................
C-13 C.2 Im plem entation .......................................................................................................................
C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure 
................................................................................................
C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) ...................................................
C-16 APPENDIX D ...............................................................................................................................................
D-0 D. detailed description of study procedure 
.....................................................................................
D-1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ......................................................................................................................
E-1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ...........................................................................................................................
F-1 F.1 Introduction 
...............................................................................................................................
F-1 F.2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan .......................................................................................
F-2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................
F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results ...........................................................................................
F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response .............................................................................................................
F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results .................................................................................................
F-10 F.4 Conclusions 
..............................................................................................................................
F-13 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLA N .....................................................................................................
G-1 Salem-Hope Creek NGS ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................
G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................
G-1 EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................
H-1 REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ................................... 
-1 H J.K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK ...............................................................................................
K-1 L. ER PA BO U N D A R IES ............................................................................................................................
L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ..........................................................................................
M-1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times .........................................................................
M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region W ho Relocate .................
M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population 
.........................................................................
M-3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST 
...................................................................................................................
N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Figures Figure 6-1. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ ERPA ................................................................................................
ES-6 Figure H-8. Region R08 .....................................................................................................................................
ES-20 Figure 1-1. Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location .......................................................
1-4 Figure 1-2. Link-Node Analysis Network ...................................................................................................
1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology 
.......................................................................................
2-4 Figure 3-1. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ ............................................................................................................
3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector .............................................................................
3-5 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................
3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector ..................................................................................................
3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ......................................................................................................
3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................
3-12 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................
3-13 Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................
3-16 Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................
3-17 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams ..........................................................................................................
5-10 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ..............................................................
5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities 
........................................................................................
5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution 
.......................................................
5-15 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions 
.......................................................................
5-19 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions 
...................................
5-21 Figure 6-1. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ ............................................................................................................
6-4 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology 
.....................................................................................
7-16 Figure 7-2. Salem-Hope Creek Shadow Evacuation Region ....................................................................
7-17 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................
7-18 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................
7-19 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................
7-20 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................
7-21 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................
7-22 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 1 for Region R03 ......................................................
7-23 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 2 for Region R03 ......................................................
7-23 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 3 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-24 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 4 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-24 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 5 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-25 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 6 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-25 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 7 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-26 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 8 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-26 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 9 for Region R03 ....................................................
7-27 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 10 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-27 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 11 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-28 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 12 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-28 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 13 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-29 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Scenario 14 for Region R03 ..................................................
7-29 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations 
......................................................................
8-12 Figure 8-2. New Jersey Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ..........................................................................
8-13 Figure 8-3 Delaware Transit Dependent Bus Routes ...............................................................................
8-14 Salem-Hope Creek NGS iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 10-1. General Population and School Reception Centers ..........................
10-2 Figure 10-2. New Jersey Evacuation Route Map ....................................................................................
10-3 Figure 10-3. Delaware Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................
10-4 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface 
....................................................................
B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network ...........................................................................................
C-4 Figure C-2. Fundamental Diagrams ...........................................................................................................
C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t, > 0 ..............................................................................
C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary:
Table C-3)...............................................
C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities 
.................................................................................................
D-5 Figure E-1. New Jersey Schools within the EPZ ........................................................................................
E-11 Figure E-2. Delaware Schools within the EPZ ...........................................................................................
E-12 Figure E-3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ...........................................................................................
E-13 Figure E-4. New Jersey Major Employers within the EPZ ...................................................................
E-14 Figure E-5. Delaware Major Employers within the EPZ .....................................................................
E-15 Figure E-6. New Jersey Recreational Areas within the EPZ ......................................................... 
.............
E-16 Figure E-7. Delaware Recreational Areas within the EPZ ...................................................................
E-17 Figure E-8. Lodging w ithin the EPZ ...........................................................................................................
E-18 Figure E-9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ..............................................................................
E-19 Figure F-1. H ousehold Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................
F-3 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability 
................................................................................................
F-4 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability 
-1 to 5 Person Households 
......................................................................
F-5 Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability 
-6 to 9+ Person Households 
..............................
F-5 Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference 
.........................................................................................
F-6 Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ .....................................................................................
F-7 Figure F-7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ .....................................................................................................
F-8 Figure F-8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation 
...............................................................................
F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets ...........................................................................................
F-9 Figure F-11. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School 
..........................................................
F-11 Figure F-12. Work to Home Travel Time ............................................................................................
F-11 Figure F-13. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation 
..........................................................................
F-12 Figure F-14. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow .......................................................................
F-13 Figure G-1. Traffic Control Points for Salem-Hope Creek ........................................................................
G-2 Figure G-2. Schematic of the TCP at Bypass Road and Kings Highway ........................
G-3 Figure G-3. Schematic of the TCP at Kings Highway and Grissom Road ...................................................
G-4 Figure G-4. Schematic of the TCP at Kings Highway and Biddle Road .................................................
G-5 Figure G-5. Schematic of the TCP at Haines Neck Road and Kings Highway ............................................
G-6 Figure G-6. Schematic of the TCP at State Route 45 and Haines Neck Road ............................................
G-7 Figure G-7. Schematic of the TCPp at State Route 45 and County Home Road .......................................
G-8 Fig u re H -1. Reg io n R0 1 .............................................................................................................................
H -3 Figure H -2 .Regio n R0 2 .............................................................................................................................
H -4 Fig u re H -3 .Regio n R0 3 ............................................................................................ 
.................................
H -5 Figure H -4 .Regio n R04 ..............................................................................................................................
H -6 Fig u re H -5 .Reg io n R0 5 ..............................................................................................................................
H -7 Fig u re H -6 .Reg io n R0 6 ..............................................................................................................................
H -8 Figu re H -7 .Regio n R0 7 ..............................................................................................................................
H -9 Figure H -8 .Regio n R08 ............................................................................................................................
H -10 Figure H -9 .Regio n R09 ............................................................................................................................
H -11 Salem-Hope Creek NGS v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figu re H -10 .Regio n R iO ..........................................................................................................................
H -12 Figure H -11. Regio n R 11 ..........................................................................................................................
H -13 Figure H -12. Regio n R 12 ..........................................................................................................................
H -14 Figure H -13 .Regio n R 13 ..........................................................................................................................
H -15 Figure H -14 .Regio n R 14 ..........................................................................................................................
H -16 Figure H -15 .Regio n R 15 ..........................................................................................................................
H -17 Figure H -16. Regio n R 16 ..........................................................................................................................
H -1 8 Figure H -17. Regio n R 17 ..........................................................................................................................
H -19 Figu re H -18 .Regio n R 18 ..........................................................................................................................
H -20 Figure H -19 .Regio n R 19 ..........................................................................................................................
H -21 Figure H -20 .Regio n R20 ..........................................................................................................................
H -22 Figure H -21. Regio n R2 1 ..........................................................................................................................
H -23 Figure H -22. Regio n R22 ..........................................................................................................................
H -24 Figure H -23. Regio n R23 ..........................................................................................................................
H -25 Figure H -24 .Regio n R24 ..........................................................................................................................
H -26 Figure H -25 .Regio n R25 ..........................................................................................................................
H -27 Figure H -26 .Regio n R26 ..........................................................................................................................
H -28 Figu re H -27 .Regio n R27 ..........................................................................................................................
H -29 Figure H -28. Regio n R28 ..........................................................................................................................
H -30 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 
: 1) ...... J-1O Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 
: 2) .........................
