|
|
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 3 RA-22-0262 ENCLOSURE 3: McGuire 2022 Evacuation Time Estimate Report | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| | |
| McGuire Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Duke Energy, by:
| |
| KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| 1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: rcohen@kldcompanies.com June 28, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1245
| |
| | |
| Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The McGuire Nuclear Station Location ...................................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.7 Schools, Preschools and Childcare Centers Population Demand .............................................. 37 3.7.1 Commuter Colleges ............................................................................................................ 38 3.8 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 39 3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ........................................................................... 310 3.10 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 310 3.11 External Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 310 3.12 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................... 311 3.13 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 311 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the MNS Study Area ........................................................................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 McGuire Nuclear Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 58 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................... 59 6 EVACUATION CAsES ........................................................................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 75 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschool and Childcare Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Medical and Correctional Facilities ..................................................... 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................... 810 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS ....................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers .................................................................................................................... 102 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................B1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B1 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................................... D1 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 McGuire Nuclear Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| F.3 SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ F1 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ....................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ......................................................................................................... F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ................................................................................................... F4 F.3.4 Emergency Communications ............................................................................................. F5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TCP /SRB Locations........................................................................................... G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. ZONE BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................ L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped McGuire Nuclear Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| List of Figures Figure 11. McGuire Nuclear Station Location ......................................................................................... 113 Figure 12. MNS LinkNode Analysis Network ......................................................................................... 114 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Zones Comprising the MNS EPZ ............................................................................................. 324 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 325 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 326 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 327 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 328 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 329 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 330 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 331 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 332 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 516 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 517 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 518 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Radius .................................................................................................... 520 Figure 61. Zones Comprising MNS EPZ .................................................................................................... 69 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 718 Figure 72. MNS Shadow Region ............................................................................................................. 719 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................................... 720 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 721 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 722 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 723 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 724 Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 725 Figure 79. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................... 726 Figure 710. Congestion Patterns at 6 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................................... 727 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 .................................................... 728 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 .................................................... 728 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 729 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 729 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 730 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 730 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 731 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 731 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 732 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 732 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 733 Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 733 Figure 723. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 734 Figure 724. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 734 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 838 McGuire Nuclear Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes within the MNS EPZ ................................................................. 1013 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes .......................................................................................... 1014 Figure 103. TransitDependent Bus Routes Continued ........................................................................ 1015 Figure 104. General Population Reception Centers and Relocation Schools ...................................... 1016 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Overview of the Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area .............................................................................................................................. E14 Figure E2. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area North ........................................... E15 Figure E3. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area South ........................................... E16 Figure E4. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ ........................................................................ E17 Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E18 Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ............................................................................................ E19 Figure E7. Campgrounds, Historical Sites, Parks and Other Recreational Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E20 Figure E8. Golf Courses within the EPZ ................................................................................................... E21 Figure E9. Marinas within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E22 Figure E10. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E23 Figure E11. Correctional Facility within the EPZ ..................................................................................... E24 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F8 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F8 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ...................................................................... F9 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households .................................................................... F9 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference....................................................................................... F10 Figure F6. Commuters per Households in the EPZ ................................................................................ F10 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ................................................................................................... F11 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ........................................................ F11 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F12 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ........................................................................... F12 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving ........................... F13 Figure F12. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals .......................................................................... F13 Figure F13. Type of Pets/Animals ........................................................................................................... F14 Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F15 Figure F15. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F15 Figure F16. Time to Commute Home from Work/College ..................................................................... F16 Figure F17. Preparation Time to Leave Home ....................................................................................... F16 Figure F18. Time to Remove Snow/Ice from Driveway .......................................................................... F17 Figure F19. Cell Phone Signal Reliability (for Phone Call and/or Text Message) .................................... F17 Figure F20. Resident's Compliance to Given Instruction (by Emergency Management Officials) .................................................................................................... F18 Figure F21. Perception of Public Alert Method ...................................................................................... F18 Figure G1.Traffic Control Points and Security Road Blocks for the MNS EPZ ........................................ G10 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H4 McGuire Nuclear Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H28. Region R28 ......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H29. Region R29 ......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H30. Region R30 ......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H31. Region R31 ......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure H32. Region R32 ......................................................................................................................... H35 Figure H33. Region R33 ......................................................................................................................... H36 Figure H34. Region R34 ......................................................................................................................... H37 Figure H35. Region R35 ......................................................................................................................... H38 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ......................................................................................................... J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) .......................................................................................................................... J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ......................................................................................................... J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .......................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ......................................................................................................... J9 McGuire Nuclear Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ........................................................................................................................ J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8) .......................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ....................................................................................................... J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ...................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11) ........................................................................................................................ J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) .............................................................................. J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ........................................................................ J13 Figure K1. MNS LinkNode Analysis Network ........................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ...................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ...................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ...................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ...................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ...................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ...................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 .................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 .................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ................................................................................ K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ................................................................................ K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ................................................................................ K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ................................................................................ K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ................................................................................ K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ................................................................................ K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ................................................................................ K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ................................................................................ K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ................................................................................ K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ................................................................................ K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ................................................................................ K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ................................................................................ K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ................................................................................ K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ................................................................................ K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ................................................................................ K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ................................................................................ K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ................................................................................ K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ................................................................................ K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ................................................................................ K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ................................................................................ K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ................................................................................ K32 McGuire Nuclear Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ................................................................................ K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ................................................................................ K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ................................................................................ K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ................................................................................ K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ................................................................................ K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ................................................................................ K45 Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 ................................................................................ K46 Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 ................................................................................ K47 Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 ................................................................................ K48 Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 ................................................................................ K49 Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 ................................................................................ K50 Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 ................................................................................ K51 Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 ................................................................................ K52 Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 ................................................................................ K53 Figure K53. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 52 ................................................................................ K54 Figure K54. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 53 ................................................................................ K55 Figure K55. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 54 ................................................................................ K56 Figure K56. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 55 ................................................................................ K57 Figure K57. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 56 ................................................................................ K58 Figure K58. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 57 ................................................................................ K59 Figure K59. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 58 ................................................................................ K60 Figure K60. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 59 ................................................................................ K61 Figure K61. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 60 ................................................................................ K62 Figure K62. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 61 ................................................................................ K63 Figure K63. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 62 ................................................................................ K64 Figure K64. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 63 ................................................................................ K65 Figure K65. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 64 ................................................................................ K66 Figure K66. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 65 ................................................................................ K67 Figure K67. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 66 ................................................................................ K68 Figure K68. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 67 ................................................................................ K69 Figure K69. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 68 ................................................................................ K70 Figure K70. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 69 ................................................................................ K71 Figure K71. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 70 ................................................................................ K72 Figure K72. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 71 ................................................................................ K73 Figure K73. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 72 ................................................................................ K74 Figure K74. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 73 ................................................................................ K75 Figure K75. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 74 ................................................................................ K76 Figure K76. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 75 ................................................................................ K77 Figure K77. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 76 ................................................................................ K78 Figure K78. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 77 ................................................................................ K79 McGuire Nuclear Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K79. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 78 ................................................................................ K80 Figure K80. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 79 ................................................................................ K81 Figure K81. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 80 ................................................................................ K82 Figure K82. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 81 ................................................................................ K83 Figure K83. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 82 ................................................................................ K84 Figure K84. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 83 ................................................................................ K85 Figure K85. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 84 ................................................................................ K86 Figure K86. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 85 ................................................................................ K87 Figure K87. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 86 ................................................................................ K88 Figure K88. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 87 ................................................................................ K89 Figure K89. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 88 ................................................................................ K90 Figure K90. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 89 ................................................................................ K91 Figure K91. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 90 ................................................................................ K92 Figure K92. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 91 ................................................................................ K93 Figure K93. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 92 ................................................................................ K94 Figure K94. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 93 ................................................................................ K95 Figure K95. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 94 ................................................................................ K96 Figure K96. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 95 ................................................................................ K97 Figure K97. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 96 ................................................................................ K98 Figure K98. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 97 ................................................................................ K99 Figure K99. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 98 .............................................................................. K100 Figure K100. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 99 ............................................................................ K101 Figure K101. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 100 .......................................................................... K102 Figure K102. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 101 .......................................................................... K103 Figure K103. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 102 .......................................................................... K104 Figure K104. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 103 .......................................................................... K105 Figure K105. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 104 .......................................................................... K106 Figure K106. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 105 .......................................................................... K107 Figure K107. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 106 .......................................................................... K108 Figure K108. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 107 .......................................................................... K109 McGuire Nuclear Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 312 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone .......................................................... 313 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 313 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 314 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 315 Table 36. Medical Facilities Transit Demand Estimates ......................................................................... 316 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 317 Table 38. School, Preschool, and Childcare Center Population Demand Estimates .............................. 318 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary .............................................................. 321 Table 310. External (Through) Traffic ..................................................................................................... 321 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 322 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 323 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 510 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 510 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 511 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home ................................................ 512 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear Ice ........................................................................ 512 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events............................................................................................. 513 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation .................... 514 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 515 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 66 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 67 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 68 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ......................... 710 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 712 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Radius within the Indicated Region ......................... 714 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Radius within the Indicated Region ....................... 715 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 716 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 813 Table 82. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ......... 815 Table 83. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ......................... 819 Table 84. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice............................ 823 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 827 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ........................................................... 828 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice ............................................................. 829 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 830 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................... 832 McGuire Nuclear Station x KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice ................................................................ 834 Table 811. Correction Facility Evacuation Time Estimates ..................................................................... 836 Table 812. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................ 836 Table 813. Access and/or Functional Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates Second Wave for Ambulatory Access and/or Functional Needs People ............................................... 837 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 104 Table 103. School, Preschool, and Childcare Center Relocation Schools (or Reception Centers)............................................................................................ 1010 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ ...................................................................... E2 Table E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ ........................................................................... E5 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E7 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E8 Table E5. Campgrounds, Historical Sites, Parks, and Other Recreational Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E9 Table E6. Golf Courses within the EPZ .................................................................................................... E10 Table E7. Marinas within the EPZ ........................................................................................................... E11 Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................. E12 Table E9. Correctional Facility within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E13 Table F1. McGuire Demographic Survey Sampling Plan .......................................................................... F7 Table G1. List of Manual Traffic Control Locations at intersections without Actuated Signals .............. G3 Table G2. Proposed Modifications of Existing Traffic Control Points and/or Security Road Blocks ..................................................................................................................... G7 Table G3. ETE with and without Modification to TMP ........................................................................... G9 Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region ........................................................ H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ............................ J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J3 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .......................... J4 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M4 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Increase................................................................................ M5 Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size .............................................................. M5 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 McGuire Nuclear Station xi KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ACRONYM LIST Table 1. Acronym List ACRONYM DEFINITION AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ANS Alert and Notification systems ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CR County Road COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETA Estimated Time of Arrival ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household I Interstate ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MNS McGuire Nuclear Station MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MTC Manual Traffic Control NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin McGuire Nuclear Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ACRONYM DEFINITION OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization PAR Protective Action Recommendation pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center RS Relocation School SB Southbound SR State Route SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TCP Traffic Control Point TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation US US Highway vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WB Westbound McGuire Nuclear Station AL2 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 McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. This ETE study provides Duke Energy and offsite response organizations (OROs) with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.
| |
| In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:
| |
| Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 (10CFR50), Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, NRC, 2011.
| |
| Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, February 2021.
| |
| Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, FEMA P1028, December 2019.
| |
| Project Activities This project began in November 2020 and extended over a period of 18 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:
| |
| Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Duke Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.
| |
| Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2020.
| |
| Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the MNS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2019.
| |
| Updated the 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.
| |
| Conducted a randomsample online demographic 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 ORO personnel prior to the survey.
| |
| A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Duke Energy and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, and special facilities (schools, preschools and childcare centers, medical and correctional facilities) gathered for the previous ETE study were reviewed and either confirmed or updated accordingly by the OROs. If updated information was not provided and could not be obtained from online sources, data gathered for the previous (2019) ETE study was utilized.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Estimated the number of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the 2018 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) data from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of North Carolina2.
| |
| The traffic demand and tripgeneration 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 demographic survey of EPZ residents.
| |
| Following federal guidelines, the existing EPZ is subdivided into 19 zones. These zones are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 35 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R35).
| |
| The timevarying 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, Ice). One special event scenario involving a Carolina Renaissance Festival was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate77 (I77) southbound from the interchange with North Carolina 73/Sam Furr Rd (Exit 25) to the end of the analysis network at the interchange with County Route115/Sunset Rd (Exit 16A) for the duration of the evacuation.
| |
| Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2Mile Radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.
| |
| As per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:
| |
| A rapidly escalating accident at the MNS that quickly assumes the status of a general emergency wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective action have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the siren alert.
| |
| While an unlikely scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the ATE until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent upper bound estimates. This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.
| |
| If the emergency occurs while schools, preschools and childcare centers are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers or relocation schools as stated in the MNS 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information3. 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.
| |
| 1 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
| |
| 2 https://www.nccommerce.com/data-tools-reports/labor-market-data-tools/employment-projections 3
| |
| https://www.duke-energy.com/_/media/pdfs/safety/nuclear/epz-booklets/ep-booklet-mcguire.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided by the counties in the EPZ. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed:
| |
| bus, van, wheelchair vehicle, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.
| |
| Attended final virtual meeting with Duke Energy personnel and the OROs to present final results of the study.
| |
| Computation of ETE A total of 490 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 35 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (35 x 14 = 490). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent 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 ATE 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 the ATE. 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 2Mile Radius evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2Mile Radius is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, the assumed 20% of people beyond 2 miles evacuate (noncompliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace.
| |
| The computational procedure is outlined as follows:
| |
| A linknode 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.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.
| |
| The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
| |
| Traffic Management This study reviewed and modeled the existing traffic management plan within the EPZ provided by offsite response organizations within the EPZ. Nearly all of the traffic signals in the study area are actuated signals which will adapt their timing to the changing traffic patterns during evacuation. Based on the ETE simulations, 30 Traffic Control Points (TCP) and 8 Security Road Blocks (SRB) were modified to improve the ETE. Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G.
| |
| 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.
| |
| Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Zone based on the 2020 Census data.
| |
| Table 61 defines each of the 35 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Zones.
| |
| Table 62 lists the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.
| |
| Tables 71 and 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. 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 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2Mile Radius for unstaged (concurrent) and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.
| |
| Table 82 presents ETE for the children at schools, preschools, and childcare centers in good weather.
| |
| Table 85 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.
| |
| Table 88 presents ETE for the medical facilities in good weather.
| |
| Figure 61 presents displays a map of the MNS EPZ showing the layout of the 19 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.
| |
| Figure H11 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R11) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. See Appendix H for maps of all regions.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 490 unique cases - a combination of 35 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:50 (hr:min) to 5:30 at the 90th percentile. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 6:00 to 6:30 for good weather and rain cases, and from 6:30 to 7:30 for ice cases.
| |
| The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. The 100th percentile ETE for all regions for most of the nonice scenarios generally parallel the mobilization times (6:00 for residents with returning commuters plus 5 to 10 minutes travel time to exit the EPZ).
| |
| This implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization for nonice cases. For ice cases, the 100th percentile is significantly longer than the trip generation time, this is the result of the congestion within the EPZ. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7 10 through 723.
| |
| Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Radius and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R04 through R10 and R02 with Regions R28 through R35, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation is not recommended for the MNS EPZ.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather) and 13 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather) in Table 72 indicates that the special event has minimal to no impact on the 90th percentile ETE (up to 15minute increases in ETE for some cases). There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane southbound on I77 from the interchange with North Carolina73/
| |
| Sam Furr Rd (Exit 25) to the end of the analysis network at the interchange with County Route115/ Sunset Rd (Exit 16A) - does not have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE - increased by 15 minutes at most. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE.
| |
| See Section 7.5 for additional information.
| |
| Cornelius, Davidson and Huntersville population centers along I77 (on the eastern side of the EPZ) and roads accessing the ramps to the interstate are the most congested areas during an evacuation. The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is along I77 northbound. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 5 hours 40 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 710.
| |
| Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools and childcare centers, medical facilities, correctional facility, transitdependent persons and access and/or functional needs persons. The average singlewave ETE for all these facilities except access and/or McGuire Nuclear Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| functional needs population are lower than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. The average twowave ETE for all these facilities except correctional facility exceeds the 90th percentile ETE for the general population and could affect protective action decision making. See Section 8.
| |
| Table 81 indicates that there are insufficient bus resources available to evacuate the transit dependent population in a single wave. Mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties and assistance from the state should be considered to address the shortfall in transportation resources (see Section 8.1).
| |
| A reduction or addition of base trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 10 to 15 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 30 minutes to 1 hour (significant change). As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 5 hours and 30 minutes. If the time to mobilize is longer than 5 hours and 30 minutes, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by trip generation time. For trip generation times less than 5 hours and 30 minutes, congestion dictates ETE. See Table M1 in Appendix M.
| |
| The general population ETE is sensitive to an increase of the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. For example, tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes and 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour 5 minutes. See Table M2.
| |
| A population increase of 13% or more results in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.
| |
| Based on the 2020 Census data, the average household size of 2.6 people per household was used for this study. As per the survey results, decreasing the average household size (increasing the total number evacuating vehicles) to 2.43 people per household has minimal impact on 90th percentile ETE (10 minutes longer at most). The 100th percentile ETE remains dictated by trip generation time and as a result is not impacted by the change in people per household. See Table M4.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population A 18,433 22,065 B 931 1,063 C 1,484 1,461 D 22,994 27,773 E 37,228 44,197 F 30,364 46,588 G 25,408 33,039 H 9,665 12,496 I 8,053 9,055 J 7,447 10,185 K 2,272 2,687 L 1,247 1,562 M 238 275 N 5,381 6,548 O 3,705 5,273 P 10,377 15,049 Q 3,394 3,621 R 1,667 2,314 S 14,970 16,622 EPZ TOTAL: 205,258 261,873 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 27.6%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R01 2Mile Radius X X X X R02 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R04 N, NNE X X X X X X R05 NE, ENE X X X X X X R06 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R07 SSE, S X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW X X X X X R09 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R10 X X X X X NNW Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R11 N X X X X X X X X X X X X R12 NNE, NE X X X X X X X X X X X R13 ENE X X X X X X X X X X X R14 E X X X X X X X X X X X X R15 ESE X X X X X X X X X X X R16 SE X X X X X X X X X X X X R17 SSE X X X X X X X X X X X X R18 S X X X X X X X X X X X X X R19 SSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R20 SW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R21 WSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R22 W X X X X X X X X X X X X R23 WNW X X X X X X X X X X X R24 NW X X X X X X X X X X X X R25 NNW X X X X X X X X X X X Site Specific Regions Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R26 NE X X X X X X X X X X X X R27 SSE X X X X X McGuire Nuclear Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R28 N, NNE X X X X X X R29 NE, ENE X X X X X X R30 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R31 SSE, S X X X X X X R32 SSW, SW X X X X X R33 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R34 X X X X X NNW R35 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X ShelterinPlace until 90%
| |
| ETE for R01, then Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season4 Week Day Weather Special 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 Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Carolina Renaissance Festival 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact Lane Closure on I77 SB 4
| |
| Winter means that school is in session, at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius, and EPZ R01 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R02 3:05 3:20 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:40 2:50 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:05 R03 4:10 4:35 3:45 4:05 3:40 4:15 4:35 5:10 3:45 4:00 4:30 3:40 3:45 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:55 3:05 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:55 R05 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 R06 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 R07 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R08 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:10 3:25 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R09 3:05 3:15 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:45 2:50 3:10 3:10 2:55 2:50 3:20 R10 2:50 3:10 2:50 2:55 3:00 2:50 3:05 3:15 2:50 2:50 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles R11 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:20 3:45 4:10 3:05 3:25 3:40 3:10 3:05 3:25 R12 3:10 3:20 2:50 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:40 2:55 3:05 3:25 3:00 2:55 3:10 R13 3:10 3:20 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:05 3:30 3:40 2:50 3:05 3:15 2:55 2:50 3:10 R14 3:15 3:30 3:00 3:10 3:05 3:15 3:30 3:50 3:00 3:15 3:25 3:05 3:00 3:15 R15 3:15 3:30 3:00 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:35 3:50 3:00 3:20 3:25 3:05 3:00 3:15 R16 3:15 3:35 3:00 3:15 3:10 3:15 3:35 3:55 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:10 3:00 3:15 R17 3:20 3:30 3:00 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:30 3:55 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:05 3:00 3:20 R18 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:25 3:45 4:15 3:05 3:15 3:45 3:10 3:05 3:25 R19 3:35 3:55 3:15 3:30 3:10 3:35 3:55 4:30 3:15 3:30 3:55 3:10 3:15 3:45 R20 4:20 4:45 3:55 4:20 3:45 4:25 4:50 5:30 3:55 4:15 4:45 3:45 4:05 4:35 R21 4:15 4:40 3:40 4:05 3:40 4:25 4:45 5:20 3:45 4:05 4:35 3:35 3:45 4:25 R22 4:00 4:30 3:35 3:55 3:35 4:15 4:25 5:10 3:40 3:50 4:20 3:35 3:40 4:10 McGuire Nuclear Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 3:45 4:10 3:25 3:45 3:25 3:50 4:15 4:40 3:20 3:45 4:00 3:25 3:35 3:55 R24 3:45 4:05 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:50 4:10 4:35 3:20 3:50 4:05 3:30 3:35 3:55 R25 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:20 3:40 4:00 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:10 3:00 3:25 Site Specific Regions R26 3:05 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:35 2:50 3:05 3:25 2:55 2:50 3:05 R27 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:00 4:10 3:50 4:15 4:15 4:00 4:05 4:15 4:05 4:05 4:30 4:15 4:05 4:00 R29 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 R30 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:30 3:35 R31 3:45 3:45 3:40 3:50 4:00 3:40 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R32 3:45 3:55 3:45 3:55 3:55 3:35 3:55 3:55 3:45 3:50 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:45 R33 4:10 4:20 4:15 4:20 4:25 4:10 4:20 4:30 4:10 4:20 4:35 4:20 4:10 4:10 R34 4:10 4:30 4:00 4:25 4:20 4:05 4:20 4:30 4:10 4:15 4:45 4:20 4:10 4:10 R35 4:05 4:15 4:10 4:15 4:20 4:05 4:10 4:25 4:10 4:15 4:30 4:15 4:10 4:05 McGuire Nuclear Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius, and EPZ R01 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R02 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R03 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:30 7:30 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R06 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R07 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R08 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R09 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R10 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles R11 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:20 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R12 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R13 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R14 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R15 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R16 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R17 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R18 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R19 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R20 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 7:05 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R21 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:30 7:30 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R22 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 7:15 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 McGuire Nuclear Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:50 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R24 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:50 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 Site Specific Regions R26 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R27 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R29 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R30 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R31 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R32 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R33 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R34 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R35 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 McGuire Nuclear Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and 5Mile Radius R01 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R02 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R05 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R06 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R07 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R08 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R09 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R10 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R29 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R30 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R32 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R33 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R34 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R35 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 McGuire Nuclear Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Good Weather Rain Ice Rain Ice Good Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and 5 Mile Radius R01 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R02 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R05 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R06 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R07 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R08 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R09 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R10 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R29 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R30 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R31 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R32 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R33 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R34 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R35 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 McGuire Nuclear Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Mountain Island Charter School 120 15 6.6 26.2 16 2:35 5.4 8 2:45 Pinewood Elementary School 120 15 2.6 28.5 6 2:25 5.8 8 2:35 Kiser Elementary School 120 15 1.1 22.8 3 2:20 5.6 8 2:30 Judah Christian Academy 120 15 0.8 23.0 3 2:20 5.7 8 2:30 Stanley Christian Academy 120 15 0.8 23.0 3 2:20 5.7 8 2:30 Stanley Middle School 120 15 1.8 27.3 5 2:20 5.6 8 2:30 Grace School 120 15 10.0 31.7 19 2:35 5.4 8 2:45 First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center 120 15 5.8 24.0 15 2:30 5.8 8 2:40 Tiny Tot Child Development Center 120 15 5.2 45.0 7 2:25 5.8 8 2:35 Springfield Elementary School 120 15 5.6 8 2:25 Ida Rankin Elementary School 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 10 2:25 Mount Holly Middle School 120 15 7.2 10 2:25 IREDELL COUNTY SCHOOLS Woodlawn School 120 15 6.7 8.5 48 3:05 12.0 16 3:25 Langtree Charter Academy 120 15 2.5 2.8 53 3:10 12.1 17 3:30 Pine Lake Preparatory 120 15 4.1 6.7 37 2:55 12.0 16 3:15 Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 120 15 3.9 4.7 50 3:05 12.1 17 3:25 Coddle Creek Elementary School 120 15 6.7 8.5 48 3:05 12.0 16 3:25 Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 120 15 2.2 2.1 65 3:20 12.1 17 3:40 Woodland Heights Elementary School 120 15 0.7 38.5 2 2:20 13.5 18 2:40 Lake Norman Elementary School 120 15 13.4 18 2:35 Located Outside the EPZ Brawley Middle School 120 15 12.3 17 2:35 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS West Lake Preparatory Academy 120 15 7.6 39.0 12 2:30 14.4 20 2:50 Catawba Springs Elementary School 120 15 6.7 45.0 9 2:25 9.1 13 2:40 Starboard Christian Academy 120 15 5.3 6.3 51 3:10 15.0 21 3:35 East Lincoln High School 120 15 6.4 45.0 9 2:25 8.9 12 2:40 McGuire Nuclear Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| Lincoln Charter School 120 15 5.9 5.5 65 3:20 16.3 22 3:45 St. James Elementary School 120 15 9.0 44.5 13 2:30 7.4 10 2:40 Denver Christian Academy 120 15 4.5 6.1 45 3:00 18.4 25 3:25 Rock Springs Elementary School 120 15 2.0 13.5 9 2:25 15.0 20 2:45 East Lincoln Middle School 120 15 1.8 41.3 3 2:20 8.9 12 2:35 The Learning Express 120 15 9.0 42.1 13 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Mini Academy Childcare Center 120 15 6.5 5.6 70 3:25 15.1 21 3:50 Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After Care 120 15 6.7 44.5 10 2:25 8.4 12 2:40 Westport Baptist Preschool 120 15 5.5 5.9 56 3:15 15.2 21 3:40 Tutor Time 120 15 9.0 42.1 13 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 120 15 7.9 43.6 11 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Our Gang Day Care Center 120 15 6.5 5.6 70 3:25 15.1 21 3:50 Creative Learning Center 120 15 5.7 45.0 8 2:25 8.4 12 2:40 Denver Baptist Preschool 120 15 2.2 13.5 10 2:25 15.1 21 2:50 Kids in Motion 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 14.5 20 2:35 MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Southlake Christian Academy 120 15 10.8 4.4 149 4:45 6.6 9 4:55 Barnette Elementary School 120 15 9.1 5.8 95 3:50 7.2 10 4:00 Francis Bradley Middle School 120 15 9.1 5.8 95 3:50 7.2 10 4:00 Grand Oak Elementary 120 15 7.8 26.6 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Torrence Creek Elementary School 120 15 7.8 27.4 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Hopewell High School 120 15 7.3 5.6 78 3:35 7.2 10 3:45 St. Mark's Catholic School 120 15 7.8 26.6 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Trillium Springs Montessori 120 15 4.9 5.3 57 3:15 7.2 10 3:25 Long Creek Elementary School 120 15 4.9 5.3 57 3:15 7.2 10 3:25 Mountain Island Lake Academy 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 River Oaks Academy 120 15 10.6 17.9 36 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 Aristotle Preparatory Academy 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 Coulwood Middle School 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 McGuire Nuclear Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| Oakdale Elementary School 120 15 1.6 2.2 43 3:00 12.5 17 3:20 Paw Creek Elementary School 120 15 3.1 39.0 5 2:20 12.7 17 2:40 Phoenix Montessori Academy 120 15 7.9 4.1 117 4:15 9.0 13 4:30 Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas 120 15 4.7 34.1 9 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Campus Lake Norman Charter Middle School 120 15 4.1 32.6 8 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 John M. Alexander Middle School 120 15 3.3 29.3 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Blythe Legette Elementary School 120 15 3.3 29.3 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 North Mecklenburg High School 120 15 3.0 28.9 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Hornets Nest Elementary School 120 15 2.8 33.0 6 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 R. C. Smith Christian Academy 120 15 2.2 15.9 9 2:25 6.0 8 2:35 Pioneer Springs Community School 120 15 0.9 29.5 2 2:20 7.2 10 2:30 Mallard Creek STEM Academy 120 15 1.7 8.5 12 2:30 6.0 8 2:40 Croft Community School 120 15 1.6 4.1 23 2:40 6.0 9 2:50 Grace Covenant Academy 120 15 6.9 3.4 122 4:20 6.6 9 4:30 J.V. Washam Elementary School 120 15 8.4 4.1 126 4:25 6.6 9 4:35 Christian Montessori School 120 15 6.9 3.2 132 4:30 6.6 9 4:40 Lake Norman Christian School 120 15 5.5 3.0 112 4:10 6.6 9 4:20 Huntersville Elementary School 120 15 7.2 3.3 131 4:30 6.6 9 4:40 Lakeside Charter Academy 120 15 5.9 3.1 113 4:10 6.6 9 4:20 Bailey Middle School 120 15 7.7 3.3 141 4:40 6.6 9 4:50 William Amos Hough High School 120 15 7.7 3.3 141 4:40 6.6 9 4:50 Cornelius Elementary School 120 15 6.6 3.0 132 4:30 12.1 17 4:50 Davidson Green School 120 15 6.3 2.8 139 4:35 12.1 17 4:55 Davidson Elementary School 120 15 6.3 2.8 139 4:35 12.1 17 4:55 Community School of Davidson 120 15 4.8 3.3 88 3:45 12.1 17 4:05 Davidson Day School 120 15 4.8 3.3 88 3:45 12.1 17 4:05 Davidson College 120 15 5.8 2.6 135 4:30 12.0 16 4:50 Cadence Academy Preschool 120 15 10.3 4.3 145 4:40 12.1 17 5:00 McGuire Nuclear Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| The Goddard School of Cornelius 120 15 7.0 3.7 114 4:10 12.1 17 4:30 Goddard School 120 15 12.5 20.1 38 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 University Child Development Center 120 15 9.2 17.6 32 2:50 7.2 10 3:00 Sunshine House 120 15 6.4 23.6 17 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Busy Bee Childcare 120 15 10.6 17.9 36 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 Statesville KinderCare 120 15 4.6 29.2 10 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 KidTime Drop Childcare 120 15 6.7 3.4 120 4:15 6.6 9 4:25 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 120 15 6.7 3.4 120 4:15 6.6 9 4:25 Cornelius KinderCare 120 15 8.4 4.1 126 4:25 6.6 9 4:35 City Kidz Child Development Center 120 15 4.3 4.0 65 3:20 6.6 9 3:30 DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center 120 15 6.3 2.7 142 4:40 12.0 16 5:00 Whitewater Middle School 120 15 15.2 21 2:40 Whitewater Academy 120 15 15.2 21 2:40 Highland Creek Elementary School 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 10 2:25 Ridge Road Middle School 120 15 7.2 10 2:25 Mountain Island Day School 120 15 15.3 21 2:40 Alexander Graham Middle School 120 15 Located Outside the Study Area 13.5 18 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 4:45 Maximum: 5:00 Average for EPZ: 3:10 Average: 3:20 McGuire Nuclear Station ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Bus Route Pickup Distance Travel Driver Pickup Service Mobilization Speed Travel ETE Unload Travel ETE
| |
| # Number Length Time to RC Time to Rest Time (min) (mph) Time (hr:min) (min) Time (hr:min)
| |
| (miles) (min) (miles) RC (min) (min) (min)
| |
| (min) (min)
| |
| Zone A 1 12 160 9.5 5.0 114 30 5:05 12.0 16 5 10 41 30 6:50 34 170 9.5 5.3 108 30 5:10 12.0 16 5 10 41 30 6:55 Zone B 2 1 160 11.1 5.2 128 30 5:20 6.6 9 5 10 39 30 6:55 Zone C 3 1 160 10.3 7.7 80 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 38 30 6:10 Zone D 4 13 160 9.7 7.0 83 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 36 30 6:10 45 170 9.7 7.9 73 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 36 30 6:10 Zone E 5 13 160 6.5 6.0 65 30 4:15 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:40 46 170 6.5 6.6 59 30 4:20 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:45 78 180 6.5 7.5 52 30 4:25 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:50 Zone F 6 13 160 5.7 30.0 11 30 3:25 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 4:45 46 170 5.7 44.7 8 30 3:30 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 4:50 79 180 5.7 45.0 8 30 3:40 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 5:00 Zone G 7 13 160 4.6 4.6 60 30 4:15 6.6 9 5 10 45 30 5:55 46 170 4.6 5.0 55 30 4:20 6.6 9 5 10 43 30 6:00 Zone H 8 13 160 5.8 2.8 124 30 5:15 12.0 16 5 10 31 30 6:50 Zone I 9 1&2 160 3.2 40.2 5 30 3:15 13.5 18 5 10 27 30 4:45 Zone J 10 1&2 160 5.1 8.1 38 30 3:50 12.0 16 5 10 49 30 5:40 Zone K 11 1 160 3.9 29.8 8 30 3:20 8.8 12 5 10 25 30 4:45 Zone L 12 1 160 10.1 42.0 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 40 30 5:05 Zone M 13 1 160 10.0 40.2 15 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 40 30 5:05 Zone N 14 1&2 160 10.0 42.7 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 39 30 5:05 Zone O 15 1 160 10.0 42.0 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 39 30 5:05 Zone P 16 13 160 3.6 11.6 18 30 3:30 15.0 20 5 10 30 30 5:10 Zone Q 17 1 160 3.7 11.2 20 30 3:30 8.9 12 5 10 22 30 4:50 Zone R 18 1 160 8.0 37.2 13 30 3:25 5.7 8 5 10 31 30 4:50 Zone S 19 13 160 4.4 29.1 9 30 3:20 15.0 20 5 10 35 30 5:00 Maximum ETE: 5:20 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 4:05 Average ETE: 5:35 McGuire Nuclear Station ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 103 30 1.1 20.5 3 3:35 Stanley Total Living Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 28 75 1.1 22.0 3 4:20 Center Bedridden 180 15 18 30 1.1 20.5 3 3:35 Ambulatory 180 1 21 21 1.6 26.6 4 3:25 Woodlawn Haven Rest Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 1.6 26.6 4 4:20 Home Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 4 20 1.6 26.5 4 3:25 Bedridden 180 15 1 15 1.6 26.4 4 3:20 Ambulatory 180 1 17 17 0.2 20.5 1 3:20 CaroMont Regional Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 5 25 0.2 19.9 1 3:30 Medical Center Bedridden 180 15 2 30 0.2 23.4 1 3:35 IREDELL COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 21 21 2.2 3.9 34 3:55 Lake Norman Regional Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 14 70 2.2 4.8 27 4:40 Medical Center Bedridden 180 15 4 30 2.2 4.1 32 4:05 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 40 30 10.1 44.3 14 3:45 Lakewood Care Center Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 10.1 45.0 14 4:30 Bedridden 180 15 1 15 10.1 40.0 15 3:30 Ambulatory 180 1 39 30 1.7 43.5 2 3:35 Wexford House Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 11 55 1.7 41.8 3 4:00 Bedridden 180 15 4 30 1.7 43.5 2 3:35 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 54 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Ranson Ridge Assisted Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 14 70 7.3 43.3 10 4:20 Living & Memory Care Bedridden 180 15 6 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Ambulatory 180 1 70 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Olde Knox CommonsThe Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 7.3 43.3 10 4:25 Villages Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 4 20 7.3 41.5 10 3:30 Bedridden 180 15 13 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Huntersville Health & Ambulatory 180 1 48 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 McGuire Nuclear Station ES22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| Rehabilitation Center Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 13 65 6.5 23.6 16 4:25 Bedridden 180 15 6 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Novant Health Ambulatory 180 1 31 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Huntersville Medical Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 8 40 6.5 17.0 23 4:05 Center Bedridden 180 15 4 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Ambulatory 180 1 114 30 4.7 39.0 7 3:40 Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 30 75 4.7 40.5 7 4:25 Huntersville Oaks Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 1 5 4.7 39.1 7 3:15 Bedridden 180 15 20 30 4.7 39.0 7 3:40 Ambulatory 180 1 28 28 2.2 33.3 4 3:35 Northlake House Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 1 5 2.2 33.5 4 3:10 Bedridden 180 15 3 30 2.2 33.3 4 3:35 Ambulatory 180 1 55 30 7.5 5.3 85 4:55 Autumn Care of Cornelius Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 7.5 8.4 53 5:10 Bedridden 180 15 6 30 7.5 5.3 85 4:55 Hunter Village Ambulatory 180 1 68 30 5.7 5.3 64 4:35 Ambulatory 180 1 64 30 6.1 5.9 62 4:35 The Pines at Davidson Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 6.1 9.4 39 4:55 Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 2 10 6.1 5.6 66 4:20 Maximum ETE: 5:10 Average ETE: 4:00 McGuire Nuclear Station ES23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. MNS EPZ Zones McGuire Nuclear Station ES24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H11. Region R11 McGuire Nuclear Station ES25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. This ETE study provides Duke Energy, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.
| |
| In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal governmental agencies. Most important of these are:
| |
| * Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 (10CFR50), Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, NRC, 2011.
| |
| * Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, Rev.
| |
| 1, February 2021.
| |
| * Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, FEMA P1028, December 2019.
| |
| The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.
| |
| 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 Duke Energy.
| |
| : b. Attended a project kickoff meetings with personnel from Duke Energy, the emergency planners of the Counties of Mecklenburg, Lincoln, Gaston, Iredell, and Catawba, and the State of North Carolina to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.
| |
| : c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.
| |
| : d. Reviewed existing county and state Emergency Operations Plans.
| |
| : e. Conducted an online demographic survey of EPZ residents (See Appendix F).
| |
| : f. Obtained demographic data from the 2020 Census (see Section 3.1).
| |
| : g. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe special facilities (i.e.,
| |
| schools, preschools and childcare centers, medical facilities, and correctional facilities), major employers, access and/or functional needs populations, McGuire Nuclear Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| transportation resources available, the special event, 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 online demographic survey.
| |
| : 3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios (See Section 6). 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) and Security Road Blocks (SRB) located within the study area. Eight (8) SRB and 30 TCP modifications were made in areas where it would benefit the ETE. See Section 9 and Appendix G (Table G2).
| |
| : 5. Used existing Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 19 Zones along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Zones for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1.
| |
| : 6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at schools, preschools/childcare centers, medical facility, transit dependent people at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.
| |
| : 7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II which computes ETE (see Appendices B and C).
| |
| : a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Duke Energy, and from the demographic survey.
| |
| : b. Updated the linknode representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.
| |
| : c. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 20161) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.
| |
| : d. Updated the linknode representation of the evacuation network using the field survey and aerial imagery, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.
| |
| 1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2016.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : e. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.
| |
| : f. 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/CR7002, Rev. 1.