J-1O Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, W eekend, Midday, Good W eather (Scenario 
: 3) ........ J-11 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 
: 4) .......................
J-11 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)........................................................................................................ 
! ........................................................
J-1 2 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 
: 6) ..............
J-12 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 
: 7) ...........................
J-13 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 
: 8) .............................
J-13 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 
: 9) ..............
J-14 Figure J-1O. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 
: 10) ..........................
J-14 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:
W inter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 
: 11) .........................
J-15 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:
Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12).................................................................................................................................................................
J-1 5 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (S ce n a rio 1 3 ) ............................................................................................................................................
J-16 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:
Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Sce n a rio 14 ) ............................................................................................................................................
J-1 6 Figure K-1. Salem-Hope Creek NGS Link-Node Analysis Network ............................................................
K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 1 .....................................................................................
K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 2 .....................................................................................
K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 3 ................................................................................
K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 4 .....................................................................................
K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 5 .....................................................................................
K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 6 .....................................................................................
K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 7 .....................................................................................
K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 8 ..............................................................................
K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 9 ............................................................................
K-11 Salem-Hope Creek NGS vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure K-11.Figure K-12.Figure K-13.Figure K-14.Figure K-15.Figure K-16.Figure K-17.Figure K-18.Figure K-19.Figure K-20.Figure K-21.Figure K-22.Figure K-23.Figure K-24.Figure K-25.Figure K-26.Figure K-27.Figure K-28.Figure K-29.Figure K-30.Figure K-31.Figure K-32.Figure K-33.Figure K-34.Figure K-35.Figure K-36.Figure K-37.Figure K-38.Figure K-39.Figure K-40.Figure K-41.Figure K-42.Figure K-43.Figure K-44.Figure K-45.Figure K-46.Figure K-47.Figure K-48.Figure K-49.Figure K-50.Figure K-51.Figure K-52.Figure K-53.Figure K-54.Figure K-55.Figure K-56.Figure K-57.Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 10 ...............................................................................
K-12 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 11 ...............................................................................
K-13 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 12 ...............................................................................
K-14 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 13 ..........................................................................
K-15 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 14 ...............................................................................
K-16 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 15 ...............................................................................
K-17 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 16 ...............................................................................
K-18 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 17 ...............................................................................
K-19 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 18 ...............................................................................
K-20 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 19 ...............................................................................
K-21 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 20 ...............................................................................
K-22 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 21 ...............................................................................
K-23 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 22 ...............................................................................
K-24 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 23 ...............................................................................
K-25 Link-Node Analysis Netw ork -Grid 24 ...............................................................................
K-26 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 25 ...............................................................................
K-27 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 26 ...............................................................................
K-28 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 27 ...............................................................................
K-29 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 28 ...............................................................................
K-30 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 29 ...............................................................................
K-31 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 30 ...............................................................................
K-32 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 31 ...............................................................................
K-33 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 32 ...............................................................................
K-34 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 33 ...............................................................................
K-35 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 34 ...............................................................................
K-36 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 35 ...............................................................................
K-37 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 36 ...............................................................................
K-38 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 37 ...............................................................................
K-39 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 38 ...............................................................................
K-40 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 39 ...............................................................................
K-41 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 40 ...............................................................................
K-42 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 41 ...............................................................................
K-43 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 42 ...............................................................................
K-44 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 43 ...............................................................................
K-45 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 44 ...............................................................................
K-46 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 45 ...............................................................................
K-47 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 46 ...............................................................................
K-48 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 47 ...............................................................................
K-49 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 48 ..........................................................................
K-50 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 49 ..........................................................................
K-51 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 50 ...............................................................................
K-52 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 51 ...............................................................................
K-53 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 52 ...............................................................................
K-54 Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 53 ...............................................................................
K-55 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 54 ...............................................................................
K-56 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 55 ...............................................................................
K-57 Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 56 ...............................................................................
K-58 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Tables Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population 
.............................................................................................
ES-7 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions .................................................................................................
ES-8 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 
.....................................................................................................
ES-9 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population 
.........................
ES-10 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population 
.......................
ES-12 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ..............................
ES-14 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................
ES-15 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather .................................................................
ES-16 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather .........................................
ES-18 Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction 
...........................................................................................................
1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics 
...........................................................................................................
1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................
1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 
...............................................................................................
2-3 Table 2-2. M odel Adjustm ent for Adverse W eather .................................................................................
2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population 
.......................................................................................
3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by ERPA ...........................................................
3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector .............................................................................
3-7 Table 3-4. Sum mary of Transients and Transient Vehicles .....................................................................
3-11 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ......................................
3-15 Table 3-6. Salem -Hope Creek EPZ External Traffic ..................................................................................
3-20 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ...........................................................................................
3-22 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and .................................................................................................
3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities 
................................................................................
5-3 Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................
5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ...................................................
5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Com muters to Travel Home ..................................................................
5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate .......................................................
5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ......................................................
5-10 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................
5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions 
.............................................................................................
5-13 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation 
.....................
5-20 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation 
.......................
5-22 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ...........................................................................................
6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 
...............................................................................................
6-5 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 
............................................
6-6 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario ..................................................................................................
6-7 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population 
...........................
7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population 
.......................
7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................
7-13 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ..........................
7-14 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................
7-15 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates ..............................................................................
8-15 Table 8-2. School and Daycare Population Demand Estimates 
..............................................................
8-16 Table 8-3. H ost Schoo ls ............................................................................................................................
8-17 Table 8-4. Special Facility Transit Dem and .............................................................................................
8-18 Salem-Hope Creek NGS viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources 
..................................................................................
8-19 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions 
..........................................................................................................
8-20 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather ..............................................................
8-23 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Tim e Estim ates -Rain ..............................................................................
8-25 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Tim e Estim ates -Snow ............................................................................
8-27 Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................
8-29 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather ........................................
8-30 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Rain ........................................................
8-32 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Snow .......................................................
8-34 Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather .............................................
8-36 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Rain .............................................................
8-37 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Snow ............................................................
8-38 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates 
....................................
8-39 Table 12-i. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation 
..............
12-2 Table A-i. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Term s .................................................................................
A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................
C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ...........................................................................
C-3 T a b le C -3 .G lo ssary ....................................................................................................................................
C -8 Table E-1. New Jersey Schools and Daycares within the EPZ ...................................................................
E-2 Table E-2. Delaware Schools and Daycares w ithin the EPZ .......................................................................
E-3 Table E-3. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................................
E-4 Table E-4. New Jersey M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................
E-5 Table E-5. Delaware M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................
E-6 Table E-6. New Jersey Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ .........................................................................
E-7 Table E-7. Delaw are Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................
E-8 Table E-8. New Jersey Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................
E-9 Table E-9. Delaw are Lcodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................
E-9 Table E-IO. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................
E-IO Table F-1. Salem-Hope Creek Telephone Survey Sampling Plan ..............................................................
F-2 Table H-1. Percent of ERPA Population Evacuating for Each Region .......................................................
H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections 
........................................
J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ...............................................................................................
J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ...........................
J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, S ce n a rio 1 ) .................................................................................................................................................
J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .........................
J-7 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics 
......................................................................
K-59 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled 
...................................
K-142 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................... 
...........
M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ....................................................
M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change .................................................................................
M -4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist 
............................................................................................
N-1 Salem-Hope Creek NGS ix KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 EXECUTIVE 

==SUMMARY==
This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generation Station (SHCNGS), located in Salem, NJ. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide PSEG Nuclear and State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.