| |
| : 10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, preschools and childcare centers, medical facilities, and correctional facilities), for the transitdependent population and for the access and/or functional needs population.
| |
| 1.2 The McGuire Nuclear Station Location The MNS is located along the shores of Lake Norman in Huntersville, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The site is approximately 15 miles northnorthwest of Charlotte, NC. The EPZ consists of parts of Mecklenburg, Lincoln, Gaston, Iredell, and Catawba Counties in North Carolina. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the MNS. This map identifies the major population centers, and the major roads in the area, and the location of the plant relative to Charlotte, NC.
| |
| 1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.
| |
| Field Surveys of the Highway Network In December 2020, 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 Figure 12.
| |
| 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 157 in the HCM 2016 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 twolane highways. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.
| |
| The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographic information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the McGuire Nuclear Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. Roadway types were assigned based on the following criteria:
| |
| Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway Ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major Arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor Arterial: 2 lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local Roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane 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 2016 Exhibit 1546. 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 pretimed (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 pretimed, 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/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance.
| |
| Figure 12 presents the linknode 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 12 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 and aerial imagery were used to calibrate the analysis network.
| |
| The linknode analysis network from the previous study was updated to include newly constructed and ongoing roadway improvements based on data collected during the road survey. Aerial imagery, the roadway survey and roadway design plans (to the extent available) were used to update the network.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed in 2021 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 along with discussion validating the use of the survey results in this study.
| |
| 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 transitdependent residents.
| |
| Developing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate source links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II model 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).
| |
| DYNEV II consists of four submodels:
| |
| 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 (O) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are generated over time. This establishes a set of OD tables.
| |
| A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the OD 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 output by the DYNEV II System, such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated. 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.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:
| |
| NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV 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 countermeasures may then be tested with the model.
| |
| 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2019 study (KLD TR 1075, dated September 2019). As indicated in the final row of the table, the ETE values have significantly changed since the last ETE update. The 90th percentile ETE for full EPZ (Region R03),
| |
| decreases by as much as 1 hour 25 minutes when compared to the 2019 study. The 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ decreases by as much as 2 hours and 40 minutes. While for the evening scenarios (5 and 12), the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increases by as much as 15 minutes, and 1 hour 15 minutes, respectively. These cases are primarily dictated by the time to mobilize, which has increased.
| |
| The major factors contributing to the significant changes between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:
| |
| Despite the EPZ population growing 6.2% (and shadow population up by 4.1%) since 2019, the distribution of the population is very different. The 2019 population was estimated based on 2010 Census blocks projected out to 2019 using 2017 growth rate. Areas with new development are not accurately captured by this method of estimating population.
| |
| If a Census block had zero people in 2010 at a location wherein a new community has been built, it will remain zero regardless of the growth rate applied. The population distribution utilized in this study is based on 2020 Census data, which is more accurate. A McGuire Nuclear Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| redistribution of evacuation demand can increase or decrease ETE depending on where the vehicles are originating.
| |
| Furthermore, the population in Zones A, B, C, D, and E (on the eastern portion of the EPZ) actually decreased compared to previous study (compare Table 33 from KLD TR1075 to Table 31 in this report). Evacuees from these zones use I77 as primary evacuation route.
| |
| This decrease in traffic demand helps improve the operation of I77 and can decrease the ETE, especially since I77 is the last roadway to clear of congestion.
| |
| The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly by 24.4%, due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in the number of employee vehicles can decrease the ETE.
| |
| There are significant decreases in the transitdependent population (70.5%) which results in less evacuating vehicles within the EPZ, which can reduce the ETE. This is because the percentage of ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family for resident with non returning commuters increased to 72% compared to 50% used in the previous study.
| |
| There is a 69.4% decrease in commuter student population, which is a result of the use of more accurate data. This could increase or decrease the ETE.
| |
| The express lanes on Interstate77 (I77) were partially constructed (Exit 19/I485 to Exit 36/W Plaza Dr) during the last study. The construction of these lanes has completed since the last study. As such, this study considers all 26 miles of I77 Express Lanes from the Brookshire Freeway (Exit 11/I277) in Mecklenburg County to N.C. 150 (Exit 36/ W Plaza Dr) in Iredell County. This improvement in roadway capacity can decrease the ETE.
| |
| Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), based on the data collected from the demographic survey, has increased. For cases wherein trip mobilization dictates ETE, this is directly correlated to the increase in ETE.
| |
| The various factors, discussed above, that can decrease the ETE outweigh those that can increase the ETE, thereby explaining why the 90th and 100th percentile ETE have significantly decreased for all cases (except evening cases) in this study relative to the 2019 ETE study.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies.
| |
| Provided recent MNS employee data. Reviewed Duke Energy and approved all project assumptions and draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.
| |
| Attended Kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided emergency plans and traffic management plans. Provided/confirmed CharlotteMecklenburg Emergency Management special facility data, transient data and special (EM), Lincoln County EM, Gaston County EM, event data. Reviewed and approved all study Iredell County EM, and Catawba County EM assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.
| |
| Attended Kickoff meeting to define methodology and data requirements. Provided recent emergency plans (North Carolina Radiological North Carolina EM Emergency Response Plan and Basic Plan).
| |
| Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Reviewed and approved draft report.
| |
| Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)
| |
| Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census blocks projected out to 2019 using 2017 blocks; area ratio method used.
| |
| Resident Population growth rates published by the US Basis Census; area ratio method used.
| |
| Population = 246,590 Population = 261,873 Vehicles = 121,180 Vehicles = 130,175 2.58 persons/household, 1.28 2.60 persons/household, 1.31 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household yielding: evacuating vehicles/household yielding:
| |
| Vehicle Occupancy 2.02 persons/vehicle. 1.98 persons/vehicle.
| |
| Employee estimates based on using US Employee estimates based on 2018 Census Longitudinal Employer Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC)
| |
| Household Dynamics from the data from the OnTheMap Census OnTheMap Census analysis tool. analysis tool extrapolated to 2020 using Employee 1.03 employees per vehicle based on the shortterm employment projection Population telephone survey results. for the State of North Carolina.
| |
| 1.09 employees per vehicle based on demographic survey results.
| |
| Employees = 47,292 Employees = 35,761 Vehicles = 45,925 Vehicles = 32,805 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the Demographic and the results of the 2012 telephone survey. A total of 1,323 people who do survey. A total of 4,484 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring not have access to a vehicle, requiring 55 buses to evacuate.
| |
| 160 buses to evacuate.
| |
| An additional 490 homebound (non TransitDependent An additional 601 homebound special institutionalized) people with access Population needs persons need special and/or functional needs require special transportation to evacuate (407 require transportation to evacuate (334 require a bus, 90 require a wheelchair a bus, 109 require a wheelchair accessible bus, 18 require a wheelchair accessible bus, 9 require a wheelchair accessible van, and 86 require an accessible van, and 38 require an ambulance).
| |
| ambulance).
| |
| Transit estimates based on data Transient estimates are based on provided by the counties within the EPZ information provided by the counties and supplemented with data received in within the EPZ the, the previous ETE 2012, where no new data was received. study, and supplemented by internet Transient searches and aerial imagery for parking Population spaces where data was missing.
| |
| Transients = 9,084 Transients = 10,984 Vehicles = 3,774 Vehicles = 4,596 McGuire Nuclear Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on data Special facility population based on provided by the counties within the EPZ information provided by the counties and retained from the previous study within the EPZ, the previous ETE study where no new data was provided. and supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery for parking spaces where data was missing.
| |
| Special Facilities Medical Facilities: Medical Facilities:
| |
| Population Current census = 832 Current census = 1,071 Buses Required = 26 Buses Required = 33 Wheelchair Bus Required = 11 Wheelchair Bus Required = 15 Wheelchair Van Required = 5 Wheelchair Van Required = 5 Ambulances Required = 37 Ambulances Required = 46 Correctional Facilities: Correctional Facilities:
| |
| Current census = 500 Current census = 500 Vans Provided = 17 Vans needed = 50 School population based on data School population based on information provided by the counties within the EPZ provided by the counties within the EPZ, and retained from the previous study the National Center for Education where no new data was provided. Statistics, and supplemented by internet Commuter Students represented here searches and aerial imagery for parking are from Central Piedmont Community spaces. Commuter Students College Merancas Campus and represented here are from Central Davidson College. Piedmont Community College Merancas Campus and Davidson School and Preschool Enrollment = College.
| |
| School Population 46,758 School, Preschool and Childcare Center Buses Required = 1,020 (includes 14 Enrollment = 51,113 buses required for Davidson College) College Enrollment= 2,491 Buses Required for School, Preschool/
| |
| Vans Required = 19 Childcare Center and College Students=
| |
| 1,077 (2,154 vehicles).
| |
| [includes 8 buses required for Davidson College]
| |
| Commuter Students = 7,380 Commuter Students = 2,261 Commuter Vehicles = 5,405 Commuter Vehicles = 1,609 Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the 20 percent of the population within the within EPZ in areas EPZ, but not within the Evacuation EPZ, but not within the evacuation outside region to be Region (see Figure 21). region (see Figure 21) evacuated McGuire Nuclear Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study 20% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Region (see Figure 72). the Shadow Region (see Figure 72).
| |
| ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census Shadow blocks projected out to 2019 using 2017 blocks; area ratio method used.
| |
| Evacuation/
| |
| growth rates published by the US Population Census; area ratio method used. 20% Population = 75,995 20% Population = 73,012 20% Vehicles = 37,834 20% Vehicles = 36,133 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data External Through Vehicles= 48,318 from 2019.
| |
| Traffic Vehicles= 52,126 Network Size 3,412 links; 2,148 nodes. 4,858 links; 3,183 nodes.
| |
| Field surveys conducted in September Field surveys conducted in December 2018. Roads and intersections were 2020. Roads and intersections were video archived. video archived.
| |
| Roadway Geometric Aerial imagery used for additional Aerial imagery used for additional Data roadways which were not included in roadways which were not included in the field survey. the field survey.
| |
| Road capacities based on 2010 HCM. Road capacities based on 2016 HCM.
| |
| Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Relocation Schools and/or Reception Relocation Schools.
| |
| Centers.
| |
| 72 percent of transitdependent persons 50 percent of transitdependent persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend Ridesharing will evacuate with a neighbor or friend. based on the results of the demographic survey.
| |
| Based on residential demographic Based on residential 2012 telephone survey of specific pretrip mobilization survey of specific pretrip mobilization activities:
| |
| activities: Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 60 and 360 minutes (390 leave between 30 and 270 minutes. minutes in Ice).
| |
| Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning Evacuation leave between 15 and 240 minutes. leave between 30 and 300 minutes (360 Employees and transients leave minutes in Ice).
| |
| between 15 and 120 minutes. Employees and transients leave All times measured from the Advisory to between 15 and 120 minutes.
| |
| Evacuate. All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| Normal, Rain, or Ice. The capacity and Normal, Rain, or Ice. The capacity and free flow speed of all links in the free flow speed of all links in the Weather network are reduced by 10% in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for ice. event of rain and 20% for ice.
| |
| Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.19.2 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 McGuire Nuclear Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Renaissance Festival Carolina Renaissance Festival Special Event Population = 5,200 Special Event Population = 7,428 Special Events additional transients. additional transients.
| |
| Special Event Vehicles = 1,734 Special Event Vehicles = 2,857 41 Regions (central sector wind 35 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 574 unique cases. producing 490 unique cases.
| |
| Evacuation of 2Mile Region with Evacuation of 2Mile Region with sheltering of 25 Mile Region followed sheltering of 25 Mile Region followed by 25 mile evacuation when 2Mile by 2 to 5Mile evacuation when 2Mile Staged Evacuation Region evacuation is 90% complete. Region evacuation is 90% complete.
| |
| Region 33 through Region 41 are staged Region 28 through Region 35 are staged evacuation. evacuation.
| |
| ETE reported for 90th and 100th ETE reported for 90th and 100th Evacuation Time percentile population. Results presented percentile population. Results presented Estimates Reporting by Region and Scenario. by Region and Scenario.
| |
| Winter, Midweek, Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 5:10 Good Weather: 4:15 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th Summer, Midweek, Midday, Summer, Midweek, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 4:55 Good Weather: 4:10 Winter, Midweek, Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather: 7:55 Good Weather: 6:10 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 100th Summer, Midweek, Midday, Summer, Midweek, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 7:00 Good Weather: 6:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 11. McGuire Nuclear Station Location McGuire Nuclear Station 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 12. MNS LinkNode Analysis Network McGuire Nuclear Station 114 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates (ETE).
| |
| 2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The permanent resident population are based on the 2020 U.S. Census population from the Census Bureau website1. A methodology, referred to as the area ratio method, is employed to estimate the population within portions of census blocks that are divided by Zone boundaries. It is assumed that the population is evenly distributed across a census block in order to employ the area ratio method (See Section 3.1.)
| |
| : 2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based on the 2018 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) data from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of North Carolina3. (See Section 3.4.)
| |
| : 3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics website4, the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education5, the Health Resources and Services Administration6, the NC Department of Health and Human Services7 and the old data from the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery for parking spaces where data was missing.
| |
| : 4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on 2020 Census and the results of the online demographic survey (see Appendix F), based on discussions with Duke Energy. Average values of 2.60 persons per household (Figure F1) and 1.31 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F10) are used for permanent resident population.
| |
| : 5. Where data was not provided, the average household size is assumed to be the vehicle occupancy rate for transient facilities and the special event. On average, the relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and the special event is as follows:
| |
| : a. Campgrounds: 1.79 people per vehicle
| |
| : b. Golf Courses: 2.29 people per vehicle
| |
| : c. Historical Sites: 1.94 people per vehicle
| |
| : d. Marinas: 2.59 people per vehicle
| |
| : e. Parks: 2.00 people per vehicle
| |
| : f. Other Recreational Areas: 2.67 people per vehicle 1
| |
| www.census.gov 2
| |
| http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
| |
| 3 https://www.nccommerce.com/data-tools-reports/labor-market-data-tools/employment-projections 4
| |
| https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 5
| |
| https://ncchildcaresearch.dhhs.state.nc.us/search.asp 6
| |
| https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/
| |
| 7 https://info.ncdhhs.gov/dhsr/data/ahlist.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : g. Lodging facilities: 2.52 people per vehicle
| |
| : h. Special Event: 2.60 people per vehicle
| |
| : 6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey; 1.09 employees per vehicle is used in the study (See Figure F7). In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average.
| |
| : 7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 45 mph based on North Carolina state laws8 for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.
| |
| : 8. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in 2020 (verified by aerial imagery), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.
| |
| 2.2 Methodological Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following9 (as per NRC guidance):
| |
| : a. Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) 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 ATE.
| |
| : 2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the center of the containment building 35°25'59.42"N, 80°56'54.16" W.
| |
| : 3. The DYNEV II10 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.
| |
| : 4. Evacuees will drive safely, travel radially away from the plant to the extent practicable given the highway network, and obey all control devices and traffic guides. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.
| |
| : 5. The existing EPZ and Zone boundaries are used. See Figure 31.
| |
| : 6. The Shadow Region extends to 15 miles radially from the plant or approximately 5 miles radially from the EPZ boundary, as per NRC guidance. See Figure 72.
| |
| : 7. One hundred percent (100%) of the people within the impacted keyhole will evacuate.
| |
| Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within Zones of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per 8
| |
| https://www.ncdot.gov/dmv/license-id/driver-licenses/new-drivers/Documents/school-bus-handbook.pdf 9
| |
| 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 stages of an emergency. See Section 5.1 for more detail.
| |
| 10 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). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| NRC guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).
| |
| : 8. Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, and mobilization time) is assumed to be the same as that of the permanent resident population within the EPZ.
| |
| : 9. ETE are presented at the 90th and 100th percentiles, as well as in graphical and tabular format, as per NRC guidance. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the ATE issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.
| |
| : 10. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period.
| |
| Rather, there is an initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.12.
| |
| : 11. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25%
| |
| reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.
| |
| : 12. The ETE also include consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region (see Section 3.11).
| |
| 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times
| |
| : 1. Trip generation time (also known as mobilization time, or the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation) are based upon the results of the online demographic survey (See Section 5 and Appendix F). It is assumed that stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur.
| |
| : 2. One hundred percent (100%) of the EPZ population can be notified within 45 minutes, in accordance with the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual.
| |
| : 3. Commuter percentages (and percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 43% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 51% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation McGuire Nuclear Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| trip (see Section F.3.2.). Therefore, 22 percent (43% x 51% = 22%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.
| |
| 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 72 percent of the transitdependent population will rideshare.
| |
| : 2. Transit vehicles are used to transport those without access to private vehicles:
| |
| : a. Schools, preschools and/or childcare centers
| |
| : i. If schools are in session, buses will evacuate students directly to the designated relocation schools.
| |
| ii. It is assumed that no school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. As stated in the McGuire Nuclear Station 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information11, for Lincoln County all childcare facilities will be moved to S. Ray Lowder Elementary school and all private schools not specifically listed will be moved to Lincolnton Middle School. All other childcare facilities in the EPZ will be evacuated to the reception center for the Zone in which that facility is located.
| |
| iii. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.
| |
| : b. Medical Facilities I. Buses, vans, wheelchair buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.
| |
| II. Since the percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients varies by day or even by hour, data from the previous ETE study was used to determine representative percentages for the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities wherein new data was not provided.
| |
| : c. Transitdependent permanent residents:
| |
| I. Transitdependent general population are evacuated to reception centers.
| |
| II. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, bus or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. This is considered separately from the general population ETE, as per NRC guidance.
| |
| III. Households with 3 or more vehicles were assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
| |
| : d. Secure vans are used to evacuate the inmate population at correctional facilities.
| |
| : e. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.
| |
| 11 https://www.duke-energy.com/_/media/pdfs/safety/nuclear/epz-booklets/ep-booklet-mcguire.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : f. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.
| |
| : 3. Transit vehicle capacities:
| |
| : a. School buses = 70 students per bus for elementary schools/childcare centers and 40 students per bus for middle/high schools.
| |
| : b. Ambulatory transitdependent persons and medical facility patients = 30 persons per bus.
| |
| : c. Ambulances = 2 bedridden persons (includes advanced and basic life support).
| |
| : d. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons.
| |
| : e. Wheelchair buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons.
| |
| : f. Vans used to transport inmates at correctional facilities are assumed to have a capacity of 12 passengers (10 inmates and 2 officers) per van.
| |
| : 4. Transit vehicles mobilization times:
| |
| : a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and facilities to be evacuated within 120 minutes of the ATE.
| |
| : b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when approximately 90% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at about 160 minutes of the ATE.
| |
| : c. Vehicles will arrive at hospitals, medical facilities, and senior living facilities to be evacuated within 180 minutes of the ATE.
| |
| : d. Correctional facility vans will mobilize within 90 minutes of the ATE.
| |
| : 5. Transit Vehicle loading times:
| |
| : a. Buses for schools, preschools and childcare centers are loaded in 15 minutes.
| |
| : b. Transit Dependent buses require 1 minute of loading time per passenger.
| |
| : c. Buses for hospitals and medical facilities require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.
| |
| : d. Wheelchair transport vehicles require 5 minutes of loading time per passenger.
| |
| : e. Ambulances are loaded in 15 minutes per bedridden passenger.
| |
| : f. Vans for inmates require 20 minutes of loading time per van.
| |
| : g. Concurrent loading on multiple buses/transit vehicles is assumed.
| |
| : 6. It is assumed that drivers for all transit vehicles are available.
| |
| 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions
| |
| : 1. Traffic Control Points (TCP) and Security Road Blocks (SRB) as defined in the approved county and state emergency plans are considered in the ETE analysis, as per NRC guidance. See Appendix G.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : 2. TCP and SRB are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute period.
| |
| : 3. It is assumed that all transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and SRBs.
| |
| 2.6 Scenarios and Regions
| |
| : 1. A total of 14 Scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. Scenarios to be considered are defined in Table 21:
| |
| : a. The Carolina Renaissance Festival located in Zone G, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.
| |
| : b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of one southbound lane on Interstate 77 (I77) from the interchange with North Carolina73 (NC73)/Sam Furr Rd (Exit
| |
| : 25) to the end of the analysis network at the interchange with County Route 115/Sunset Rd (Exit 16A) for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.
| |
| : 2. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; ice occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or ice begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued. No weatherrelated 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 clearing/treating the roads as they would normally with ice and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.
| |
| : 3. Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.
| |
| Transportation research indicates capacity and speed reductions of about 10% for rain and 20% for ice. In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, this study assumes a 10% and 20% reduction in speed and capacity for rain and ice, respectively. The factors are shown in Table 22.
| |
| : 4. It is also assumed that mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather. It is assumed that mobilization times are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in rain and ice, respectively. It is assumed that loading times are 5 minutes and 10 minutes longer for school buses and 10 minutes to 20 minutes longer for transit buses in rain and ice, respectively. Refer to Table 22.
| |
| : 5. It is assumed that employment is reduced slightly (4% reduction) in the summer for vacations.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : 6. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Zone included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Zones forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.
| |
| : 7. Due to the irregular shapes of the Zones, there are instances where a small portion of a Zone (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) document.
| |
| : 8. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Radius has evacuated, then they will evacuate.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenarios Season12 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Carolina Renaissance 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Festival Roadway Impact 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on I77 SB13 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Loading Time Free Time for for Transit Loading Time for Highway Flow Mobilization Time for Transit Buses14 School/preschool Scenario Capacity* Speed* General Population Vehicles Buses 10minute 10minute 5minute Rain 90% 90% No Effect increase increase increase Clear driveway before 20minute 20minute 10minute Ice 80% 80% leaving home (See Figure increase increase increase F18)
| |
| *Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.
| |
| Roads are assumed to be passable.
| |
| 12 Winter means that school is in session, at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
| |
| 13 A single lane on I-77 was closed in the southbound direction from NC-73/Sam Furr Rd (Exit 25) to CR-115/Sunset Rd (Exit 16A).
| |
| 14 Does not apply to medical facilities and those with access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology McGuire Nuclear Station 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate 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 (e.g., resident, employee, transient, special facilities, etc.).
| |
| : 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 doublecounting of vehicles.
| |
| Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2020 Census, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.
| |
| Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These nonresidents 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 doublecounting 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 MNS EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:
| |
| Permanent residents - people who are year round residents of the EPZ.
| |
| Transients - people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.
| |
| Employees - people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ on a daily basis.
| |
| Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Zone and by polar coordinate representation (population distribution). The MNS EPZ is subdivided into 19 Zones. The Zones comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 31 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 with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.60 persons/household was estimated based on the 2020 Census data - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.31 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Sub section F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey.
| |
| The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Zone and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Zone, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 27.6%
| |
| since the 2010 Census.
| |
| To estimate the number of vehicles, the year 2020 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32.
| |
| Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from MNS. This population rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities, group homes, prisons, college/university student housing, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.
| |
| 3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the MNS may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. This area is called the Shadow Region. Based upon NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in the 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 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector. Similar to the EPZ resident vehicle estimates, resident vehicles at group quarters have been removed from the shadow population vehicle demand in Table 33 and Figure 35.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate 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.
| |
| Data from the 2019 ETE study was reviewed by the counties within the EPZ and confirmed to be still accurate. In addition to the preexisting transient facilities from the previous study, a number of new transient facilities were identified within the EPZ. Data for the new facilities were provided by counties and supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery where data could not provided. It is assumed transients would travel to transient facilities as a family/household. As such, the average household size of 2.60 persons per household (see Section 3.1) was used for facilities with missing transient population. The transient facilities within the MNS EPZ are summarized as follows:
| |
| Campgrounds - 125 transients and 70 vehicles; an average of 1.79 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 439 transients and 192 vehicles; an average of 2.29 transients per vehicle Historical Sites - 1,480 transients and 762 vehicles; an average of 1.94 transients per vehicle Marinas - 892 transients and 345 vehicles; an average of 2.59 transients per vehicle Parks - 376 transients and 188 vehicles; an average of 2.00 transients per vehicle Other Recreational Areas - 1,603 transients and 601 vehicles; an average of 2.67 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 6,069 transients and 2,411 vehicles; an average of 2.52 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E5 through Table E7 present the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E8 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| In total, there are 10,984 transients evacuating in 4,569 vehicles (an average of 2.40 transients per vehicle) in the EPZ. Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Zone. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.
| |
| 3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the 2018 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) data from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of North Carolina2.
| |
| The WAC data provides the employee counts by industry sector for each census block within the MNS EPZ. Since not all employees are working at facilities within the EPZ at one time, a 1
| |
| http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ OnTheMap is an interactive map displaying workplace and residential distributions by user-defined geographies at census block level detail. It also reports the work characteristics detail on age, and earnings industry groups.
| |
| 2 https://www.nccommerce.com/data-tools-reports/labor-market-data-tools/employment-projections McGuire Nuclear Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| maximum shift reduction was applied to each census block. Assuming maximum shift employment occurs Monday through Friday between 9 AM and 5 PM, the following jobs take place outside the typical 95 workday:
| |
| Manufacturing - takes place in shifts over 24 hours Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation - takes place in evenings and on weekends Accommodations and Food Services - peaks in the evenings Therefore, the number of employees working in these three industry sectors was subtracted from the total number for each census block to represent the maximum number of employees present in the EPZ at any one time. As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as the major employers.
| |
| As such, the census blocks with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) are not included in this study.
| |
| 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. The 2018 LEHD (Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics) OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) data3 from OnTheMap website was then used to estimate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 75.6%, was applied to the maximum shift employee values to compute the number of people commuting to work in the EPZ at peak times.
| |
| Plant employment data and percent of employees commuting into the EPZ was provided by Duke Energy and supplemented for the census block in Zone B. As such, the plant employment data is reflected in the Mecklenburg County employment subtotal in Table E4 of Appendix E.
| |
| To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.09 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employers. Table 35 summarizes the employee and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by Zone. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.
| |
| 3.5 Medical Facilities The data of the medical facilities from previous ETE study were reviewed and retained in this study at the direction of the counties. The capacity data of newly identified medical facilities within the EPZ were provided by the counties or obtained from the Health Resources and Services Administration database4. Since the average number of patients at the medical 3
| |
| The LODES data is part of the LEHD data products from the U.S. Census Bureau. This dataset provides detailed spatial distributions of workers employment and residential locations and the relation between the two at the census block level. For detailed information, please refer to this site: https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/
| |
| 4 https://data.hrsa.gov/map McGuire Nuclear Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| facilities fluctuates daily, the percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients from the previous ETE study was used to estimate the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at those newly identified facilities.
| |
| Table E3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. As shown in these tables, a total of 1,071 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities.
| |
| The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table
| |
| : 36. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair bus and van runs assumes 15 and 4 wheelchairs per trip, respectively, and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.
| |
| 3.6 Transit Dependent Population The demographic survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:
| |
| * Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.
| |
| * Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.
| |
| In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.
| |
| Table 37 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:
| |
| * Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren. For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates. However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.
| |
| * It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario5 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 72 percent of the transitdependent population will rideshare.
| |
| The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent 5
| |
| 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 77% (Page 5-10)."
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 37 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.
| |
| 2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3
| |
| Table 37 indicates that transportation must be provided for 1,323 people. Therefore, a total of 45 buses are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the Zones picking up transit dependent people, 55 buses runs are used in the ETE calculations, (even though only 46 buses are needed from a capacity standpoint). These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.
| |
| To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the MNS EPZ:
| |
| : Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 100,720 0.0037 1.00 0.246 1.50 1 0.43 0.49 0.549 2.71 2 0.43 0.49 4,726 1 0.72 30 45 These calculations based on the demographic survey results are explained as follows:
| |
| * The number of households (HH) is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (261,873 ÷ 2.60) and is 100,720.
| |
| * All members (1.00 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (0.37%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 100,720 x 0.0037 x 1.00, accounts for these people.
| |
| * The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (24.6%), who are at home, equal (1.501).
| |
| The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (100,720 x 0.246 x 0.50 x 0.43 x 0.49), as 43% of EPZ households have a commuter, 49% of McGuire Nuclear Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.
| |
| * The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (54.9%), who are at home, equal (2.71 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 100,720 x 0.549 x 0.71 x (0.43 x 0.49)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).
| |
| * Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
| |
| * The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.
| |
| The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 37 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 3.9). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.
| |
| 3.7 Schools, Preschools and Childcare Centers Population Demand Table 38 presents the school, preschool, and childcare center population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year. The majority of the information was provided by the local county emergency management agencies. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics6, the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education7, the National Application Center8 ,
| |
| and aerial imagery for parking spaces was used where data was missing. The column in Table 38 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:
| |
| * No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.
| |
| * While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of these private vehicles.
| |
| * Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for elementary schools/childcare centers and 40 for middle and high schools.
| |
| * As stated in the MNS 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information9 brochure, for Lincoln County, all childcare facilities will be moved to S. Ray Lowder Elementary school and all private schools not specifically listed will be moved to Lincolnton Middle School. All other childcare facilities in the EPZ will be moved to the reception center for the zone in which that facility is located.
| |
| 6 https://nces.ed.gov/
| |
| 7 https://ncchildcaresearch.dhhs.state.nc.us/search.asp 8
| |
| https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/948/Davidson_College/Davidson_College5.htm 9
| |
| https://www.duke-energy.com/_/media/pdfs/safety/nuclear/epz-booklets/ep-booklet-mcguire.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| * Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.
| |
| * No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.
| |
| The counties in the EPZ could introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities). Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents (although they are not advised to do so) can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.
| |
| School buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.
| |
| 3.7.1 Commuter Colleges There are two college campuses within the EPZ: Davidson College and Central Piedmont Community College at Merancas Campus. Both facilities have commuter students who live within the EPZ and drive to campuses. The enrollment data were obtained from the National Application Center10 (NAC) database, supplemented by the previous ETE study and aerial imagery where the data is missing. The data/information is summarized as follows:
| |
| Davidson College:
| |
| Located in Zone H, 7.5 miles northeast of MNS.
| |
| According to the NAC database (as of June 2021), Davidson College has a total of 1,837 fulltime students and 95% of the students live on campus. As such, there are 1,745 (1,837 x 95%) oncampus students and 92 (1,837 - 1,745) offcampus students.
| |
| Based on the data obtained in 2019, approximately 53% of the oncampus students own private vehicles. Thus, 925 (1,745 x 53%) students who live on campus own private vehicles.
| |
| The remaining 820 (1,745 - 925) oncampus students without vehicles are considered transit dependent and would rideshare with a fellow classmate or evacuate in buses.
| |
| According to the demographic survey, approximately 72% of the transitdependent people would rideshare with a neighbor or friend (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1).
| |
| As such, 590 (820 x 72%) students would rideshare with a fellow classmate, leaving 230 (820 - 590) students who would be evacuated by buses. Using the capacity of 30 people per bus, the total number of transitdependent buses needed for this college is 8 (230 ÷ 30 = 8, rounded up) or 16 vehicles (1 bus equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).
| |
| It is conservatively assumed that all the 92 offcampus students live within the EPZ and also evacuate in private vehicles. Applying the average number of commuter vehicle occupancy rate (1.09 - see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) from demographic survey, there are 84 (92 ÷ 1.09) commuter vehicles.
| |
| 10 https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| In summary, the 1,837 students will be evacuated in 1,009 (925 + 84) private vehicles and 8 buses.
| |
| Central Piedmont Community College - Merancas Campus:
| |
| Located in Zone F, 6.7 miles eastsoutheast of MNS.
| |
| The enrollment data for Merancas Campus is unavailable. Based on the aerial imagery, this campus has a total of 600 parking spaces. Since this college has no campus housing, all the students are considered commuter students. Applying the commuter vehicle occupancy rate of 1.09, the 600 vehicles can transport 654 (600 x 1.09) commuter students.
| |
| 3.8 Special Event A special event can attract large numbers of transients to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The county and state emergency management agencies were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ. The potential special event identified by OROs that attracts transients from outside the EPZ include:
| |
| Carolina Renaissance Festival- 195,000 attendees (78 weeks)
| |
| Christmas in Davidson- 25,000 attendees (3 days)
| |
| Rural Hill Scottish Festival and Loch Norman Highland Games- 10,000 to 12,000 attendees ( 3 days)
| |
| Symphony in the Park - 8,000 attendees (1 day)
| |
| Laketoberfest - 8,000 attendees (1 day)
| |
| Based on discussion with Duke Energy and OROs, the Carolina Renaissance Festival was chosen as the special event (Scenario 13) in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, because it is the single event that attracts the largest number of transients to the EPZ. The special event takes place seven consecutive Saturdays and Sundays in October and November. Exact data on the number of transients present during peak times could not be obtained. Instead, it is assumed the parking lots are full during peak times. Based on the aerial imagery, there is approximately 1,465,100 square feet of parking space for the Carolina Renaissance Festival. Applying a reduction factor of 66% (since every third lane is a travel lane, only about twothirds (2/3) of the space is used for parking), at peak times there is 966,966 square feet of parked vehicles.
| |
| Using 176 sq. ft. (22 x 8 per vehicle including spacing between each car) parking area for each car, it is estimated that 5,494 vehicles (966,966/176 = 5,494) are present at peak times. It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle (2.60 people per household). Therefore, the number of attendees present at peak times of the event is approximately 14,284 people (5,494*2.60). Note that this does not include people who use rideshare service (Uber/Lyft etc.) to attend the festival. Based on the data from the previous study, 52% of the festival attendees are not EPZ residents, resulting in an additional 7,428 (14,285*0.52 = 7,428) transients present in the EPZ during the special event that would evacuate in 2,857 vehicles (5,494*0.52 = 2,857). The remainder of the event attendees are already counted within the EPZ permanent resident population. Vehicles were assigned on a link in the linknode analysis network within the festival site. The special event vehicle trips McGuire Nuclear Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as transients. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was therefore not considered in the special event analysis.
| |
| 3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Based on data provided by the counties, there are an estimated 52 access and/or functional needs people within the Catawba County portion of the EPZ, 93 people within the Gaston County portion of the EPZ, 26 people within the Iredell County portion of the EPZ, 105 people within the Lincoln County portion of the EPZ and 214 people within the Mecklenburg County portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate. Aside from Lincoln and Catawba Counties, details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people were not available. It is assumed that the percentage of ambulatory (72%), wheelchair bound (20%) and bedridden populations (8%) are similar to the percentages used for medical facilities within the EPZ. This results in 334 ambulatory persons that would require a bus to evacuate, 118 wheelchairbound persons that would require a wheelchair bus/van to evacuate and 38 bedridden persons that would require an ambulance to evacuate. A total of 17 buses (capacity of 30 ambulatory persons per bus), 8 wheelchair buses (capacity of 15 wheelchair bound persons per wheelchair bus), 3 wheelchair vans (capacity of 4 wheelchair bound persons per van) and 20 ambulances (capacity 2 bedridden persons per ambulance) for a total number of 48 vehicles are estimated to be needed to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population in a reasonable amount of time.
| |
| Table 39 shows the total number of people registered for access and/or functional needs by type of need. The table also estimates the number of transportation resources needed to evacuate these people in a timely manner. Buses and wheelchair buses needed to evacuate the special needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.
| |
| 3.10 Correctional Facilities As shown in Table E11, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North. The total inmate population at this correctional facility is estimated to be 500 persons. A total of 17 secure vans are available to evacuate this correctional facility. As discussed in item 3f of Section 2.4, it is assumed that vans can accommodate 12 passengers (including 10 inmates and 2 deputies/officers) per van. As such this facility needs 50 secure vans to evacuate.
| |
| 3.11 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an emergency event. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the study area -
| |
| Interstate 85 (I85), I485, and I77. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the ATE .
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from 2019 was obtained from North Carolina Department of Transportations website11 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The 2020 AADT data was available, but it was not used in this study due to the significant decrease in traffic on these highways caused by the COVID19 pandemic.
| |
| The 2019 AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, 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 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, 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 10, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours (security road blocks - SRB - are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE ) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 52,126 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the SRB and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and
| |
| : 12) as discussed in Section 6.
| |
| 3.12 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 59, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ. Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.
| |
| This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of Time Period 1. Rather, there is an initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area.
| |
| The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 16,082 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions.
| |
| 3.13 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 311 and Table 312, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 448,089 people and 264,412 vehicles are considered in this study.
| |
| 11 https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4 McGuire Nuclear Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population A 18,433 22,065 B 931 1,063 C 1,484 1,461 D 22,994 27,773 E 37,228 44,197 F 30,364 46,588 G 25,408 33,039 H 9,665 12,496 I 8,053 9,055 J 7,447 10,185 K 2,272 2,687 L 1,247 1,562 M 238 275 N 5,381 6,548 O 3,705 5,273 P 10,377 15,049 Q 3,394 3,621 R 1,667 2,314 S 14,970 16,622 EPZ TOTAL: 205,258 261,873 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 27.6%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone 2020 Zone 2020 Population Resident Vehicles A 22,065 11,130 B 1,063 537 C 1,461 738 D 27,773 13,926 E 44,197 22,285 F 46,588 22,688 G 33,039 16,644 H 12,496 5,418 I 9,055 4,570 J 10,185 5,108 K 2,687 1,372 L 1,562 789 M 275 140 N 6,548 3,305 O 5,273 2,662 P 15,049 7,577 Q 3,621 1,827 R 2,314 1,170 S 16,622 8,289 EPZ TOTAL: 261,873 130,175 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Evacuating Sector 2020 Population Vehicles N 6,837 3,460 NNE 28,223 14,183 NE 28,454 14,253 ENE 6,176 3,122 E 21,633 10,914 ESE 52,409 26,422 SE 66,375 32,410 SSE 55,691 27,268 S 30,795 15,460 SSW 28,111 13,756 SW 21,428 10,814 WSW 8,136 4,116 W 6,023 3,046 WNW 8,237 4,147 NW 5,402 2,733 NNW 6,046 3,068 TOTAL: 379,976 189,172 McGuire Nuclear Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Zone Transients Transient Vehicles A 1,478 557 B 0 0 C 0 0 D 2,065 1,011 E 472 168 F 2,162 745 G 1,150 469 H 512 184 I 360 126 J 859 474 K 111 46 L 13 10 M 0 0 N 224 104 O 0 0 P 342 172 Q 1,000 385 R 0 0 S 236 118 EPZ TOTAL: 10,984 4,569 McGuire Nuclear Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Zone Employees Employee Vehicles A 3,467 3,181 B 680 624 C 0 0 D 851 780 E 1,071 982 F 18,377 16,859 G 2,966 2,721 H 2,335 2,143 I 0 0 J 4,521 4,147 K 0 0 L 0 0 M 0 0 N 648 594 O 202 185 P 643 589 Q 0 0 R 0 0 S 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 35,761 32,805 McGuire Nuclear Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 36. Medical Facilities Transit Demand Estimates Wheel Wheel Wheel Current Ambu chair Bed Bus chair Bus chair Van Ambulance Zone Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs Runs GASTON , NC S Stanley Total Living Center Stanley 174 149 103 28 18 4 2 0 9 S Woodlawn Haven Rest Home Mount Holly 51 41 21 19 1 1 1 1 1 S CaroMont Regional Medical Center Mount Holly 32 24 17 5 2 1 1 0 1 Gaston Subtotal: 257 214 141 52 21 6 4 1 11 IREDELL, NC J Lake Norman Regional Medical Center Mooresville 123 39 21 14 4 1 1 0 2 Iredell Subtotal: 123 39 21 14 4 1 1 0 2 LINCOLN, NC P Lakewood Care Center Denver 60 56 40 15 1 2 1 0 1 P Wexford House Denver 80 54 39 11 4 2 1 0 2 Lincoln Subtotal: 140 110 79 26 5 4 2 0 3 MECKLENBURG, NC Ranson Ridge Assisted Living & Memory D Care Huntersville 100 74 54 14 6 2 1 0 3 D Olde Knox CommonsThe Villages Huntersville 114 102 70 19 13 3 1 1 7 Huntersville Health & Rehabilitation F Center Huntersville 90 67 48 13 6 2 1 0 3 F Novant Health Huntersville Medical Center Huntersville 50 43 31 8 4 2 1 0 2 F Huntersville Oaks Huntersville 270 165 114 31 20 4 2 1 10 F Northlake House Charlotte 48 32 28 1 3 1 0 1 2 G CMC Huntersville12 Huntersville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G Autumn Care of Cornelius Cornelius 102 76 55 15 6 2 1 0 3 G Hunter Village Huntersville 68 68 68 0 0 3 0 0 0 G The Pines at Davidson Davidson 85 81 64 17 0 3 1 1 0 Mecklenburg Subtotal: 927 708 532 118 58 22 8 4 30 TOTAL: 1,447 1071 773 210 88 33 15 5 46 12 As per Mecklenburg County, CMC Huntersville is an outpatient only facility. Therefore, no vans or buses are needed for this facility.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average Survey Percent HH Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ of Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 261,873 1.00 1.50 2.71 100,720 0.37% 24.60% 54.90% 43% 49% 4,726 72% 1,323 0.5%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 38. School, Preschool, and Childcare Center Population Demand Estimates Zone School Name Enrollment Buses Required GASTON COUNTY R Mountain Island Charter School 1,600 40 S Pinewood Elementary School 503 8 S Kiser Elementary School 368 6 S Judah Christian Academy 100 3 S Stanley Christian Academy 40 1 S Stanley Middle School 683 18 Shadow Region Ida Rankin Elementary School+ 586 9 Shadow Region Springfield Elementary School+ 365 6 Shadow Region Mount Holly Middle School+ 675 17 Gaston County Subtotal: 4,920 108 IREDELL COUNTY J Woodlawn School 195 5 J Langtree Charter Academy 1,645 24 J Pine Lake Preparatory 1,871 47 J Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 197 5 J Coddle Creek Elementary School 672 10 J Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 425 11 Shadow Region Woodland Heights Elementary School+ 734 11 Shadow Region Lake Norman Elementary School+ 475 7 Shadow Region Brawley Middle School+ 718 18 Iredell County Subtotal: 6,932 138 LINCOLN COUNTY N West Lake Preparatory Academy 186 3 N Catawba Springs Elementary School 554 8 N Starboard Christian Academy 25 1 P East Lincoln High School 917 23 P Lincoln Charter School 1,158 29 P St. James Elementary School 574 9 P Denver Christian Academy 200 5 P Rock Springs Elementary School 536 8 P East Lincoln Middle School 700 18 Lincoln County Subtotal: 4,850 104 MECKLENBURG COUNTY B Southlake Christian Academy 640 16 D Barnette Elementary School 764 11 D Francis Bradley Middle School 1,074 27 D Grand Oak Elementary 574 9 D Torrence Creek Elementary School 772 12 D Hopewell High School 1,713 43 D St. Mark's Catholic School 710 11 E Trillium Springs Montessori 185 3 E Long Creek Elementary School 504 8 E Mountain Island Lake Academy 787 12 McGuire Nuclear Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Zone School Name Enrollment Buses Required E River Oaks Academy 540 8 E Aristotle Preparatory Academy 115 2 E Coulwood Middle School 711 18 E Oakdale Elementary School 597 9 E Paw Creek Elementary School 639 10 F Phoenix Montessori Academy 124 2 F Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas Campus 654 0 F Lake Norman Charter Middle School 800 20 F John M. Alexander Middle School 920 23 F Blythe Legette Elementary School 1,010 15 F North Mecklenburg High School 2,228 56 F Hornets Nest Elementary School 623 9 F R. C. Smith Christian Academy 16 1 F Pioneer Springs Community School 322 9 F Mallard Creek STEM Academy 769 11 F Croft Community School 520 8 G Grace Covenant Academy 167 3 G J.V. Washam Elementary School 1,119 16 G Christian Montessori School 75 2 G Lake Norman Christian School 141 4 G Huntersville Elementary School 794 12 G Lakeside Charter Academy 92 3 G Bailey Middle School 1,702 43 G William Amos Hough High School 2,544 64 H Cornelius Elementary School 648 10 H Davidson Green School 39 1 H Davidson Elementary School 690 10 H Community School of Davidson 1,397 35 H Davidson Day School 516 13 H Davidson College, 1,837 8 Shadow Region Whitewater Middle School+ 743 19 Shadow Region Whitewater Academy+ 775 20 Shadow Region Highland Creek Elementary School+ 596 9 Shadow Region Ridge Road Middle School+ 1,281 33 Shadow Region Mountain Island Day School+ 233 6 N/A Alexander Graham Middle School 1,420 36 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 35,120 700 School Subtotal: 51,822 1,050 Zone Preschool and Childcare Center Enrollment Buses Required GASTON COUNTY R Grace School~ 100 2 S First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center~ 72 2 S Tiny Tot Child Development Center~ 100 2 Gaston County Subtotal: 272 6 LINCOLN COUNTY McGuire Nuclear Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Zone School Name Enrollment Buses Required N The Learning Express 52 1 N Mini Academy Childcare Center 85 2 N Westport Baptist Preschool 81 2 O Tutor Time 96 2 O Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 142 3 P Our Gang Day Care Center 34 1 N Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After Care 58 1 P Creative Learning Center 4 1 P Denver Baptist Preschool 135 2 Shadow Region Kids in Motion,º 90 2 Lincoln County Subtotal: 777 17 MECKLENBURG COUNTY A Cadence Academy Preschool* 199 3 A The Goddard School of Cornelius* 172 3 A Goddard School* 276 4 D University Child Development Center* 199 3 D Sunshine House* 165 3 E Busy Bee Childcare* 8 1 F Statesville KinderCare* 199 3 G KidTime Drop Childcare* 30 1 G Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman* 199 3 G Cornelius KinderCare* 125 2 G City Kidz Child Development Center* 62 1 H DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center* 69 1 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 1,703 28 Preschool and Childcare Center Subtotal: 2,752 51 TOTAL : 54,574 1,101 According to the McGuire Nuclear Station 2021 Emergency Preparedness Information, schools located in the shadow region will evacuate to their designated reception centers (as listed in Table 10-3).
| |
| Liberty Prep Christian Academy will be evacuated to pre-designated shelter outside the EPZ by county school buses.
| |
| Students use personal vehicles to evacuate.
| |
| 95% of the total students (1,837) live in the dorms. 925 on-campus students use personal vehicles to evacuate. Based on the demographic survey, it was assumed that 72% of the students will rideshare with a friend. 206 students will need buses to evacuate.
| |
| Alexander Graham Middle School is located outside of the study area. According to the Mecklenburg County Radiological Emergency Response (REP) Plans, this school will be evacuated by county school buses.
| |
| ~
| |
| As per 2017 Gaston County REP Plan for the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations, private schools and daycare centers are primarily responsible for providing needed transportation for children, students, and staff.
| |
| As per 2018 Lincoln County Standard Operation Guideline (SOG), pick-up by parents is discouraged at the schools and pre-schools.
| |
| But if parents arrive to pick-up the children school administration will coordinate with the responding parents. One staff member accompanies the children on the vehicles/buses and stay with the children until dismissed to parents/guardians at the relocation school.
| |
| Kids in Motion is located in the Shadow Region but near the 10-mile EPZ boundary. As per the Lincoln County REP Plan, this facility will evacuate to reception center in the event of an emergency.
| |
| According to the 2017 Mecklenburg County REP Plans, each private school and day care facility will provide their own transportation in the form of private vehicles, buses, and vans.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Population Group Population Vehicles deployed Buses 334 17 Wheelchair Buses 109 8 Wheelchair Vans 9 3 Ambulances 38 20 Total: 490 48 Table 310. External (Through) Traffic Upstream Downstream Road Hourly External Node Node Name Direction NC DOT AADT13 KFactor14 DFactor14 Volume Traffic 8003 3 I85 EB 93,500 0.091 0.5 4,254 8,508 8072 72 I85 WB 103,000 0.082 0.5 4,223 8,446 8381 381 I485 NB 129,000 0.082 0.5 5,289 10,578 8724 724 I485 SB 82,000 0.091 0.5 3,731 7,462 8141 141 I77 NB 144,000 0.082 0.5 5,904 11,808 8074 74 I77 SB 58,500 0.091 0.5 2,662 5,324 TOTAL: 52,126 13 https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4 14 Highway Capacity Manual 2016 McGuire Nuclear Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 311. Summary of Population Demand15 Transit Special Schools, Preschools, College Special Shadow External Zone Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities16 Childcare Center 17 Students Event Population18 Traffic Total A 22,065 111 1,478 3,467 0 647 0 0 0 0 27,768 B 1,063 5 0 680 0 640 0 0 0 0 2,388 C 1,461 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,468 D 27,773 140 2,065 851 176 5,971 0 0 0 0 36,976 E 44,197 224 472 1,071 0 4,086 0 0 0 0 50,050 F 46,588 236 2,162 18,377 807 7,531 654 0 0 0 76,355 G 33,039 167 1,150 2,966 225 7,050 0 7,428 0 0 52,025 H 12,496 63 512 2,335 0 3,359 1,837 0 0 0 20,602 I 9,055 46 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,461 J 10,185 51 859 4,521 39 5,005 0 0 0 0 20,660 K 2,687 14 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,812 L 1,562 8 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,583 M 275 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276 N 6,548 33 224 648 0 1,041 0 0 0 0 8,494 O 5,273 27 0 202 0 238 0 0 0 0 5,740 P 15,049 76 342 643 110 4,258 0 0 0 0 20,478 Q 3,621 18 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,639 R 2,314 12 0 0 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 4,026 S 16,622 84 236 0 214 1,866 0 0 0 0 19,022 Shadow 0 83,266 Region 0 0 0 0 7,271 0 0 75,995 0 Total 261,873 1,323 10,984 35,761 1,571 50,663 2,491 7,428 75,995 0 448,089 15 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, they are not included in this table.
| |
| 16 Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.
| |
| 17 This table does not include 1,420 students at Alexander Graham Middle School as it is outside the study area. See Table 3-8.
| |
| 18 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand19 Transit Special Schools, Preschools, College Special Shadow External Zone Residents Dependent20 Transients Employees Facilities21 Childcare Center20,22 Students Event Population Traffic Total A 11,130 8 557 3,181 0 20 0 0 0 0 14,896 B 537 2 0 624 0 32 0 0 0 0 1,195 C 738 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 740 D 13,926 10 1,011 780 25 238 0 0 0 0 15,990 E 22,285 16 168 982 0 142 0 0 0 0 23,593 F 22,688 18 745 16,859 9523 314 600 0 0 0 41,319 G 16,644 12 469 2,721 24 308 0 2,857 0 0 23,035 H 5,418 6 184 2,143 0 15624 1,009 0 0 0 8,916 I 4,570 4 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,700 J 5,108 4 474 4,147 6 204 0 0 0 0 9,943 K 1,372 2 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,420 L 789 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 M 140 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 N 3,305 4 104 594 0 36 0 0 0 0 4,043 O 2,662 2 0 185 0 10 0 0 0 0 2,859 P 7,577 6 172 589 15 192 0 0 0 0 8,551 Q 1,827 2 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,214 R 1,170 2 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 1,256 S 8,289 6 118 0 32 80 0 0 0 0 8,525 Shadow 0 0 0 314 0 90,274 Region 0 0 0 37,834 52,126 Total 130,175 110 4,569 32,805 197 2,130 1,609 2,857 37,834 52,126 264,412 19 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.
| |
| 20 Buses and school buses are represented as two passenger vehicles Refer to Section 3.6, 3.7, and Section 8 for additional information.
| |
| 21 Vehicles for Special Facilities include wheelchair buses, wheelchair vans, prisoner vans, ambulances, and buses. Wheelchair buses and buses are represented as two passenger vehicles.
| |
| Refer to Section 3.5 and Section 3.10 for additional information.
| |
| 22 This table does not include 36 buses (72 vehicles) at Alexander Graham Middle School as it is outside the study area. See Table 3-8.
| |
| 23 Includes 50 secure vans needed to evacuate Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North.
| |
| 24 Includes 8 buses (16 vehicles) for Davidson College.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 31. Zones Comprising the MNS EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 328 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 329 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 330 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 331 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector McGuire Nuclear Station 332 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate 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 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016). This section discusses how the capacity of the roadway network was estimated.
| |
| 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 freeflow and highspeed 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. Service volume (SV) 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 SV at the upper bound of LOS E, only.
| |
| Thus, in simple terms, SV is the maximum traffic that can travel on a road and still maintain a certain perceived level of quality to a driver based on the A, B, C, rating system (LOS). Any additional vehicles above the SV would drop the rating to a lower letter grade.
| |
| This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. 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 (good, rain, 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 (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed 1
| |
| A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2016 Page 15-15).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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 vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 10 to 75 mph in the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the HCM 2016. For example, HCM 2016 Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).
| |
| The amount of traffic that can flow on a roadway is effectively governed by vehicle speed and spacing. The faster that vehicles can travel when closely spaced, the higher the amount of flow.
| |
| As discussed in Section 2.6, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and often, also increase vehicletovehicles separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow 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 2.6, we employ, a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and ice, 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 Atgrade 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. See Appendix G for more information.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The perlane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:
| |
| 3600 3600 where:
| |
| Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes 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, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.
| |
| The turnmovementspecific 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, where:
| |
| hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, McGuire Nuclear Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:
| |
| That is, the turnmovementspecific 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 2016.
| |
| The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 19, 20 and 21 in the HCM 2016 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2, , influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (198) of the HCM 2016.
| |
| The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection, to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of allred time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre timed, the yellow and allred 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 SV (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 41 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 SV increases as demand volume and density increase, until the SV 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 SV) 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.
| |
| 2 Lieberman, 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.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The value of VF can be expressed as:
| |
| where:
| |
| R = Reduction factor which is less than unity 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 falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week 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 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. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.
| |
| Since the principal objective of ETE 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 freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow 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 HCM 2016. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its 3
| |
| Lei Zhang and David Levinson, Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks, Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.
| |
| 4.3 Application to the MNS Study Area As part of the development of the linknode 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:
| |
| 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)
| |
| 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:
| |
| TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)
| |
| Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.
| |
| 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the study area. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h. The HCM 2016 procedures then estimate 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 timevarying demand: capacity relations.
| |
| Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:
| |
| Most sections of twolane roads within the study area are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.
| |
| Class II highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.
| |
| 4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 70 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area, service McGuire Nuclear Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas.
| |
| 4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2016 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 12, 13 and 14, 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 12 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.
| |
| Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+
| |
| PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2,250 2,300 2,350 2,400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:
| |
| capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways.
| |
| Chapter 13 of the HCM 2016 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 13 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).
| |
| Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 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 onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; 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 1410 of the HCM 2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1412 and is a function of the ramp FFS. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016. 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 2016 does not address LOS F explicitly).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (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 2way and allway) 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 timevarying 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, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. A list that includes the total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is noted in Appendix K.
| |
| 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM 2016 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 involving several HCM chapters. 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 a study area 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 2016- 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 2016 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) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct McGuire Nuclear Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier.
| |
| It is important to note that simulation represents a mathematical representation of an assumed set of conditions using the best available knowledge and understanding of traffic flow and available inputs. Simulation should not be assumed to be a prediction of what will happen under any event because a real evacuation can be impacted by an infinite number of things -
| |
| many of which will differ from these test cases - and many others cannot be taken into account with the tools available.
| |
| 4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams McGuire Nuclear Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002) 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 activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic 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 Section C of Part IV of Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 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 the State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002 Rev. 1., that a rapidly escalating accident at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:
| |
| : 1. The Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) 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 ATE.
| |
| 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/CR6863.
| |
| : 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 ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the ATE 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 ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE McGuire Nuclear Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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 and notification systems (ANS) 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 314 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/CR6863, 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 dayofweek and timeofday 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 wordofmouth, 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 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of EPZ residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the demographic survey sampling plan, documents the survey instrument utilized, and provides the 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 demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.
| |
| 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.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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 in Table 51:
| |
| These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.
| |
| 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 (i.e., 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 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 Table 51 (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 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.
| |
| Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/nighttime will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 51 (b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 51(b). Some transients away from their residence (lodging facility or campground) could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.
| |
| It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next. Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.
| |
| In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, McGuire Nuclear Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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.
| |
| 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 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
| |
| Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100%
| |
| of the population within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ who may not have received the initial notification .
| |
| Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed 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 assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 52. The distribution is plotted in Figure 52.
| |
| 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 53 reflects data obtained by the demographic survey for employees working inside or outside of the EPZ who returns home prior to evacuating. This distribution is also applicable for residents to leave stores, restaurants, parks, and other locations within the EPZ. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52.
| |
| Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.
| |
| Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distribution No. 5, Ice Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving ice must address the time lags associated with ice clearance. It is assumed that light snow/ice cleaning equipment is mobilized and deployed during the light snowfall or icy conditions to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the light snow/ice cleaning 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 (Note - evacuation may not be a prudent protective action under such blizzard conditions).
| |
| Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of ice 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. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.
| |
| Note that those respondents (8.6%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the light snow/ice on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.
| |
| 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 worktohome 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 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.
| |
| Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.
| |
| 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say four hours and 4 say six or more hours.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 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 alternatives 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 access and/or functional 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 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 light snow/ice) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Table 51, Table 57, Table 58);
| |
| : 3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.
| |
| access and/or functional 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 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 3.5 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps a to d are repeated.
| |
| : 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 53.
| |
| : 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 8085 percent of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 1015 percent 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 16, 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 in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions for each population group considered. 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, 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 59 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).
| |
| The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:
| |
| : 1. Zones comprising the 2Mile Radius are advised to evacuate immediately.
| |
| : 2. Zones comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Radius is cleared.
| |
| : 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Radius, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation.
| |
| : 4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5Mile Radius are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90 percent of those originally within the 2Mile Radius evacuate across the 2Mile Radius boundary.
| |
| : 5. The population between the 5Mile Radius Boundary to EPZ boundary shelters in place.
| |
| : 6. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20 percent.
| |
| Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The EPZ population in Zones beyond 5 miles will shelterinplace. A noncompliance voluntary evacuation percentage of 20 percent is assumed for this population.
| |
| : 2. The population in the Shadow Region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all nonstaged evacuation scenarios. That is 20 percent of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.
| |
| : 3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.
| |
| : 4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.
| |
| Procedure
| |
| : 1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2Mile Radius will be as computed based upon the results of the demographic survey and analysis.
| |
| : 2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:
| |
| : a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the Zones comprising the 2Mile Radius. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.
| |
| : b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:
| |
| : i. The nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20 percent of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non compliance).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*
| |
| iii. Following time TScen*, the balance of trips are generated:
| |
| : 1. by stepping up and then following the nonshelter trip generation curve (if TScen* is < max trip generation time) or
| |
| : 2. by stepping up to 100 percent (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/CR7002, Rev. 1, uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.
| |
| The value of TScen* is 2:50 for all scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).
| |
| : 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 while ice
| |
| : d. Residents without returning commuters while ice Figure 55 and Table 510 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; on average, the 90th percentile 2Mile Radius evacuation time is 170 minutes for all scenarios. At TScen*, 20 percent of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged 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 nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released. At 180 minutes, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.
| |
| Figure 55 and Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.
| |
| 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas The 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information for MNS indicates that boaters within a tenmile radius of MNS, will be notified by local fire, police and emergency officials using boats, loudspeakers and any means necessary to alert those on waterways and in recreational areas.
| |
| Boats/vessels will patrol assigned areas covering all navigable river, creek, lake and cove areas making contact with boaters and other individuals in the area. Boats will cover preassigned areas at an appropriate speed for current weather and safety conditions while displaying airborne red flares.
| |
| As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100 percent notification in 45 minutes which is consistent with the FEMA McGuire Nuclear Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| REP Manual. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 2 hours. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles or lodging facilities and begin their evacuation trip.
| |
| Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Ice Clearance 5 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%
| |
| 5 7%
| |
| 10 13%
| |
| 15 27%
| |
| 20 47%
| |
| 25 66%
| |
| 30 87%
| |
| 35 92%
| |
| 40 97%
| |
| 45 100%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Elapsed Time (Minutes) Cumulative Percent Employees Leaving Work 0 0%
| |
| 5 27.5%
| |
| 10 47.7%
| |
| 15 63.4%
| |
| 20 76.5%
| |
| 25 79.1%
| |
| 30 86.3%
| |
| 35 89.5%
| |
| 40 89.5%
| |
| 45 92.8%
| |
| 50 94.1%
| |
| 55 94.8%
| |
| 60 99.3%
| |
| 75 100%
| |
| 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 Dont know responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.
| |
| Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Elapsed Time (Minutes) Cumulative Percent Returning Home 0 0%
| |
| 5 8.1%
| |
| 10 20.6%
| |
| 15 33.1%
| |
| 20 39.4%
| |
| 25 51.3%
| |
| 30 66.9%
| |
| 35 75.6%
| |
| 40 85.0%
| |
| 45 91.3%
| |
| 50 98.8%
| |
| 55 99.4%
| |
| 60 100%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home Elapsed Time (Minutes) Cumulative Percent Ready to Evacuate 0 0%
| |
| 15 4.2%
| |
| 30 20.5%
| |
| 45 35.6%
| |
| 60 54.5%
| |
| 75 69.7%
| |
| 90 72.7%
| |
| 105 75.8%
| |
| 120 81.8%
| |
| 135 90.9%
| |
| 150 93.9%
| |
| 165 94.3%
| |
| 180 94.3%
| |
| 195 96.6%
| |
| 210 97.0%
| |
| 225 97.3%
| |
| 240 98.1%
| |
| 255 100%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear Ice Elapsed Time (Minutes) Cumulative Percent Ready to Evacuate 0 8.6%
| |
| 15 44.0%
| |
| 30 62.6%
| |
| 45 71.2%
| |
| 60 83.8%
| |
| 75 92.7%
| |
| 90 93.5%
| |
| 105 94.3%
| |
| 120 96.3%
| |
| 135 100%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response McGuire Nuclear Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined 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 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies to A 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 C
| |
| begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
| |
| Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D
| |
| to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
| |
| Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home to E
| |
| begin the evacuation trip, after ice clearance activities (Event 5).
| |
| Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to F
| |
| begin the evacuation trip, after ice clearance activities (Event 5).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Time Duration Residents Residents without Residents with Residents with Period Employees Transients Without Commuters Ice (Min) Commuters Commuters Ice (Distribution A) (Distribution A) Commuters (Distribution C) (Distribution E) (Distribution F)
| |
| (Distribution D) 1 15 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 2 15 29% 29% 0% 3% 0% 1%
| |
| 3 15 37% 37% 0% 9% 0% 2%
| |
| 4 15 17% 17% 3% 15% 1% 7%
| |
| 5 30 11% 11% 14% 33% 5% 21%
| |
| 6 30 1% 1% 27% 14% 16% 23%
| |
| 7 30 0% 0% 22% 12% 21% 15%
| |
| 8 30 0% 0% 14% 8% 18% 13%
| |
| 9 30 0% 0% 10% 1% 15% 8%
| |
| 10 60 0% 0% 6% 4% 16% 6%
| |
| 11 30 0% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3%
| |
| 12 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%
| |
| 13 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%
| |
| 14 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
| |
| 15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 1 Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather/rain and ice, respectively. Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period2 Residents without Time Duration Residents with Commuters Residents Without Residents with Commuters Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution C) Commuters (Distribution D) Snow (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%
| |
| 3 15 0% 1% 0% 1%
| |
| 4 15 1% 3% 0% 1%
| |
| 5 30 2% 7% 1% 4%
| |
| 6 30 6% 3% 3% 5%
| |
| 7 30 4% 2% 5% 3%
| |
| 8 30 46% 52% 37% 47%
| |
| 9 30 31% 26% 30% 29%
| |
| 10 60 6% 4% 16% 6%
| |
| 11 30 2% 1% 3% 3%
| |
| 12 30 1% 0% 3% 0%
| |
| 13 30 1% 0% 1% 1%
| |
| 14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%
| |
| 15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 2 Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1
| |
| for Commuters Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, Transients 1 2 4 5 Return to residence, away from then evacuate Residence Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening2 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home
| |
| : 5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1
| |
| Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.
| |
| 2 Applies throughout the year for transients.
| |
| Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip McGuire Nuclear Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Mobilization Activities 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| Notification Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home 40% Prepare Home Time to Clear Ice 20%
| |
| Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)
| |
| Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities McGuire Nuclear Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 100.0%
| |
| 90.0%
| |
| 80.0%
| |
| 70.0%
| |
| 60.0%
| |
| 50.0%
| |
| 40.0%
| |
| Cumulative Percentage (%)
| |
| 30.0%
| |
| 20.0%
| |
| 10.0%
| |
| 0.0%
| |
| 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 112.5 Center of Interval (minutes)
| |
| Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution McGuire Nuclear Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters and Ice Residents no Commuters with Ice 100 80 60 40 20 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
| |
| Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions McGuire Nuclear Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters and Ice Residents no Commuters with Ice Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Ice)
| |
| Staged Residents with no Commuters (Ice) 100 80 60 40 20 Percentage of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
| |
| Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Radius McGuire Nuclear Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 6 EVACUATION CASES An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.
| |
| The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:
| |
| Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Zones that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.
| |
| Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions. Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.
| |
| A total of 35 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Zones considered.
| |
| These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Zone configurations are identified in Figure 61.
| |
| Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R10) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R11 through R25).
| |
| Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R28 through R35 are identical to Regions R04 through R10 and R02, respectively; however, those Zones between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2 mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.
| |
| A total of 14 scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 490 (35x14=490) evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.
| |
| Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population group and the vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and regionspecific percentages; such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1.
| |
| Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the scenario percentages in Table 63. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:
| |
| The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 22%, which is the product of 43% (the number of households with at least one commuter see Figure F6) and 51% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuatingsee Figure F11). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| It can be argued that the 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 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 twoweek 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 offseason. 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.
| |
| Employment is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios. Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. Finally, it is estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.
| |
| As shown in Appendix E, there is a significant amount of lodging facilities (see Table E8) and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be peak (60%) during the evening for summer and slightly less (55%) for winter.
| |
| Transient activity is estimated to be high (50%) during summer weekends and less (30%) during the week. The recreational areas in the EPZ (shown in Table E5 through E8) are predominantly outdoors and will be frequented more often during the summer than the winter. As a result, transient activity during winter weekends is estimated to be 25%. It is assumed that weekend activity at transient attractions is higher than weekday activity during the winter. As such, during winter weekdays, transient activity is assumed to be 15%.
| |
| As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 7 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:
| |
| 31,493 20% 1 25%
| |
| 28,577 101,598 One special event - Carolina Renaissance Festival - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| As discussed in Section 7, schools, preschools, and childcare centers are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances.
| |
| It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances. The commuting college students at Central Piedmont Community College Merancas Campus and Davidson College, who live outside of the EPZ, are assumed to have the same scenario percentages as the schools within the EPZ.
| |
| Transit buses for the transitdependent population and vehicles for medical and correctional facilities are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent, medical facility, and correctional facility population are present in the EPZ for all scenarios.
| |
| External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios (Scenario 5 and 12) and is 100% for all other scenarios.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R01 2Mile Radius X X X X R02 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R04 N, NNE X X X X X X R05 NE, ENE X X X X X X R06 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R07 SSE, S X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW X X X X X R09 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R10 X X X X X NNW Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R11 N X X X X X X X X X X X X R12 NNE, NE X X X X X X X X X X X R13 ENE X X X X X X X X X X X R14 E X X X X X X X X X X X X R15 ESE X X X X X X X X X X X R16 SE X X X X X X X X X X X X R17 SSE X X X X X X X X X X X X R18 S X X X X X X X X X X X X X R19 SSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R20 SW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R21 WSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R22 W X X X X X X X X X X X X R23 WNW X X X X X X X X X X X R24 NW X X X X X X X X X X X X R25 NNW X X X X X X X X X X X McGuire Nuclear Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Site Specific Regions Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R26 NE X X X X X X X X X X X X R27 SSE X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R28 N, NNE X X X X X X R29 NE, ENE X X X X X X R30 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R31 SSE, S X X X X X X R32 SSW, SW X X X X X R33 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R34 X X X X X NNW R35 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X ShelterinPlace until 90%
| |
| ETE for R01, then Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenarios Season1 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 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 Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Carolina Renaissance Festival 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact Lane Closure on I77 SB 1
| |
| Winter means that school is in session, at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households Medical and External With Returning Without Returning Special College Correctional School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Students Facilities Buses Buses Traffic 1 22% 78% 96% 30% 25% 0% 10% 100% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 2 22% 78% 96% 30% 25% 0% 10% 100% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 3 2% 98% 10% 50% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 4 2% 98% 10% 50% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 5 2% 98% 10% 60% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 6 22% 78% 100% 15% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 7 22% 78% 100% 15% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 8 22% 78% 100% 15% 25% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 9 2% 98% 10% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 10 2% 98% 10% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 11 2% 98% 10% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 12 2% 98% 10% 55% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 13 2% 98% 10% 25% 21% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 14 22% 78% 96% 30% 25% 0% 10% 100% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| Resident Households with Commuters..Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
| |
| Resident Households with No Commuters..Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
| |
| Employees ................................ EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ................................. People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.
| |
| Shadow .................................... Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.
| |
| Special Events ........................... Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.
| |
| College Students.College student vehicles for Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas Campus and Davidson College who live outside of the EPZ.
| |
| Special Facilities, School and Transit Buses..Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, medical facilities, correctional facilities, and transit dependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).
| |
| External Through Traffic Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by security road blocks approximately 2 hours after the evacuation begins.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Households Households With Without Medical and External Total Returning Returning Special College Correctional School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Students Facilities Buses Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 28,577 101,598 31,493 1,371 47,293 0 161 197 213 110 52,126 263,139 2 28,577 101,598 31,493 1,371 47,293 0 161 197 213 110 52,126 263,139 3 2,858 127,317 3,281 2,285 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 52,126 227,900 4 2,858 127,317 3,281 2,285 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 52,126 227,900 5 2,858 127,317 3,281 2,741 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 20,850 197,080 6 28,577 101,598 32,805 685 47,293 0 1,609 197 2,130 110 52,126 267,130 7 28,577 101,598 32,805 685 47,293 0 1,609 197 2,130 110 52,126 267,130 8 28,577 101,598 32,805 685 47,293 0 1,609 197 2,130 110 52,126 267,130 9 2,858 127,317 3,281 1,142 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 52,126 226,757 10 2,858 127,317 3,281 1,142 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 52,126 226,757 11 2,858 127,317 3,281 1,142 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 52,126 226,757 12 2,858 127,317 3,281 2,513 39,726 0 0 197 0 110 20,850 196,852 13 2,858 127,317 3,281 1,142 39,726 2,857 0 197 0 110 52,126 229,614 14 28,577 101,598 31,493 1,371 47,293 0 161 197 213 110 52,126 263,139 2
| |
| Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. Zones Comprising MNS EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station 69 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)
| |
| This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II model described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 35 regions within the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.
| |
| The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2Mile Radius in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.
| |
| The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II model outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.
| |
| 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Zones for which an Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some permanent residents from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation (PAR) has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.
| |
| The ETE for the MNS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of permanent residents located in zones outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.
| |
| Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 379,976 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.
| |
| Traffic generated within this Shadow Region (including externalexternal traffic), traveling away from the MNS location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:
| |
| : 1. Zones comprising the 2Mile Radius are advised to evacuate immediately.
| |
| : 2. Zones comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Radius is cleared.
| |
| : 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Radius, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.
| |
| : 4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5mile region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2Mile Radius evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile Radius boundary.
| |
| : 5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.
| |
| See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.
| |
| 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 710 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).
| |
| Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2016, page 55):
| |
| The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have reached a point that most users would consider unsatisfactory, as described by a specified service measure value (or combination of service measure values). However, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared. Several measures are available to describe individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:
| |
| * Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which demand exceeds capacity during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%).
| |
| * Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h).
| |
| * Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.
| |
| All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 73 displays the developing congestion along interstate 77 (I77), I85 and I485 which service the externalexternal trips through the EPZ just 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). North Carolina Highway73 (NC73) also experiences LOS F conditions eastbound east of the plant, as it is one of the major evacuation routes that gives direct access to I85. Congestion is also developing to the east in Mt. Mourne, Davidson, Cornelius, Huntersville and to the southeast in the suburbs of Charlotte as these are the most populated areas in the EPZ.
| |
| At one hour after the ATE, Figure 74 displays congestion continuing to worsen within Cornelius, Davidson and Huntersville along I77 and roads accessing the ramps to the interstate, as well as the portion of Charlotte within the EPZ and Shadow Region. Many of the major roads servicing the eastern half of the EPZ have sections that are operating at LOS F. I77 is also operating at LOS F throughout the entire EPZ and most of the Shadow Region. There is also pronounced congestion in Zone P. Most of this congestion is the result of a significant bottleneck caused by the merging of NC16 and the NC16 Bypass north of the EPZ, as well as the densely populated communities of Denver and Westport that utilize NC16. At this time, approximately 28% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 20% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
| |
| As shown in Figure 75, at two hours after the ATE, displays fully developed congestion within the EPZ. Congestion east of the plant has worsened, with nearly all northsouth and eastbound roadways are experiencing LOS F conditions. On the west side of the EPZ, NC16 and NC16 Business are severely congested and display LOS F conditions. At this time, access control has been established and external traffic has been diverted. Approximately 67% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip, and 49% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
| |
| At 3 hours after the ATE, as shown in Figure 76, congestion begins to lessen throughout the EPZ. Most noticeably, Zones E, S, and Q. The merge of NC16 and NC16 Business creates a bottleneck causing congestion along these roadways in Zones P and N. The intersection of NC 150 and NC27 in Lincolnton is also a significant bottleneck which causes traffic to spillback into the EPZ. Significant congestion persists in the eastern portion of the EPZ - specifically in Zones A, B, H and G. I77 remains at LOS F throughout the majority of the study area. At this time, approximately 90% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 73% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
| |
| At 4 hours after the ATE, as shown in Figure 77, congestion continues to dissipate. At this time, the 2Mile Radius is clear of congestion. The southwestern portion of the EPZ is clear of congestion. The outskirts of Charlotte have shown improvement, specifically in Zones E and F with congestion along I485 clearing completely. Congestion in Zone P had dissipated with only a small section of NC16 Business and St. James Church Rd between NC16 and NC16 Business exhibiting LOS F conditions. I77 is still operating at LOSF throughout the EPZ and parts of the Shadow Region. Many vehicles are bypassing I77 and traveling east along NC73 and HuntersvilleConcord Road to exit the EPZ and avoid the delays along I77. These roads lead evacuees towards Kannapolis and Northwest Cabarrus Middle School, a reception center for McGuire Nuclear Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| the general public, as well as to I85. At this time, about 96% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 88% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
| |
| Over the next hour, at 5 hours after the ATE (Figure 78), congestion continues to dissipate with the entire western portion of the EPZ is now clear of congestion, as well as Zones E and F. The 5mile region is nearly clear of congestion (clears 5 minutes later at 5:05 after the ATE).
| |
| Congestion remains within the EPZ along I77 northbound, NC73, E Rocky River Rd, Catawba Ave, NC115, Poplar Tent Church Rd, and HuntersvilleConcord Rd. At this time, 99% vehicles have begun their evacuation trip and 97% of evacuating vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.
| |
| At 5 hours and 30 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 79, the last remnants of congestion within the EPZ can be seen along I77 northbound. At this time, all vehicles have fully mobilized and 99% of vehicles have evacuated the EPZ. The EPZ is completely clear of all congestion ten minutes later at 5 hours and 40 minutes after the ATE.
| |
| Finally, Figure 710 displays the time at which the study area completely clear of congestion and at the completion of trip generation at 6 hours after the ATE. All vehicles successfully clear the EPZ ten minutes later at 6 hour and 10 minutes after the ATE. The last roadway to clear of congestion within the Shadow Region was I77 northbound and it cleared 5 minutes earlier.
| |
| Congestion remains, however, outside of the study area along I77, US Highway21 (US21) and NC27.
| |
| 7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 711 through Figure 724. These Figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.
| |
| As indicated in Figure 711 through Figure 724, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.
| |
| This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 through Table 72 present the ETE values for all 30 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 through Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Radius for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:
| |
| Table Contents The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within a 71 Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
| |
| The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within a 72 Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
| |
| The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within the 2 73 Mile Radius, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional Zones downwind in the keyhole Region.
| |
| The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within the 74 2Mile Radius, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional Zones downwind in the keyhole Region.
| |
| The animation snapshots described in Section 7.3 reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 710. Most of the congestion is located in the eastern portion of the EPZ in Zones A, D, F, G, H I, and J which are beyond the 2mile region; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2Mile Radius) is 2:50 (hr:min) for all scenarios.
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Regions R02 (5Mile Radius) and R04 through R10 (which extend to 5 miles from MNS) generally range between 2:50 and 3:40.