In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies.
Most important of these are:* Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011." Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980." Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.O 1OCFR50, Appendix E -"Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in August, 2011 and extended over a period of 15 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence: " Attended "kick-off" meetings with PSEG Nuclear personnel and emergency management personnel representing state governments." Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of SHCNGS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network." Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant." Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database.
The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
" Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each State.Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided." The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents." Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 12 ERPA. These ERPA are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors)that define a total of 28 Evacuation Regions." The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); 
(3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening);
and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario, the Middletown Peach Festival, is considered.
One roadway impact scenario is considered wherein a single lane is closed on Delaware State Route 1 southbound for the duration of the evacuation." Staged evacuation is considered for those regions wherein the 5 mile radius and sectors downwind to the EPZ boundary were evacuated." As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is: " A rapidly escalating accident at SHCNGS that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented." While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the a stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent "upper bound" estimates.
This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events." If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to host schools located outside the EPZ.Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately." Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the state evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required.
Separate ETE are calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Computation of ETE A total of 392 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 28 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (28 x 14 = 392). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.
Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate.
That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory.
The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate.
In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate.
These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 5-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 5 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place.
Once 90% of the 5-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 5 miles begin to evacuate.
As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 5 miles will evacuate (non-compliance) even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.
The computational procedure is outlined as follows:* A link-node representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures." The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.* The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulates the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize.
This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.
The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.
Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by the New Jersey State Police Office of Emergency Management (NJSP-OEM) and the Delaware Emergency Management Agency (DEMA), and identifies critical intersections.
Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below." Figure 6-1 displays a map of the Salem-Hope Creek EPZ showing the layout of the 12 ERPA that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ." Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each ERPA based on the 2010 Census data.* Table 6-1 defines each of the 28 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of ERPA.* Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.
* Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively.
These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.* Tables 7-3 and 7-4 presents ETE for the 5-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.
* Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather." Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather." Figure H-8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.Conclusions
* General population ETE were computed for 392 unique cases -a combination of 28 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.
Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 90th and 1 0 0 th percentiles.
These non-staged ETE range from 1:30 (hr:min) to 3:30 at the 9 0 th percentile." Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile.
This is the result of length of the mobilization time. Congestion within the EPZ clears at 2 hours and 40 minutes after the Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), but vehicles continue to mobilize until 5 hours after the ATE (longer for snow scenarios)." Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 5 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 5 miles (compare Regions R03 through R13 with Regions R14 through R24 in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.
* Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday) in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
* Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure -one lane southbound on State Route 1 -does not materially affect the 90th percentile ETE for any region. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion." Salem City in New Jersey and the Summit Bridge in Delaware are the two most congested areas during an evacuation.
The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is State Route 45 eastbound from Salem City to the Salem County Vocational Technical School Reception Center. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours and 40 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.
See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-7." Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities.
The average single-wave ETE for these facilities are comparable to the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03). The ETE for transit-dependent persons is about 1 hour and 30 minutes longer than that for the general population, on average. See Section 8." Table 8-5 indicates that there are sufficient transportation resources (buses, wheelchair transport vehicles, and ambulances) available to evacuate in a single wave. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5." The general population ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile are sensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 5 hours due to the long evacuation tail. See Table M-1.* The general population ETE is relatively insensitive (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage only increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 5 minutes) to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2." A population increase of 90% or decrease of 65% meets the criteria for updating the ETE between decennial censuses.
See Section M.3.Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ ERPA Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ERP.. 200 Pplto200 Poplaio 1 840 790 2 3,000 2,919 3 6,897 6,108 4 393 217 5 362 459 6 447 439 7 545 462 8 0 0 A 4,959 6,515 B 8,256 17,659 C 10,313 16,769 D 0 0 EPZ Population Growth: 45.3%Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Basic RegionsI-r t -ERPA .Region Description RO0 2-Mile Region 2 3 4 5 6 71 A B _I R02 5-Mile Region R03 Full EPZ Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Di Region Wind Direction From: R04 N, NNE, NE R05 ENE, E, ESE R06 SE R07 SSE R08 S R09 SSW, SW RIO WSW Rll W, WNW R12 NW R13 NNW ownwind to the EPZ:hen Evacuate Downwind to the Staged Evacuation  Mile Radius Evacuates, t Region Wind Direction From: R14 None RIS N, NNE, NE R16 ENE, E, ESE R17 SE R18 SSE R19 S R20 SSW, SW R21 WSW R22 W, WNW R23 NW R24 NNW oundary ERPA 112 3 13 4 1S1617181 Al B CI DI Delaware Only R25 ERPAA A R26 ERPA B R27 ERPAC C R28 All of Delaware Key ERPA Shelters-in-Place Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend Middletown Peach 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Fetival Festival Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on DE State Route 1 Southbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Midday Midday I Evening Midday Midday I Evening I Midday I Midday Region Good i Good i Good Good i Good R S Good Peach Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Weather Festival Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:30 1:40 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:35 1:40 1:55 1:55 15 :0 15 :0 13 R02 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R03 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:25 25 3:30 2:05 2:05 3:20 2:15 2:05 22 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 2:10 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:10 3:15 1:55 1:55 3:05 2:10 1:50 2:15 R05 2:20 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:20 2:20 325 2:00 2:00 3:15 2:10 2:05 2:25 R06 2:10 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:10 3:15 1:55 1:55 3:05 2:10 1:45 2:10 R0 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:10 2:15 2:5 3:20 200 2:0 3:10 2:1o 1:50 2:15 R08 2:15 2:20 1:55 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:20 3:20 2:00 2:00 3:10 2:10 1:50 2:15 R09 2:10 2:15 1:50 1:50 2:05 2:10 2:15 3:05 1:50 1:50 2:55 2:05 1:50 2:10 R10 2:10 2:15 1:50 1:50 2:05 2:10 2:15 3.00 1.50 1.50 2:55 2:05 1:50 2:10 R11 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:55 15 2:0 1:40 1:.40 2:45 2:05 1:40 1:55 R12 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 2:00 1:45 1:50 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R13 2:10 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:15 3:15 1:55 1:55 305 2:0 1:50 2:15 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Midday Midday Evening I Midday Midday I Evening I Midday I Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Peach Roadway Weather I Weather Weather Weather R Weather Weather Festival Impact Staged Evacuation  Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 R15 R16 R17 RIS R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:00 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:20 2:30 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:05 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:25 3:30 3:15 3:25 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:05 2:50 2:35 3:15 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:25 3:20 3:05 3:15 3:05 3:10 3:10 2:55 2:55 2:45 2:30 3:05 2:30 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:05 2:25 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:15 2:35 2:25 2:35 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:05 2:00 2:25 ERPA A, ERPA B, ERPA C and all of Delaware R25 1:50 1:50 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:40 1:30 1:30 2:25 1:55 1:30 1:50 R26 2:10 2:10 1:50 1:50 2:10 2:10 2:10 3:10 1:50 1:50 3:00 2:10 1:50 2:15 R27 2:10 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:10 2:10 2:10 3:15 1:55 1:55 3:05 2:10 1:45 2:15 R28 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:25 