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 (full EPZ) and Regions R11 through R25 (which extend to the EPZ boundary) range between 2:50 and 5:30.
| |
| The 100th percentile ETE for all 2 and 5Mile Regions for most of the nonice Scenarios generally parallel the mobilization times (6:00 for residents with returning commuters plus 5 to 10 minutes travel time to exit the EPZ). This implies that the congestion within these portions of the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization for nonice cases -
| |
| as shown in Figure 73 through Figure 710 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 6:00 to 6:30 for good weather and rain cases, and from 6:30 to 7:30 for ice cases.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 9 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - Carolina Renaissance Festival - has minimal to no impact on the 90th percentile ETE (up to 15minute increases in ETE for some cases), as shown in Table 71. The additional 2,857 vehicles present for the special event do not significantly increase congestion on the local roads (in Zone G) such McGuire Nuclear Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| that ETE is impacted. As previously discussed, the 100th percentile ETE are dictated by trip generation and, as a result, are not impacted by the special event.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - a single lane southbound on Interstate77 (I77) from the interchange with NC73/Sam Furr Rd (Exit 25) to the interchange with County Route115/ Sunset Rd (Exit 16A) - does not have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE - 15 minute increase at most. Despite I77 being a primary evacuation route for the eastern portion of the EPZ, there are plenty of other alternatives to this road including I77 northbound, I485, US 21, NC 115, NC 73, and NC 24. In addition, I77 is already operating well below capacity and many vehicles are already choosing alternate paths to evacuate the area. As a result, the loss of a lane on I77 simply encourages more vehicles to utilize these other paths. While congested does increase, it does not cause a significant change in ETE. The single lane closure has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE for all cases for Scenario 1 and 14.
| |
| The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on I77, could impact ETE. State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane or rerouting of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming I77.
| |
| 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R28 through R35 are the same geographic areas as Regions R04 through R10 and R02, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Radius is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.
| |
| The objective of a staged evacuation strategy is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile Radius can be significantly reduced (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) without significantly impacting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Radius remains the same when a staged evacuation is implemented for all scenarios. These results indicate that there is minimal congestion within the 2Mile Radius and when an evacuation out to 5 miles occurs, the congestion beyond 2 miles does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of the plant.
| |
| Evacuees from within the 2Mile Radius are not impacted by those evacuating beyond 2 miles out to 5 miles. Therefore, staging the evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Radius.
| |
| To determine the effect of staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Radius, the ETE for Regions R04 through R10 and R02 are compared to Regions R28 through R34 and Region R35, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 1 hour and 40 minutes (see Table 71) for the 90th percentile. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the large number of evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (tripgeneration rate) of evacuating vehicles.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.
| |
| Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Radius of MNS and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2Mile Radius. As such, a staged evacuation is not recommended for this site.
| |
| 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen table may then be identified using the following procedure:
| |
| : 1. Identify the applicable Scenario:
| |
| * Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)
| |
| * Day of Week Midweek Weekend
| |
| * Time of Day Midday Evening
| |
| * Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Ice
| |
| * Special Event
| |
| * Carolina Renaissance Festival Road Closure (A single lane on I77 SB is closed)
| |
| * Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:
| |
| * The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (2) and (4) apply.
| |
| * The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (10) for rain apply.
| |
| * The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and ice are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (8) and (11) for ice apply.
| |
| * The seasons are defined as follows:
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.
| |
| Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.
| |
| * Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.
| |
| : 2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:
| |
| * Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from N, NNE, NE,
| |
| * Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the nuclear power plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below:
| |
| 2 Miles (Region R01)
| |
| To 5 Miles (Region R02 and R04 through R10)
| |
| To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03 and R11 through R25)
| |
| * Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the plant. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.
| |
| : 3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:
| |
| * The columns of Table 71 through Table 74 are labeled with the Scenario numbers.
| |
| Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.
| |
| * Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.
| |
| * The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours: Minutes.
| |
| Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:
| |
| * Sunday, August 10th at 10:00 PM (Summer, weekend, evening)
| |
| * It is raining.
| |
| * Wind direction is from the north (N).
| |
| * Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5Mile Radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).
| |
| * The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.
| |
| * A staged evacuation is not desired.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:
| |
| : 1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 71, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.
| |
| : 2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the N and read Region R11 in the first column of that row.
| |
| : 3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R11. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R11; it contains the ETE value of 3:20.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius, and EPZ R01 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R02 3:05 3:20 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:40 2:50 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:05 R03 4:10 4:35 3:45 4:05 3:40 4:15 4:35 5:10 3:45 4:00 4:30 3:40 3:45 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:50 3:00 2:50 2:55 3:05 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:55 R05 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 R06 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 R07 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:20 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R08 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:10 3:25 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R09 3:05 3:15 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:45 2:50 3:10 3:10 2:55 2:50 3:20 R10 2:50 3:10 2:50 2:55 3:00 2:50 3:05 3:15 2:50 2:50 3:05 2:55 2:50 3:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles R11 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:20 3:45 4:10 3:05 3:25 3:40 3:10 3:05 3:25 R12 3:10 3:20 2:50 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:40 2:55 3:05 3:25 3:00 2:55 3:10 R13 3:10 3:20 2:50 3:00 2:55 3:05 3:30 3:40 2:50 3:05 3:15 2:55 2:50 3:10 R14 3:15 3:30 3:00 3:10 3:05 3:15 3:30 3:50 3:00 3:15 3:25 3:05 3:00 3:15 R15 3:15 3:30 3:00 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:35 3:50 3:00 3:20 3:25 3:05 3:00 3:15 R16 3:15 3:35 3:00 3:15 3:10 3:15 3:35 3:55 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:10 3:00 3:15 R17 3:20 3:30 3:00 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:30 3:55 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:05 3:00 3:20 R18 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:25 3:45 4:15 3:05 3:15 3:45 3:10 3:05 3:25 R19 3:35 3:55 3:15 3:30 3:10 3:35 3:55 4:30 3:15 3:30 3:55 3:10 3:15 3:45 R20 4:20 4:45 3:55 4:20 3:45 4:25 4:50 5:30 3:55 4:15 4:45 3:45 4:05 4:35 R21 4:15 4:40 3:40 4:05 3:40 4:25 4:45 5:20 3:45 4:05 4:35 3:35 3:45 4:25 R22 4:00 4:30 3:35 3:55 3:35 4:15 4:25 5:10 3:40 3:50 4:20 3:35 3:40 4:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 3:45 4:10 3:25 3:45 3:25 3:50 4:15 4:40 3:20 3:45 4:00 3:25 3:35 3:55 R24 3:45 4:05 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:50 4:10 4:35 3:20 3:50 4:05 3:30 3:35 3:55 R25 3:25 3:40 3:05 3:20 3:10 3:20 3:40 4:00 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:10 3:00 3:25 Site Specific Regions R26 3:05 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:35 2:50 3:05 3:25 2:55 2:50 3:05 R27 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 4:00 4:10 3:50 4:15 4:15 4:00 4:05 4:15 4:05 4:05 4:30 4:15 4:05 4:00 R29 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:25 R30 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:30 3:35 R31 3:45 3:45 3:40 3:50 4:00 3:40 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R32 3:45 3:55 3:45 3:55 3:55 3:35 3:55 3:55 3:45 3:50 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:45 R33 4:10 4:20 4:15 4:20 4:25 4:10 4:20 4:30 4:10 4:20 4:35 4:20 4:10 4:10 R34 4:10 4:30 4:00 4:25 4:20 4:05 4:20 4:30 4:10 4:15 4:45 4:20 4:10 4:10 R35 4:05 4:15 4:10 4:15 4:20 4:05 4:10 4:25 4:10 4:15 4:30 4:15 4:10 4:05 McGuire Nuclear Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius, and EPZ R01 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R02 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R03 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:30 7:30 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R06 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R07 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R08 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R09 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R10 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to 10 Miles R11 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:20 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R12 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R13 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R14 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R15 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R16 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R17 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R18 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R19 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R20 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 7:05 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R21 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:30 7:30 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R22 6:10 6:25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 7:15 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:50 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R24 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:50 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R25 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 Site Specific Regions R26 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:40 6:10 6:10 6:10 R27 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R29 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R30 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R31 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R32 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R33 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R34 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 R35 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:35 6:05 6:05 6:05 McGuire Nuclear Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Radius within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and 5Mile Radius R01 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R02 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R05 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R06 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R07 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R08 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R09 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R10 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R29 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R30 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R32 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R33 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R34 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R35 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 McGuire Nuclear Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Radius within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and 5 Mile Radius R01 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R02 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R05 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R06 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R07 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R08 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R09 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R10 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R28 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R29 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R30 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R31 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R32 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R33 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R34 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 R35 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:30 6:00 6:00 6:00 McGuire Nuclear Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R01 2Mile Radius X X X X R02 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R04 N, NNE X X X X X X R05 NE, ENE X X X X X X R06 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R07 SSE, S X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW X X X X X R09 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R10 X X X X X NNW Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R11 N X X X X X X X X X X X X R12 NNE, NE X X X X X X X X X X X R13 ENE X X X X X X X X X X X R14 E X X X X X X X X X X X X R15 ESE X X X X X X X X X X X R16 SE X X X X X X X X X X X X R17 SSE X X X X X X X X X X X X R18 S X X X X X X X X X X X X X R19 SSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R20 SW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R21 WSW X X X X X X X X X X X X X R22 W X X X X X X X X X X X X R23 WNW X X X X X X X X X X X R24 NW X X X X X X X X X X X X R25 NNW X X X X X X X X X X X Site Specific Regions Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R26 NE X X X X X X X X X X X X R27 SSE X X X X X McGuire Nuclear Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction From: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R28 N, NNE X X X X X X R29 NE, ENE X X X X X X R30 E, ESE, SE X X X X X X R31 SSE, S X X X X X X R32 SSW, SW X X X X X R33 WSW, W X X X X X X WNW, NW, R34 X X X X X NNW R35 5Mile Radius X X X X X X X X X ShelterinPlace until 90%
| |
| ETE for R01, then Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology McGuire Nuclear Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 72. MNS Shadow Region McGuire Nuclear Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 79. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 710. Congestion Patterns at 6 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 730 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 731 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 732 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 180 160 140 Vehicles Evacuating 120 100 80 (Thousands) 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 733 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 200 180 160 Vehicles Evacuating 140 120 100 (Thousands) 80 60 40 20 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 723. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 250 200 Vehicles Evacuating 150 (Thousands) 100 50 0
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)
| |
| Figure 724. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station 734 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates (ETE) for transit vehicles, buses, vans, ambulances, and wheelchair transport vehicles.
| |
| The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:
| |
| residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools and childcare centers, medical facilities, and correctional facilities; and access and/or functional needs population.
| |
| These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs.
| |
| This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc. Ambulances and vans are considered one pc.
| |
| Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.
| |
| Specifically:
| |
| * Bus drivers must be alerted
| |
| * They must travel to the bus depot
| |
| * They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. The location of bus depots impacts the time to travel from the bus depots to the facilities being evacuated. Locations of bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, the offsite agencies were asked to factor the location of the depots and the distance to the EPZ into the estimate of mobilization time.
| |
| During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the MNS EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to relocation schools/reception centers (pickup facilities) if an evacuation were ordered, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at the pickup facilities. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating event. Therefore, children are evacuated to pickup facilities. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR 7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. As stated in the public information brochure, for Lincoln County, all childcare facilities will be moved to S. Ray Lowder Elementary school and all private schools not specifically listed will be moved to Lincolnton McGuire Nuclear Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Middle School. All other childcare facilities in the EPZ will be moved to the reception center for the Zone in which that facility is located.
| |
| The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:
| |
| * Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)
| |
| * Estimate time to perform all transit functions
| |
| * Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the relocation school/reception centers Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations.
| |
| The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.
| |
| 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschool and Childcare Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Medical and Correctional Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the Advisory to Evacuate [ATE]) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the relocation school/ reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population are calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.
| |
| A list of available transportation resources was provided by counties within the EPZ and is shown in Table 81. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.
| |
| When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive along the bus transit route.
| |
| Evacuation of Schools, Preschools and Childcare Centers Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)
| |
| Mobilization is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or preschool and childcare center to be evacuated. As discussed in item 4 of Section 2.4, it is estimated that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would likely require 120 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools, preschools and childcare centers that will be evacuated.
| |
| Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 130 minutes in rain and 140 minutes in icy conditions.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Activity: Board Passengers (CD)
| |
| Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain and 25 minutes for ice) for school buses is used.
| |
| Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)
| |
| The buses servicing the schools, preschools and childcare centers are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 135 minutes after the ATE - 120 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school or preschool and childcare center being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate relocation school/reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool/childcare center to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 130 to 135 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:
| |
| 60 .
| |
| 1 .
| |
| . 60 .
| |
| . . 1 .
| |
| The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools, preschools and childcare centers in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school/preschool/childcare center evacuation. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the relocation school/reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain and ice, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 to 45 mph (40 mph for rain - 10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph -
| |
| and 35 mph for ice - 20% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 45 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes within the EPZ is 45 mph.
| |
| Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain) and Table 84 (ice) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools, preschools and childcare centers in the EPZ:
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : 1. The elapsed time from the ATE until the bus exits the EPZ; and
| |
| : 2. The elapsed time until the bus reaches the relocation school/reception center.
| |
| The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 120 min. + 15 + 16 = 2:35, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes, for Mountain Island Charter School, in good weather).
| |
| The average singlewave ETE, for schools, preschools and childcare centers is 1 hour and 5 minutes (4:15 3:10 = 1:05) less than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.
| |
| The evacuation time to the relocation school /reception center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.
| |
| Activity: Travel to Relocation Schools/Reception Centers (EF)
| |
| The distances from the EPZ boundary to the relocation schools/reception centers are measured using geographic information system (GIS) software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the relocation school/reception center. The relocation schools/reception centers are mapped in Figure 104. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the school, preschool and childcare center population.
| |
| Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)
| |
| A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10minute break.
| |
| Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)
| |
| As shown in Table 81, there is a shortfall of buses for evacuation of children in a single wave, if the entire EPZ is evacuated at once (a highly unlikely event). As such, a twowave evacuation may be needed for some schools, preschools and childcare centers. Due to the large number of schools, preschools and childcare centers in the EPZ, second wave ETE were not computed for each school/preschool/childcare center. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation of schools, preschools and childcare centers. The travel time from the relocation school/reception center back to the EPZ boundary and then back to the school/ preschool/childcare center was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph (good weather), 40 mph (rain) and 35 mph (ice) as buses will be traveling counter to evacuating traffic. Times and distances are based on averages for all schools, preschools and childcare centers in the EPZ for good weather:
| |
| * Buses arrive at the relocation school/reception center at 3:20 (see average value in Table 82)
| |
| * Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes
| |
| * Bus returns to facility: 20 minutes (average distance to relocation school/reception center (9.4 miles) + average distance to EPZ boundary (5.6 miles) at 45 mph)
| |
| * Loading Time: 15 minutes McGuire Nuclear Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| * Bus travels back to the EPZ boundary: 27 minutes [average distance to EPZ boundary (5.7 miles) at network wide average speed at 4:10 (12.98 mph)]
| |
| * Bus exits EPZ at time 3:20 + 0:15 + 0:20 + 0:15 + 0:27 = 4:40 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.
| |
| Given the average singlewave ETE for schools, preschools and childcare centers is 3:10 (see Table 82); a secondwave evacuation would require an additional 1 hour and 30 minutes on average.
| |
| The average twowave ETE of schools and childcare centers is 25 minutes (4:404:15=0:25) higher than the 90th percentile ETE of the full EPZ during a winter, midweek, midday scenario (Scenario 6), which could potentially impact protective action decision making.
| |
| Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)
| |
| A detailed computation of transit dependent population was done and is discussed in Section 3.6. The total number of transit dependent people per Zone was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. See Table 311 for the distribution used. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. KLD designed 19 bus routes to service the major evacuation routes in each Zone, for the purposes of this study. The predefined bus routes (as discussed in Section 10) are shown graphically in Figure 102 and Figure 103 and described in Table 101. Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along these routes, then proceed out of the EPZ.
| |
| Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)
| |
| Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after majority of their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 90% of the evacuees will have completed their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 160 minutes after the ATE for good weather.
| |
| Those routes with multiple buses have been designed such that buses are dispatched using 10 minute headways. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up.
| |
| Activity: Board Passengers (CD)
| |
| For multiple stops along a route, estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a.
| |
| Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:
| |
| 2 ,
| |
| Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Assigning reasonable estimates:
| |
| * B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop
| |
| * v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec
| |
| * a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain and ice; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus for rain and 50 minutes for ice.
| |
| Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)
| |
| The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school, preschool and childcare center evacuation.
| |
| Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETEs for each bus route calculated using the above procedures (as discussed under Evacuation of Schools, Preschools and Childcare Centers) for good weather, rain, and ice respectively.
| |
| For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing Zone B is computed as 160 + 128 + 30 = 5:20 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 128 minutes is the time to travel 11.1 miles at 5.2 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 160 minutes.
| |
| The average single wave ETE (4 hours and 5 minutes) for the transit dependent population does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario and will not impact protective action decision making.
| |
| The ETE for a second wave (discussed below) is presented in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers.
| |
| Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)
| |
| The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 104. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transit dependent population.
| |
| Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)
| |
| A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10minute break.
| |
| Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)
| |
| The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who McGuire Nuclear Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to the start of its route and proceeds to pick up more transit dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.
| |
| The second wave ETE for the bus route servicing Zone B is computed as follows for good weather:
| |
| * Bus arrives at reception center at 5:29 in good weather (5:20 to exit EPZ + 9minute travel time to reception center).
| |
| * Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.
| |
| * Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 9 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 30 minutes to travel to the start of the route and to rerun the route a second time (11.1 miles @ 45 mph [assumed speed since bus is traveling against traffic] + 11.1 miles @ 42.4 mph [route specific speed output from the model at this time]) = 39 minutes
| |
| * Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.
| |
| * Bus exits EPZ at time 5:20 + 0:09 + 0:15 + 0:39 + 0:30 = 6:55 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.
| |
| The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87.
| |
| The average ETE (5 hours and 35 minutes) for a twowave evacuation of the transitdependent population is 1 hour and 20 minutes longer than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and could impact protective action decision making.
| |
| The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the counties decide to do so, is not considered in this study.
| |
| Evacuation of Medical Facilities Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)
| |
| As discussed in Section 2.4, it is assumed that the mobilization time for medical facilities average 180 minutes in good weather, 190 minutes in rain and 200 minutes in ice. Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 180minute timeframe.
| |
| Activity: Board Passengers (CD)
| |
| Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances, respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type. Concurrent loading on multiple vehicles is also assumed, as stated in item 5 of Section 2.4.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)
| |
| The travel distance along the respective evacuation routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school, preschool and childcare center evacuation.
| |
| Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain, and ice. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain and Scenario 8 for ice) Region 3, capped at 45 mph (40 mph for rain and 35 mph for ice), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.
| |
| For example, the calculation of ETE for the Woodlawn Haven Rest Home with 21 ambulatory residents during good weather is:
| |
| ETE: 180 + 1 x 21 + 4 = 205 min. or 3:25 It is assumed that the population at medical facilities is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.
| |
| The average single wave ETE (4 hours) for medical facilities in the EPZ does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario and will not impact protective action decision making.
| |
| Activity: Vehicles Travel to Host Facilities (EF), Passengers Leave (FG), Vehicle Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)
| |
| Due to the large number of medical facilities in the EPZ, second wave ETE were not computed for each medical facility. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation using school buses after the schools, preschools and childcare centers have been evacuated, since there is a shortfall of buses. Times and distances are based on facilitywide averages:
| |
| * Buses arrive at host medical facility at 4:13 [4:00 to exit the EPZ + estimated 13minute travel time (average travel time to relocation school/reception center from EPZ boundary; calculated from Table 821)]
| |
| * Bus discharges passengers (28 minutes - average ambulatory loading time from Table
| |
| : 88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 38 minutes.
| |
| * Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 13 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to the average travel time to relocation school/reception center from 1
| |
| In the absence of data on the location and capacity of host medical facilities, the average travel time to relocation schools was utilized as an estimate of the time required to travel from the host medical facility back to the medical facility for a second wave evacuation for buses.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| EPZ boundary for good weather; from Table 82) + 6 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ - 4.7 miles from Table 88 @ 45 mph) = 19 minutes.
| |
| * Remaining ambulatory patients loaded on bus (maximum): 28 minutes (average from Table 88 capped at 30 passengers per bus).
| |
| * Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 13 minutes (average distance from hospitals to EPZ boundary (4.7 miles) at 20.8 mph (network wide average speed at 5:40)
| |
| * Bus exits EPZ at time 4:13 + 0:38 + 0:19 + 0:28 + 0:13 = 5:55 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.
| |
| Thus, the second wave evacuation requires an additional 1 hour and 55 minutes (5:55 4:00=1:55). The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of medical facilities exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile and will impact protective action decision making since it exceeds the 90th percentile ETE (by 1 hour and 40 minutes) for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario.
| |
| A second wave ETE was not computed for the shortfall of wheelchair buses (as shown in Table
| |
| : 81) as there are ample wheelchair vans that could be used to evacuate the wheelchair bound population at the medical facilities in the EPZ.
| |
| Evacuation of Correctional Facilities Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)
| |
| As discussed in item 4 of Section 2.4, it is assumed that the mobilization time for correctional facilities average 90 minutes in good weather, 100 minutes in rain and 110 minutes in ice.
| |
| Activity: Board Passengers (CD)
| |
| It is estimated that it takes 20 minutes to load the inmates onto a van during good weather condition (25 minutes in rain, 30 in minutes ice) and that the vans can be loaded in parallel.
| |
| Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)
| |
| As detailed in Table 811, there are one correctional facility within the EPZ - Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North. The total inmate population at this facility is 500 persons. As discussed in Section 3.10, a total of 50 vans are needed to evacuate Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North. Personnel at the facility stated there are 7 secure vans with an additional 10 secure vans that are currently part of the Sherriffs Office Field Division Fleet. Based on the number of secure vans available and on a capacity of 10 inmates and assuming 2 deputies/officers per van, a multiwave evacuation is necessary. The detailed evacuation plans for this facility is confidential. Using GIS software, the shortest route from the facility to the EPZ boundary, traveling away from the plant, is 1.3 miles.
| |
| Times and distances are based on correctional facility in the EPZ for good weather:
| |
| The ETE is calculated as follows:
| |
| : a. Buses arrive at the correctional facility location: 90 minutes
| |
| : b. Load inmates onto the bus: 20 minutes
| |
| : c. Travel to EPZ boundary: 25 minutes (1.3 miles at 3.1 mph).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE: 90 + 20 + 25 = 2:15 The average singlewave ETE, for correctional facilities, is less than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.
| |
| Activity: Vehicles Travel to Host Facilities (EF), Passengers Leave (FG), Vehicle Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)
| |
| Since there is a shortfall of transportation resources, the vans carrying the inmates from the correctional facility within the EPZ travel to their host facilities, discharge their passengers, and return to gather more inmates from the EPZ. According to the previous ETE study, inmates at this facility would be taken to Downtown Charlotte Facility, Jail Central, on 4th Street and McDowell St. The following outlines the ETE calculations for a second wave:
| |
| * Vans arrive at Jail Central (host facility) 2:26 [2:15 to exit the EPZ + estimated 11 minute travel time to Jail Central (8.6 miles distance from EPZ boundary to host facility
| |
| @ 45 mph)]
| |
| * Vans discharge inmates (20 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 30 minutes.
| |
| * Vans return to EPZ and completes second route: 11 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary from Jail Central + 2 minutes to travel back to the facility (1.3 miles @ 45 mph) = 13 minutes.
| |
| * Vans complete pickup at Jail North: 20 minutes
| |
| * Vans travel to EPZ boundary: 6 minutes [1.3 miles at 12 mph (network wide average speed at 3:30)]
| |
| * Vans exit EPZ at time 2:26 + 0:30 + 0:13 + 0:20 + 0:06 = 3:35 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.
| |
| Thus, the second wave evacuation requires an additional 1 hours and 20 minutes (3:35 2:15=1:20). The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of correctional facility does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6) and is not likely to impact protective action decision making.
| |
| 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population The special needs population registered within the EPZ was provided by offsite agencies. Table 812 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs people who would need transportation assistance in the event of an emergency. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| slower in rain, 20% slower in ice). Mobilization times of 160 minutes were used (170 minutes for rain, and 180 minutes for ice). The last household (HH) is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 45 mph (40 mph for rain and 35 mph for ice), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time.
| |
| ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.
| |
| For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per HH implies that 334 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 12 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 17 buses are deployed to service these HH, then each would require at most 20 stops, otherwise it would be 28 stops if we only deploy 12 buses. The following outlines the ETE calculations:
| |
| : 1. Assume 17 buses are deployed, each with about 20 stops, to service a total of 334 HH.
| |
| : 2. The ETE is calculated as follows:
| |
| : a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 160 minutes
| |
| : b. Load HH members at first pickup: 1 minutes
| |
| : c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 19 (201) @ 9 minutes = 171 minutes
| |
| : d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 19 (201) @ 1 minutes = 19 minutes
| |
| : e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 14 minutes (5 miles at 21 mph).
| |
| ETE: 160 + 1 + 171 + 19 + 14 = 365 minutes or 6:05 The average ETE of a firstwave evacuation of the ambulatory access and/or functional needs population exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile by 1 hour and 50 minutes (6:054:15 = 1:50) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03), during Scenario 6 condition and could impact protective action decision making.
| |
| The following outlines the ETE calculations of a second wave needed using school buses after the schools, preschools childcare centers have been evacuated (see Table 813):
| |
| : a. School buses arrive at reception center/relocation school: 3:20 (average value from Table 82)
| |
| : b. Unload students at pickup point: 5 minutes.
| |
| : c. Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.
| |
| : d. Travel time back to EPZ: 13 minutes (average time of Travel Time from EPZ Bdry to RS/RC from Table 82)
| |
| : e. Travel to first household: 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20 mph)
| |
| : f. Loading time at first household: 1 minutes
| |
| : g. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 19 @ 9 minutes = 171 minutes or 2:51
| |
| : h. Loading time at subsequent households: 19 stops @ 1 minutes = 19 minutes
| |
| : i. Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5 miles @ 12.5 mph = 24 minutes ETE: 3:20 + 0:05 + 0:10 + 0:13 + 0:09 + 0:01 + 2:51 + 0:19 + 0:24 = 7:35 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The average ETE of a secondwave evacuation of the ambulatory access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ is 3 hours 20 minutes (7:354:15= 3:20) longer than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and could impact protective action decisionmaking.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Wheelchair Ambu Cars Buses Vans Provider Buses Vans lances Resources Available Academy Bus for UNC Charlotte 0 12 0 0 0 0 Vanhool Coaches by Academy Bus 0 21 0 0 0 0 Passenger Coaches by Academy Bus 0 3 0 0 0 0 MEDIC 911 (Mecklenburg EMS Agency) 0 0 0 0 0 55 Public/Private Wheelchair Transportation 0 0 0 0 150 0 Hunter Village2 0 0 2 0 0 0 Northlake House2 0 0 1 0 0 0 The Pines at Davidson2 1 3 0 0 1 0 Bailey Middle School2 0 38 0 1 0 0 Barnette Elementary School2 0 8 0 0 0 0 Blythe Legette Elementary School2 0 24 19 0 0 0 Community School of Davidson2 0 3 0 0 0 0 Cornelius Elementary School2 0 18 0 0 0 0 Coulwood Middle School2 0 30 0 0 0 0 Croft Community School2 0 11 8 0 0 0 Davidson Day School2 0 3 2 0 0 0 Davidson Elementary School2 0 23 0 0 0 0 Francis Bradley Middle School2 0 23 0 0 0 0 Highland Creek Elementary School2 0 17 2 0 0 0 Hopewell High School2 0 35 0 0 0 0 Hornets Nest Elementary School2 0 15 0 0 0 0 Huntersville Elementary School2 0 15 0 0 0 0 J.V. Washam Elementary School2 0 15 0 0 0 0 John M. Alexander Middle School2 0 12 0 0 0 0 Long Creek Elementary School2 0 12 0 0 0 0 Mountain Island Day School2 0 3 0 0 0 0 North Mecklenburg High School2 0 44 0 2 0 0 Oakdale Elementary School2 0 12 0 0 0 0 Paw Creek Elementary School2 0 10 6 0 0 0 Ridge Road Middle School2 0 37 0 0 0 0 River Oaks Academy2 0 7 0 0 0 0 Southlake Christian Academy2 0 10 0 0 0 0 Torrence Creek Elementary School2 0 34 0 1 0 0 Whitewater Academy2 0 19 0 0 0 0 William Amos Hough High School2 0 35 0 0 0 0 Sunshine House2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Mountain Island Lake Academy2 0 10 0 0 0 0 Cadence Academy Preschool2 0 2 0 0 0 0 The Goddard School of Cornelius2 0 2 0 0 0 0 Gaston County Public Transport 0 5 22 0 0 0 2
| |
| Transportation resources were retained from the previous ETE study if no new data was provided for this ETE update.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Transportation Wheelchair Wheelchair Ambu Cars Buses Vans Provider Buses Vans lances Gaston County Yellow School Busses 0 226 0 0 0 0 School System White Activity School Busses 0 40 0 0 0 0 Handicap School Busses 0 0 0 14 0 0 Gaston County EMS 0 0 0 0 0 42 Transportation Lincoln County (TLC) 0 0 22 0 0 0 West Lake Preparatory Academy 0 0 0 0 0 Catawba Springs Elementary School 0 0 0 0 0 Starboard Christian Academy 0 0 0 0 0 Lincoln County School System East Lincoln High School 0 0 0 0 0 Lincoln Charter School 0 125 0 0 0 0 St. James Elementary School 0 0 0 0 0 Denver Christian Academy 0 0 0 0 0 Rock Springs Elementary School 0 0 0 0 0 East Lincoln Middle School 0 0 0 0 0 Lincoln County EMS 0 0 0 0 13 11 Wexford House2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Iredell County EMS2 0 0 0 0 0 20 Iredell County Area Public Transit (ICATS) 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 Iredell County Area Transportation System 0 0 0 0 29 0 Woodland Heights Elementary School2 0 15 0 0 0 0 Lake Norman Elementary School2 0 8 0 0 0 0 2
| |
| Coddle Creek Elementary School 0 11 0 0 0 0 Catawba County EMS 0 0 0 0 0 15 North Gaston High School2 0 13 0 0 0 0 South Point High School2 0 8 0 0 0 0 2
| |
| Gaston School Bus Garage 0 11 0 0 0 0 Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North2,3 0 0 7 0 0 0 Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Field Division Fleet 2,3 0 0 10 0 0 0 TOTAL: 1 1,032 102 18 203 143 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 36): 0 33 0 15 5 46 Schools/Preschools (Table 38): 0 1,113 0 0 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs (Table 39): 0 17 0 8 3 20 Correctional Facilities (Section 3.10): 0 0 50 0 0 0 TransitDependent Population (Section 3.6): 0 55 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 0 1,218 50 23 8 66 3
| |
| These are secure vans to transport inmates.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 82. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Mountain Island Charter School 120 15 6.6 26.2 16 2:35 5.4 8 2:45 Pinewood Elementary School 120 15 2.6 28.5 6 2:25 5.8 8 2:35 Kiser Elementary School 120 15 1.1 22.8 3 2:20 5.6 8 2:30 Judah Christian Academy 120 15 0.8 23.0 3 2:20 5.7 8 2:30 Stanley Christian Academy 120 15 0.8 23.0 3 2:20 5.7 8 2:30 Stanley Middle School 120 15 1.8 27.3 5 2:20 5.6 8 2:30 Grace School 120 15 10.0 31.7 19 2:35 5.4 8 2:45 First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center 120 15 5.8 24.0 15 2:30 5.8 8 2:40 Tiny Tot Child Development Center 120 15 5.2 45.0 7 2:25 5.8 8 2:35 Springfield Elementary School 120 15 5.6 8 2:25 Ida Rankin Elementary School 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 10 2:25 Mount Holly Middle School 120 15 7.2 10 2:25 IREDELL COUNTY SCHOOLS Woodlawn School 120 15 6.7 8.5 48 3:05 12.0 16 3:25 Langtree Charter Academy 120 15 2.5 2.8 53 3:10 12.1 17 3:30 Pine Lake Preparatory 120 15 4.1 6.7 37 2:55 12.0 16 3:15 Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 120 15 3.9 4.7 50 3:05 12.1 17 3:25 Coddle Creek Elementary School 120 15 6.7 8.5 48 3:05 12.0 16 3:25 Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 120 15 2.2 2.1 65 3:20 12.1 17 3:40 Woodland Heights Elementary School 120 15 0.7 38.5 2 2:20 13.5 18 2:40 Lake Norman Elementary School 120 15 13.4 18 2:35 Located Outside the EPZ Brawley Middle School 120 15 12.3 17 2:35 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS West Lake Preparatory Academy 120 15 7.6 39.0 12 2:30 14.4 20 2:50 Catawba Springs Elementary School 120 15 6.7 45.0 9 2:25 9.1 13 2:40 Starboard Christian Academy 120 15 5.3 6.3 51 3:10 15.0 21 3:35 McGuire Nuclear Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| East Lincoln High School 120 15 6.4 45.0 9 2:25 8.9 12 2:40 Lincoln Charter School 120 15 5.9 5.5 65 3:20 16.3 22 3:45 St. James Elementary School 120 15 9.0 44.5 13 2:30 7.4 10 2:40 Denver Christian Academy 120 15 4.5 6.1 45 3:00 18.4 25 3:25 Rock Springs Elementary School 120 15 2.0 13.5 9 2:25 15.0 20 2:45 East Lincoln Middle School 120 15 1.8 41.3 3 2:20 8.9 12 2:35 The Learning Express 120 15 9.0 42.1 13 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Mini Academy Childcare Center 120 15 6.5 5.6 70 3:25 15.1 21 3:50 Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After Care 120 15 6.7 44.5 10 2:25 8.4 12 2:40 Westport Baptist Preschool 120 15 5.5 5.9 56 3:15 15.2 21 3:40 Tutor Time 120 15 9.0 42.1 13 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 120 15 7.9 43.6 11 2:30 9.3 13 2:45 Our Gang Day Care Center 120 15 6.5 5.6 70 3:25 15.1 21 3:50 Creative Learning Center 120 15 5.7 45.0 8 2:25 8.4 12 2:40 Denver Baptist Preschool 120 15 2.2 13.5 10 2:25 15.1 21 2:50 Kids in Motion 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 14.5 20 2:35 MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Southlake Christian Academy 120 15 10.8 4.4 149 4:45 6.6 9 4:55 Barnette Elementary School 120 15 9.1 5.8 95 3:50 7.2 10 4:00 Francis Bradley Middle School 120 15 9.1 5.8 95 3:50 7.2 10 4:00 Grand Oak Elementary 120 15 7.8 26.6 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Torrence Creek Elementary School 120 15 7.8 27.4 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Hopewell High School 120 15 7.3 5.6 78 3:35 7.2 10 3:45 St. Mark's Catholic School 120 15 7.8 26.6 18 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Trillium Springs Montessori 120 15 4.9 5.3 57 3:15 7.2 10 3:25 Long Creek Elementary School 120 15 4.9 5.3 57 3:15 7.2 10 3:25 Mountain Island Lake Academy 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 River Oaks Academy 120 15 10.6 17.9 36 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 Aristotle Preparatory Academy 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 McGuire Nuclear Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| Coulwood Middle School 120 15 4.0 20.2 12 2:30 12.5 17 2:50 Oakdale Elementary School 120 15 1.6 2.2 43 3:00 12.5 17 3:20 Paw Creek Elementary School 120 15 3.1 39.0 5 2:20 12.7 17 2:40 Phoenix Montessori Academy 120 15 7.9 4.1 117 4:15 9.0 13 4:30 Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas 120 15 4.7 34.1 9 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Campus Lake Norman Charter Middle School 120 15 4.1 32.6 8 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 John M. Alexander Middle School 120 15 3.3 29.3 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Blythe Legette Elementary School 120 15 3.3 29.3 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 North Mecklenburg High School 120 15 3.0 28.9 7 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 Hornets Nest Elementary School 120 15 2.8 33.0 6 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 R. C. Smith Christian Academy 120 15 2.2 15.9 9 2:25 6.0 8 2:35 Pioneer Springs Community School 120 15 0.9 29.5 2 2:20 7.2 10 2:30 Mallard Creek STEM Academy 120 15 1.7 8.5 12 2:30 6.0 8 2:40 Croft Community School 120 15 1.6 4.1 23 2:40 6.0 9 2:50 Grace Covenant Academy 120 15 6.9 3.4 122 4:20 6.6 9 4:30 J.V. Washam Elementary School 120 15 8.4 4.1 126 4:25 6.6 9 4:35 Christian Montessori School 120 15 6.9 3.2 132 4:30 6.6 9 4:40 Lake Norman Christian School 120 15 5.5 3.0 112 4:10 6.6 9 4:20 Huntersville Elementary School 120 15 7.2 3.3 131 4:30 6.6 9 4:40 Lakeside Charter Academy 120 15 5.9 3.1 113 4:10 6.6 9 4:20 Bailey Middle School 120 15 7.7 3.3 141 4:40 6.6 9 4:50 William Amos Hough High School 120 15 7.7 3.3 141 4:40 6.6 9 4:50 Cornelius Elementary School 120 15 6.6 3.0 132 4:30 12.1 17 4:50 Davidson Green School 120 15 6.3 2.8 139 4:35 12.1 17 4:55 Davidson Elementary School 120 15 6.3 2.8 139 4:35 12.1 17 4:55 Community School of Davidson 120 15 4.8 3.3 88 3:45 12.1 17 4:05 Davidson Day School 120 15 4.8 3.3 88 3:45 12.1 17 4:05 Davidson College 120 15 5.8 2.6 135 4:30 12.0 16 4:50 McGuire Nuclear Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Average Dist. EPZ ETA to EPZ Time to ETE from EPZ School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time Speed Bdry to RS/RC Bdry EPZ Bdry (hr:min) Bdry to Time (min) (min) (mph) RS/RC (mi.) (hr:min)
| |
| (mi) (min) RS/RC (min)
| |
| Cadence Academy Preschool 120 15 10.3 4.3 145 4:40 12.1 17 5:00 The Goddard School of Cornelius 120 15 7.0 3.7 114 4:10 12.1 17 4:30 Goddard School 120 15 12.5 20.1 38 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 University Child Development Center 120 15 9.2 17.6 32 2:50 7.2 10 3:00 Sunshine House 120 15 6.4 23.6 17 2:35 7.2 10 2:45 Busy Bee Childcare 120 15 10.6 17.9 36 2:55 7.2 10 3:05 Statesville KinderCare 120 15 4.6 29.2 10 2:25 7.2 10 2:35 KidTime Drop Childcare 120 15 6.7 3.4 120 4:15 6.6 9 4:25 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 120 15 6.7 3.4 120 4:15 6.6 9 4:25 Cornelius KinderCare 120 15 8.4 4.1 126 4:25 6.6 9 4:35 City Kidz Child Development Center 120 15 4.3 4.0 65 3:20 6.6 9 3:30 DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center 120 15 6.3 2.7 142 4:40 12.0 16 5:00 Whitewater Middle School 120 15 15.2 21 2:40 Whitewater Academy 120 15 15.2 21 2:40 Highland Creek Elementary School 120 15 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 10 2:25 Ridge Road Middle School 120 15 7.2 10 2:25 Mountain Island Day School 120 15 15.3 21 2:40 Alexander Graham Middle School 120 15 Located Outside the Study Area 13.5 18 2:35 Maximum for EPZ: 4:45 Maximum: 5:00 Average for EPZ: 3:10 Average: 3:20 McGuire Nuclear Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 83. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time from ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) to RS/RC (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.)
| |
| (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Mountain Island Charter School 130 20 6.6 12.3 33 3:05 5.4 9 3:15 Pinewood Elementary School 130 20 2.6 20.1 8 2:40 5.8 9 2:50 Kiser Elementary School 130 20 1.1 11.0 7 2:40 5.6 9 2:50 Judah Christian Academy 130 20 0.8 6.7 8 2:40 5.7 9 2:50 Stanley Christian Academy 130 20 0.8 6.7 8 2:40 5.7 9 2:50 Stanley Middle School 130 20 1.8 13.5 9 2:40 5.6 9 2:50 Grace School 130 20 10.0 15.9 38 3:10 5.4 9 3:20 First Presbyterian Church Child Development 130 20 5.8 18.3 20 2:50 5.8 9 3:00 Center Tiny Tot Child Development Center 130 20 5.2 37.8 9 2:40 5.8 9 2:50 Springfield Elementary School 130 20 5.6 9 2:40 Ida Rankin Elementary School 130 20 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 11 2:45 Mount Holly Middle School 130 20 7.2 11 2:45 IREDELL COUNTY SCHOOLS Woodlawn School 130 20 6.7 7.7 53 3:25 12.0 18 3:45 Langtree Charter Academy 130 20 2.5 2.3 64 3:35 12.1 19 3:55 Pine Lake Preparatory 130 20 4.1 5.7 43 3:15 12.0 18 3:35 Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 130 20 3.9 3.5 68 3:40 12.1 19 4:00 Coddle Creek Elementary School 130 20 6.7 7.7 53 3:25 12.0 18 3:45 Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 130 20 2.2 2.0 69 3:40 12.1 19 4:00 Woodland Heights Elementary School 130 20 0.7 35.2 2 2:35 13.5 21 3:00 Lake Norman Elementary School 130 20 13.4 21 2:55 Located Outside the EPZ Brawley Middle School 130 20 12.3 19 2:50 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS West Lake Preparatory Academy 130 20 7.6 34.0 14 2:45 14.4 22 3:10 Catawba Springs Elementary School 130 20 6.7 31.1 14 2:45 9.1 14 3:00 Starboard Christian Academy 130 20 5.3 6.4 50 3:20 15.0 23 3:45 East Lincoln High School 130 20 6.4 31.1 13 2:45 8.9 14 3:00 McGuire Nuclear Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time from ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) to RS/RC (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.)
| |
| (min)
| |
| Lincoln Charter School 130 20 5.9 5.2 69 3:40 16.3 25 4:05 St. James Elementary School 130 20 9.0 18.7 29 3:00 7.4 12 3:15 Denver Christian Academy 130 20 4.5 6.3 43 3:15 18.4 28 3:45 Rock Springs Elementary School 130 20 2.0 15.5 8 2:40 15.0 23 3:05 East Lincoln Middle School 130 20 1.8 35.0 4 2:35 8.9 14 2:50 The Learning Express 130 20 9.0 22.1 25 2:55 9.3 14 3:10 Mini Academy Childcare Center 130 20 6.5 5.3 74 3:45 15.1 23 4:10 Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After 130 20 6.7 30.7 14 2:45 8.4 13 3:00 Care Westport Baptist Preschool 130 20 5.5 6.1 55 3:25 15.2 23 3:50 Tutor Time 130 20 9.0 22.1 25 2:55 9.3 14 3:10 Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 130 20 7.9 25.0 20 2:50 9.3 14 3:05 Our Gang Day Care Center 130 20 6.5 5.3 74 3:45 15.1 23 4:10 Creative Learning Center 130 20 5.7 34.8 10 2:40 8.4 13 2:55 Denver Baptist Preschool 130 20 2.2 15.5 9 2:40 15.1 23 3:05 Kids in Motion 130 20 Located Outside the EPZ 14.5 22 2:55 MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Southlake Christian Academy 130 20 10.8 3.8 171 5:25 6.6 10 5:35 Barnette Elementary School 130 20 9.1 4.9 111 4:25 7.2 11 4:40 Francis Bradley Middle School 130 20 9.1 4.9 111 4:25 7.2 11 4:40 Grand Oak Elementary 130 20 7.8 18.7 26 3:00 7.2 11 3:15 Torrence Creek Elementary School 130 20 7.8 18.9 25 2:55 7.2 11 3:10 Hopewell High School 130 20 7.3 4.6 95 4:05 7.2 11 4:20 St. Mark's Catholic School 130 20 7.8 18.7 26 3:00 7.2 11 3:15 Trillium Springs Montessori 130 20 4.9 4.8 62 3:35 7.2 11 3:50 Long Creek Elementary School 130 20 4.9 4.8 62 3:35 7.2 11 3:50 Mountain Island Lake Academy 130 20 4.0 12.8 19 2:50 12.5 19 3:10 River Oaks Academy 130 20 10.6 8.7 73 3:45 7.2 11 4:00 Aristotle Preparatory Academy 130 20 4.0 12.8 19 2:50 12.5 19 3:10 Coulwood Middle School 130 20 4.0 12.8 19 2:50 12.5 19 3:10 Oakdale Elementary School 130 20 1.6 1.9 51 3:25 12.5 19 3:45 McGuire Nuclear Station 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time from ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) to RS/RC (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.)
| |
| (min)
| |
| Paw Creek Elementary School 130 20 3.1 35.0 6 2:40 12.7 20 3:00 Phoenix Montessori Academy 130 20 7.9 4.5 107 4:20 9.0 14 4:35 Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas 130 20 4.7 30.8 10 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 Campus Lake Norman Charter Middle School 130 20 4.1 29.6 9 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 John M. Alexander Middle School 130 20 3.3 26.7 8 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 Blythe Legette Elementary School 130 20 3.3 26.7 8 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 North Mecklenburg High School 130 20 3.0 26.6 7 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 Hornets Nest Elementary School 130 20 2.8 29.7 6 2:40 7.2 11 2:55 R. C. Smith Christian Academy 130 20 2.2 16.7 9 2:40 6.0 9 2:50 Pioneer Springs Community School 130 20 0.9 27.8 2 2:35 7.2 11 2:50 Mallard Creek STEM Academy 130 20 1.7 10.0 10 2:40 6.0 9 2:50 Croft Community School 130 20 1.6 4.1 23 2:55 6.0 10 3:05 Grace Covenant Academy 130 20 6.9 3.2 130 4:40 6.6 10 4:50 J.V. Washam Elementary School 130 20 8.4 3.6 142 4:55 6.6 10 5:05 Christian Montessori School 130 20 6.9 2.8 149 5:00 6.6 10 5:10 Lake Norman Christian School 130 20 5.5 2.8 121 4:35 6.6 10 4:45 Huntersville Elementary School 130 20 7.2 3.0 147 5:00 6.6 10 5:10 Lakeside Charter Academy 130 20 5.9 2.9 120 4:30 6.6 10 4:40 Bailey Middle School 130 20 7.7 3.0 153 5:05 6.6 10 5:15 William Amos Hough High School 130 20 7.7 3.0 153 5:05 6.6 10 5:15 Cornelius Elementary School 130 20 6.6 2.7 149 5:00 12.1 19 5:20 Davidson Green School 130 20 6.3 2.8 138 4:50 12.1 19 5:10 Davidson Elementary School 130 20 6.3 2.8 138 4:50 12.1 19 5:10 Community School of Davidson 130 20 4.8 3.1 94 4:05 12.1 19 4:25 Davidson Day School 130 20 4.8 3.1 94 4:05 12.1 19 4:25 Davidson College 130 20 5.8 2.6 134 4:45 12.0 18 5:05 Cadence Academy Preschool 130 20 10.3 3.9 160 5:10 12.1 19 5:30 The Goddard School of Cornelius 130 20 7.0 3.3 129 4:40 12.1 19 5:00 Goddard School 130 20 12.5 17.2 44 3:15 7.2 11 3:30 University Child Development Center 130 20 9.2 20.9 27 3:00 7.2 11 3:15 McGuire Nuclear Station 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time from ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) to RS/RC (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.)
| |
| (min)
| |
| Sunshine House 130 20 6.4 16.3 24 2:55 7.2 11 3:10 Busy Bee Childcare 130 20 10.6 8.7 73 3:45 7.2 11 4:00 Statesville KinderCare 130 20 4.6 16.0 18 2:50 7.2 11 3:05 KidTime Drop Childcare 130 20 6.7 3.2 127 4:40 6.6 10 4:50 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 130 20 6.7 3.2 127 4:40 6.6 10 4:50 Cornelius KinderCare 130 20 8.4 3.6 142 4:55 6.6 10 5:05 City Kidz Child Development Center 130 20 4.3 3.9 66 3:40 6.6 10 3:50 DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center 130 20 6.3 2.7 139 4:50 12.0 18 5:10 Whitewater Middle School 130 20 15.2 23 2:55 Whitewater Academy 130 20 15.2 23 2:55 Highland Creek Elementary School 130 20 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 11 2:45 Ridge Road Middle School 130 20 7.2 11 2:45 Mountain Island Day School 130 20 15.3 23 2:55 Alexander Graham Middle School 130 20 Located Outside the Study Area 13.5 21 2:55 Maximum for EPZ: 5:25 Maximum: 5:35 Average for EPZ: 3:30 Average: 3:40 McGuire Nuclear Station 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 84. School, Preschool and Childcare Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to from School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC EPZ Bdry Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.) to RS/RC (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Mountain Island Charter School 140 25 6.6 8.8 45 3:30 5.4 10 3:40 Pinewood Elementary School 140 25 2.6 19.8 9 2:55 5.8 10 3:05 Kiser Elementary School 140 25 1.1 18.9 4 2:50 5.6 10 3:00 Judah Christian Academy 140 25 0.8 17.6 3 2:50 5.7 10 3:00 Stanley Christian Academy 140 25 0.8 17.6 3 2:50 5.7 10 3:00 Stanley Middle School 140 25 1.8 23.2 5 2:50 5.6 10 3:00 Grace School 140 25 10.0 13.1 46 3:35 5.4 10 3:45 First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center 140 25 5.8 9.1 39 3:25 5.8 10 3:35 Tiny Tot Child Development Center 140 25 5.2 20.2 16 3:05 5.8 10 3:15 Springfield Elementary School 140 25 5.6 10 2:55 Ida Rankin Elementary School 140 25 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 13 3:00 Mount Holly Middle School 140 25 7.2 13 3:00 IREDELL COUNTY SCHOOLS Woodlawn School 140 25 6.7 7.2 57 3:45 12.0 21 4:10 Langtree Charter Academy 140 25 2.5 2.0 75 4:00 12.1 21 4:25 Pine Lake Preparatory 140 25 4.1 5.1 48 3:35 12.0 21 4:00 Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 140 25 3.9 3.1 76 4:05 12.1 21 4:30 Coddle Creek Elementary School 140 25 6.7 7.2 57 3:45 12.0 21 4:10 Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 140 25 2.2 2.0 68 3:55 12.1 21 4:20 Woodland Heights Elementary School 140 25 0.7 31.9 2 2:50 13.5 24 3:15 Lake Norman Elementary School 140 25 13.4 23 3:10 Located Outside the EPZ Brawley Middle School 140 25 12.3 22 3:10 LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS West Lake Preparatory Academy 140 25 7.6 18.4 25 3:10 14.4 25 3:35 Catawba Springs Elementary School 140 25 6.7 10.1 41 3:30 9.1 16 3:50 Starboard Christian Academy 140 25 5.3 5.3 60 3:45 15.0 26 4:15 East Lincoln High School 140 25 6.4 10.1 39 3:25 8.9 16 3:45 McGuire Nuclear Station 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to from School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC EPZ Bdry Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.) to RS/RC (min)
| |
| Lincoln Charter School 140 25 5.9 4.1 85 4:10 16.3 29 4:40 St. James Elementary School 140 25 9.0 12.4 44 3:30 7.4 13 3:45 Denver Christian Academy 140 25 4.5 5.3 52 3:40 18.4 32 4:15 Rock Springs Elementary School 140 25 2.0 12.4 10 2:55 15.0 26 3:25 East Lincoln Middle School 140 25 1.8 5.8 19 3:05 8.9 16 3:25 The Learning Express 140 25 9.0 11.7 46 3:35 9.3 16 3:55 Mini Academy Childcare Center 140 25 6.5 4.3 92 4:20 15.1 26 4:50 Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After 140 25 6.7 10.2 40 3:25 8.4 15 3:40 Care Westport Baptist Preschool 140 25 5.5 4.9 68 3:55 15.2 27 4:25 Tutor Time 140 25 9.0 11.7 46 3:35 9.3 16 3:55 Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 140 25 7.9 10.9 44 3:30 9.3 16 3:50 Our Gang Day Care Center 140 25 6.5 4.3 92 4:20 15.1 26 4:50 Creative Learning Center 140 25 5.7 9.0 39 3:25 8.4 15 3:40 Denver Baptist Preschool 140 25 2.2 12.4 11 3:00 15.1 26 3:30 Kids in Motion 140 25 Located Outside the EPZ 14.5 25 3:10 MECKLENBURG COUNTY SCHOOLS/PRESCHOOLS/CHILCARE CENTERS Southlake Christian Academy 140 25 10.8 3.1 208 6:15 6.6 12 6:30 Barnette Elementary School 140 25 9.1 4.1 135 5:00 7.2 13 5:15 Francis Bradley Middle School 140 25 9.1 4.1 135 5:00 7.2 13 5:15 Grand Oak Elementary 140 25 7.8 17.6 27 3:15 7.2 13 3:30 Torrence Creek Elementary School 140 25 7.8 18.2 26 3:15 7.2 13 3:30 Hopewell High School 140 25 7.3 4.1 108 4:35 7.2 13 4:50 St. Mark's Catholic School 140 25 7.8 17.6 27 3:15 7.2 13 3:30 Trillium Springs Montessori 140 25 4.9 4.3 69 3:55 7.2 13 4:10 Long Creek Elementary School 140 25 4.9 4.3 69 3:55 7.2 13 4:10 Mountain Island Lake Academy 140 25 4.0 9.0 27 3:15 12.5 22 3:40 River Oaks Academy 140 25 10.6 6.8 94 4:20 7.2 13 4:35 Aristotle Preparatory Academy 140 25 4.0 9.0 27 3:15 12.5 22 3:40 McGuire Nuclear Station 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to from School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC EPZ Bdry Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.) to RS/RC (min)
| |
| Coulwood Middle School 140 25 4.0 9.0 27 3:15 12.5 22 3:40 Oakdale Elementary School 140 25 1.6 1.5 64 3:50 12.5 22 4:15 Paw Creek Elementary School 140 25 3.1 31.9 6 2:55 12.7 22 3:20 Phoenix Montessori Academy 140 25 7.9 3.8 125 4:50 9.0 16 5:10 Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas 140 25 4.7 19.1 15 3:00 7.2 13 3:15 Campus Lake Norman Charter Middle School 140 25 4.1 22.4 12 3:00 7.2 13 3:15 John M. Alexander Middle School 140 25 3.3 20.1 10 2:55 7.2 13 3:10 Blythe Legette Elementary School 140 25 3.3 20.1 10 2:55 7.2 13 3:10 North Mecklenburg High School 140 25 3.0 20.4 9 2:55 7.2 13 3:10 Hornets Nest Elementary School 140 25 2.8 30.0 6 2:55 7.2 13 3:10 R. C. Smith Christian Academy 140 25 2.2 6.4 21 3:10 6.0 11 3:25 Pioneer Springs Community School 140 25 0.9 26.2 3 2:50 7.2 13 3:05 Mallard Creek STEM Academy 140 25 1.7 3.5 29 3:15 6.0 11 3:30 Croft Community School 140 25 1.6 1.6 59 3:45 6.0 11 4:00 Grace Covenant Academy 140 25 6.9 2.9 145 5:10 6.6 12 5:25 J.V. Washam Elementary School 140 25 8.4 3.2 160 5:25 6.6 12 5:40 Christian Montessori School 140 25 6.9 2.6 158 5:25 6.6 12 5:40 Lake Norman Christian School 140 25 5.5 2.5 135 5:00 6.6 12 5:15 Huntersville Elementary School 140 25 7.2 2.6 164 5:30 6.6 12 5:45 Lakeside Charter Academy 140 25 5.9 2.5 141 5:10 6.6 12 5:25 Bailey Middle School 140 25 7.7 2.7 172 5:40 6.6 12 5:55 William Amos Hough High School 140 25 7.7 2.7 172 5:40 6.6 12 5:55 Cornelius Elementary School 140 25 6.6 2.4 167 5:35 12.1 21 6:00 Davidson Green School 140 25 6.3 2.5 155 5:20 12.1 21 5:45 Davidson Elementary School 140 25 6.3 2.5 155 5:20 12.1 21 5:45 Community School of Davidson 140 25 4.8 2.8 102 4:30 12.1 21 4:55 Davidson Day School 140 25 4.8 2.8 102 4:30 12.1 21 4:55 Davidson College 140 25 5.8 2.4 149 5:15 12.0 21 5:40 McGuire Nuclear Station 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. EPZ Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average ETA to Time to ETE Bdry to from School, Preschool and/or Childcare Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed RS/RC EPZ Bdry (hr:min) RS/RC EPZ Bdry Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min) (mi.) to RS/RC (min)
| |
| Cadence Academy Preschool 140 25 10.3 3.1 201 6:10 12.1 21 6:35 The Goddard School of Cornelius 140 25 7.0 3.0 142 5:10 12.1 21 5:35 Goddard School 140 25 12.5 16.7 45 3:30 7.2 13 3:45 University Child Development Center 140 25 9.2 21.2 27 3:15 7.2 13 3:30 Sunshine House 140 25 6.4 20.6 19 3:05 7.2 13 3:20 Busy Bee Childcare 140 25 10.6 6.8 94 4:20 7.2 13 4:35 Statesville KinderCare 140 25 4.6 14.3 20 3:05 7.2 13 3:20 KidTime Drop Childcare 140 25 6.7 2.8 146 5:15 6.6 12 5:30 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 140 25 6.7 2.8 146 5:15 6.6 12 5:30 Cornelius KinderCare 140 25 8.4 3.2 160 5:25 6.6 12 5:40 City Kidz Child Development Center 140 25 4.3 3.4 76 4:05 6.6 12 4:20 DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center 140 25 6.3 2.4 158 5:25 12.0 21 5:50 Whitewater Middle School 140 25 15.2 27 3:15 Whitewater Academy 140 25 15.2 27 3:15 Highland Creek Elementary School 140 25 Located Outside the EPZ 7.2 13 3:00 Ridge Road Middle School 140 25 7.2 13 3:00 Mountain Island Day School 140 25 15.3 27 3:15 Alexander Graham Middle School 140 25 Located Outside the Study Area 13.5 24 3:10 Maximum for EPZ: 6:15 Maximum: 6:35 Average for EPZ: 4:00 Average: 4:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 826 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Bus Route Pickup Distance Travel Driver Pickup Service Mobilization Speed Travel ETE Unload Travel ETE
| |
| # Number Length Time to RC Time to Rest Time (min) (mph) Time (hr:min) (min) Time (hr:min)
| |
| (miles) (min) (miles) RC (min) (min) (min)
| |
| (min) (min)
| |
| Zone A 1 12 160 9.5 5.0 114 30 5:05 12.0 16 5 10 41 30 6:50 34 170 9.5 5.3 108 30 5:10 12.0 16 5 10 41 30 6:55 Zone B 2 1 160 11.1 5.2 128 30 5:20 6.6 9 5 10 39 30 6:55 Zone C 3 1 160 10.3 7.7 80 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 38 30 6:10 Zone D 4 13 160 9.7 7.0 83 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 36 30 6:10 45 170 9.7 7.9 73 30 4:35 7.2 10 5 10 36 30 6:10 Zone E 5 13 160 6.5 6.0 65 30 4:15 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:40 46 170 6.5 6.6 59 30 4:20 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:45 78 180 6.5 7.5 52 30 4:25 7.2 10 5 10 27 30 5:50 Zone F 6 13 160 5.7 30.0 11 30 3:25 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 4:45 46 170 5.7 44.7 8 30 3:30 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 4:50 79 180 5.7 45.0 8 30 3:40 7.2 10 5 10 25 30 5:00 Zone G 7 13 160 4.6 4.6 60 30 4:15 6.6 9 5 10 45 30 5:55 46 170 4.6 5.0 55 30 4:20 6.6 9 5 10 43 30 6:00 Zone H 8 13 160 5.8 2.8 124 30 5:15 12.0 16 5 10 31 30 6:50 Zone I 9 1&2 160 3.2 40.2 5 30 3:15 13.5 18 5 10 27 30 4:45 Zone J 10 1&2 160 5.1 8.1 38 30 3:50 12.0 16 5 10 49 30 5:40 Zone K 11 1 160 3.9 29.8 8 30 3:20 8.8 12 5 10 25 30 4:45 Zone L 12 1 160 10.1 42.0 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 40 30 5:05 Zone M 13 1 160 10.0 40.2 15 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 40 30 5:05 Zone N 14 1&2 160 10.0 42.7 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 39 30 5:05 Zone O 15 1 160 10.0 42.0 14 30 3:25 8.9 12 5 10 39 30 5:05 Zone P 16 13 160 3.6 11.6 18 30 3:30 15.0 20 5 10 30 30 5:10 Zone Q 17 1 160 3.7 11.2 20 30 3:30 8.9 12 5 10 22 30 4:50 Zone R 18 1 160 8.0 37.2 13 30 3:25 5.7 8 5 10 31 30 4:50 Zone S 19 13 160 4.4 29.1 9 30 3:20 15.0 20 5 10 35 30 5:00 Maximum ETE: 5:20 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 4:05 Average ETE: 5:35 McGuire Nuclear Station 827 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Bus Route Pickup Distance Travel Driver Pickup Service Mobilization Speed Travel ETE Unload Travel ETE
| |
| # Number Length Time to RC Time to Rest Time (min) (mph) Time (hr:min) (min) Time (hr:min)
| |
| (miles) (min) (miles) RC (min) (min) (min)
| |
| (min) (min)
| |
| Zone A 1 12 170 9.5 4.4 130 40 5:40 12.0 18 5 10 47 40 7:40 34 180 9.5 4.6 124 40 5:45 12.0 18 5 10 47 40 7:45 Zone B 2 1 170 11.1 4.4 152 40 6:05 6.6 10 5 10 43 40 7:55 Zone C 3 1 170 10.3 5.7 108 40 5:20 7.2 11 5 10 42 40 7:10 Zone D 4 13 170 9.7 5.6 104 40 5:15 7.2 11 5 10 40 40 7:05 45 180 9.7 5.9 98 40 5:20 7.2 11 5 10 40 40 7:10 Zone E 5 13 170 6.5 5.6 70 40 4:40 7.2 11 5 10 30 40 6:20 46 180 6.5 6.3 62 40 4:45 7.2 11 5 10 30 40 6:25 78 190 6.5 6.8 57 40 4:50 7.2 11 5 10 30 40 6:30 Zone F 6 13 170 5.7 21.0 16 40 3:50 7.2 11 5 10 28 40 5:25 46 180 5.7 25.3 13 40 3:55 7.2 11 5 10 28 40 5:30 79 190 5.7 31.5 11 40 4:05 7.2 11 5 10 28 40 5:40 Zone G 7 13 170 4.6 4.3 64 40 4:35 6.6 10 5 10 55 40 6:35 46 180 4.6 4.6 60 40 4:45 6.6 10 5 10 52 40 6:45 Zone H 8 13 170 5.8 2.8 124 40 5:35 12.0 18 5 10 35 40 7:25 Zone I 9 1&2 170 3.2 37.1 5 40 3:40 13.5 20 5 10 31 40 5:30 Zone J 10 1&2 170 5.1 8.0 38 40 4:10 12.0 18 5 10 60 40 6:25 Zone K 11 1 170 3.9 24.5 10 40 3:40 8.8 13 5 10 27 40 5:20 Zone L 12 1 170 10.1 17.3 35 40 4:05 8.9 13 5 10 44 40 6:00 Zone M 13 1 170 10.0 16.9 36 40 4:10 8.9 13 5 10 44 40 6:05 Zone N 14 1&2 170 10.0 17.1 35 40 4:10 8.9 13 5 10 44 40 6:05 Zone O 15 1 170 10.0 17.4 35 40 4:05 8.9 13 5 10 44 40 6:00 Zone P 16 13 170 3.6 11.0 19 40 3:50 15.0 23 5 10 33 40 5:45 Zone Q 17 1 170 3.7 6.9 32 40 4:05 8.9 13 5 10 25 40 5:40 Zone R 18 1 170 8.0 33.5 14 40 3:45 5.7 9 5 10 34 40 5:25 Zone S 19 13 170 4.4 19.7 13 40 3:45 15.0 22 5 10 39 40 5:45 Maximum ETE: 6:05 Maximum ETE: 7:55 Average ETE: 4:35 Average ETE: 6:25 McGuire Nuclear Station 828 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Bus Route Pickup Distance Travel Driver Pickup Service Mobilization Speed Travel ETE Unload Travel ETE
| |
| # Number Length Time to RC Time to Rest Time (min) (mph) Time (hr:min) (min) Time (hr:min)
| |
| (miles) (min) (miles) RC (min) (min) (min)
| |
| (min) (min)
| |
| Zone A 1 12 180 9.5 3.6 159 50 6:30 12.0 21 5 10 53 50 8:50 34 190 9.5 3.7 154 50 6:35 12.0 21 5 10 53 50 8:55 Zone B 2 1 180 11.1 3.5 191 50 7:05 6.6 11 5 10 49 50 9:15 Zone C 3 1 180 10.3 4.6 134 50 6:05 7.2 12 5 10 48 50 8:15 Zone D 4 13 180 9.7 4.5 129 50 6:00 7.2 12 5 10 45 50 8:05 45 190 9.7 4.7 123 50 6:05 7.2 12 5 10 45 50 8:10 Zone E 5 13 180 6.5 4.4 88 50 5:20 7.2 12 5 10 35 50 7:15 46 190 6.5 4.7 83 50 5:25 7.2 12 5 10 35 50 7:20 78 200 6.5 5.1 76 50 5:30 7.2 12 5 10 35 50 7:25 Zone F 6 13 180 5.7 19.2 18 50 4:10 7.2 12 5 10 32 50 6:00 46 190 5.7 24.7 14 50 4:15 7.2 12 5 10 32 50 6:05 79 200 5.7 32.4 11 50 4:25 7.2 12 5 10 32 50 6:15 Zone G 7 13 180 4.6 3.6 77 50 5:10 6.6 11 5 10 69 50 7:40 46 190 4.6 3.9 71 50 5:15 6.6 11 5 10 67 50 7:40 Zone H 8 13 180 5.8 2.5 139 50 6:10 12.0 21 5 10 41 50 8:20 Zone I 9 1&2 180 3.2 32.1 6 50 4:00 13.5 23 5 10 35 50 6:05 Zone J 10 1&2 180 5.1 7.4 41 50 4:35 12.0 21 5 10 63 50 7:05 Zone K 11 1 180 3.9 23.3 10 50 4:05 8.8 15 5 10 31 50 6:00 Zone L 12 1 180 10.1 16.7 36 50 4:30 8.9 15 5 10 50 50 6:45 Zone M 13 1 180 10.0 16.3 37 50 4:30 8.9 15 5 10 49 50 6:40 Zone N 14 1&2 180 10.0 16.6 36 50 4:30 8.9 15 5 10 50 50 6:45 Zone O 15 1 180 10.0 16.8 36 50 4:30 8.9 15 5 10 50 50 6:45 Zone P 16 13 180 3.6 9.1 23 50 4:15 15.0 26 5 10 40 50 6:30 Zone Q 17 1 180 3.7 8.6 26 50 4:20 8.9 15 5 10 28 50 6:10 Zone R 18 1 180 8.0 25.7 19 50 4:10 5.7 10 5 10 39 50 6:05 Zone S 19 13 180 4.4 24.4 11 50 4:05 15.0 26 5 10 44 50 6:20 Maximum ETE: 7:05 Maximum ETE: 9:15 Average ETE: 5:05 Average ETE: 7:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 829 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 103 30 1.1 20.5 3 3:35 Stanley Total Living Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 28 75 1.1 22.0 3 4:20 Center Bedridden 180 15 18 30 1.1 20.5 3 3:35 Ambulatory 180 1 21 21 1.6 26.6 4 3:25 Woodlawn Haven Rest Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 1.6 26.6 4 4:20 Home Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 4 20 1.6 26.5 4 3:25 Bedridden 180 15 1 15 1.6 26.4 4 3:20 Ambulatory 180 1 17 17 0.2 20.5 1 3:20 CaroMont Regional Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 5 25 0.2 19.9 1 3:30 Medical Center Bedridden 180 15 2 30 0.2 23.4 1 3:35 IREDELL COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 21 21 2.2 3.9 34 3:55 Lake Norman Regional Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 14 70 2.2 4.8 27 4:40 Medical Center Bedridden 180 15 4 30 2.2 4.1 32 4:05 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 40 30 10.1 44.3 14 3:45 Lakewood Care Center Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 10.1 45.0 14 4:30 Bedridden 180 15 1 15 10.1 40.0 15 3:30 Ambulatory 180 1 39 30 1.7 43.5 2 3:35 Wexford House Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 11 55 1.7 41.8 3 4:00 Bedridden 180 15 4 30 1.7 43.5 2 3:35 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 180 1 54 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Ranson Ridge Assisted Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 14 70 7.3 43.3 10 4:20 Living & Memory Care Bedridden 180 15 6 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Ambulatory 180 1 70 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Olde Knox CommonsThe Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 7.3 43.3 10 4:25 Villages Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 4 20 7.3 41.5 10 3:30 Bedridden 180 15 13 30 7.3 42.8 10 3:40 Ambulatory 180 1 48 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 McGuire Nuclear Station 830 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| Huntersville Health & Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 13 65 6.5 23.6 16 4:25 Rehabilitation Center Bedridden 180 15 6 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Novant Health Ambulatory 180 1 31 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Huntersville Medical Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 8 40 6.5 17.0 23 4:05 Center Bedridden 180 15 4 30 6.5 14.6 27 4:00 Ambulatory 180 1 114 30 4.7 39.0 7 3:40 Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 30 75 4.7 40.5 7 4:25 Huntersville Oaks Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 1 5 4.7 39.1 7 3:15 Bedridden 180 15 20 30 4.7 39.0 7 3:40 Ambulatory 180 1 28 28 2.2 33.3 4 3:35 Northlake House Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 1 5 2.2 33.5 4 3:10 Bedridden 180 15 3 30 2.2 33.3 4 3:35 Ambulatory 180 1 55 30 7.5 5.3 85 4:55 Autumn Care of Cornelius Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 7.5 8.4 53 5:10 Bedridden 180 15 6 30 7.5 5.3 85 4:55 Hunter Village Ambulatory 180 1 68 30 5.7 5.3 64 4:35 Ambulatory 180 1 64 30 6.1 5.9 62 4:35 The Pines at Davidson Wheelchair bound Bus 180 5 15 75 6.1 9.4 39 4:55 Wheelchair bound Van 180 5 2 10 6.1 5.6 66 4:20 Maximum ETE: 5:10 Average ETE: 4:00 McGuire Nuclear Station 831 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 190 1 103 30 1.1 3.5 19 4:00 Stanley Total Living Center Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 28 75 1.1 20.9 3 4:30 Bedridden 190 15 18 30 1.1 3.5 19 4:00 Ambulatory 190 1 21 21 1.6 23.8 4 3:35 Woodlawn Haven Rest Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 15 75 1.6 24.3 4 4:30 Home Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 4 20 1.6 22.6 4 3:35 Bedridden 190 15 1 15 1.6 22.6 4 3:30 Ambulatory 190 1 17 17 0.2 24.1 1 3:30 CaroMont Regional Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 5 25 0.2 22.5 1 3:40 Medical Center Bedridden 190 15 2 30 0.2 18.8 1 3:45 IREDELL COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 190 1 21 21 2.2 3.4 39 4:10 Lake Norman Regional Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 14 70 2.2 4.0 33 4:55 Medical Center Bedridden 190 15 4 30 2.2 3.4 39 4:20 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 190 1 40 30 10.1 40.0 15 3:55 Lakewood Care Center Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 15 75 10.1 40.0 15 4:40 Bedridden 190 15 1 15 10.1 36.2 17 3:45 Ambulatory 190 1 39 30 1.7 30.6 3 3:45 Wexford House Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 11 55 1.7 24.7 4 4:10 Bedridden 190 15 4 30 1.7 30.6 3 3:45 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 190 1 54 30 7.3 39.4 11 3:55 Ranson Ridge Assisted Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 14 70 7.3 40.0 11 4:35 Living & Memory Care Bedridden 190 15 6 30 7.3 39.4 11 3:55 Ambulatory 190 1 70 30 7.3 39.4 11 3:55 Olde Knox CommonsThe Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 15 75 7.3 39.8 11 4:40 Villages Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 4 20 7.3 37.2 12 3:45 Bedridden 190 15 13 30 7.3 39.4 11 3:55 Ambulatory 190 1 48 30 6.5 13.4 29 4:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 832 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| Huntersville Health & Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 13 65 6.5 19.0 20 4:35 Rehabilitation Center Bedridden 190 15 6 30 6.5 13.4 29 4:10 Ambulatory 190 1 31 30 6.5 13.4 29 4:10 Novant Health Huntersville Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 8 40 6.5 14.5 27 4:20 Medical Center Bedridden 190 15 4 30 6.5 13.4 29 4:10 Ambulatory 190 1 114 30 4.7 35.6 8 3:50 Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 30 75 4.7 37.4 8 4:35 Huntersville Oaks Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 1 5 4.7 20.3 14 3:30 Bedridden 190 15 20 30 4.7 35.6 8 3:50 Ambulatory 190 1 28 28 2.2 31.6 4 3:45 Northlake House Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 1 5 2.2 31.2 4 3:20 Bedridden 190 15 3 30 2.2 31.6 4 3:45 Ambulatory 190 1 55 30 7.5 4.6 98 5:20 Autumn Care of Cornelius Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 15 75 7.5 6.6 68 5:35 Bedridden 190 15 6 30 7.5 4.6 98 5:20 Hunter Village Ambulatory 190 1 68 30 5.7 5.3 64 4:45 Ambulatory 190 1 64 30 6.1 7.1 52 4:35 The Pines at Davidson Wheelchair bound Bus 190 5 15 75 6.1 10.5 35 5:00 Wheelchair bound Van 190 5 2 10 6.1 5.7 65 4:25 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Average ETE: 4:10 McGuire Nuclear Station 833 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| GASTON COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 200 1 103 30 1.1 4.2 16 4:10 Stanley Total Living Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 28 75 1.1 19.2 4 4:40 Center Bedridden 200 15 18 30 1.1 4.2 16 4:10 Ambulatory 200 1 21 21 1.6 20.5 5 3:50 Woodlawn Haven Rest Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 15 75 1.6 21.6 4 4:40 Home Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 4 20 1.6 20.5 5 3:45 Bedridden 200 15 1 15 1.6 22.9 4 3:40 Ambulatory 200 1 17 17 0.2 16.7 1 3:40 CaroMont Regional Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 5 25 0.2 21.7 1 3:50 Medical Center Bedridden 200 15 2 30 0.2 21.6 1 3:55 IREDELL COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 200 1 21 21 2.2 2.9 45 4:30 Lake Norman Regional Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 14 70 2.2 3.8 35 5:05 Medical Center Bedridden 200 15 4 30 2.2 3.0 44 4:35 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 200 1 40 30 10.1 35.0 17 4:10 Lakewood Care Center Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 15 75 10.1 35.0 17 4:55 Bedridden 200 15 1 15 10.1 34.8 17 3:55 Ambulatory 200 1 39 30 1.7 25.0 4 3:55 Wexford House Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 11 55 1.7 34.5 3 4:20 Bedridden 200 15 4 30 1.7 25.0 4 3:55 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC Ambulatory 200 1 54 30 7.3 32.5 13 4:05 Ranson Ridge Assisted Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 14 70 7.3 35.0 12 4:45 Living & Memory Care Bedridden 200 15 6 30 7.3 32.5 13 4:05 Ambulatory 200 1 70 30 7.3 32.5 13 4:05 Olde Knox Commons Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 15 75 7.3 35.0 12 4:50 The Villages Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 4 20 7.3 31.2 14 3:55 Bedridden 200 15 13 30 7.3 32.5 13 4:05 Ambulatory 200 1 48 30 6.5 10.2 38 4:30 McGuire Nuclear Station 834 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization Speed ETE Medical Facility Patient Rate People Loading EPZ Bdry to EPZ Bdry.
| |
| (min) (mph) (hr:min)
| |
| (min per person) Time (min) (mi) (min)
| |
| Huntersville Health & Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 13 65 6.5 11.7 33 5:00 Rehabilitation Center Bedridden 200 15 6 30 6.5 10.2 38 4:30 Novant Health Ambulatory 200 1 31 30 6.5 10.2 38 4:30 Huntersville Medical Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 8 40 6.5 10.4 37 4:40 Center Bedridden 200 15 4 30 6.5 10.2 38 4:30 Ambulatory 200 1 114 30 4.7 28.8 10 4:00 Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 30 75 4.7 30.5 9 4:45 Huntersville Oaks Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 1 5 4.7 23.9 12 3:40 Bedridden 200 15 20 30 4.7 28.8 10 4:00 Ambulatory 200 1 28 28 2.2 28.1 5 3:55 Northlake House Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 1 5 2.2 27.6 5 3:30 Bedridden 200 15 3 30 2.2 28.1 5 3:55 Ambulatory 200 1 55 30 7.5 3.4 132 6:05 Autumn Care of Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 15 75 7.5 4.5 100 6:15 Cornelius Bedridden 200 15 6 30 7.5 3.4 132 6:05 Hunter Village Ambulatory 200 1 68 30 5.7 4.2 81 5:15 Ambulatory 200 1 64 30 6.1 6.2 59 4:50 The Pines at Davidson Wheelchair bound Bus 200 5 15 75 6.1 8.2 45 5:20 Wheelchair bound Van 200 5 2 10 6.1 6.2 59 4:30 Maximum ETE: 6:15 Average ETE: 4:25 McGuire Nuclear Station 835 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 811. Correction Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Total Dist. To Travel Time to Weather Mobilization Number of Number Correctional Facility Loading EPZ Bdry EPZ Boundary ETE (hr:min)
| |
| Conditions (min) Inmates of Vans Time (mins) (miles) (min)
| |
| Mecklenburg County Normal 90 20 25 2:15 Sheriff's Office Jail Rain 100 500 17 25 1.3 26 2:35 North Ice 110 30 29 2:50 Maximum ETE: 2:50 Average ETE: 2:35 Table 812. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Loading People Mobiliza Travel to Loading Time to Vehicles Stops per Weather Time at ETE Vehicle Type Requiring tion Subsequent Time at EPZ deployed Vehicle Conditions 1st Stop (hr:min)
| |
| Vehicle Time (min) Stops (min) Subsequent Boundary (min)
| |
| Stops (min) (min)
| |
| Good 160 171 14 6:05 Buses 334 17 20 Rain 170 1 190 19 19 6:40 Ice 180 209 17 7:10 Good 160 117 15 6:05 Wheelchair 109 8 14 Rain 170 5 130 65 19 6:30 Buses Ice 180 143 20 6:55 Good 160 18 26 3:40 Wheelchair 9 3 3 Rain 170 5 20 10 30 3:55 Vans Ice 180 22 34 4:15 Good 160 10 26 3:50 Ambulances 38 20 2 Rain 170 15 11 15 31 4:05 Ice 180 13 33 4:20 Maximum ETE: 7:10 Average ETE: 5:20 McGuire Nuclear Station 836 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 813. Access and/or Functional Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates Second Wave for Ambulatory Access and/or Functional Needs People Travel Travel One Travel Total People Unload Driver Time Travel to Time to Vehicle Vehicles Weather Wave to 1st Loading ETE Requiring Stops Patients Rest Back to Subsequent EPZ Type deployed Conditions ETE4 Stops Time at All (hr:min)
| |
| Vehicle (min) (min) EPZ5 Stops (min) Boundary (hr:min) (min) Stops (min)
| |
| (min) (min)
| |
| Good 3:20 5 10 13 9 171 24 7:35 Buses 334 17 20 Rain 3:40 5 10 15 10 190 20 28 8:00 Ice 4:10 5 10 17 11 209 30 8:55 Maximum ETE: 8:55 Average ETE: 8:10 4
| |
| Average ETE to reception center/relocation school from Table 8-2 through Table 8-4 for good weather, rain, and ice scenarios, respectively.