3:30 2:05 2:10 3:20 2:15 2:10 2:25 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening I Midday I Midday Region Good Good Good Good [Sr Good Good Peach Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Festival Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:30 5:00 5:00 6:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 S:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 S6:4 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R105 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R7 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:3~5 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:~05 R0 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 RiO 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R12.5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 11 505 :5 5: 5 5:0 5:5 55 :5 6:5OS 55 635 50 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Scn ro ()(2(3 (4) (5 6S7 8 9 1 ) (1 1) (3 4)Midday Midday EveningI Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Weather t 4 +Good Good Good I Weather Weather Weather Good Rain Snow Wete Weather Good Rain Snow Wete Weather Peach Festival Roadway Impact Staged Evacuation  Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 RIS 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R16 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R17 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 RI1 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R19 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R21 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R22 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R23 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R24 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 ERPA A, ERPA B, ERPA C and all of Delaware R25 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R26 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R27 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 R28 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 6:40 5:10 5:10 5:10 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Good Good Peach Roadway Weather I Weather Weather Weather I S Weather I S Weather Festival Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R02 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R03 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:55 1:40 1:40I 2:45 I2:00 j 1:35 1:55 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:45 1:35 1:35 2:35 2:00 1:35 1:50 1:55 1:55 1:35 1:40 2:00 1:55 15 2:50 1:4 1:40 2:45 2:00 1:35 1:55 R06 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:55 2:50 1:35 1:35 2:40 2:00 1:35 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:50 1:35 1:35 2:40 2:00 1:35 1:50 R08 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:50 1:35 1:35 2:40 2:00 1:35 1:50 R09 1:45 1:50 1:30 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:40 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 RIO 1:45 1:50 1:30 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:40 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R11 1:45 1:0 1:30 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:40 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R12 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R13 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:45 1:35 1:35 2:35 2:00 1:35 1:50 Staged Evacuation 
-S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R15 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R16 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R17 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 RIB 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:3 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R19 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R20 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 RZ1 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R22 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R23 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 R24 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:45 1:45 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 2:00 1:30 1:45 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 5-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: 
(1) (2) [] (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (114 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Peach Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Weather Festival Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 1 6:35 J 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 ROS 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 RiO 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 Staged Evacuation  Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R15 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R16 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R17 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R18 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R19 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6,35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R20 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R21 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R22 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R23 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R24 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 6:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather Lower Alloways Creek Elementary School Appoquinimink Early Childhood Center Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 0 Kathleen H. Wilbur Elementary School 90 15 0.2 44.2 1 Middletown High School 90 15 11.9 45.0 16 Old State Road Elementary School 90 15 8.4 45.0 12 Redding Middle School 90 15 11.2 45.0 15 Silver Lake Elementary School 90 15 11.5 45.0 16 Southern Elementary School 90 15 2.6 40.0 4 Spring Meadow Early Childhood Center 90 15 8.4 45.0 12 St Andrew's Pre-school and Child 90 15 4.5 38.9 7 Development Center St Andrew's School 90 15 5.5 38.9 9 St Anne's Episcopal School 90 15 9.5 39.6 15 St Georges Technical High School 90 15 5.4 40.5 9 Townsend Early Childhood Center 90 15 5.7 36.9 10 Townsend Elementary School 90 15 5.7 36.9 10 Maximum for EPZ: Average for EPZ: 19.4 26 18.5 25 17.6 24 18.5 25 14.5 20 19.4 26 24.2 33 18.6 25 18.6 25 18.6 25 19.7 27 14.6 20 14.6 20 Maximum: Average: Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates 
-Good Weather NJT-1 1 120 19.4 12.0 97 30 4.9 7 5 10 32 30 NJT-1 2 125 19.4 12.0 97 30 4.9 7 5 10 32 30 NJT-2A 1 120 21.2 45.0 28 30 8.5 11 5 10 40 30 NJT-2A 2 125 21.2 45.0 28 30 8.5 11 5 10 40 30 NJT-2B 1 120 23.6 14.4 98 30 4.9 7 5 10 38 30 NJT-2B 2 125 23.6 14.4 98 30 4.9 7 5 10 38 30 NJT-3A 1 120 15.5 9.4 99 30 4.9 7 5 10 32 30 NJT-3A 2 125 15.5 9.4 99 30 4.9 7 5 10 32 30 NJT-3B 1 120 6.1 7.3 50 30 5.3 7 5 10 17 30 NJT-3B 2 125 6.1 7.3 50 30 5.3 7 5 10 17 30 NJT-4 1 120 5.5 42.8 8 30 7.3 10 5 10 17 30 NJT-4 2 125 5.5 42.8 8 30 7.3 10 5 10 17 30 NJT-5 1 120 4.4 16.5 16 30 36551 23 NJT-6 1 120 9.0 41.3 13 30 3.0 5 5 10 1 30 NJT-7 1 120 14.0 35.1 24 30 60851 13 Blue 1&2 120 23.8 40.4 35 30 4.2 6 5 10 40 30 Blue 3 & 4 125 23.8 40.4 35 30 4.2 6 5 10 39 30 Blue 5 & 6 130 23.8 40.4 35 30 4.2 6 5 10 39 30 Brown 1 & 2 120 34.1 38.9 53 30 13.3 18 5 10 70 30 Brown 3 & 4 125 34.1 38.9 53 30 13.3 18 5 10 70 30 Brown 5 & 6 130 34.1 38.9 53 30 13.3 18 5 10 70 30 Brown 7 & 8 135 34.1 38.9 53 30 13.3 18 5 10 70 30 Green 1&2 120 24.8 45.0 33 30 4.2 6 5 10 39 30 Green 3 & 4 125 24.8 45.0 33 30 4.2 6 5 10 39 30 Salem-Hope Creek NGS ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0* 0 0 0 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure H-8. Region R08 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 ES-20 0 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 0 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generation Station (SHCNGS), located in Salem, NJ. ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.
In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies.
Most important of these are:* Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required.
Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.
Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction St akhle Naur of Stkhle Int.e-action PSEG Nuclear emergency planning personnel Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies New Jersey State Police -Office of Emergency Obtain emergency plans and special facility data Management (NJSP-OEM) for the state of New Jersey.Delaware Emergency Management Agency Obtain emergency plans and special facility data (DEMA) for the state of Delaware.1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence: 1. Information Gathering:
: a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from PSEG Nuclear.b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from NJSP-OEM and DEMA to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
: c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 Census and from NJSP-OEM and DEMA.e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.
: f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.
: 2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.
These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.
: 4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.5. Used existing Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA) to define Evacuation Regions.The EPZ is partitioned into 12 ERPA along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries."Regions" are groups of contiguous ERPA for which ETE are calculated.
The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.
: 6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by NJSP-OEM, DEMA, PSEG Nuclear and from the telephone survey.b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1)to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.c. Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
: d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each "origin" (location of each"source" where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the plant.8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, transients and employees 
("general population")
with access to private vehicles.
Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.
: 9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.
: 10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.
1.2 Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location Salem-Hope Creek is located on the eastern shore of the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County, New Jersey. The site is approximately 20 miles south of Wilmington, DE and 40 miles southwest of Philadelphia, PA. The EPZ consists of parts of Salem and Cumberland Counties in NJ, and New Castle and Kent Counties in DE. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the plant. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 I Figure 1-1. Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station Location Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 is 1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded.
These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2: Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics
* Number of lanes 0 Posted speed* Lane width 0 Actual free speed* Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use* Interchange geometries 9 Control devices* Lane channelization 
& queuing 0 Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)
* Geometrics:
curves, grades (>4%) 0 Traffic signal type* Unusual characteristics:
Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the- highway infrastructure.
No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections.
For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph -not a material difference 
-for two-lane highways.
Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction.