| |
| 5 Average of travel time from EPZ boundary to reception center/relocation school from Table 8-2 through Table 8-4 for good weather, rain, and ice scenarios, respectively.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 837 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| (Subsequent Wave)
| |
| A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center/Relocation School E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Relocation School G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center/Relocation School Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations McGuire Nuclear Station 838 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include:
| |
| * Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).
| |
| * Guidance is provided by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available on line: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.
| |
| * The All County Standard Operating Guideline (SOG) for Traffic Control Point and Security Road Block Operations in Support of the McGuire Nuclear Station, dated January 2019, which defines all Traffic Control Point (TCP) and Security Road Block (SRB) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.
| |
| The functions to be performed in the field are:
| |
| : 1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.
| |
| : 2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.
| |
| The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.
| |
| For example:
| |
| * A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.
| |
| * An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.
| |
| * The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.
| |
| The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.
| |
| The TMP is the outcome of the following process:
| |
| : 1. The existing TCPs and SRBs identified by the All County SOG serves as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
| |
| : 2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 710).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : 3. These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Modifications to the existing TCP and/or SRB locations that would improve congestion and the ETE were analyzed. See Appendix G for more additional information.
| |
| : 4. The TCPs and SRBs defined in the existing TMP, the recommended modified TCP/SRBs and how they were applied in this study, are listed in Appendix K and discussed in Appendix G, respectively.
| |
| : 5. Prioritization of TCPs and SRBs.
| |
| : a. Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and SRBs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and SRBs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located far from the power plant. These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.
| |
| Appendix G documents the existing TMP and modified TCPs using the process enumerated above.
| |
| 9.1 Assumptions The ETE calculations documented in Section 7 and 8 assume that the traffic management plan is implemented during evacuation and the modifications discussed in Appendix G are in place.
| |
| The ETE calculations reflect the assumptions that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE).
| |
| All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personal manning TCPs and SRBs.
| |
| Study assumptions 1 and 2 in Section 2.5 discuss TCP and SRB operations.
| |
| 9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception/care center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Travel Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the on board navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during evacuation trip.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| These are only some examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process.
| |
| Considerations should be given that ITS technologies can be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:
| |
| * Routing from a Zone being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.
| |
| * Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools, childcare centers, medical facilities, correctional facilities, and residents who do not own or have access to a private vehicle) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers and/or relocation schools.
| |
| Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.
| |
| This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion.
| |
| The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles, and by the transitdependent population evacuating in buses. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed to reception centers. School buses will be routed to relocation schools. General population may evacuate to either a reception center or some alternate destination (e.g., lodging facilities, relatives home, campgrounds) outside the EPZ.
| |
| The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The 19 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and Figure 103 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD to service the major evacuation routes through each Zone for this study, in order to compute ETE. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along the major evacuation routes to flag down a bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 160minute bus mobilization time (good weather).
| |
| Schools, preschools, childcare centers, medical facilities and correctional facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate relocation school or reception centers. For Lincoln County, outlined evacuation route maps for schools, child and adult care facilities from 2018 Standard Operating Guideline (SOG) were followed. The McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information1 lists many of the major schools and specifies their relocation school.
| |
| For schools not listed in the plan, reception center which designated based on which Zone the school located was assumed and most likely path for evacuation to the EPZ boundary was selected. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.
| |
| 1 https://www.duke-energy.com/_/media/pdfs/safety/nuclear/epz-booklets/ep-booklet-mcguire.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations).
| |
| 10.2 Reception Centers According to the MNS 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information1, evacuees living in Zones C, D, E, and F will be directed to UNC Charlotte as their reception center. Evacuees living in Zones A, H, I, and J will be directed to South Iredell High School. Evacuees living in Zones B and G will be directed to Northwest Cabarrus Middle School. Evacuees living in Gaston County (Zones R and S) will be directed to Stuart Cramer High School. Evacuees living in Lincoln County (Zones L, M, N, O, P, and Q) will be directed to Lincolnton High School and/or West Lincoln High School.
| |
| Evacuees in Catawba County (Zone K) will be directed to Mill Creek Middle School.
| |
| As previously discussed, the MNS 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information lists the relocation schools and reception centers. Table 103 presents a list of the relocation schools for each school in the EPZ. It is assumed that all school, preschool, and childcare center evacuees will be taken to the appropriate relocation school (or reception center, if none was specified) and will be subsequently picked up by parents or guardians.
| |
| Figure 104 show the primary general reception centers and relocation school for evacuees.
| |
| Transitdependent evacuees are routed to the nearest reception center for each Zone for ETE computations.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes No. of Zone Length Route # Route Description Buses Serviced (mi.)
| |
| W Catawba Avenue northbound, slight left to merge onto 1 4 A 9.5 Interstate77 (I77) northbound, then out of the EPZ.
| |
| 2 1 B Head east on North Carolina73 (NC73) , then out of the EPZ. 11.1 3 1 C Head south on Beatties Ford Rd, left onto Lakeview Rd 10.3 eastbound, next right onto NC24/ WWT Harris Blvd southbound, 4 5 D then out of the EPZ. 9.7 Head northeast on Mt Holly Huntersville Rd, right onto Beatties Ford Rd southbound, left onto Lakeview Rd eastbound, 5 8 E 6.5 next right onto NC24/ WWT Harris Blvd southbound, then out of the EPZ.
| |
| Head south on US Highway 21 (US21)/ Statesville Rd, left onto 6 9 F 5.7 NC24 eastbound, then out of the EPZ.
| |
| 7 6 G Head east on NC73 , then out of the EPZ. 4.6 N Main St/ County Route115 (CR115) northbound, left onto 8 3 H Griffith St westbound, next slight right to merge onto I77 5.8 northbound, then out of the EPZ.
| |
| 9 2 I Head north on Brawley School Rd, then out of the EPZ 3.2 Head north on CR115, left onto Langtree Rd southwest bound, 10 2 J next slight right to merge onto I77 northbound, then out of the 5.1 EPZ.
| |
| Head south on Catawba Burris Rd, right onto Campground Rd 11 1 K southbound, next right onto NC16 northwest bound, then out of 3.9 the EPZ.
| |
| Head west on Club Dr, right onto NC73 northwest bound, then 12 1 L 10.1 out of the EPZ.
| |
| Head north on Killian Farm Rd, left onto NC73 northwest bound, 13 1 M 10.0 then out of the EPZ.
| |
| Head south on NC16, right onto NC73 northwest bound, then 14 2 N 10.0 out of the EPZ.
| |
| Head north on NC16, left onto NC73 northwest bound, then out 15 1 O 10.0 of the EPZ.
| |
| 16 3 P Head northwest on NC16, then out of the EPZ 3.6 Head north on Old Plank Rd, left onto NC73 northwest bound, 17 1 Q 3.7 then out of the EPZ.
| |
| Head west on Killian Rd, left onto NC16 southbound, next right 18 1 R 8.0 onto CR273 southbound, then out of the EPZ Mariposa Rd southbound, left onto N Main St (NC27) 19 3 S southbound, next right onto Chestnut St westbound and take 4.4 immediate left to S Main St southbound, then out of the EPZ Total: 55 McGuire Nuclear Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number 502, 4554, 503, 504, 4791, 3822, 3823, 3718, 505, 4552, 508, 3255, 511, 512, 513, 3701, 95, 4658, 4654, 1 Zone A 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 3651, 3280, 4810, 500, 4555, 4556, 501, 3241, 502, 3262, 534, 3263, 3264, 536, 706, 537, 4255, 4560, 2 Zone B 707, 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 674, 4812, 3232, 670, 4834, 3235, 4826, 4824, 671, 672, 673, 4845, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 3 Zone C 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 4812, 3232, 670, 4834, 3235, 4826, 4824, 671, 672, 673, 4845, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 4 Zone D 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 5 Zone E 657, 3898, 4847, 4846, 4848, 3894, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 6 Zone F 688, 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 7 Zone G 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 516, 517, 3808, 3809, 548, 3810, 3812, 3813, 3814, 4652, 4646, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 8 Zone H 86 9 Zone I 3488, 3730, 3731, 3732, 3734, 4958, 3487, 3736, 3735, 3486, 3738, 3489, 3501 10 Zone J 518, 4970, 4601, 519, 3141, 3139, 3135, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 11 Zone K 3524, 3523, 3522, 1963, 1959, 4698, 4760 4978, 3285, 3286, 1929, 490, 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 12 Zone L 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 3528, 3527, 3286, 1929, 490, 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 13 Zone M 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 563, 1936, 1949, 4701, 4632, 490, 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 14 Zone N 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 3533, 1928, 4702, 1937, 4559, 490, 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 15 Zone O 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 16 Zone P 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 17 Zone Q 3560, 3556, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 18 Zone R 4690, 1946, 600, 632, 4704, 4705, 633, 634, 4706, 3038, 3039, 635, 636, 3775, 637, 638, 3044, 3046, 655 19 Zone S 629, 3028, 5261, 5260, 1980, 650, 1981, 651, 1984, 1986, 763 20 Westport Baptist Preschool 3545, 564, 4699, 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 McGuire Nuclear Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number Bailey Middle School 21 3404, 700, 4933, 4599, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 William Amos Hough High School Barnette Elementary School 3232, 670, 4834, 3235, 4826, 4824, 671, 672, 673, 4845, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 3250, 22 Francis Bradley Middle School 3252, 4504, 716 Blythe Legette Elementary 23 School 4538, 3481, 4539, 4435, 702, 4433, 703, 3082, 3703, 741, 4517, 4029, 4516, 3253, 3717, 716 John M. Alexander Middle School Catawba Springs Elementary 24 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 School 25 Christian Montessori School 3842, 3841, 3275, 4598, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 Community School of Davidson 26 3809, 548, 3810, 3812, 3813, 3814, 4652, 4644, 550, 4646, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 Davidson Day School 27 Cornelius Elementary School 514, 4548, 4550, 3259, 513, 3701, 95, 4658, 4654, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 28 Croft Community School 4028, 3611, 4478, 3316 Davidson Elementary School 3669, 3668, 516, 517, 3808, 3809, 548, 3810, 3812, 3813, 3814, 4652, 4646, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 29 Davidson Green School 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 30 East Lincoln High School 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 31 East Lincoln Middle School 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 32 Grace Covenant Academy 4547, 537, 4255, 4560, 707, 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 33 Hopewell High School 671, 672, 673, 4845, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 34 Hornets Nest Elementary School 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 35 Huntersville Elementary School 689, 4884, 3277, 3841, 3275, 4598, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 36 Hunter Village 3220, 4885, 4888, 3585, 4890, 4921, 3586, 3587, 3590, 3588, 3589, 708 Cornelius KinderCare & J.V. 4936, 3261, 3242, 4547, 537, 4255, 4560, 707, 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 37 Washam Elementary School 4564, 4565, 541 38 Kiser Elementary School 1982, 1981, 651, 3641, 4992, 1986, 763 Lake Norman Charter Middle 39 4892, 4576, 3481, 4539, 4435, 702, 4433, 703, 3082, 3703, 741, 4517, 4029, 4516, 3253, 3717, 716 School 40 Lake Norman Christian School 3841, 3275, 4598, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 McGuire Nuclear Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number 41 Lincoln Charter School 4630, 3545, 564, 4699, 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 Long Creek Elementary School 42 673, 4845, 658, 4879, 675, 3205, 3647, 3648, 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 Trillium Springs Montessori Aristotle Preparatory Academy 43 Coulwood Middle School 5258, 5257, 3293, 4164, 4165, 3932, 3294, 3574 Mountain Island Lake Academy 44 Mountain Island Charter School 634, 3036, 3037, 583, 4854, 582, 4637, 4429, 581, 4427, 4431, 610, 607, 4490, 4491, 3169, 371, 3912 45 Oakdale Elementary School 4874, 4768, 4767, 3575, 5225, 3576, 3574 46 Paw Creek Elementary School 756, 4868, 3171, 3578, 3296 4577, 5259, 3218, 688, 3221, 689, 3220, 4885, 4888, 3585, 4890, 4921, 3586, 3587, 3590, 3588, 3589, 47 Phoenix Montessori Academy 708 48 Pine Lake Preparatory 4601, 519, 3141, 3139, 3135, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 49 Pinewood Elementary School 636, 3775, 637, 638, 3044, 3046, 655 4187, 3888, 4189, 661, 4882, 3882, 3885, 4432, 4428, 581, 4427, 4431, 610, 4163, 4162, 3289, 3290, River Oaks Academy & Busy Bee 50 608, 754, 3895, 4145, 3899, 750, 3080, 3896, 4144, 3243, 751, 4917, 3245, 3667, 3211, 3247, 742, 743, Childcare 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 51 Rock Springs Elementary School 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 3280, 4810, 500, 4555, 4556, 501, 3241, 502, 3262, 534, 3263, 3264, 536, 706, 537, 4255, 4560, 707, 52 Southlake Christian Academy 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 Pioneer Springs Community 53 4517, 4029, 4516, 3253, 3717, 716 School 54 St. James Elementary School 1910, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 55 Stanley Middle School 650, 1981, 651, 1984, 1986, 763 Torrence Creek Elementary 3279, 4311, 4310, 4169, 688, 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 56 School 716 57 Autumn Care of Cornelius 3405, 4938, 700, 4933, 4599, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 Woodland Heights Elementary 58 3486, 3738, 3489, 3501 School 59 Woodlawn School 4600, 518, 4970, 4601, 519, 3141, 3139, 3135, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 McGuire Nuclear Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number Coddle Creek Elementary School CaroMont Regional Medical 60 3162, 655, 3158 Center The Learning Express 1929, 3526, 1936, 1949, 4701, 4632, 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 61 Tutor Time 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 Central Piedmont Community 4891, 4892, 4576, 3481, 4539, 4435, 702, 4433, 703, 3082, 3703, 741, 4517, 4029, 4516, 3253, 3717, 62 College Merancas Campus 716 Huntersville Oaks Lake Norman Regional Medical 63 551, 3806, 3516, 3512, 552, 3509, 88, 87, 86 Center 64 Lakewood Care Center 1910, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 65 Olde Knox CommonsThe Villages 4311, 4310, 4169, 688, 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 66 Stanley Total Living Center 1985, 1984, 1986, 763 67 The Pines at Davidson 516, 5291, 4939, 3407, 728, 3408, 4943, 3826, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 68 Wexford House 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 69 Woodlawn Haven Rest Home 4994, 4995, 4996, 4252, 3045, 3047 Mecklenburg County Sheriff's 70 3250, 4514, 4537, 3251, 4513, 4031, 3194, 118, 3193 Office Jail North 71 Northlake House 4905, 4906, 4915, 4907, 3648, 4674, 3250, 3252, 4504, 716 Catawba Springs Elementary 72 1910, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 YMCA B/A Care Chesterbrook Academy 4633, 1931, 1930, 1915, 491, 1942, 1913, 1909, 3769, 1914, 760, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 73 Preschool 1908, 4707 516, 517, 3808, 3809, 548, 3810, 3812, 3813, 3814, 4652, 4646, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 74 Davidson College 86 75 North Mecklenburg High School 4539, 4435, 702, 4433, 703, 3082, 3703, 741, 4517, 4029, 4516, 3253, 3717, 716 Mini Academy Childcare Center 76 3538, 1950, 4630, 3545, 564, 4699, 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 Our Gang Day Care Center 77 Mallard Creek STEM Academy 4895, 3945, 3389, 713 78 Judah Christian Academy 651, 3641, 4992, 1986, 763 McGuire Nuclear Station 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number Stanley Christian Academy 79 Lakeside Charter Academy 4933, 4599, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 Langtree Charter Academy Upper 80 3514, 3513, 3518, 3512, 552, 3509, 88, 87, 86 School Liberty Preparatory Christian 81 4963, 4962, 520, 521, 3806, 3516, 3512, 552, 3509, 88, 87, 86 Academy 82 Langtree Charter Academy 4641, 4640, 3504, 3517, 3507, 3509, 88, 87, 86 83 Starboard Christian Academy 564, 4699, 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 84 CMC Huntersville 4256, 537, 4255, 4560, 707, 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 85 West Lake Preparatory Academy 563, 1952, 3702, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 3550 86 Creative Learning Center 3555, 492, 4708, 493, 3559, 1941, 1938, 494, 1908, 4707 Huntersville Health &
| |
| Rehabilitation Center 3226, 3225, 3222, 686, 105, 106, 107, 108, 4664, 4665, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 742, 743, 664, 4503, 87 Novant Health Huntersville 3252, 4504, 716 Medical Center 88 Denver Christian Academy 564, 4699, 565, 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 Grand Oak Elementary 4844, 4308, 4309, 4310, 4169, 688, 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 89 St. Mark's Catholic School 4504, 716 Tiny Tot Child Development 90 1984, 652, 653, 654 Center 91 R. C. Smith Christian Academy 4893, 3609, 4894, 4895, 3945, 3389, 713 First Presbyterian Church Child 92 4251, 1985, 1984, 652, 653, 654 Development Center Ranson Ridge Assisted Living &
| |
| 93 4311, 4310, 4169, 688, 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 Memory 94 Denver Baptist Preschool 1957, 1955, 1959, 4698, 4760 4703, 3566, 1946, 600, 632, 4704, 4705, 633, 634, 3036, 3037, 583, 4854, 582, 4637, 4429, 581, 4427, 95 Grace School 4431, 610, 607, 4490, 4491, 3169, 371, 3912 96 City Kidz Child Development 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 McGuire Nuclear Station 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number Center 97 University Child Development 3266, 3264, 536, 101, 4660, 4661, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 4664, 4665, 109, 110, 4208, 4209, Center 4211, 704, 3947, 3957, 3958, 3959, 3960 98 Statesville KinderCare 3218, 4543, 4542, 3480, 4541, 663, 3219, 5269, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 99 The Goddard School of Cornelius 3254, 508, 3255, 511, 512, 513, 3701, 95, 4658, 4654, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 100 Sunshine House 3222, 686, 105, 106, 107, 108, 4664, 4665, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 742, 743, 664, 4503, 3252, 4504, 716 101 Cadence Academy Preschool 502, 3262, 534, 3263, 3264, 536, 706, 99, 187, 98, 97, 4655, 96, 95, 4658, 4654, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 102 KidTime Drop Childcare 4547, 537, 4255, 4560, 707, 5270, 4932, 538, 4562, 4561, 4563, 539, 540, 4566, 3435, 4564, 4565, 541 Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 103 DavidsonCornelius Child 3821, 3668, 516, 517, 3808, 3809, 548, 3810, 3812, 3813, 3814, 4652, 4646, 92, 91, 90, 4642, 4656, Development Center 4305, 89, 88, 87, 86 104 Goddard School 3254, 508, 3255, 511, 512, 96, 4655, 97, 98, 187, 99, 100, 101, 4660, 4661, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 4664, 4665, 109, 110, 4208, 4209, 4211, 704, 3947, 3957, 3958, 3959, 3960 McGuire Nuclear Station 109 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table 103. School, Preschool, and Childcare Center Relocation Schools (or Reception Centers)
| |
| Schools, Preschools, and Childcare Centers Relocation Schools/Reception Centers GASTON COUNTY Mountain Island Charter School Harvest Community Church Grace School Pinewood Elementary School Ida Rankin Elementary School South Point High School Mount Holly Middle School Kiser Elementary School Judah Christian Academy Stanley Christian Academy North Gaston High School Stanley Middle School Springfield Elementary School First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center North Gaston High School/South Point High Tiny Tot Child Development Center School IREDELL COUNTY Woodlawn School Langtree Charter Academy Pine Lake Preparatory Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy Coddle Creek Elementary School South Iredell High School Langtree Charter Academy Upper School Woodland Heights Elementary School Lake Norman Elementary School Brawley Middle School LINCOLN COUNTY West Lake Preparatory Academy East Lincoln Middle School Lincolnton High School Starboard Christian Academy East Lincoln High School Catawba Springs Elementary School Battleground Elementary Lincoln Charter School Lincoln Charter School, West campus St. James Elementary School G.E. Massey Elementary School Denver Christian Academy Lincolnton Middle School Rock Springs Elementary School The Learning Express Mini Academy Childcare Center Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After Care Westport Baptist Preschool Tutor Time S. Ray Lowder Elementary School Chesterbrook Academy Preschool Our Gang Day Care Center Creative Learning Center Denver Baptist Preschool McGuire Nuclear Station 1010 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Schools, Preschools, and Childcare Centers Relocation Schools/Reception Centers Kids in Motion MECKLENBURG COUNTY Cornelius Elementary School Davidson Green School Davidson Elementary School Community School of Davidson Davidson Day School South Iredell High School Davidson College Cadence Academy Preschool The Goddard School of Cornelius DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center Barnette Elementary School Francis Bradley Middle School Grand Oak Elementary Torrence Creek Elementary School Hopewell High School St. Mark's Catholic School Trillium Springs Montessori Long Creek Elementary School Mountain Island Lake Academy River Oaks Academy Aristotle Preparatory Academy Coulwood Middle School Oakdale Elementary School Paw Creek Elementary School Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas Campus UNC Charlotte Lake Norman Charter Middle School John M. Alexander Middle School Blythe Legette Elementary School North Mecklenburg High School Hornets Nest Elementary School R. C. Smith Christian Academy Pioneer Springs Community School Mallard Creek STEM Academy Croft Community School Whitewater Middle School Whitewater Academy Highland Creek Elementary School Ridge Road Middle School Mountain Island Day School Alexander Graham Middle School Goddard School McGuire Nuclear Station 1011 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Schools, Preschools, and Childcare Centers Relocation Schools/Reception Centers University Child Development Center Sunshine House Busy Bee Childcare Statesville KinderCare Southlake Christian Academy Phoenix Montessori Academy Grace Covenant Academy J.V. Washam Elementary School Christian Montessori School Lake Norman Christian School Huntersville Elementary School Northwest Cabarrus Middle School Lakeside Charter Academy Bailey Middle School William Amos Hough High School KidTime Drop Childcare Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman Cornelius KinderCare City Kidz Child Development Center McGuire Nuclear Station 1012 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes within the MNS EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station 1013 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes McGuire Nuclear Station 1014 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 103. TransitDependent Bus Routes Continued McGuire Nuclear Station 1015 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure 104. General Population Reception Centers and Relocation Schools McGuire Nuclear Station 1016 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms
| |
| | |
| A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.
| |
| Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.
| |
| Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.
| |
| Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.
| |
| Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.
| |
| Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,
| |
| Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).
| |
| Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).
| |
| Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.
| |
| The cycle length is expressed in seconds.
| |
| Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.
| |
| Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.
| |
| Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).
| |
| Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.
| |
| Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.
| |
| Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.
| |
| Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian, and air travel modes.
| |
| Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.
| |
| Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model
| |
| | |
| B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II Model. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.
| |
| To apply the DYNEV II Model, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.
| |
| B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.
| |
| For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.
| |
| The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.
| |
| The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.
| |
| B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II model reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified McGuire Nuclear Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.
| |
| B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II Model.
| |
| When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.
| |
| The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:
| |
| It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.
| |
| The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.
| |
| DTRAD executes the traffic assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.
| |
| Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as ca ta la sa ,
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.
| |
| The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure 01. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.
| |
| The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution).The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:
| |
| sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=
| |
| dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk
| |
| = Scaling factor The value of do = 10 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:
| |
| Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.
| |
| The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,
| |
| commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.
| |
| Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Start of next DTRAD Session A
| |
| Set T0 Clock time.
| |
| Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)
| |
| Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;
| |
| Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?
| |
| No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)
| |
| Set Clock to T2 B A Figure 01. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface McGuire Nuclear Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model
| |
| | |
| C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.
| |
| Model Features Include:
| |
| Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.
| |
| Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.
| |
| At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.
| |
| Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.
| |
| The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.
| |
| A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.
| |
| A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.
| |
| Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator)
| |
| Calculates ETE statistics All traffic simulation models are data intensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.
| |
| To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent McGuire Nuclear Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).
| |
| Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.
| |
| C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.
| |
| The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k
| |
| . Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.
| |
| C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.
| |
| The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.
| |
| Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M McGuire Nuclear Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Compute O ,Q ,M Define O O O O ; E E E
| |
| : 1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.
| |
| For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.
| |
| Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .
| |
| : 2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.
| |
| Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L
| |
| Calculate queue length, L Q LN
| |
| : 3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .
| |
| : 4. Then E E E ; t TI t
| |
| : 5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below
| |
| : 6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O
| |
| : 7. If M RCap , then t Cap
| |
| : 8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else McGuire Nuclear Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if
| |
| : 9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A
| |
| : 10. Else t 0 M M If M ,
| |
| O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if
| |
| : 11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,
| |
| where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.
| |
| If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then
| |
| : 12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .
| |
| End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| : 13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,
| |
| where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .
| |
| E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.
| |
| Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, Q v Q M E Cap can be extended to Q by L3 traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .
| |
| When t 0 and Q Cap:
| |
| L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .
| |
| LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:
| |
| L t such that 0 t TI t E L v
| |
| TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .
| |
| t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI McGuire Nuclear Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.
| |
| C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.
| |
| C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.
| |
| The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.
| |
| Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.
| |
| With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.
| |
| The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.
| |
| Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.
| |
| C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)
| |
| The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.
| |
| Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.
| |
| As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.
| |
| Additional details are presented in Appendix B.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours: minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)
| |
| Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network McGuire Nuclear Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)
| |
| Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)
| |
| Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)
| |
| GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)
| |
| Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)
| |
| Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)
| |
| DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.
| |
| DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)
| |
| Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links McGuire Nuclear Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.
| |
| The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E
| |
| time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.
| |
| The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.
| |
| h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.
| |
| k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.
| |
| The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k
| |
| link.
| |
| L The length of the link in feet.
| |
| The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.
| |
| The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.
| |
| L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.
| |
| M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.
| |
| The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.
| |
| The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O
| |
| link over a time interval.
| |
| The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.
| |
| The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P
| |
| executes a particular turn movement, x.
| |
| The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q
| |
| [beginning, end] of the time interval.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of Q
| |
| link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.
| |
| R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .
| |
| RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.
| |
| S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.
| |
| TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.
| |
| v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.
| |
| v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.
| |
| W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network McGuire Nuclear Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v
| |
| v L
| |
| Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 McGuire Nuclear Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A
| |
| Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B
| |
| Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:
| |
| Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?
| |
| Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?
| |
| Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :
| |
| No A Last Time - step ?
| |
| Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure
| |
| | |
| D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.
| |
| Step 1 The first activity was to verify Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a Geographic Information System (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and Zone boundaries.
| |
| Step 2 The 2020 Census block population information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based on the 2018 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) data from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of North Carolina2. Transient, school, medical, and other types of special facility data were obtained from the counties within EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics website3, the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education4, the Health Resources and Services Administration5, the NC Department of Health and Human Services6 and the old data from the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery for where data was missing.
| |
| Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials and onsite and offsite Duke Energy personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.
| |
| 1 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
| |
| 2 https://www.nccommerce.com/data-tools-reports/labor-market-data-tools/employment-projections 3
| |
| https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 4
| |
| https://ncchildcaresearch.dhhs.state.nc.us/search.asp 5
| |
| https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/
| |
| 6 https://info.ncdhhs.gov/dhsr/data/ahlist.pdf McGuire Nuclear Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.
| |
| Step 5 An online demographic survey of the households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.
| |
| Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was updated using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3 and Appendix K) developed by KLD. Once the updated geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other link specific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.
| |
| Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 19 Zones. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Zones) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.
| |
| The need for evacuation can occur over a range of seasonal and weatherrelated conditions.
| |
| Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.
| |
| Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II system, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II Model was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.
| |
| The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.
| |
| Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software see Section 1.3) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.
| |
| Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:
| |
| The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.
| |
| This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.
| |
| Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and McGuire Nuclear Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.
| |
| Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.
| |
| Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II Model is again executed.
| |
| Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis.
| |
| Fixed routing for transit buses, school buses, ambulances, vans, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds, over time, for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.
| |
| Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.
| |
| Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II Model to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures are used to assure the results are consistent, dynamic routing is reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks are addressed properly.
| |
| Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, medical facilities, and other special facilities.
| |
| Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable. Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.
| |
| A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B
| |
| Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities McGuire Nuclear Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX E Facility Data
| |
| | |
| E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of December 2021, for special facilities that are located within the MNS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, commuter colleges, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for campgrounds, historical sites, parks, golf courses, marinas, other recreational facilities, and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, commuter college, preschool/childcare center, medical facility, major employer, campground, historical site, park, golf course, marina, other recreational facility, lodging facility and correctional facility are also provided.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E1. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment GASTON COUNTY, NC R 5.6 SSW Mountain Island Charter School 13440 Lucia Riverbend Hwy Mount Holly 1,600 S 7.7 SSW Pinewood Elementary School 1925 N Main St Mount Holly 503 S 9.5 WSW Kiser Elementary School 311 East College St Stanley 368 S 9.6 WSW Judah Christian Academy 299 S Peterson St Stanley 100 S 9.6 WSW Stanley Christian Academy 299 S Peterson St Stanley 40 S 10.0 WSW Stanley Middle School 317 Hovis Rd Stanley 683 S.R. 10.2 SSW Ida Rankin Elementary School1 301 W Central Ave Mount Holly 586 S.R. 10.2 SW Springfield Elementary School1 900 S Main St Stanley 365 1
| |
| S.R. 10.3 SSW Mount Holly Middle School 124 S Hawthorne St Mount Holly 675 Gaston County Subtotal: 4,920 IREDELL COUNTY, NC J 8.6 NE Woodlawn School 135 Woodlawn School Lp Mooresville 195 J 8.8 NNE Langtree Charter Academy 154 Foundation Ct Mooresville 1,645 J 9.2 NE Pine Lake Preparatory 104 Yellow Wood Cir Mooresville 1,871 J 9.6 NE Liberty Preparatory Christian Academy 229 Midway Lake Rd Mooresville 197 J 9.6 NE Coddle Creek Elementary School 484 Presbyterian Rd Mooresville 672 J 10.4 NNE Langtree Charter Academy Upper School 185 W Waterlynn Rd Mooresville 425 S.R. 9.5 N Woodland Heights Elementary School1 288 Forest Lake Blvd Mooresville 734 S.R. 10.5 NNE Lake Norman Elementary School1 255 Oak Tree Rd Mooresville 475 S.R. 11.0 NNE Brawley Middle School1 132 Swift Arrow Rd Mooresville 718 Iredell County Subtotal: 6,932 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC N 3.1 NW West Lake Preparatory Academy 537 N Business, NC16 Denver 186 N 4.4 WNW Catawba Springs Elementary School 206 N Little Egypt Rd Denver 554 N 4.9 NNW Starboard Christian Academy 2380 Lake Shore Rd S Denver 25 P 4.6 WNW East Lincoln High School 6471 N Carolina 73 Denver 917 P 4.6 NW Lincoln Charter School 7834 Galway Ln Denver 1,158 1
| |
| These schools are located in S.R. (Shadow Region). According to the Emergency Planning Information Summary, these schools will evacuate to relocation schools in the event of an emergency.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment P 5.3 NW St. James Elementary School 1774 Saint James Church Rd Denver 574 P 5.6 NNW Denver Christian Academy 2243 N Hwy 16 Denver 200 P 8.0 NNW Rock Springs Elementary School 3633 N Hwy 16 Denver 536 P 8.7 WNW East Lincoln Middle School 4137 N Carolina 73 Iron Station 700 Lincoln County Subtotal: 4,850 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC B 0.8 ESE Southlake Christian Academy 13820 Hagers Ferry Rd Huntersville 640 D 2.7 SSE Barnette Elementary School 13659 Beatties Ford Rd Huntersville 764 D 2.9 SSE Francis Bradley Middle School 13345 Beatties Ford Rd Huntersville 1,074 D 4.2 E Grand Oak Elementary 15410 Stumptown Rd Huntersville 574 D 4.5 ESE Torrence Creek Elementary School 14550 Ranson Rd Huntersville 772 D 4.5 SSE Hopewell High School 11530 Beatties Ford Rd Huntersville 1,713 D 4.6 E St. Mark's Catholic School 14750 Stumptown Rd Huntersville 710 E 6.6 SSE Trillium Springs Montessori 9213 Beatties Ford Rd Huntersville 185 E 6.6 SSE Long Creek Elementary School 9213A Beatties Ford Rd Huntersville 504 E 8.7 S Mountain Island Lake Academy 7905 Pleasant Grove Rd Charlotte 787 1015 Mount HollyHuntersville E 8.8 SSW River Oaks Academy Rd Charlotte 540 E 8.9 S Aristotle Preparatory Academy 8101 Fallsdale Dr Charlotte 115 E 8.9 S Coulwood Middle School 500 Kentberry Dr Charlotte 711 E 9.6 SSE Oakdale Elementary School 1825 Oakdale Rd Charlotte 597 E 9.8 S Paw Creek Elementary School 1300 Cathey Rd Charlotte 639 12340 Mt. HollyHuntersville F 6.1 ESE Phoenix Montessori Academy Rd Huntersville 124 F 6.7 ESE Central Piedmont Community CollegeMerancas Campus 11930 Verhoeff Dr Huntersville 654 F 7.0 ESE Lake Norman Charter Middle School 12435 S Old Statesville Rd Huntersville 800 F 7.4 ESE John M. Alexander Middle School 12201 Hambright Rd Huntersville 920 F 7.5 ESE Blythe Legette Elementary School 12202 Hambright Rd Huntersville 1,010 F 7.7 ESE North Mecklenburg High School 11201 Old Statesville Rd Huntersville 2,228 F 8.8 SSE Hornets Nest Elementary School 6700 Beatties Ford Rd Charlotte 623 F 9.1 ESE R. C. Smith Christian Academy 11901 Eastfield Rd Huntersville 16 F 9.2 SE Pioneer Springs Community School 9300 Bob Beatty Rd Charlotte 322 F 9.6 ESE Mallard Creek STEM Academy 9142 Browne Rd Charlotte 769 F 10.0 SE Croft Community School 4911 Hucks Rd Charlotte 520 McGuire Nuclear Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment G 4.8 ENE Grace Covenant Academy 17301 Statesville Rd Cornelius 167 G 5.0 ENE J.V. Washam Elementary School 9611 Westmoreland Rd Cornelius 1,119 G 5.3 E Christian Montessori School 14101 Stumptown Rd Huntersville 75 G 5.8 E Lake Norman Christian School 16301 Old Statesville Rd Huntersville 141 G 5.8 ESE Huntersville Elementary School 200 Gilead Rd Huntersville 794 G 6.0 E Lakeside Charter Academy 17609 Old Statesville Rd Cornelius 92 G 6.6 ENE Bailey Middle School 11900 Bailey Rd Cornelius 1,702 G 7.2 ENE William Amos Hough High School 12420 Bailey Rd Cornelius 2,544 H 5.8 NE Cornelius Elementary School 21126 Catawba Ave Cornelius 648 H 6.7 NE Davidson Green School 511 S Main St Davidson 39 H 6.8 ENE Davidson Elementary School 635 S St Davidson 690 H 6.9 NE Community School of Davidson 565 Griffith St Davidson 1,397 H 6.9 NE Davidson Day School 750 Jetton St Davidson 516 H 7.5 NE Davidson College 102 N Main St Davidson 1,837 S.R. 10.6 SSW Whitewater Middle School1 10201 Running Rapids Rd Charlotte 743 1
| |
| S.R. 10.6 SSW Whitewater Academy 11600 White Rapids Rd Charlotte 775 1
| |
| S.R. 11.1 ESE Highland Creek Elementary School 7242 Highland Creek Pkwy Charlotte 596 1
| |
| S.R. 11.2 ESE Ridge Road Middle School 7260 Highland Creek Pkwy Charlotte 1,281 S.R. 11.9 S Mountain Island Day School1 1209 Little Rock Rd Charlotte 233 N/A 19.5 SSE Alexander Graham Middle School2 1800 Runnymede Ln Charlotte 1,420 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 35,120 EPZ TOTAL: 51,822 2
| |
| Alexander Graham Middle School is located outside of the study area. According to the Mecklenburg County REP Plans, this school will be evacuated by county school buses.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment GASTON COUNTY, NC R 4.1 WSW Grace School 15448 Lucia Riverbend Hwy Stanley 100 S 9.4 SW First Presbyterian Church Child Development Center 512 Old Mt Holly Rd Stanley 72 S 9.8 SW Tiny Tot Child Development Center 580 NC27 Stanley 100 Gaston County Subtotal: 272 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC N 2.8 WNW The Learning Express 419 N Pilot Knob Rd Denver 52 N 4.0 NW Mini Academy Childcare Center 7982 Unity Church Rd Denver 85 N 4.4 WNW Catawba Springs Elementary YMCA Before/After Care 206 N Little Egypt Rd Denver 58 N 5.0 NNW Westport Baptist Preschool 2372 Lake Shore Rd S Denver 81 O 3.0 WNW Tutor Time 7486 Waterside Loop Rd Denver 96 O 3.2 WNW Chesterbrook Academy Preschool 7274 NC73 Denver 142 P 4.2 NW Our Gang Day Care Center 675 N Hwy 16 Denver 34 P 5.9 WNW Creative Learning Center 706 N Ingleside Farm Rd Iron Station 4 P 7.8 NNW Denver Baptist Preschool 6917 Forest Hills Dr Denver 135 S.R. 10.8 NNW Kids in Motion3 4737 Commons Dr Denver 90 Lincoln County Subtotal: 777 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC A 3.4 ENE Cadence Academy Preschool 16420 Sedgebrook Ln Huntersville 199 A 4.5 NE The Goddard School of Cornelius 19640 Jetton Rd Cornelius 172 A 4.7 NE Goddard School 18110 Manhatten Pkwy Cornelius 276 D 4.2 E University Child Development Center 16701 Northcross Dr Huntersville 199 D 5.1 ESE Sunshine House 14420 Reese Blvd W Huntersville 165 E 8.8 S Busy Bee Childcare 1703 Silverberry Ct Charlotte 8 F 6.3 ESE Statesville KinderCare 12700 Statesville Rd Huntersville 199 G 4.8 E KidTime Drop Childcare 9715 Sam Furr Rd D Huntersville 30 G 4.8 E Kids 'R' Kids Academy of Lake Norman 9620 Northcross Center Ct Huntersville 199 G 4.9 ENE Cornelius KinderCare 9340 Washam Potts Rd Cornelius 125 G 6.8 E City Kidz Child Development Center 1994 University City Church Dr Huntersville 62 3
| |
| Kids in Motion is located in the Shadow Region but near the 10-mile EPZ boundary. As per the Lincoln County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, this facility will evacuate to reception center in the event of an emergency.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment H 6.9 NE DavidsonCornelius Child Development Center 242 Gamble St Davidson 69 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 1,703 EPZ TOTAL: 2,752 McGuire Nuclear Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients GASTON COUNTY, NC S 9.5 SW Stanley Total Living Center 514 Old Mount Holly Rd Stanley 174 149 103 28 18 S 9.5 SSW Woodlawn Haven Rest Home 301 Craig St Mount Holly 51 41 21 19 1 S 10.0 SSW CaroMont Regional Medical Center 451 E Charlotte Ave Mount Holly 32 24 17 5 2 Gaston County Subtotal: 257 214 141 52 21 IREDELL COUNTY, NC J 9.6 NE Lake Norman Regional Medical Center 171 Fairview Rd Mooresville 123 39 21 14 4 Iredell County Subtotal: 123 39 21 14 4 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC P 4.9 NW Lakewood Care Center 7981 Optimist Club Rd Denver 60 56 40 15 1 P 8.7 NW Wexford House 3900 Wexford Ln Denver 80 54 39 11 4 Lincoln County Subtotal: 140 110 79 26 5 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC D 4.6 ESE Ranson Ridge Assisted Living & Memory Care 13910 Hunton Ln Huntersville 100 74 54 14 6 D 4.7 ESE Olde Knox CommonsThe Villages 13825 Hunton Ln Huntersville 114 102 70 19 13 F 5.1 ESE Huntersville Health & Rehabilitation Center 13835 Boren St Huntersville 90 67 48 13 6 F 5.2 ESE Novant Health Huntersville Medical Center 10030 Gilead Rd Huntersville 50 43 31 8 4 F 6.6 ESE Huntersville Oaks 12019 Verhoeff Dr Huntersville 270 165 114 31 20 F 8.3 SE Northlake House 9108 Reames Rd Charlotte 48 32 28 1 3 G 4.6 E CMC Huntersville4 16455 Statesville Rd Huntersville 0 0 0 0 0 G 6.2 ENE Autumn Care of Cornelius 19530 Mt. Zion Ave Cornelius 102 76 55 15 6 G 6.4 ESE Hunter Village 111 S Church St Huntersville 68 68 68 0 0 G 7.0 ENE The Pines at Davidson 400 Avinger Ln Davidson 85 81 64 17 0 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 927 708 532 118 58 EPZ TOTAL: 1,447 1,071 773 210 88 4
| |
| As per Mecklenburg County, CMC Huntersville is an outpatient only facility. Therefore, no vans or buses are needed for this facility.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ
| |
| % Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Street Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Address Municipality (Max Shift) into EPZ into EPZ into EPZ IREDELL COUNTY, NC Various locations throughout the EPZ 5,981 75.6% 4,521 4,147 Iredell County Subtotal: 5,981 4,521 4,147 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC Various locations throughout the EPZ 1,975 75.6% 1,493 1,368 Lincoln County Subtotal: 1,975 1,493 1,368 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC Various locations throughout the EPZ 39,345 75.6% 29,747 27,290 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 39,345 29,747 27,290 EPZ TOTAL5: 47,301 35,761 32,805 5
| |
| The major employer locations identified by the Census Bureau are shown in Figure E-6. The locations are represented by circles which increase in size proportional to the number of employees commuting into the EPZ in each census block. Note, the data indicates there are no major employers in the Catawba County or Gaston County portion of the EPZ.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E5. Campgrounds, Historical Sites, Parks, and Other Recreational Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Facility Type Municipality Transients Vehicles GASTON COUNTY, NC S 9.4 WSW Harper Park 301 Blacksnake Rd Park Stanley 236 118 Gaston County Subtotal: 236 118 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC N 3.4 N Beatty's Ford Park 8335 Shipley Ln Park Denver 30 15 N 4.3 NW East Lincoln Park 8160 Optimist Club Rd Other, Not Listed Denver 60 30 P 4.6 NW Rescue Squad Park 7819 Galway Ln Park Denver 80 40 P 8.0 WNW Tuckers Grove Campground 4501 NC73 Campground Iron Station 125 70 P 8.1 NNW Rock Springs Nature Preserve 6684 Pine Ridge Park Denver 30 15 Q 6.1 W East Lincoln Motor Speedway 1873 Mariposa Rd Other, Not Listed Stanley 1,000 385 Lincoln County Subtotal: 1,325 582 MECKLENBURG, NC Historic Rural Hill Farm Center of D 3.3 S Scottish Herita 4431 Neck Rd Historical Site Huntersville 150 50 D 3.9 ESE Hugh Torrance House & Store 8231 Gilead Rd Historical Site Huntersville 30 12 D 5.4 SSE Hopewell Presbyterian Church 10500 Beatties Ford Rd Historical Site Huntersville 300 200 D 5.5 S Latta Plantation 5225 Sample Rd Historical Site Huntersville 1,000 500 E 6.0 SSE Carolina Raptor Center 6000 Sample Rd Other, Not Listed Huntersville 450 150 H 7.2 NE Ghost Walk of Davidson NC 104 S Main St Other, Not Listed Davidson 93 36 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 2,023 948 EPZ TOTAL: 3,584 1,621 McGuire Nuclear Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E6. Golf Courses within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles IREDELL COUNTY, NC I 7.0 NNE Trump National Golf Club 120 Trump Sq. Mooresville 300 100 Iredell County Subtotal: 300 100 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC L 1.4 NW Cowan's Ford Golf Club 761 Club Dr Stanley 13 10 N 5.4 NNW Westport Golf Course 7494 Golf Course Dr S Denver 12 12 P 6.3 NW Verdict Ridge Golf & Country Club 7332 Kidville Rd Denver 50 25 Lincoln County Subtotal: 75 47 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC A 2.8 NE The Peninsula Club 19101 Peninsula Club Dr Cornelius 10 7 D 3.8 E Birkdale Golf Club 16500 Birkdale Commons Pkwy Huntersville 8 5 E 7.7 SSE Oak Hills Golf Course 4008 Oakdale Rd Charlotte 5 3 E 9.3 SSE Sunset Hills Golf Course 800 Radio Rd Charlotte 3 2 E 9.4 S Pine Island Country Club 1701 Stoneyridge Dr Charlotte 14 13 F 10.4 E Skybrook Golf Course 14720 Northgreen Dr Huntersville 8 4 G 7.0 E Northstone Country Club 15801 Northstone Dr Huntersville 12 9 G 8.6 ENE River Run Country Club 19125 River Falls Dr Davidson 4 2 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 64 45 EPZ TOTAL: 439 192 McGuire Nuclear Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E7. Marinas within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CATAWBA COUNTY, NC K 9.7 NNW Boat Rack Marina 7865 Spinnaker Bay Dr Sherrills Ford 83 32 Catawba County Subtotal: 83 32 IREDELL COUNTY, NC I 6.1 NNE Lake Norman Yacht Club 297 Yacht Rd Mooresville 22 4 I 8.2 NNE Stutts Marina 571 Stutts Rd Mooresville 13 5 I 8.6 NNE Inland Sea Marina 114 Bowfir Cir Mooresville 25 17 J 6.7 NNE All Seasons Marina 827 Langtree Rd Mooresville 35 12 Iredell County Subtotal: 95 38 LINCOLN COUNTY, NC N 2.5 NNW Lake Norman Sailing Club 1887 Yacht Club Dr Denver 13 5 N 2.8 NW Westport Marina 7879 Water Oaks Dr Denver 26 10 N 3.4 N Beatty's Ford Access NC16 Denver 83 32 P 7.5 NNW Little Creek Access Area 4906 Burton Ln Catawba Springs 57 22 Lincoln County Subtotal: 179 69 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC A 2.5 NNE Peninsula Yacht Club 18501 Harbor Light Blvd Cornelius 243 94 A 3.6 ENE Safe Harbor Kings Point 18020 Kings Point Dr Cornelius 140 54 A 5.0 NE Holiday Marina 20139 Henderson Rd Cornelius 19 7 A 6.2 NE Crown Harbor Dryboat 21660 Crown Lake Dr Cornelius 11 4 D 4.5 S Neck Road Access Area Duke Access Rd Huntersville 62 24 H 7.0 NE Spinnaker Point Bay Marina 860 Jetton St # 66 Davidson 60 23 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 535 206 EPZ TOTAL: 892 345 McGuire Nuclear Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CATAWBA COUNTY, NC K 9.7 NNW Lake Norman Motel 4491 Slanting Bridge Rd Sherrills Ford 28 14 Catawba County Subtotal: 28 14 IREDELL COUNTY, NC J 8.1 NE Aloft Mooresville 109 Alcove Rd Mooresville 128 60 J 8.1 NE Tru by Hilton Mooresville 117 Alcove Rd Mooresville 120 60 J 9.9 NNE SpringHill Suites Charlotte Lake Norman/Mooresville 121 Gateway Blvd Mooresville 120 107 J 9.9 NE Home2 Suites by Hilton Charlotte Mooresville 209 Medical Park Rd Mooresville 286 110 J 9.9 NNE TownPlace Suites CharlotteMooresville 139 Gateway Blvd Mooresville 45 30 J 10.0 NNE Hilton Garden Inn CharlotteMooresville 159 Gateway Blvd Mooresville 75 61 J 10.1 NNE Candlewood Suites MooresvilleLake Norman 3247 Charlotte Hwy Mooresville 50 34 Iredell County Subtotal: 824 462 MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC A 3.4 ENE Residence Inn Charlotte Lake Norman 16830 Kenton Dr Huntersville 312 156 A 5.1 NE Comfort Inn & Suites 19521 Liverpool Pkwy Cornelius 224 56 A 5.2 NE Clarion Inn & Suites 19608 Liverpool Pkwy Cornelius 176 44 A 5.4 NE Microtel Inn Lake Norman Cornelius 20820 Torrence Chapel Rd Cornelius 120 60 A 5.5 NE Econo Lodge & Suites Lake Norman 20740 Torrence Chapel Rd Cornelius 223 75 D 4.3 E Candlewood Suites HuntersvilleLake Norman 16530 Northcross Dr Huntersville 74 74 D 4.3 E Courtyard Charlotte Lake Norman 16700 Northcross Dr Huntersville 301 76 D 4.3 E Huntersville Inn & Suites Lake Norman 16508 Northcross Dr Huntersville 140 70 F 5.5 ESE Super 8 by Wyndham Huntersville/ Charlotte Area 14135 Statesville Rd Huntersville 90 30 F 5.7 ESE Best Western Plus Huntersville Inn & Suites 13830 Statesville Rd Huntersville 214 54 F 8.0 SE Drury Inn & Suites Northlake Charlotte 6920 Northlake Mall Dr Charlotte 451 151 F 8.1 SE Home2 Suites by Hilton Charlotte Northlake 7227 Smith Corners Blvd Charlotte 312 120 F 8.2 SE Comfort Suites Northlake 7315 Smith Corners Blvd Charlotte 198 99 F 8.3 SE Fairfield Inn Charlotte Northlake 9230 Harris Corners Pkwy Charlotte 158 79 F 8.4 SE Hilton Garden Inn Charlotte North 9315 Statesville Rd Charlotte 428 107 F 9.1 SE Suburban Extended Stay Hotel 8615 Hankins Rd Charlotte 303 101 G 4.6 E Country Inn & Suites by Radisson Lake Norman 16617 Statesville Rd Huntersville 183 61 G 4.6 E Holiday Inn Express & Suites Huntersville 16905 Caldwell Creek Rd Huntersville 364 182 G 4.7 E Quality Inn 16825 Caldwell Creek Dr Huntersville 166 56 McGuire Nuclear Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles G 5.4 ESE Comfort Suites Lake Norman 14510 Boulder Park Dr Huntersville 108 54 G 5.4 ESE Hampton Inn & Suites 10305 Wilmington St Huntersville 313 105 H 6.8 NE Homewood Suites by Hilton Davidson 125 Harbour Place Dr Davidson 327 109 H 7.3 NE Davidson Village Inn 117 Depot St Davidson 32 16 Mecklenburg County Subtotal: 5,217 1,935 EPZ TOTAL: 6,069 2,411 Table E9. Correctional Facility within the EPZ Distance Dire Cap Current Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census MECKLENBURG, NC F 10.0 SE Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office Jail North 5235 Spector Dr Charlotte 721 500 Mecklenburg Subtotal: 721 500 EPZ TOTAL: 721 500 McGuire Nuclear Station E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E1. Overview of the Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area McGuire Nuclear Station E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E2. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area North McGuire Nuclear Station E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E3. Schools and Commuter Colleges within the Study Area South McGuire Nuclear Station E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E4. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E7. Campgrounds, Historical Sites, Parks and Other Recreational Facilities within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E8. Golf Courses within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E9. Marinas within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E10. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure E11. Correctional Facility within the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station E24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX F Demographic Survey
| |
| | |
| F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the MNS EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data; however, the use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.
| |
| These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?)
| |
| F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.
| |
| Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in 2021 prior to the release of the 2020 Census data, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.
| |
| The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional percentage of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. A sample size of approximately 268 completed household survey forms was obtained, and yields results with a sampling error of +/-5.98% at the 95% confidence level for the number of households in the EPZ according to the 2020 Census. The number of samples obtained from each zip code is also shown in Table F1.
| |
| F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre McGuire Nuclear Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.
| |
| A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the decline to state responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.
| |
| F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. The average household contains 2.43 people. The estimated household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.60 people (261,873 ÷ 100,714). The difference between the Census data and survey data is 6.54%, which exceeds the sampling error of 5.98%. This discrepancy was discussed with Duke Energy and it was decided that the Census estimate of 2.60 people per household should be used for this study. A sensitivity study is included in Appendix M to determine the impact to ETE on the estimated number of people per household.
| |
| Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.03. It should be noted that less than one percent of households do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.
| |
| Ridesharing Approximately 72 percent of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.
| |
| Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 0.61 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and about 43 percent of households have at least one commuter.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters (87%) use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.09 commuters per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.
| |
| Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 47 percent of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.
| |
| Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The data shows that approximately 3 percent of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 38.5 percent require a bus, 15 percent require a medical bus/van, 38.5 percent require a wheelchair accessible van, and 8 percent require an ambulance.
| |
| F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:
| |
| How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.31 vehicles.
| |
| Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?
| |
| Of the survey participants who responded, nearly 51 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 49 percent indicated they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating or did not have family members (about 33 percent said they would evacuate independently and meet other household members, and about 16 percent indicated that they would evacuate independently because they are the only household member), as shown in Figure F11.
| |
| If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses to the survey, about 62 percent of households have a family animals or farm animals. Of the households with pets, about 24 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, nearly 75 percent indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else, and only about 1 percent would leave their pet at home. The response is shown in Figure F12. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, 98 percent indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pets/animals. Of the households who have large farm animal(s), 80 percent of them have a covered area to protect livestock and stored food on hand to feed them for 72 hours.
| |
| What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, nearly 92 percent of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, or fish), about 5 McGuire Nuclear Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| percent of households have service animals (horse or dog), and about 3 percent have livestock (horse, honeybees, or poultry). The response is shown in Figure F13.
| |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that nearly 82 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 18 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Revision 1. Thus, the data obtained above is in good agreement with the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.
| |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that about 64 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 36 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.
| |
| Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Approximately 46 percent of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, about 6 percent to a reception center, about 20 percent to a hotel, motel or campground, 9 percent to a second or seasonal home, and the remaining 19 percent responded other/dont know to this question. The response is shown in Figure F14.
| |
| F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.
| |
| The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.
| |
| As discussed in Section F.3.1 and shown in Figure F8, the COVID19 pandemic impacted about 47 percent of the commuters in the MNS EPZ. To minimize uncertainty in the commuting patterns obtained and resulting estimated trip generation times, data from the previous survey were compared to the results of this survey for the distributions involving commuters (time to prepare to leave work/college and time to travel home from work/college). For this reason, both the results of this survey, and the results of the previous survey for these questions are discussed herein. Due to the similar patterns between the two survey results and the close endpoints to the graphs (within 30 minutes), the results from this survey (labeled as 2021 in the graphs) are deemed acceptable for use in this study.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work/college?
| |
| Figure F15 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 75 minutes. Approximately 90 percent can leave within 40 minutes. In the previous study, the activity was completed by 90 minutes and 90 percent could leave within 35 minutes.
| |
| How long would it take the commuter to travel home ? Figure F16 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 91 percent (94.5% in the previous study) of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 60 minutes (90 minutes in the previous study). In comparison, the 2021 distribution curve is shifted to the right resulting in a more conservative estimate for the time needed to travel home. In the previous study, the distribution curve has a long tail for the last 1% of the commuters which could be indicative of a larger variance in the data.
| |
| How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F17 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities. About 91 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 2 hours and 15 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 2 hours.
| |
| How much time, on average, would it take you to clear the snow/ice accumulation to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip assuming the roads are passable? Figure F18 presents the time required to clear snow/ice and begin the evacuation trip. Snow/ice in this area is not common and residents are not used to clearing snow/ice from their driveways so responses to this question varies significantly.
| |
| Approximately 93 percent of households can have their car cleared and the driveway passable within 1 hour and 15 minutes; the remaining households would require up to an additional hour to begin their evacuation trip, as shown in Figure F18. As shown in the graph, just over 8% of households would not shovel and would just begin their evacuation trip.
| |
| F.3.4 Emergency Communications At your place of residence, how reliable is your cell phone signal? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the ability to be notified in case of an evacuation. Approximately 88 percent of households indicated that they have very reliable signal to receive texts and phone calls, 7 percent indicated that their signal is reliable for text messages only, and remaining 5 percent indicated that they either do not always receive cell communications at their residence or do not have cell service at their residence, as shown in Figure F19.
| |
| Emergency management officials in your state may send text messages, similar to AMBER Alerts, with emergency directions for the public during a radiological emergency at the McGuire Nuclear Station. How likely would you be to take action on these directions, if you received the message? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the likelihood of an individual to take action based on emergency management officials guidelines. About 84 percent of households indicated that they are highly likely to take action on these directions, McGuire Nuclear Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| about 13 percent indicated likely, 2 percent indicated neither likely nor unlikely (neutral), and about 1 percent indicated unlikely or highly unlikely to take action on emergency management officials directions, as shown in Figure F20.
| |
| Which of the following emergency communication methods do you think is most likely to alert you at your residence? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the most efficient way to alert residents within the EPZ. Approximately 77 percent of households indicated that a text message from emergency officials would be most likely to alert them at their residence, about 14 percent indicated that a siren sounding near their home would be the most likely method, about 6 percent indicated an alert broadcast on the TV/Radio, and 3 percent indicated that a phone call/text message from a family member, friend or neighbor would be the most likely way to alert them at their residence, as shown in Figure F21.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table F1. McGuire Demographic Survey Sampling Plan EPZ EPZ EPZ EPZ Desired Actual Zip Code Population Households Population Households Samples Sample (2010) (2010) (2020) (2020) 28006 919 378 951 372 2 0 28027 3 2 34 9 0 1 28031 24,390 10,463 30,273 12,991 63 131 28036 11,725 3,927 16,044 5,749 24 39 28037 16,997 6,726 23,109 9,035 41 6 28078 49,818 18,686 64,957 24,492 113 71 28080 3,384 1,213 3,911 1,427 7 0 28115 3,648 1,403 5,096 1,939 9 4 28117 12,561 4,536 15,036 5,857 28 3 28120 10,008 3,795 12,356 4,730 23 3 28164 10,832 4,182 12,427 5,170 25 4 28214 18,534 6,714 22,140 7,890 41 2 28216 29,364 11,109 38,605 15,378 67 0 28269 11,967 4,056 15,743 5,120 25 2 28673 1,027 465 1,110 519 3 2 28682 81 38 81 36 1 0 EPZ Total 205,258 77,693 261,873 100,714 472 268 McGuire Nuclear Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Household Size 60%
| |
| 51.68%
| |
| 50%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 20% 17.23%
| |
| 13.86%
| |
| 10.86%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 4.87%
| |
| 1.50%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6+
| |
| People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Vehicle Availability 60%
| |
| 54.85%
| |
| 50%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 24.63%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 14.18%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 4.48%
| |
| 0.37% 1.49%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability McGuire Nuclear Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 59+ Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households McGuire Nuclear Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 60%
| |
| 50%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3+
| |
| Commuters Figure F6. Commuters per Households in the EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Travel Mode to Work 100%
| |
| 87.25%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 8.73%
| |
| 2.01% 2.01%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)
| |
| Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Covid19 Impact to Commuters 60%
| |
| 50%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4+
| |
| Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic McGuire Nuclear Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Functional or Transportation Needs 40%
| |
| Percent of Households with 30%
| |
| Functional/Transportation Needs 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Ambulance Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 80%
| |
| 71.27%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 25.75%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 2.61%
| |
| 0.37%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation McGuire Nuclear Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Await Returning Commuter 60%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Yes, would await return No, would evacuate No, would evacuate (only member)
| |
| Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80% 75.15%
| |
| 60%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 24.24%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0.61%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F12. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals McGuire Nuclear Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Type of Pets/Animals 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| POULTRY HONEYBEES 60% HORSE DOG HAMSTER OR RABBIT REPTILE 40% FISH Percent of Households BIRD CAT DOG 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Household Pets Service Animals Livestock Figure F13. Type of Pets/Animals McGuire Nuclear Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Destinations 50%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Preparation Time (min) 2012 2021 Figure F15. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College McGuire Nuclear Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Travel Time (min) 2021 2012 Figure F16. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Preparation Time (min)
| |
| Figure F17. Preparation Time to Leave Home McGuire Nuclear Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Time to Remove Snow/Ice from Driveway 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (min)
| |
| Figure F18. Time to Remove Snow/Ice from Driveway Cell Phone Signal Reliability 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Reliable (text and call) Reliable (text only) Unreliable Figure F19. Cell Phone Signal Reliability (for Phone Call and/or Text Message)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Resident's Compliance to Given Instruction 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| Percent of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Highly Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Figure F20. Resident's Compliance to Given Instruction (by Emergency Management Officials)
| |
| Perception of Public Alert Method 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| Percent of Households 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Siren Emergency Alert Text TV/Radio Phone Call/Text Message Message from Friend/Family Figure F21. Perception of Public Alert Method McGuire Nuclear Station F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument McGuire Nuclear Station F19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| McGuire Nuclear Station Demographic Survey
| |
| * Required Purpose The purpose of this survey is to identify local behavior during emergency situations. The information gathered in this survey will be shared with local emergency planners to enhance emergency response plans in your area. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness. . ( ) . Please do not provide your name or any personal information, and the survey will take less than 5 minutes to complete.
| |
| : 1. 1. What is your gender?
| |
| The purpose of this question is to crosscheck the validity of the survey responses against the 2020 U.S. Census.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| Male Female Decline to State Other:
| |
| : 2. 2. What is your age?
| |
| (for verification purposes only)
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 18-35 36-55 56-75 Over 75 Decline to State Other:
| |
| : 3. 3. What is your home zip code? *
| |
| : 4. 4A. In total, how many running cars, or other vehicles are usually available to the household?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE OR MORE ZERO (NONE)
| |
| DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 5. 4B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| YES NO DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 6. 5. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE OR MORE ZERO (NONE)
| |
| I WOULD EVACUATE BY BICYCLE I WOULD EVACUATE BY BUS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 7. 6. How many people usually live in this household?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN FOURTEEN FIFTEEN SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 8 COVID-19
| |
| : 8. 7. How many people in your household have a work and/or school commute that has been temporarily impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| ZERO ONE TWO THREE FOUR OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 9 Commuters
| |
| : 9. 8. How many people in the household commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis?
| |
| * Mark only one oval.
| |
| ZERO Skip to question 54 ONE Skip to question 10 TWO Skip to question 11 THREE Skip to question 12 FOUR OR MORE Skip to question 13 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 54 Mode of Travel
| |
| : 10. 9. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval per row.
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Skip to question 14 Mode of Travel
| |
| : 11. 9. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval per row.
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Skip to question 16 Mode of Travel
| |
| : 12. 9. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval per row.
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Skip to question 20 Mode of Travel
| |
| : 13. 9. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval per row.
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Commuter 4 Skip to question 26 Travel Home From Work/College
| |
| : 14. 10-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 15. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 34 Travel Home From Work/College
| |
| : 16. 10-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 17. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 18. 10-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 19. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 36 Travel Home From Work/College
| |
| : 20. 10-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 21. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 22. 10-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 23. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 24. 10-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 25. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 40 Travel Home From Work/College
| |
| : 26. 10-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 27. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 28. 10-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 29. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 30. 10-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 31. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 32. 10-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 33. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-4, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 46 Preparation to leave Work/College
| |
| : 34. 11-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 35. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 54 Preparation to leave Work/College
| |
| : 36. 11-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 37. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 38. 11-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 39. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 54 Preparation to leave Work/College
| |
| : 40. 11-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 41. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 42. 11-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 43. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 44. 11-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 45. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-3, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 54 Preparation to leave Work/College
| |
| : 46. 11-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 47. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-1, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 48. 11-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 49. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-2, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 50. 11-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 51. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-3, is under 2 hours.
| |
| : 52. 11-4. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| 5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 53. If Over 2 Hours for Question 11-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11-4, is under 2 hours.
| |
| Skip to question 54 Additional Questions
| |
| : 54. 12. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 15-30 MINUTES 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS OVER 6 HOURS WILL NOT EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 55. If Over 6 Hours for Question 12, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 12, is under 6 hours.
| |
| : 56. 13. If theres a significant accumulation of snow or ice in your driveway or curb, would you need to clear it to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take to clear the snow/ice accumulation to move the car from your driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 15-30 MINUTES 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT OVER 3 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 57. If Over 3 Hours for Question 13, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 13, is under 3 hours.
| |
| : 58. 14. Please specify the number of people in your household who require Functional or Transportation needs in an evacuation:
| |
| Mark only one oval per row.
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 More than 4 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Other
| |
| : 59. Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below
| |
| : 60. 15. Please choose one of the following:
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| I would await the return of household members to evacuate together.
| |
| I would evacuate independently and meet other household members later.
| |
| I would evacuate independently because I am the only household member.
| |
| Decline to State
| |
| : 61. 16A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you:
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 62. 16B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 63. 16C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| A RELATIVES OR FRIENDS HOME A RECEPTION CENTER (A PLACE TO BE MONITORED FOR CONTAMINATION)
| |
| A HOTEL, MOTEL OR CAMPGROUND A SECOND/SEASONAL HOME WOULD NOT EVACUATE DON'T KNOW OTHER (Specify Below)
| |
| DECLINE TO STATE
| |
| : 64. Fill in OTHER answers for question 16C Pet Questions
| |
| : 65. 17A. Do you have any animal(s)/service animal(s)?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| YES NO Skip to question 73 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 73 Skip to question 73 Pet Questions
| |
| : 66. 17B. What type of pet(s) do you have?
| |
| Check all that apply.
| |
| DOG CAT BIRD FISH REPTILE OTHER SMALL PETS/ANIMALS (SPECIFY BELOW)
| |
| I DO NOT HAVE ANY PETS Other:
| |
| : 67. 17B. What type of service animal(s) do you have?
| |
| Check all that apply.
| |
| DOG MINIATURE HORSE I DO NOT HAVE ANY SERVICE ANIMALS Other:
| |
| : 68. 17B. What type of livestock do you have?
| |
| Check all that apply.
| |
| CATTLE HORSE POULTRY SWINE SMALL RUMINANTS (SHEEP, GOATS)
| |
| I DO NOT HAVE ANY LIVESTOCK Other:
| |
| 69.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions
| |
| : 70. 17C. What would you do with your pet(s) if you had to evacuate?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE LEAVE PET AT HOME DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions
| |
| : 71. 17D. Do you have sufficient room in your vehicle(s) to evacuate with your pet(s) and/or service animal(s)?
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| YES NO DECLINE TO STATE Other:
| |
| | |
| 72.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| YES NO DECLINE TO STATE I DO NOT HAVE LIVESTOCK Other:
| |
| 73.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| VERY RELIABLE TO RECEIVE TEXTS AND PHONE CALLS RELIABLE FOR TEXT MESSAGES ONLY I DO NOT ALWAYS RECEIVE CELL COMMUNICATIONS AT MY RESIDENCE I DO NOT HAVE CELL SERVICE AT MY RESIDENCE 74.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| HIGHLY LIKELY LIKELY NEITHER LIKELY NOR UNLIKELY UNLIKELY HIGHLY UNLIKELY 75.
| |
| Mark only one oval.
| |
| A SIREN SOUNDING NEAR YOUR HOME A TEXT MESSAGE FROM EMERGENCY OFFICIALS ALERT BROADCAST ON RADIO ALERT BROADCAST ON TV INFORMATION ON TWITTER OR FACEBOOK PHONE CALL/TEXT MESSAGE FROM FAMILY, FRIEND, OR NEIGHBOR OTHER 76.
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan
| |
| | |
| G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Security Road Blocks (SRBs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the EPZ were provided by the OROs within the EPZ. These plans were reviewed, and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.
| |
| G.1 Manual Traffic Control TCPs and SRBs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point (or SRB), the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone. Table K1 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP/SRB, the control type is indicated as TCP/SRB in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the TMP, are mapped as blue (TCP) dots and yellow (SRB) squares in Figure G1.
| |
| It is assumed that the TCPs and SRBs along Interstate 77 (I77), I485 and I85 will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ.
| |
| G.2 Analysis of Key TCP /SRB Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. In addition, modifications to the exiting TMP were analyzed to see if the ETE could be improved.
| |
| As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the traffic management plans. Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location.
| |
| Preliminary simulations were generated and analyzed. Based on the congestion patterns, several TCPs and SRBs were modified to allow movements that were not permitted based on the TMP. Table G2 summarizes the modifications that were made to the TMP including the node, TCP/SRB number from the plan, the intersection description, location (Zone and County)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| and a description of the modification that was made. These MTC locations are shown as red squares in Figure G1.
| |
| To determine the impact of the modifications listed in Table G2, a summer, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile, 5Mile and entire EPZ (Region R01, R02, R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were modeled with and without modification. The results are shown in Table G3. The ETE decreased by as much as 40 minutes and 1 hour at the 90th and 100th percentile, respectively. Although all of the modification contributed to less congestion and reduced ETE, some of the most impactful changes were at the interchanges with the various interstates. Permitting traffic to exit I77 (which very congested throughout the evacuation as seen in Figure 73 through 710) and utilize I85 and I 485 - essentially allowing the I77 off ramps to function as is - allows traffic to clear the EPZ more quickly.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table G1. List of Manual Traffic Control Locations at intersections without Actuated Signals TCP /SRB # 1 Node # Previous Control CB01 3394 Pretimed Signalized CB02 4737 Stop Sign CB03 708 Pretimed Signalized CB04 541 Pretimed Signalized CB06 543 Pretimed Signalized CT04 574 Stop Sign CT17 3777 Pretimed Signalized CT18 572 Pretimed Signalized CT19 1964 Pretimed Signalized CT20 3087 Pretimed Signalized CT24 3088 Pretimed Signalized
| |
| *L42 4760 Stop Sign MG01 1946 Pretimed Signalized MG02 600 Pretimed Signalized MG03 632 Stop Sign MG04 634 Stop Sign MG05 583 Pretimed Signalized MG06 628 Pretimed Signalized MG08 650 Pretimed Signalized MG12 653 Pretimed Signalized MG15 3045 Pretimed Signalized MG16 3044 Pretimed Signalized I02 519 Pretimed Signalized I03 520 Pretimed Signalized I04 521 Pretimed Signalized I07 3100 Pretimed Signalized I08 3109 Pretimed Signalized I09 644 Pretimed Signalized I15 560 Pretimed Signalized I18 3495 Pretimed Signalized I19 725 Pretimed Signalized I20 643 Pretimed Signalized I21 4725 Stop sign I22 3744 & 3752 Pretimed Signalized IS01 725 Pretimed Signalized IS03 3489 Pretimed Signalized IS04 3501 Pretimed Signalized IS08 522 Pretimed Signalized IS09 3513 Pretimed Signalized 1
| |
| All County - Standard Operating Guideline (SOG) for Traffic Control Point and Security Road Block Operations; January 2019.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| TCP /SRB # 1 Node # Previous Control IS10 3495 Pretimed Signalized L04 3285 Pretimed Signalized L06 1950 Pretimed Signalized L07 564 Pretimed Signalized L08 565 Pretimed Signalized L10 1915 Pretimed Signalized L11 491 Pretimed Signalized L12 3533 Stop Sign L13 601 Pretimed Signalized L14 1948 Stop Sign L17 4757 Stop Sign L21 493 Stop Sign L22 3556 Stop Sign L23 4740 Stop Sign L26 494 Stop sign L27 4750 Stop Sign L28 1924 Stop Sign L29 1909 Pretimed Signalized L30 1952 Stop Sign L31 3553 Stop Sign L33 3552 Stop Sign L34 3560 Stop Sign L36 1959 Pretimed Signalized L37 4760 Stop Sign L44 4744 Stop Sign L45 4743 Stop Sign L46 496 Pretimed Signalized L47 579 Pretimed Signalized LS01 1921 Stop Sign LS02 564 Pretimed Signalized LS04 1909 Pretimed Signalized LS06 494 Stop Sign LS07 4750 Stop Sign LS08 4760 Stop Sign LS09B 1966 Pretimed Signalized LS12 4744 Stop Sign M2 513 Pretimed Signalized M3 3242 Pretimed Signalized M4 537 Pretimed Signalized M4A 4255 Pretimed Signalized M4B 4256 Pretimed Signalized M5 706 Pretimed Signalized M6 686 Pretimed Signalized McGuire Nuclear Station G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| TCP /SRB # 1 Node # Previous Control M7 687 Pretimed Signalized M8 688 Pretimed Signalized M9 712 Pretimed Signalized M10 713 Pretimed Signalized M11 3611 Pretimed Signalized M12 3253 Stop Sign M13 3316 Pretimed Signalized M14 716 Pretimed Signalized M16 3685 Pretimed Signalized M17 3251 Pretimed Signalized M18 3194 Pretimed Signalized M19 3193 Pretimed Signalized M20 676 Pretimed Signalized M21 3196 Stop Sign M22 3574 Pretimed Signalized M24 758 Stop sign M25 538 Pretimed Signalized M26 669 Pretimed Signalized M28 692 Stop sign M29 673 Stop Sign M30 658 Pretimed Signalized M31 3171 Pretimed Signalized M32 3935 Pretimed Signalized M33 502 Pretimed Signalized M34 665 Stop sign M38 3405 Pretimed Signalized M39 514 Pretimed Signalized M40 4169 Pretimed Signalized M41 701 Stop sign M46 3590 Stop Sign M49 4197 Pretimed Signalized M53 3205 Stop Sign M54 3678 Stop Sign M56 4732 Stop Sign M60 3172 Pretimed Signalized M63 3167 Pretimed Signalized M64 603 Pretimed Signalized M65 1843 Pretimed Signalized M67 751 Pretimed Signalized M68 744 Pretimed Signalized M74 703 Pretimed Signalized M75 3082 Pretimed Signalized M77 743 Pretimed Signalized McGuire Nuclear Station G5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| TCP /SRB # 1 Node # Previous Control M79 742 Pretimed Signalized M81 500 Pretimed Signalized M85 540 Pretimed Signalized M86 581 Pretimed Signalized M87 659 Pretimed Signalized M88 3232 Pretimed Signalized M90 660 Pretimed Signalized M91 3211 Pretimed Signalized M103 718 Pretimed Signalized M105 719 Pretimed Signalized M106 3344 Pretimed Signalized M108 3692 Pretimed Signalized M109 4174 Pretimed Signalized M110 4178 Pretimed Signalized M112 4176 Pretimed Signalized M115 4040 Pretimed Signalized M116 4045 Pretimed Signalized M117 3375 Pretimed Signalized M119 4041 Pretimed Signalized M120 3677 Pretimed Signalized McGuire Nuclear Station G6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table G2. Proposed Modifications of Existing Traffic Control Points and/or Security Road Blocks Node # TCP/SRB1 ID No. Intersection Zone County Modification Poplar Tent Road and HuntersvilleConcord Outside Cabarrus Allow eastbound rightturn and southbound 708 CB03 Road (O/S) EPZ through movement.
| |
| NC73, Davidson Highway and Shiloh Church Cabarrus 541 CB04 O/S EPZ Allow eastbound rightturn movement.
| |
| Road NC 273, Lucia Riverbend Highway and Gaston 600 MG02 R Allow eastbound rightturn movement.
| |
| Highway 16 NC 273, Lucia Riverbend Highway and NC Gaston 632 MG03 R Allow eastbound left and right turn movement.
| |
| 1905, Stanley Lucia Road NC 273, Lucia Riverbend Hwy and NC 273, Gaston 634 MG04 R Allow northbound rightturn movement.
| |
| Mountain Island Highway NC 1922, Lucia Riverbend Highway and 583 MG05 R Gaston Allow eastbound movements.
| |
| Highway 16 SR 1102, Langtree Road and NC 115, Iredell 519 I02 J Allow northbound leftturn movement.
| |
| Mecklenburg Highway NC 115, Mecklenburg Highway and SR 1246, Iredell 521 I04 J Allow northbound leftturn movement.
| |
| Fairview Road (Steam Engine Drive)
| |
| Iredell Allowed northbound leftturn, southbound right NC 150, River Highway and SR 1109, 3100 I07 O/S EPZ turn, eastbound leftturn, and west bound through Williamson Road movements.