For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. These links may be Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.Traffic signals are either pre-timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches).
Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches.
If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre-timed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.Figure 1-2 presents the link-node analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided.
The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.
Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate "source" links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software.
The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.
Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 1-2. Link-Node Analysis Network Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 DYNEV II consists of four sub-models: " A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C)." A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each "origin" (0) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are"generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables." A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B." A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNified Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.
The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, I-DYNEV, the following references are suggested: " NUREG/CR-4873 
-Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code" NUREG/CR-4874 
-The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to: " Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ." Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.* Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the plant.DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.
The effects of these Salem-Hope Creek NGS 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 countermeasures may then be tested with the model.1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2009 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows: " An increase in permanent resident population." Vehicle occupancy and Trip-generation rates differ slightly based on the results of the new telephone survey of EPZ residents." Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered at 20% instead of 30%, based on new NRC guidance." The highway representation is more detailed and reflects the recent roadway improvements in Middletown, DE.* Different roadway capacity estimates based on new guidance in 2010 HCM.Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic Prviu ET td urn td Resident Population Basis ArcGIS Software using 2000 US Census blocks; area ratio method used;population extrapolated to 2010.Population 
= 45,034 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population 
= 52,337 2.92 persons/household, 1.35 evacuating 2.83 persons/household, 1.34 evacuating Resident Population vehicles/household yielding:
2.16 vehicles/household yielding:
2.11 Vehicle Occupancy persons/vehicle, persons/vehicle.
Employee estimates based on information Employee estimates based on information provided about major employers in EPZ, provided about major employers in EPZ, Employee supplemented by observations of supplemented by observations of Populoye commercial property in EPZ from aerial commercial property in EPZ from aerial Population photography.
1.03 employees per vehicle photography.
1.06 employees per vehicle based on telephone survey results. based on telephone survey results.Employees 
= 4,724 Employees 
= 4,725 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 1,029 people who do not have total of 1,870 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 34 buses to access to a vehicle, requiring 63 buses to Tuansit dn t evacuate.
An additional 50 homebound evacuate.
An additional 50 homebound special needs persons needed special special needs persons needed special transportation to evacuate (21 required a transportation to evacuate (21 required a bus, 27 required a wheelchair-accessible bus, 27 required a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and 2 required an ambulance).
vehicle, and 2 required an ambulance).
Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 
-I Toi Prviu ET Std0urn EESuy Transient Population Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient attractions in EPZ, supplemented by observations of the facilities during the road survey and from aerial photography.
Transients 
= 3,323 Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient attractions in EPZ, supplemented by observations of the facilities during the road survey and from aerial photography.
Transients 
= 3,364 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by NJSP-OEM and information provided by NJSP-OEM and DEMA. DEMA.Special Facilities Correctional census = 2,750 Correctional census = 2,750 Population Medical census = 392 Medical census = 302 Buses Required = 15 Buses Required = 12 Wheelchair Buses Required = 7 Wheelchair Buses Required = 9 Wheelchair Vans Required = 6 School population based on information School population based on information provided by NJSP-OEM and DEMA. provided NJSP-OEM and DEMA.School Population School enrollment 
= 15,059 School enrollment 
= 15,125 Vehicles originating at schools = 291 Buses required = 281 Voluntary Volutary50 percent of population within the evacuation from 5prcena o poption within the 20 percent of the population within the within EPZ in areas ircular rin of the r ion;e3aperent, EPZ, but not within the Evacuation Region in annular ring between the circle and the outside region to be EPZ boundary (see Figure 2-1)evacuated 30% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the shadow area the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2).Network Size 1,733 Links; 1,218 Nodes 1,944 links; 1,314 nodes Field surveys conducted in April 2009. Field surveys conducted in August 2011.Roadway Geometric Roads and intersections were video Roads and intersections were video Data archived, archived.Road capacities based on 2000 HCM. Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Host Direct evacuation to designated Host School. School.50 percent of transit-dependent persons 50 percent of transit-dependent persons Ridesharing will evacuate with a neighbor or friend, will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 
-I Toi PrvosEESuyCretEESuy-Trip Generation for Evacuation Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:
Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 300 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 15 and 240 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 150 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:
Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 300 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 15 and 210 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 120 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and Weather free flow speed of all links in the network free flow speed of all links in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow. and 20% for snow.Modeling IDYNEV System: TRAD and PC-DYNEV DYNEV 11 System -Version 4.0.3.0 Modeling__________ (version 3.0.3.92).
One considered 
-construction of new One considered 
-Middletown Peach Special Events plant coincident with refueling outage at Festival existing unit.Additional transient vehicles = 2,161 Additional transient vehicles = 6,184 17 Regions (central sector wind direction 28 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector technique used) and each adjacent sector technique used, Evacuation Cases and 15 Scent secing technique including regions for staged evacuation) and 15 Scenarios producing 255 unique an14Serispoung32nqe cases.and 14 Scenarios producing 392 unique cases.Evacuation Time ETE reported for 5 0 th, 9 0 th, 9 5 th, and 1 0 0 th ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile Estimates Reporting percentile population.
Results presented population.
Results presented by Region by Region and Scenario.
and Scenario.Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 2:15 Good Weather: 2:25 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 9 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:00 Good Weather: 2:05 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.
2.1 Data Estimates 1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon surveys of major employers in the EPZ.3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from state emergency management agencies and from phone calls to specific facilities.
: 4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.83 persons per household and 1.34 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows: a. Employees:
1.06 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.
: b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.
: c. Special Events: Assumed transients attending the Middletown Peach Festival travel as families/households in a single vehicle, and used the average household size of 2.83 persons to estimate the number of vehicles.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions
: 1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario.
The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.
A Region is defined as a group of ERPA that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate.
A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.
: 2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR-7002.
: 3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002.
These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the ERPA included within these underlying configurations.
: 5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted"keyhole" evacuate.
20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate.
20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate.
See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages.
Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered.
These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane southbound on State Route 1 from the interchange with State Route 299 (Exit 136) to the end of the analysis-network (south of Exit 114).8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik 1). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.
1 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code. NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Tim o Scnai Sesn WekDyWate pca 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, None Weekend Evening Good Middletown Peach 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Fetival Festival Roadway Impact -Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on DE State Route 1 Southbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 
~eRegion ~eEPZ I Staged Evacuation:
5-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind I! !I
* Plant Location N Region to be Evacuated:
100% Evacuation D20% Shadow Evacuation E Shelter, then Evacuate I Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 2.3 Study Assumptions
: 1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following:
: a. Advisory to Evacuate is announced coincident with the siren notification.
: b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.
: c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of ERPA forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. 64 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 47 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 30 percent (64% x 47% = 30%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.
: 5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 60 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters.
It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 60 minute time period.6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate.
Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available.
The objectives of these TCP are: a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.
In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
: 7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles: a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated host schools.b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.
: c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.
: g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips 
("waves")
of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.
: h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3 , and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.
: 9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered.
Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).4 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
: 10. School buses capacities are as follows based on discussions with state emergency management agencies: a. Delaware -70 students per bus for elementary schools and 46 students per bus for middle and high schools b. New Jersey- 54 passengers 
-50 students plus 4 staff members -for all schools 11. Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Scenario Caaiy Sped Moiizto Tim fo Geea Populatio Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving hory (See Figure F-14)*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.
Roads are assumed to be passable.e Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:
: 1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).
: 2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.3. An estimate of potential double-counting of vehicles.Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates.
Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.
The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed.
For example: " A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper." A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.
Analysis of the population characteristics of the Salem-Hope Creek EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups: " Permanent residents 
-people who are year round residents of the EPZ." Transients 
-people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area." Employees 
-people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each ERPA and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).The Salem-Hope Creek EPZ is subdivided into 12 ERPA. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 3-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.83 persons/household 
-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.34 vehicles/household 
-See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by ERPA.The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles.
Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from the plant. This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere.
A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows: " Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer." Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval.* Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season.
Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.There are two correctional facilities within the EPZ -Corrections Department Institute and Violations Probation Center -both located in ERPA B in Delaware.
Both of these facilities will shelter in place in the event of an evacuation and do not contribute to the number of resident vehicles shown in Table 3-1 (see Section 8.6 for more information).
Salem-Hope Creek NGS 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 3-1. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population S66s 200 Poplaio 200Pplto 1 840 790 2 3,000 2,919 3 6,897 6,108 4 393 217 5 362 459 6 447 439 7 545 462 8 0 0 A 4,959 6,515 B 8,256 17,659 C 10,313 16,769 D 0 0 EPZ Population Growth: 45.3%Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by ERPA 2010 ERPA 201 Pouato Reidn Vehcle 1 790 372 2 2,919 1,378 3 6,108 2,890 4 217 101 5 459 217 6 439 207 7 462 218 8 0 0 A 6,515 3,082 B 17,659 7,125 C 16,769 7,908 D 0 0*Altered based on correctional facilities located in ERPA B.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW 1 0 N NNE F286 0 WNW W 1582 ENE I 33 I E F90-0 WsW ESE F690 261 SSW EPZ Boundary 74 S F18_2_F4-6 N Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 3 3 3-4 108 111 4-5 1,284 1,395 5-6 4,566 5,961 6-7 6,891 12,852 7- 8 7,839 20,691 8-9 13,563 34,254 9-10 15,929 50,183 10 -EPZ 2,154 52,337 Total: 52,337 W E Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW 8 0 96 N o135 0 7 NNE 110 'WNW 19 W 7,497 0 WSW 0 3,664'1 24 SSW 529__-I 35 _ .-s F- 8 F-21-1 N Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 1 1 3-4 51 52 4-5 607 659 5-6 2,159 2,818 6 -7 3,260 6,078 7 -8 3,675 9,753 8-9 6,293 16,046 9- 10 6,431 22,477 10 -EPZ 1,021 23,498 Total: 23,498 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector 0 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the plant (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population.
Table 3-3, Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Seto Pouain EauaigVhce N 21,212 10,046 NNE 1,414 671 NE 2,217 1,047 ENE 2,668 1,259 E 4,031 1,906 ESE 1,032 484 SE 12 5 SSE 40 19 S 1,300 617 SSW 18,707 8,858 SW 1,813 855 WSW 2,447 1,152 W 5,915 2,797 WNW 9,974 4,722 NW 37,237 17,626 NNW 45,880 21,723 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 121,2121 NNE F45,8 80 __________ 
,1 WNW 9,974 w 5,915 WSW 2,447 ENE 88 E 842 1,644 4,3 60 421 ESE SE ,.EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW -... -SSE 1l8,707 S 4 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ- 11 12,184 12,184 11- 12 15,873 28,057 12- 13 30,867 58,924 13- 14 48,560 107,484 14- 15 48,415 155,899 Total: 155,899 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 110,0461 NNE F21,7 23 67 WNW 4,722 w wSw 1,152 ENE F1,259 E ESE EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW ' SSE F8,858 S 1 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 5,760 5,760 11- 12 7,511 13,271 12 -13 14,612 27,883 13- 14 22,988 50,871 14- 15 22,916 73,787 Total: 73,787 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).
Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The Salem-Hope Creek EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including: " Lodging Facilities" Marinas/Boat Ramps" Beaches* Campgrounds" Golf Courses Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility.
These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities.
A total of 153 transients in 73 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.Surveys of the parks and recreational areas within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of transients visiting each of those places on a typical day and to determine peak season. A total of 3,211 transients and 1,373 vehicles have been assigned to parks and recreational areas within the EPZ.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-6 and Table E-7 present the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E-8 and Table E-9 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by ERPA. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles 1 227 105 2 190 89 3 153 86 4 0 0 5 621 121 6 10 6 7 75 38 8 0 0 A 1,078 567 B 400 158 C 410 208 D 200 68 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 59_5 NNE 613 I o 182....... 't................
0 WNW F 727-1 S0 I-W F3905- 0 WSW 0-g11'8'- '*,-- 0 SSW"_03 0 S F4 9-4 313q N Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 171 171 4-5 85 256 5-6 370 626 6-7 348 974 7-8 565 1,539 8-9 398 1,937 9 -10 1,235 3,172 10 -EPZ 192 3,364 Total: 3,364 W E Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector 3-12 KID Engineering, P.C.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 27071-- 0 F10o8--0 7-NNE 0 WNW '*" 00 W F1-43T 0 123 0 Wsw 0 WSW W sw Transient Vehicles ENE DI E 23g-ESE F-113T-Z Boundary SS0 sw S F27-4 F152 N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 99 99 4-5 29 128 5-6 247 375 6-7 180 555 7-8 293 848 8-9 160 1,008 9- 10 340 1,348 10 -EPZ 98 1,446 Total: 1,446 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories: " Those who live and work in the EPZ" Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population.
To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.
Year 2000 Census journey to work data for New Jersey and Delaware was used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ. For New Jersey, this data defines the number of persons working in a specified municipality by their place of residence (origin-municipality).
GIS software was used to estimate the percentage of population in each municipality that resides within the EPZ -these percentages are then applied to the journey to work data to estimate the number of people commuting to work in the New Jersey portion of the EPZ from areas outside of the EPZ. The resulting data indicates that, on average, 76% of workers in New Jersey commute to work from outside the EPZ.The journey to work data available for Delaware is limited to origin and destination by county, not municipality.
The State of Delaware only has three counties; therefore this data was not entirely useful. The majority of the population and employment in New Castle County is in Wilmington and Newark, neither of which is located within the EPZ. It is assumed that 75% of employees in the Delaware portion of the EPZ commute to work from outside the EPZ.In Table E-4 and Table E-5, the Employees (Max Shift) are multiplied by the percent non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees Who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.06 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7)was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.
Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by ERPA. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ERAEmlyeEmlyeVhcs 1 1,757 1,658 2 44 42 3 735 694 4 530 500 5 6 7 8 A B 466 440 C 1,193 1,125 D i_______Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW NNE S582 2969 1 8 0 *WNW[-98--1 S0 W F59-4 0 4 WSW o wsw'gg- ', F13 5[Employees S 0 SSW 5 S z~I1 N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0- 1 1,704 1,704 1-2 0 1,704 2-3 0 1,704 3-4 0 1,704 4-5 0 1,704 S-6 0 1,704 6 -7 53 1,757 7-8 253 2,010 8-9 1,148 3,158 9- 10 1,543 4,701 10 -EPZ 24 4,725 Total: 4,725 W E Inset --0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW NNE F54_9 280 17 -'WNW F 92--ENE I I -w F56 0 0 464 966 WSW 0 SW E e i EmlyeVhce-1 E ESE Z Boundary ss0 SSW-. 0 S E-5--N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0 -1 1,608 1,608 1-2 0 1,608 2-3 0 1,608 3-4 0 1,608 4-S 0 1,608 5-6 0 1,608 6 -? 50 1,658 7-8 239 1,897 8-9 1,084 2,981 9- 10 1,455 4,436 10 -EPZ 23 4,459 Total: 4,459 W E Inset 0-2Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the state emergency management agencies for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Chapter 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients'state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (external-external trips) at the time of an accident.After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate.