| |
| SR 1100, Brawley School Road and Morrison Iredell Allow northbound leftturn movement(from node 725 I19 O/S EPZ Plantation Parkway 3942 to 4625).
| |
| Morrison Plantation Parkway and NC 150, Iredell Allow westbound through, northbound leftturn, 643 I20 O/S EPZ River Road and southbound rightturn movements.
| |
| Coddle Creek Highway and SR 1142, Johnson Iredell 4725 I21 O/S EPZ Allow eastbound rightturn movement.
| |
| Dairy Road SR 1100, Brawley School Road and Morrison Iredell Allow northeast bound leftturn movement (from 725 IS01 O/S EPZ Plantation Parkway node 3942 to 4625).
| |
| NC 115, Mecklenburg Highway and SR 1135, Iredell 522 IS08 O/S EPZ Allow northbound left and through movements.
| |
| East Waterlynn Road NC 21, Charlotte Highway and SR 1135, West Iredell Allow northbound leftturn movement (from node 3513 IS09 O/S EPZ Waterlynn Road 5060 to node 3518).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station G7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Node # TCP/SRB1 ID No. Intersection Zone County Modification SR 1100, Brawley School Road and SR 1109, Allow eastbound leftturn movement (from node 3495 IS10 O/S EPZ Iredell Williamson Road 4623 to node 4622).
| |
| Lincoln Allow westbound through and left turn 1950 L06 Highway 16 Business & Unity Church Road P movements.
| |
| 3560 L34 Old Plank Road & Mt. Zion Church Road Q Lincoln Allow westbound left turn movement.
| |
| Allow westbound right turn and northbound 1959 L36 Highway 16 Business & Campground Road P Lincoln through movements.
| |
| Mecklenburg Don't allow eastbound through movement; force 513 M2 I77 and Catawba Avenue G traffic to I77 onramp (southbound).
| |
| Statesville Road (Hwy. 21) and Sam Furr Mecklenburg Allow westbound through, northbound left turn 537 M4 G Road (Hwy. 73) and southbound right turn movements.
| |
| Sam Furr Road (Hwy. 73) and Holly Point Mecklenburg 4255 M4A G Allow westbound through movement.
| |
| Drive Statesville Road (Hwy. 21) and Holly Point Mecklenburg 4256 M4B G Allow northbound through movement.
| |
| Drive Oakdale Road and Brookshire Blvd. (Hwy. Mecklenburg 3574 M22 E Allow westbound through movement.
| |
| 16)
| |
| Beatties Ford Road and Mt. Holly Mecklenburg Allow southbound right turn movement (from 658 M30 E Huntersville Road node 4845 to node 3894).
| |
| Catawba Avenue and Main Street (Old Mecklenburg Allow southbound through, westbound through, 514 M39 H Statesville Road) and northbound left turn movements.
| |
| Statesville Road (Hwy. 21) and Stumptown Mecklenburg 4169 M40 G Allow northbound through movement.
| |
| Road Mecklenburg Allow eastbound through and westbound through 4197 M49 Eastfield Road and Highland Creek Parkway F movements.
| |
| I485 and Mt. Holly Road (N. Hwy. 27 Mecklenburg 3167 M63 E Allow eastbound movements.
| |
| W.)(Inner Loop)
| |
| I485 and Mt. Holly Road (N. Hwy. 27 Mecklenburg 603 M64 E Allow southbound leftturn movement.
| |
| W.)(Outer Loop)
| |
| I485 and W.T. Harris Blvd. (Hwy. 24)(South Allow northwest bound through movement (from 751 M67 F Mecklenburg Side of I485) node 4917 to node 744).
| |
| Old Statesville Road, I485 Inner Loop On Allow eastbound left turn and westbound right 3082 M75 F Mecklenburg Ramp, & Vance Davis Dr. turn movement to I485 (EB) onramp.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station G8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Node # TCP/SRB1 ID No. Intersection Zone County Modification I77 and West. W.T. Harris Blvd. (Hwy. 24) (I 742 M79 77 South OnRamp from West W.T. Harris F Mecklenburg Allow westbound through movement.
| |
| Blvd. (Hwy. 24)
| |
| Northlake Centre Pkwy. and West W.T. Allow westbound through and southbound right 3211 M91 F Mecklenburg Harris Blvd. (Hwy. 24) turn movements.
| |
| 112 M69 I77 North OffRamp to I485 East (All Traffic) F Mecklenburg Allow northbound through movements on I77.
| |
| I77 South Exit Ramp to I485 Inner and Allow traffic to exit at offramp on I77 (SB) and 110 M72 F Mecklenburg Outer Loops merge with EB and/or WB I485.
| |
| 4384 M94 I77 South OffRamp and I85 East O/S EPZ Mecklenburg Allow southbound through movement on I77.
| |
| 124 M95 I77 North OffRamp and I85 East O/S EPZ Mecklenburg Allow northbound through movements on I77.
| |
| Table G3. ETE with and without Modification to TMP Scenario 1 th 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Region ETE without ETE with ETE without ETE with Modification to Modifications to Difference Modification to Modifications to Difference TMP TMP TMP TMP R01 (2Mile) 2:50 2:50 0:00 6:00 6:00 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 3:25 3:05 0:20 6:05 6:05 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 4:50 4:10 0:40 7:10 6:10 1:00 McGuire Nuclear Station G9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure G1.Traffic Control Points and Security Road Blocks for the MNS EPZ McGuire Nuclear Station G10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions
| |
| | |
| H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps (Figure H1 through Figure H35) of all Evacuation Regions. The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.
| |
| Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region Zone Region Description A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R01 2Mile Radius 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R02 5Mile Radius 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R04 N, NNE 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R05 NE, ENE 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R06 E, ESE, SE 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R07 SSE, S 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R08 SSW, SW 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R09 WSW, W 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| WNW, NW, R10 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| NNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| Evacuate 5Mile Radius and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R11 N 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100%
| |
| R12 NNE, NE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100%
| |
| R13 ENE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R14 E 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R15 ESE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%
| |
| R16 SE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%
| |
| R17 SSE 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R18 S 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R19 SSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R20 SW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R21 WSW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R22 W 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R23 WNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R24 NW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R25 NNW 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Site Specific Regions Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R26 NE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R27 SSE 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Zone Region Direction A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S From:
| |
| R28 N, NNE 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R29 NE, ENE 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| R30 E, ESE, SE 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R31 SSE, S 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R32 SSW, SW 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R33 WSW, W 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| WNW, NW, R34 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| NNW 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R35 5Mile Radius 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%
| |
| ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate McGuire Nuclear Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H1. Region R01 McGuire Nuclear Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H2. Region R02 McGuire Nuclear Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H3. Region R03 McGuire Nuclear Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H4. Region R04 McGuire Nuclear Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H5. Region R05 McGuire Nuclear Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H6. Region R06 McGuire Nuclear Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H7. Region R07 McGuire Nuclear Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H8. Region R08 McGuire Nuclear Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H9. Region R09 McGuire Nuclear Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H10. Region R10 McGuire Nuclear Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H11. Region R11 McGuire Nuclear Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H12. Region R12 McGuire Nuclear Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H13. Region R13 McGuire Nuclear Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H14. Region R14 McGuire Nuclear Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H15. Region R15 McGuire Nuclear Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H16. Region R16 McGuire Nuclear Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H17. Region R17 McGuire Nuclear Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H18. Region R18 McGuire Nuclear Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H19. Region R19 McGuire Nuclear Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H20. Region R20 McGuire Nuclear Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H21. Region R21 McGuire Nuclear Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H22. Region R22 McGuire Nuclear Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H23. Region R23 McGuire Nuclear Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H24. Region R24 McGuire Nuclear Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H25. Region R25 McGuire Nuclear Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H26. Region R26 McGuire Nuclear Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H27. Region R27 McGuire Nuclear Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H28. Region R28 McGuire Nuclear Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H29. Region R29 McGuire Nuclear Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H30. Region R30 McGuire Nuclear Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H31. Region R31 McGuire Nuclear Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H32. Region R32 McGuire Nuclear Station H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H33. Region R33 McGuire Nuclear Station H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H34. Region R34 McGuire Nuclear Station H37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure H35. Region R35 McGuire Nuclear Station H38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System
| |
| | |
| J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.
| |
| Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. There are a total of 995 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 5.10 miles to exit the network.
| |
| Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1 average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. Rain Scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7 and 10) and Ice Scenario (Scenarios 8 and 11) exhibit slower average speeds and longer average travel times and longer average delays compared to good weather scenarios. When comparing Scenario 13 (special event) and Scenario 9, the additional vehicles introduced by the special event lowers the average speeds and slightly increases the average travel time and average delay.
| |
| Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes - I 485 WB, I485 EB, I77 NB and I77 SB - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Sections 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 710, there is significant congestion on the aforementioned routes throughout the evacuation; therefore, the travel times and speeds, shown in Table J3, are significantly lower than the freeflow speeds.
| |
| Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
| |
| Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.
| |
| As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are far apart as a result of the traffic congestion within in the EPZ, which clears at 5 hours and 40 minutes after the ATE for a summer, midweek, midday, good weather scenario, as discussed in detail in Section 7.3.
| |
| 1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow condition.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8072 9,000 785 503 504 699 E 8546 1,275 8558 450 8381 6,750 2861 3922 4318 427 S 8618 5,700 8141 6,750 8724 6,750 4282 4949 4945 286 SE 8619 2,850 8345 2,850 8559 1,275 2331 3528 3527 351 N 8074 4,500 8714 1,700 8589 4,500 772 494 1908 220 W 8498 2,850 8589 4,500 907 581 4430 100 W 8498 2,850 8618 5,700 1871 3209 660 113 SE 8141 6,750 8559 1,275 2723 3822 3823 64 NE 8074 4,500 8618 5,700 3692 4503 664 81 SE 8724 6,750 8003 6,750 4521 5168 5168 66 SW 8557 2,850 8494 2,850 McGuire Nuclear Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)
| |
| Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 3.4 4.0 2.9 3.4 3.0 3.4 4.1 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 2.2 2.8 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.8 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 17.6 14.9 20.9 17.5 20.2 17.5 14.7 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 287,042 288,124 248,397 249,757 208,111 291,443 292,397 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 4.7 2.8 3.4 4.0 2.9 2.9 3.4 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 3.5 1.6 2.2 2.8 1.7 1.7 2.1 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 12.7 21.2 17.6 14.9 20.5 20.4 17.8 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 293,220 247,039 248,649 249,414 207,861 250,052 286,631 Exiting Network Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)
| |
| Elapsed Time (hours: minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 6:10 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I485 Westbound 0.6 12.5 2.7 19.6 1.7 23.8 1.4 23.9 1.4 26.8 1.3 31.4 1.1 35.0 1.0 I485 Eastbound 6.5 6.5 59.9 1.5 255.0 3.0 130.9 6.4 61.3 17.2 22.8 42.9 9.1 47.7 8.2 I77 Northbound 1.9 2.6 43.5 2.2 51.0 4.4 26.2 2.0 57.0 4.4 26.0 61.0 1.9 61.1 1.9 I77 Southbound 3.2 5.8 33.0 4.9 39.1 13.4 14.4 5.7 33.7 6.6 29.2 39.8 4.8 42.1 4.6 McGuire Nuclear Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours: minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 6:10 Network Upstream Downstream Roadway Name Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Exit Link Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 149 951 1,611 2,151 2,385 2,448 2,450 NC279 473 258 3445 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 142 814 1,762 2,143 2,278 2,312 2,313 Lowell Bethesda Rd 487 266 791 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 2,735 9,367 15,921 19,454 21,012 21,231 21,241 I485 633 380 381 7% 9% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7%
| |
| Mt. HollyHuntersville 291 1,359 2,530 3,679 4,828 5,593 5,595 1133 701 5259 Rd 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 120 987 1,930 2,542 2,798 2,848 2,850 W 3rd Ave 1372 1495 233 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 37 440 878 1,087 1,176 1,200 1,200 W Main Ave 1383 1500 1491 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 25 212 388 450 475 491 492 Alexis Lucia Rd 1634 3033 3034 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 530 1,686 2,872 4,049 5,217 6,071 6,074 Doolie Rd 1707 3093 3094 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
| |
| Morrison Plantation 35 356 732 880 937 954 954 2278 3491 3496 Park 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 6,376 12,654 18,770 23,006 25,624 26,676 26,738 University City Blvd 2454 3615 3599 16% 12% 11% 10% 10% 9% 9%
| |
| 345 1,271 2,297 2,850 3,087 3,165 3,168 Lakeview Rd 2499 3647 3205 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 363 872 1,427 2,044 2,626 3,074 3,076 W McLelland Ave 2584 3708 4611 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 1,530 3,819 6,393 9,015 10,882 11,067 11,073 I277 2605 3723 224 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
| |
| 3,821 10,271 16,456 22,278 24,296 25,061 25,120 Rolling Hill Rd 2627 3743 3741 10% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9%
| |
| 8,345 17,345 26,331 34,947 43,478 46,471 46,534 I77 On Ramp 2629 3744 4639 21% 17% 16% 16% 17% 16% 16%
| |
| 381 1,879 3,556 5,236 6,910 7,822 7,823 Brawley School Rd 2634 3749 3440 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
| |
| 1,748 5,438 8,533 11,605 12,422 13,173 13,179 Lithia Inn Rd 2649 3764 3763 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
| |
| 19 156 281 323 338 345 345 Timber Rd 2696 3804 523 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 588 1,475 2,320 3,113 3,959 4,451 4,456 DavidsonConcord Rd 2729 3826 540 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Elapsed Time (hours: minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 6:10 Network Upstream Downstream Roadway Name Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Exit Link Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 286 2,092 4,799 5,952 6,607 6,797 6,799 Oakdale Rd 2826 3900 3198 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3%
| |
| 402 2,619 4,806 5,566 6,150 6,257 6,261 N Graham St 3058 4063 5153 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 198 1,919 3,774 5,426 6,857 7,124 7,125 I77 Express 3341 4277 4276 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
| |
| 405 1,795 3,451 4,904 5,222 5,295 5,297 I77 Express 3926 4663 4284 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
| |
| 38 198 382 502 550 556 556 Stratton Farm Rd 4145 4833 4829 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 51 227 366 427 451 562 562 Gilead Rd 4147 4835 669 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 118 791 1,675 2,497 2,979 3,105 3,105 Dallas Stanley Hwy 4452 5108 766 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 5,057 11,199 17,342 23,462 29,537 33,489 33,799 I77 4744 5307 141 13% 11% 10% 10% 11% 12% 12%
| |
| 386 1,200 2,014 2,831 3,649 4,466 4,731 E Main St 4791 3756 3757 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
| |
| 556 1,705 2,854 4,003 5,153 6,302 7,272 S Main St 4799 559 3779 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%
| |
| 4,154 8,270 12,728 17,175 21,633 26,098 26,596 I77 4804 4789 74 11% 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9%
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins McGuire Nuclear Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)
| |
| Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network
| |
| | |
| K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 107 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K108) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.
| |
| The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in December 2020.
| |
| Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point [TCP] and security road block [SRB],
| |
| uncontrolled).
| |
| Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Control Type Number of Nodes Uncontrolled 2,128 Pretimed 0 Actuated 530 Stop 251 TCP/SRB 138 Yield 136 Total: 3,183 McGuire Nuclear Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K1. MNS LinkNode Analysis Network McGuire Nuclear Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 McGuire Nuclear Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 McGuire Nuclear Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 McGuire Nuclear Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 McGuire Nuclear Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 McGuire Nuclear Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 McGuire Nuclear Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 McGuire Nuclear Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 McGuire Nuclear Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 McGuire Nuclear Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 McGuire Nuclear Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 McGuire Nuclear Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 McGuire Nuclear Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 McGuire Nuclear Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 McGuire Nuclear Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 McGuire Nuclear Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 McGuire Nuclear Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 McGuire Nuclear Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 McGuire Nuclear Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 McGuire Nuclear Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 McGuire Nuclear Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 McGuire Nuclear Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 McGuire Nuclear Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 McGuire Nuclear Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 McGuire Nuclear Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 McGuire Nuclear Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 McGuire Nuclear Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 McGuire Nuclear Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 McGuire Nuclear Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 McGuire Nuclear Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 McGuire Nuclear Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 McGuire Nuclear Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 McGuire Nuclear Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 McGuire Nuclear Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 McGuire Nuclear Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 McGuire Nuclear Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 McGuire Nuclear Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 McGuire Nuclear Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 McGuire Nuclear Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 McGuire Nuclear Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 McGuire Nuclear Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 McGuire Nuclear Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 McGuire Nuclear Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 McGuire Nuclear Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 McGuire Nuclear Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 McGuire Nuclear Station K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 McGuire Nuclear Station K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 McGuire Nuclear Station K49 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 McGuire Nuclear Station K50 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 McGuire Nuclear Station K51 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 McGuire Nuclear Station K52 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 McGuire Nuclear Station K53 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K53. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 52 McGuire Nuclear Station K54 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K54. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 53 McGuire Nuclear Station K55 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K55. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 54 McGuire Nuclear Station K56 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K56. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 55 McGuire Nuclear Station K57 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K57. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 56 McGuire Nuclear Station K58 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K58. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 57 McGuire Nuclear Station K59 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K59. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 58 McGuire Nuclear Station K60 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K60. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 59 McGuire Nuclear Station K61 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K61. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 60 McGuire Nuclear Station K62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K62. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 61 McGuire Nuclear Station K63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K63. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 62 McGuire Nuclear Station K64 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K64. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 63 McGuire Nuclear Station K65 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K65. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 64 McGuire Nuclear Station K66 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K66. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 65 McGuire Nuclear Station K67 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K67. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 66 McGuire Nuclear Station K68 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K68. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 67 McGuire Nuclear Station K69 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K69. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 68 McGuire Nuclear Station K70 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K70. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 69 McGuire Nuclear Station K71 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K71. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 70 McGuire Nuclear Station K72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K72. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 71 McGuire Nuclear Station K73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K73. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 72 McGuire Nuclear Station K74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K74. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 73 McGuire Nuclear Station K75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K75. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 74 McGuire Nuclear Station K76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K76. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 75 McGuire Nuclear Station K77 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K77. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 76 McGuire Nuclear Station K78 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K78. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 77 McGuire Nuclear Station K79 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K79. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 78 McGuire Nuclear Station K80 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K80. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 79 McGuire Nuclear Station K81 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K81. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 80 McGuire Nuclear Station K82 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K82. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 81 McGuire Nuclear Station K83 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K83. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 82 McGuire Nuclear Station K84 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K84. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 83 McGuire Nuclear Station K85 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K85. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 84 McGuire Nuclear Station K86 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K86. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 85 McGuire Nuclear Station K87 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K87. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 86 McGuire Nuclear Station K88 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K88. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 87 McGuire Nuclear Station K89 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K89. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 88 McGuire Nuclear Station K90 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K90. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 89 McGuire Nuclear Station K91 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K91. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 90 McGuire Nuclear Station K92 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K92. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 91 McGuire Nuclear Station K93 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K93. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 92 McGuire Nuclear Station K94 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K94. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 93 McGuire Nuclear Station K95 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K95. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 94 McGuire Nuclear Station K96 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K96. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 95 McGuire Nuclear Station K97 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K97. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 96 McGuire Nuclear Station K98 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K98. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 97 McGuire Nuclear Station K99 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K99. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 98 McGuire Nuclear Station K100 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K100. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 99 McGuire Nuclear Station K101 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K101. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 100 McGuire Nuclear Station K102 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K102. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 101 McGuire Nuclear Station K103 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K103. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 102 McGuire Nuclear Station K104 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K104. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 103 McGuire Nuclear Station K105 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K105. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 104 McGuire Nuclear Station K106 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K106. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 105 McGuire Nuclear Station K107 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K107. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 106 McGuire Nuclear Station K108 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Figure K108. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 107 McGuire Nuclear Station K109 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX L Zone Boundaries
| |
| | |
| L. ZONE BOUNDARIES Zone A County: Mecklenburg and Iredell Defined as the area within the following boundary: I77 at the Iredell County line to Sam Furr Rd., west on Hwy. 73 including Jetton Rd., Bethel Church Rd.,
| |
| Torrence Chapel Rd. and Tuskarora Tr.
| |
| Zone B County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Hwy. 73 to Sam Furr Rd.,
| |
| to Lincoln County line including Browns Cove area, Norman Island Dr. area, Windaliere Dr., Mariner Cove Dr., Sunset Dr., Cramur Dr. and Henry Ln.
| |
| Zone C County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Hwy. 73 at Lincoln County line to Beatties Ford Rd. to Stephens Rd. including Hubbard Rd., Brown Mill Rd.
| |
| and Cashion Rd.
| |
| Zone D County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Sam Furr at Hwy. 73 to I 77 to McCoy Rd. to Beatties Ford Rd. to Latta Plantation Park to the Catawba River up to Stephens Rd. to Beatties Ford Rd. to Hwy. 73 back to Sam Furr Rd.
| |
| Zone E County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Catawba River at Hwy. 16 down to the river to Mt. Holly Rd. (Hwy. 27) to Rozzelles Ferry Rd. to Oakdale Rd. to Beatties Ford Rd. to Latta Plantation Park back to the Catawba River.
| |
| Zone F County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Sunset Rd. at Beatties Ford Rd. to McCoy Rd. to Gilead Rd. to Statesville Rd. (Hwy. 21) to Huntersville city limits, over to HuntersvilleConcord Rd. to the Cabarrus County line, to Eastfield Rd. to Prosperity Church Rd. to Dearmon Rd. to Old Statesville Rd.
| |
| (Hwy. 115) back to Sunset Rd. and Beatties Ford Rd.
| |
| Zone G County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: Huntersville Concord Rd to Poplar Tent Rd. NW on Poplar Tent to Hwy 73. East on Hwy 73 to Kannapolis Parkway. North on Kannapolis Parkway to Trinity Church Rd. East on Trinity Church Rd to Northwest Cabarrus Dr. Follow Northwest Cabarrus Dr. To reception center at Northwest Cabarrus Middle School.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Zone H County: Mecklenburg Defined as the area within the following boundary: I77 at the Iredell County line to Grey Rd. to Davidson city limits; follow the Cornelius city limits back to I 77, back to the Iredell County line.
| |
| Zone I County: Iredell Defined as the area within the following boundary: The communities of Long Camp and Mayhew.
| |
| Zone J County: Iredell Defined as the area within the following boundary: The communities of Mt.
| |
| Mourne, Langtree, Queens Cove, and Catalina.
| |
| Zone K County: Catawba Defined as the area within the following boundary: South of NC Highway 150 in the Sherrills Ford/Terrell area of Catawba County. It extends from Grassy Creek Road east across Love Point Road to Lake Norman, where it crosses Slanting Bridge Road, and continues southeast across Kiser Island Road to the Iredell County line. The southern border extends along the Lincoln County line.
| |
| Zone L County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the Cowans Ford Country Club area. The northern border is Hagers Ferry Road from North Pilot Knob Road to Luckey Point Road, with the eastern border being Lake Norman. The southern border is NC Highway 73 from the Catawba River to North Pilot Knob Road, which is the western border.
| |
| Zone M County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: The northern border is NC Highway 73 between Killian Farm Road and the Catawba River. The eastern border is the Catawba River south to the Lincoln/Gaston County line, which is the southern border. The western border is Killian Farm Road from the Lincoln/Gaston County line north to NC Highway 73.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Zone N County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the community of Westport. Within Zone N are Beattys Ford Park, East Lincoln Park, Westport Golf Club, and Governors Island south of Blue Water Court.
| |
| The northern border is Fairfield Forest Road between NC16 Business and Lake Norman. The eastern border is the western shore of Lake Norman south to Hagers Ferry Road. The southern border is Hagers Ferry Road to North Pilot Knob Road to NC Highway 73. West on NC Highway 73 to North Little Egypt Road. The western border is North Little Egypt Road to Optimist Club Road to Triangle Circle to NC16 Business north to Fairfield Forest Road.
| |
| Zone O County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the community of Lowesville. Within Zone O is Waterside Crossing. The northern border is NC Highway 73 between South Ingleside Farm Road and Killian Farm Road. The eastern border is Killian Farm Road south to the Lincoln/Gaston County line. The southern border is the Lincoln/Gaston County line from Killian Farm Road to June Dellinger Road. The western border is June Dellinger Road north to Old Plank Road to South Ingleside Farm Road to NC Highway 73.
| |
| Zone P County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the communities of Denver, Machpelah, Verdict Ridge, and Webbs Chapel. Within Zone P is Little Creek. The northern border is Grassy Creek Road from NC16 Business to the Lincoln/Catawba County line and then the county line east to Lake Norman. The eastern border is the western shore of Lake Norman south to the Governors Island Bridge where it extends along a line west to Fairfield Forest Road. The eastern border then is Fairfield Forest Road east to NC16 Business to Triangle Circle to Optimist Club Road to North Little Egypt Road to NC Highway 73. The southern border is NC Highway 73 from North Little Egypt Road west to Amity Church Road. The western border is Amity Church Road to Christopher Road to Fay Jones Road to King Wilkinson Road to Mundy Road to NC16 Business to Grassy Creek Road.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station L3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Zone Q County: Lincoln Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the community of Mariposa. The northern border is NC Highway 73 from the Leepers Creek crossing east to South Ingleside Farm Road. The eastern border is South Ingleside Farm Road to Old Plank Road to June Dellinger Road to the Lincoln/Gaston County line. The southern border is the Lincoln/Gaston County line from June Dellinger Road west to US Highway 27 (Charles Raper Jonas Highway). The western border is US Highway 27 (Charles Raper Jonas Highway) north to Long Circle to Brevard Place Road. The western boundary then follows Leepers Creek from Brevard Place Road west to NC Highway 73.
| |
| Zone R County: Gaston Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the community of Lucia. The northern border is the Gaston/Lincoln County line from Lucia Riverbend Highway east to the Catawba River. The eastern and southern border is the Catawba River and Mountain Island Lake south to the NC Highway 16 Bridge. The western border begins at the NC Highway 16 Bridge on Brookshire Boulevard over the Catawba River north along the Lucia Riverbend Highway to the Gaston/Lincoln County line.
| |
| Zone S County: Gaston Defined as the area within the following boundary: This zone includes the town of Stanley, the city of Mt. Holly, and the communities of Alexis, Nims, Woodlawn, and Mountain Island. Within the boundaries of Zone S are Dutchmans Creek and Waters Edge. The northern border is the Gaston/Lincoln County line from US Highway 27 (Charles Raper Jonas Highway) to NC Highway 16BR (Lucia Riverbend Highway). The eastern border is NC Highway 16BR (Lucia Riverbend Highway) to NC Highway 273 (Lucia Riverbend Highway) to the bridge over Mountain Island Lake. The eastern border then follows Mountain Island Lake and the Catawba River south to Fites Creek. The southern and western border is Fites Creek west from the river to a point just west of Bell Street in Mt. Holly. From there the southern and western border is the previous southwest boundary of the city of Mt. Holly to US Highway 27 (Charles Raper Jonas Highway) to Colonel Richard Rankin Drive to General Joseph Wheeler Street to General Stonewall Jackson Street and then the southwest boundary of the town of Stanley to Hovis Road. From Hovis Road the border is Green Road north back to US Highway 27 (Charles Raper Jonas Highway) to the Gaston/Lincoln County line.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station L4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies
| |
| | |
| M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.
| |
| M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).
| |
| Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), or if the tail were elongated (i.e. spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ.
| |
| Table M1 presents the results of this study.
| |
| If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 10 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 30 minutes (a significant change), respectively. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 15 minutes and 1 hour (a significant change), respectively.
| |
| As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 5 hours and 30 minutes. If the time to mobilize is longer than 5 hours and 30 minutes, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by trip generation time. For trip generation times less than 5 hours and 30 minutes, congestion dictates ETE. See Table M1.
| |
| M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.
| |
| Table M2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that decreasing the shadow evacuation from 20% to 0% decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE remain unchanged. While tripling the shadow percentage from 20% to 60% increases the ETE by 30 minutes and 1 hour 5 minutes for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively - a significant change. A full evacuation of the Shadow Region increases the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour 35 minutes and 3 hours, respectively. The significant increase in the ETE is due to the proximity of the EPZ boundary to the City of Charlotte, which is highly populated.
| |
| Note, the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 18% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which is in good agreement with the assumption of McGuire Nuclear Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| 20% noncompliance suggested in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 18%
| |
| shadow and the ETE decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE remains the same.
| |
| The more people who voluntarily evacuate from beyond the EPZ boundary, the more the ETE is impacted. Care should be given on the evacuation shadow percentage during an emergency.
| |
| M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.
| |
| As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).
| |
| The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:
| |
| : 1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 13%.
| |
| Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ and the Shadow Region.
| |
| : 2. The transportation infrastructure (as presented in Appendix K) remained fixed; the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.
| |
| : 3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Radius (R01), the 5Mile Radius (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).
| |
| : 4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday with Ice).
| |
| Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study. Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. All base ETE values for the 2Mile Radius (R01), 5Mile Radius (R02), and for the entire (EPZ) are greater than 2 hours; 25% of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 13% or greater increase in the full EPZ permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). Duke Energy will have to estimate the full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 13% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.
| |
| M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size As discussed in Appendix F, the average household size based on the 2020 Census data is 2.60 people. While based on the demographic survey, the average household contains 2.43 people.
| |
| The difference between the Census data and survey data is 6.54%, which exceeds the sampling error of 5.98%. Upon discussions with Duke Energy, it was decided that the Census estimate of 2.60 people per household would be used for this study. A sensitivity study was performed to determine how sensitive the ETE is to changes in the average household size. It should be noted that only resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius, and entire EPZ. Table M4 presents the results of this study.
| |
| Decreasing the average household size (increasing the total number evacuating vehicles) to 2.43 people per household also has little impact on ETE (increasing the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes at most). The difference in vehicles is only 4.5% of the total evacuating traffic (11,754 vehicles of 263,141 vehicles for this scenario - see Table 64). As such, this incremental increase in vehicles has little to no impact on the ETE. The 100th percentile ETE remains dictated by trip generation time and as a result is not impacted by the change in people per household.
| |
| Regardless of the household size utilized in the study (Census versus survey), the results would likely be about the same.
| |
| M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.
| |
| Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:
| |
| Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 10 to 15 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 30 minutes to 1 hour, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.1). Thus, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly can decrease ETE.
| |
| Increasing the percent shadow evacuation (especially over 40%) has a significant impact on ETE (Section M.2). As such, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.
| |
| Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 5 Hours 4:00 5:40 6 Hours (Base) 4:10 6:10 7 Hours 4:25 7:10 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles1 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 4:05 6:10 18 (survey) 42,564 4:05 6:10 20 (Base) 47,293 4:10 6:10 40 94,586 4:20 6:15 60 141,879 4:40 7:15 80 189,172 5:20 8:20 100 236,465 5:45 9:10 1
| |
| The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Increase EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 11% 12% 13%
| |
| Population 337,868 375,033 378,412 381,791 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 11% 12% 13%
| |
| 2MILE 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 5MILE 3:40 3:55 3:55 4:00 FULL EPZ 5:10 5:35 5:35 5:40 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 11% 12% 13%
| |
| 2MILE 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30 5MILE 6:35 6:35 6:35 6:35 FULL EPZ 7:30 8:10 8:15 8:25 Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size Base (Average HH Size of Average HH Size of 2.43 EPZ and 20% Shadow 2.60 people per household) people per household Resident Vehicles 168,009 vehicles 179,763 vehicles ETE for 90th Percentile 2MILE 2:50 2:50 5MILE 3:05 3:10 FULL EPZ 4:10 4:20 ETE for 100th Percentile 2MILE 6:00 6:00 5MILE 6:05 6:05 FULL EPZ 6:10 6:10 McGuire Nuclear Station M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist
| |
| | |
| N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction
| |
| : a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1.2 is described.
| |
| : b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 site including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.
| |
| : c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 1 1, ETE Comparison.
| |
| 1.1 Approach
| |
| : a. The general approach is described in the report as Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D outlined in Section 1.1, Approach.
| |
| 1.2 Assumptions
| |
| : a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.3 Scenario Development
| |
| : a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.
| |
| 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas
| |
| : a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 areas (ERPAs) is included.
| |
| 1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation
| |
| : a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Keyhole Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.
| |
| 1.4.2 Staged Evacuation
| |
| : a. The approach used in development of a staged Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 evacuation is discussed.
| |
| : b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1, Staged Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations Table 73, Table 74 identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.
| |
| 2.0 Demand Estimation
| |
| : a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
| |
| : a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.
| |
| : b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1
| |
| : c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth N/A N/A 2020 Census used as the base year of the to reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis
| |
| : d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.
| |
| 2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles
| |
| : a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1, Appendix F justification is provided for other values.
| |
| 2.1.2 Transient Population
| |
| : a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E5 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.
| |
| : b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E4 McGuire Nuclear Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : c. The average population during the season is used, Yes Table 34, Table 35, and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employee by scenario - see Table 64.
| |
| : d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.
| |
| : e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 may vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.
| |
| : f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the (employees) population distribution for the transient population.
| |
| 2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents
| |
| : a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) Yes Section 3.6 used to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.
| |
| : b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit Yes Section 8.1 dependent residents are used in the analysis.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : c. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 3.9 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.
| |
| : d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.
| |
| : e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table 311 provided.
| |
| : f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.
| |
| 2.3 Special Facility Residents
| |
| : a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, Yes Table E3 lists all medical facilities by facility and average population, are listed. Special facility staff is name, location, and average population. Staff included in the total special facility population. estimates were not provided.
| |
| : b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5, Section 3.10
| |
| : c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Table 36, Section 3.10 assumed available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of Medical medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.
| |
| 2.4 Schools
| |
| : a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 38, Table E1, Table E2, Section 3.7 population, and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.
| |
| : b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Section 3.7 schools are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.
| |
| : c. The estimate of high school students who will use Yes Section 3.7 personal vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.
| |
| : d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 return trips are needed.
| |
| 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events
| |
| : a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.8 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.
| |
| : b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.8 population is analyzed in the ETE.
| |
| : c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the Yes Section 3.8 event is estimated.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation
| |
| : a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and Figure 71, with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Section 3.2 Evacuation.
| |
| : b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.
| |
| : c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.
| |
| 2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic
| |
| : a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough Yes Section 3.11 and Section 3.12 traffic is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.
| |
| : b. The method of reducing background and passthrough Yes Section 2.2 - Item 10 and 11 traffic is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.11 and Section 3.12 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote
| |
| : c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.11 the EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation
| |
| : a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.
| |
| 3.0 Roadway Capacity
| |
| : a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is Yes Section 4 discussed.
| |
| 3.1 Roadway Characteristics
| |
| : a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.
| |
| : b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links Yes Appendix K of the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.
| |
| 3.2 Model Approach
| |
| : a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.
| |
| : b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes Yes Appendix B and Appendix C and traffic volumes.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to N/A Static route choices are not used to assign assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.
| |
| : d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described Yes Appendix B and Appendix C including calibration of the route assignment.
| |
| 3.3 Intersection Control
| |
| : a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.
| |
| : b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.
| |
| 3.4 Adverse Weather
| |
| : a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Item 2 and 3 of Section 2.6
| |
| : b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.
| |
| : c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse for adverse weather conditions are described, if weather conditions.
| |
| applicable.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is Yes Item 6 of Section 2.6, Table 22 considered and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.
| |
| 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models
| |
| : a. General information about the traffic simulation model Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, Appendix C used in the analysis is provided.
| |
| : b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation model ETE calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate was used.
| |
| the analytical approach used.
| |
| 4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input
| |
| : a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a Yes Section 2, Appendix J representative set of model inputs are provided.
| |
| : b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.
| |
| : c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.
| |
| 4.3 Trip Generation Time
| |
| : a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.
| |
| : b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of Yes Appendix F the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : c. Data used to develop trip generation times are Yes Appendix F, Section 5 summarized.
| |
| : d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.
| |
| : e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when N/A There was no uncertainty when developing trip developing trip generation times are discussed, if generation times.
| |
| applicable.
| |
| 4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
| |
| : a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters.
| |
| percentage of residents will need to return home before Table 63 presents the percentage of evacuating. households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.
| |
| Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.
| |
| Item 3 of Section 2.3
| |
| : b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and Yes Section 5 method to notify transients at various locations.
| |
| : c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels before evacuating.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.8 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided for the expected is considered. special event and was therefore not considered.
| |
| 4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents
| |
| : a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes N/A Established bus routes do not exist. Basic bus are used in the ETE analysis. routes were developed for the ETE analysis.
| |
| Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)
| |
| : b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and non Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit ambulatory residents are discussed. Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)
| |
| Section 8.2
| |
| : c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.
| |
| : d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including Dependent People (Residents without access to the expected means of travel to the pickup point, is a vehicle) described.
| |
| : e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.
| |
| : f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102, Figure 103 McGuire Nuclear Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.
| |
| : h. Information is provided to support analysis of return Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 trips, if necessary.
| |
| 4.3.3 Special Facilities
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table times is provided. 811
| |
| : b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 811 residents are discussed.
| |
| : c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 811
| |
| : d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
| |
| : e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.1 residents are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.
| |
| : f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.4 Schools
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table times is provided. 84
| |
| : b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84
| |
| : c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
| |
| : d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 discussion is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.
| |
| : e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.
| |
| 4.4 Stochastic Model Runs
| |
| : a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation averages or average results is discussed. random seeds for statistical confidence. For McGuire Nuclear Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce N/A DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a mesoscopic simulation each ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on and uses dynamic traffic assignment model to the 90 percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different obtain the "average" (stable) network work flow random seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under distribution. This is different from microscopic Summer, Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather simulation, which is montecarlo random conditions. sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.
| |
| 4.5 Model Boundaries
| |
| : a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.
| |
| : b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.
| |
| 4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output
| |
| : a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 the entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2
| |
| : 1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4
| |
| : 2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is based
| |
| : 3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. on the time the last vehicle exits the
| |
| : 4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one plot for
| |
| : 5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative 6. Table J3 percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.
| |
| : 6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.
| |
| : c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various Yes Figure 73 through Figure 710 times (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.
| |
| 4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public
| |
| : a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and Yes Table 71 and Table 72 100 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.
| |
| : b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the last discussed, if not based on the time the last vehicle exits vehicle exits the evacuation zone.
| |
| the evacuation zone.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population
| |
| : d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Table 73 and Table 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.
| |
| : e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8 special facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.
| |
| 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans
| |
| : a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.
| |
| : b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.
| |
| 5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time
| |
| : a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.
| |
| 5.3 State and Local Review
| |
| : a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0
| |
| | |
| Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)
| |
| : b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that No Results of the ETE study were formally may affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. Comments on the draft report were provided by Iredell County and were addressed in the final report. There are no unresolved issues.
| |
| 5.4 Reviews and Updates
| |
| : a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.
| |
| 5.4.1 Extreme Conditions
| |
| : a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of the conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario availability of US Census Bureau decennial variations. census data.
| |
| 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center
| |
| : a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 104 is provided.
| |
| McGuire Nuclear Station N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0}}
| |