These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ -State Route 1 and US Route 13 in Delaware.
It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 60 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.
State Route 49 in New Jersey was not considered for pass-through traffic -NJSP-OEM indicated that the road would be shut down within minutes of the ATE.Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered.
Considering it will take one hour to man the ACPs, it is assumed that the external traffic traveling through the EPZ prior to the activation of the ACPs is equal to the DDHV. As indicated, there are 6,748 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12), as discussed in Section 6.3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 
: 13) is considered for the ETE study -the Middletown Peach Festival.
The special event occurs annually on the third Saturday in August in Middletown, DE.Data were provided by the event coordinator.
Attendance at the event is approximately 30,000, where 25,000 travel to the event from New Castle County and 5,000 travel from Maryland.
Estimating that one half of the New Castle residents live in the EPZ yields 17,500 additional transients in the EPZ during the special event. It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.83 was used as the vehicle occupancy resulting in an additional 6,184 transient vehicles.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Based upon discussions with the event coordinator, vehicles mainly park at schools in the area and have shuttle busses bring people to the event. Vehicles were therefore distributed over several links within the town of Middletown.
The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization time distribution as transients.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-6. Salem-Hope Creek EPZ External Traffic 8818 818 US Route 13 (DE) SB 24,018 0.107 0.5 1,285 1,285 8010 10 US Route 13 (DE) NB 24,018 0.107 0.5 1,285 1,285 8111 ill State Route 1 (DE) SB 39,041 0.107 0.5 2,089 2,089 8014 14 State Route 1 (DE) NB 39,041 0.107 0.5 2,089 2,089 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2 HCM 2010 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 40 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 I*
3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively.
This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups -transit-dependent, special facility and school population 
-are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 108,903 people and 51,638 vehicles are considered in this study. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 1 /qu ZS :L' /,51 U 198 U U 3,000 2 2,919 104 190 44 0 370 0 0 3,627 3 6,108 218 153 735 0 1,321 0 0 8,535 4 217 8 0 530 0 150 0 0 905 5 459 17 621 0 0 0 0 0 1,097 6 439 16 10 0 0 254 0 0 719 7 462 8 75 0 0 100 0 0 645 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 6,515 233 1,078 0 2 0 0 0 7,828 B 17,659 639 400 466 120 4,883 0 0 24,167 C 16,769 599 410 1,193 180 7,849 0 0 27,000 D 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 200 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 31,180 0" 31,180 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.
NOTE: Correctional Facility Population is captured in the U.S. Census data and is included the Permanent Resident totals.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 0 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 1 372 4 105 1,658 0 8 0 0 2,147 2 1,378 8 89 42 0 16 0 0 1,533 3 2,890 8 86 694 0 56 0 0 3,734 4 101 4 0 500 0 6 0 0 611 5 217 2 121 0 0 0 0 0 340 6 207 2 6 0 0 12 0 0 227 7 218 2 38 0 0 4 0 0 262 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 3,082 36 567 0 2 0 0 0 3,687 B 7,125 52 158 440 20 182 0 0 7,977 C 7,908 8 208 1,125 20 278 0 0 9,547 D 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 68 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,757 6,748 21,505 Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed.
The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the HCM 2010.In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics.
These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes free-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition.
LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume is defined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service." This definition is similar to that for capacity.
The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.Other factors also influence capacity.
These include, but are not limited to: " Lane width" Shoulder width* Pavement condition* Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)" Percent truck traffic" Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)" Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process;some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS') according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity.
The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions.
Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity.
These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, free speed and capacity are reduced by 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.
Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by "uninterrupted" flow; and (2) approaches to at-grade intersections where flow can be "interrupted" by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection.
Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations 
'Under local heavy traffic volume conditions.
This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form: 360 ( = = 30)XP Qcap,m =(60 (Gj) hm n XPm where: Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.
m The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection:
through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.Formally, we can write, hm = fm(hsat, F, F 2 ,...)where: hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F 1 ,F 2  = The various known factors influencing hm f M () = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ...The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2 .The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:
hm -> hsat 2Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach".
Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.
These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity.
In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F 1 , F 2 ,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5)of the HCM 2010.The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection.
Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Prm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances.
The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of all-red time is assigned between signal phases, typically.
If a signal is pre-timed, the yellow and all-red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway.The capacity of highway sections -- as distinct from approaches to intersections 
-- is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior.
There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4-1 illustrates this relationship.
As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity ("capacity drop"). Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.
The value of VF can be expressed as: VF = R x Capacity where: R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson 3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown.
These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances.
The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).
This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified.
This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as "interrupted flow" facilities.)
As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections.
Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.
The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics.
Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity.
Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.
The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection-specific capacity.
For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, "Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks," Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 4.3 Application to the Salem-Hope Creek Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required.
The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections: " Two-Lane roads: Local, State" Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)" Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.
4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.
Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios: " Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain";
some are "rolling terrain".* "Class I]" highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively.
Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections.
A Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components.
Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments".
Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations.
The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand: capacity relationships.
A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections.
The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of"merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction:
The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).
Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 

====4.3.4 Intersections====
Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts).
The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters.
The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.The simulation model explicitly models intersections:
Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections.
Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions.
Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.
The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly.
Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume intersections are detailed in Appendix J.4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.
Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is: "The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system." This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions.
The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM -they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location.
The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is Salem-Hope Creek NGS 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.Volume, vph R------ Qs Speed, mph Vf -Rvc.Density, vpm-- Density, vpm k -k 0 pt k I k 1 j Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

===5.1 Background===
In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details): 1. Unusual Event 2. Alert 3. Site Area Emergency 4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities.
As a Planning Basis. we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume: 1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren notification.
: 2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the siren notification.
: 3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to: 1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863.
: 2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.
For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate.
In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this one-hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.
Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.The notification process consists of two events: 1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).
: 2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.
The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 335 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities.
It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared.
These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.
As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available).
Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and word-of-mouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day -families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents.
Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities.
Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are: Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below: Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities EventSequence Activity Distribution 142 Receive Notification 1 2 4 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2 1 :1 "A Trnxial Wnma qf u UMV*.V I ,vunI..2,4 --) 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1." An Event is a 'state' that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)" An Activity is a 'process' that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)As such, a completed Activity changes the 'state' of an individual (e.g. the activity, 'travel home'changes the state from 'depart work' to 'arrive home'). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an 'Event Sequence';
the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-1(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5-1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5-1(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 5-1(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.It is seen from Figure 5-1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we aadopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 1 Af 2 3 As 4 5 Residents Residents qW -Mr -W Households wait for Commuters 1 Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 1 Af 2 5-Af -Af W MW Residents, 1 2 Transients away from Residence 4 5 ldm.~ ~W W Return to residence, then evacuate Residents at home;transients evacuate directly Residents, Transients at Residence 1 2 5 1 2 3,.5 0-~@--4 ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 -2 Receive Notification 2 -3 Prepare to Leave Work 2, 3 , 4 Travel Home 2, 4 .11 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate As Activities Consume Time 1. Notification
: 2. Aware of situation 3. Depart work 4. Arrive home 5. Depart on evacuation trip#1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.2 Applies throughout the year for transients.
Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions 
-not scalar numbers).Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 -* 2 It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below: Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elase Tim Pecn of (Mnues Pouato Notifie 0 0%5 7%10 13%15 27%20 47%25 66%30 87%35 92%40 97%45 100%Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 -+ 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility.
The distribution of Activity 2 -- 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work 0 0% 40 90%5 36% 45 93%10 58% 50 93%15 68% 55 93%20 74% 60 98%25 76% 75 99%30 87% 90 100%35 89%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response.
That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question.
The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the "Don't know" responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 -> 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-4.Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home 0 0% 45 84%5 7% 50 86%10 15% 55 86%15 25% 60 93%20 39% 75 95%25 45% 90 97%30 64% 105 99%35 68% 120 100%40 74%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response 5-8 KLD Engineering, p.c.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 -+ 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate 0 0%15 14%30 50%45 59%60 76%75 85%90 87%105 88%120 93%135 98%150 98%165 99%180 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance.
It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable -albeit at a lower capacity -under the vast majority of snow conditions.
Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions.
These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6.Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6V-8" of Snow 0 28%15 38%30 56%45 64%60 74%75 80%90 83%105 84%120 88%135 93%150 93%165 94%180 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response 5-10 KID Engineering, P.C.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Mobilization Activities 100%-., 3 80%C.2 2.0 2 60%C 4-E 0 U r.o.2 40%4.0 0.46-0 20%-Notification-Prepare to Leave Work-Travel Home-Prepare Home-Time to Clear Snow 0 30 60 90 120 150 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)8L_180 210 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions.
As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the work-to-home trip (Activity 3 -* 4) must precede Activity 4 -- 5.To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities.
The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution.
As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure.
Table 5-7 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.
Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events 0 Appl "Sm ig Aloih To Ditibto Obtai. e Evn Defne Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Ditibto Descrptio Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).E Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to some questions or choose to not respond to a question.
The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses.
But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 540 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say "four hours" and 4 say "six or more hours".These "outliers" must be considered:
are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider: 1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);
: 3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered "outliers" for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 parametric methods to avoid that assumption.
The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.
In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used: 1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;
: 2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps "a" to "d" are repeated.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 
: 5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution.
A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5-3.ba U 100.0%90.0%80.0%70.0%60.0%50.0%40.0%30.0%20.0%10.0%0.0%LA VA LA LA LA Lq LA LAi LA LA LA LA-4 -4 "'. ". M M -*j 4 LA LA LA? LA LA , 00 O -Center of Interval (minutes)-Cumulative Data --Cumulative Normal Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution
: 6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times: Most of the real data is to the left of the "normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off' slower than the comparable "normal" curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.
This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential 
-preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent -for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms.
These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).The final time period (14) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the prompt evacuation of the 2 mile region, while those beyond 2 miles shelter-in-place.
As discussed in Section 6, the SHCNGS always evacuates at least the 5 mile radius. Thus, this study considers staged evacuation based on a 5 mile prompt evacuation as discussed below: 1. ERPAs comprising the 5 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately
: 2. ERPAs comprising regions extending from 5 miles and downwind to the EPZ boundary are advised to shelter in-place while the 5-mile region is cleared 3. As vehicles evacuate the 5 mile region, sheltered people from 5 to 10 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation
: 4. The population sheltering in the 5 to 10 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 5 mile region evacuate across the 5 mile region boundary 5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%Assumptions
: 1. The population in the Shadow Region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios.
That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.2. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, at a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.
: 3. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.
Procedure 1. Trip generation for population groups in the 5 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows: a. Identify the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for the ERPAs comprising the five mile region. This value, Tscen*, obtained from simulation results is scenario-specific.
It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows: i. The non-shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance).
ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen*Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 iii. Following time Tscen*, the balance of trips are generated:
: 1. by stepping up and then following the non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen is < max trip generation time) or 2. by stepping up to 100% (if Tscen* is > max trip generation time)c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios.
NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement"approximately 9 0 th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.
The value of Tscen* is 1:40 for non-snow scenarios and 2:30 for snow scenarios.
: 3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups: a. Residents with returning commuters b. Residents without returning commuters c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions
: d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 9 0 th percentile five-mile evacuation time is 100 minutes for good weather and 150 minutes for snow scenarios.
At the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory.
Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.
Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution.
Following time Tscen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After Tscen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.
5.5 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Section III.D.1 of the State of New Jersey Salem-Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations Radiological Emergency Response Plan Rev. 8 (2008) states that "the Division of Parks and Forestry, the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the NJSP will assist in the notification of transients within their jurisdictions." It goes on to suggest the use of the EAS radio station that will broadcast the advisory and notification within 15 minutes of a Protective Action Decision (PAD).The State of Delaware Radiological Emergency Plan SOP 503-A (2008) states that "the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has federal jurisdiction over commercial and pleasure vessels in the navigable waters of the United States aPnd is the primary agent responsible for alert and notification for the Delaware River and Bay." It goes on to estimate the response times of 2-5 minutes for pilots and crew to reach craft and an additional 12-15 minutes to reach the Delaware River.Salem-Hope Creek NGS 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients 
-Residents with Commuters 
-Residents with no Commuters-Res with Comm and Snow -Res no Comm with Snow 100 CL ,5 80 0Uj 60 0 U.'2 0 z CL 0 0.20 CL 0 K---__..... ............... 
-.. .... .i1L L __ii_0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation Residentsm Resid e~n;ts ith Residentsi St[[Rerside.nt 0[s wt.it W C Withot0 Time ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Duain EpoesTasinsCm ues Cm uer nwCm uesSo Perod (M n) (Dstibtin ) DitrbutonA) (Dstibtin ) DitrbuionD) (Dstibtin ) Ditrbuio F 1 15 6%6%0%1%0%0%2 15 32% 32% 0% 8% 0% 3%3 15 34% 34% 1% 21% 0% 8%4 15 16% 16% 5% 22% 2% 11%5 15 6% 6% 11% 15% 4% 11%6 15 4% 4% 14% 12% 7% 11%7 30 2% 2% 28% 9% 18% 18%8 30 0% 0% 18% 7% 19% 12%9 30 0% 0% 12% 4% 15% 10%10 30 0% 0% 6% 1% 11% 6%11 30 0% 0% 3% 0% 9% 5%12 60 0% 0% 2% 0% 11% 4%13 90 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1%14 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%NOTE:* Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.
* Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 40 Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation
-Employees 
/ Transients-Residents with no Commuters-Res no Comm with Snow-Staged Residents with no Commuters-Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow)-Residents with Commuters-Res with Comm and Snow-Staged Residents with Commuters-Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)100.2 80 4.-.E60 CO CL 0 S40 0.00 0------- L-L A________0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation 1 15 0%0%0%0%2 15 0% 2% 0% 1%3 15 0% 4% 0% 1%4 15 1% 4% 0% 2%5 15 2% 3% 1% 3%6 15 3% 3% 2% 2%7 30 53% 72% 3% 3%8 30 18% 7% 4% 3%9 30 12% 4% 55% 69%10 30 6% 1% 11% 6%11 30 3% 0% 9% 5%12 60 2% 0% 11% 4%13 90 0% 0% 4% 1%14 600 0% 0% 0% 0%*Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.
Salem-Hope Creek NGS Evacuation Time Estimate 0 5-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 0}}