NL-13-1605, IEM/TEC12-1003, Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

IEM/TEC12-1003, Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

ML13214A044
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/31/2013
From:	IEM
To:	Boone C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
NL-13-1605 IEM/TEC12-1003
Download: ML13214A044 (128)

Text

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Units 1 and 2 Evacuation Time Estimate Update Enclosure Evacuation Time Estimate for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

November 2012, Revised July 2013 Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant IEM/TEC12-1003

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT EXEcvillVE

SUMMARY

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

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

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

permanent residents and transient population; transit dependent permanent residents; and school populations. No special facilities were found within the EPZ. The permanent resident population is made up of individuals residing in the 10-mile EPZ. The total year 2012 permanent resident populations within the 10-mile EPZ for VEGP are estimated to be 3,080. The transient population consists of workers employed within the area, recreational sportsmen, and visitors. The total peak transient population within the 10-mile EPZ is estimated to be 2,915. Only one school, Lord's House of Praise Christian School, was identified in the VEGP EPZ. IEM contacted the school to collect current enrollment, staff figures, and the evacuation plan. The total peak population for the school in the EPZ is estimated to be 70. Transit dependent permanent residents in the EPZ are estimated to be 29. This study also considered the voluntary evacuees, who are also known as shadow evacuees that reside within 10 to 15 miles from VEGP.

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

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

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

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contractlcr7002/ (last accessed October 12, 2012).

IEM 201.2 Page i

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Both 100% and 90% ETEs for each scenario were collected. The 100% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 25 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 minutes to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 25 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. The 90% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 20 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 20 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 20 minutes to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 25 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. The factors that contributed to the variations in ETEs between scenarios include differences in the number of evacuating vehicles, the capacity of the evacuation routes used, and the distance from the origin zones to the EPZ boundary.

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

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

" Use traffic control points (TCP) to facilitate flow in the areas (e.g., intersection of Thompson Bridge Rd and GA-24) where vehicles might otherwise have to slow due to congestion and traffic signals.

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

Note:

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

IEM 2012 Page iiii Page IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Site Location ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Emergency Planning Zone ............................................................................... 3 1.3. Comparison with Previous ETE Study ........................................................... 4 2.0 Assum ptions and Methodology .................................................................. 7 2.1. General Assumptions ......................................................................................... 7 2.2. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Sources of Data ................................................................................................. 8 2.4. Scenarios M odeled ............................................................................................. 9 2.5. Evacuation Areas M odeled ............................................................................. 12 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation ........................................ 15 3.1. Permanent Residents ...................................................................................... 15 3.1.1. Auto-Owning Population .................................................................................................. 17 3.1.2. Non-Auto-Owning Population ......................................................................................... 17 3.1.3. Resident Population Summary ......................................................................................... 17 3.2. Transient Populations ..................................................................................... 19 3 .2 .1. T ransient F acilities ................................................................................................................ 21 3.3. Transit Dependent Permanent Residents ...................................................... 22 3.4. Special Facility and School Populations ........................................................ 23 3.5. Vehicle Occupancy Rate .................................................................................. 25 3.6. Sum mary of Demand Estimation ................................................................. 25 4.0 Evacuation Roadw ay Network .................................................................. 27 4.1. Network Definition .......................................................................................... 28 4.2. Evacuation Route Descriptions ..................................................................... 29 4.3. Evacuation Network Characteristics ............................................................. 31 5.0 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate M ethodology ................................................ 35 5.1. Loading of the Evacuation Network ............................................................. 35 5.1.1. Trip Generation Events and Activities .............................................................................. 35 5.1.2. Trip Generation Time Estimate ...................................................................................... 38 5.1.3. Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents ................................ 40 5.1.4. Trip Generation Time for Schools .................................................................................. 41 IEM 2012 Page ill

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 5.2. Evacuation Simulation ................................................................................... 42 5.2.1. The Demand Model ........................................................................................................ 42 5.2.2. The Network Model ......................................................................................................... 42 5.2.3. The Im pact M odel ................................................................................................................ 47 6.0 Analysis of Evacuation Tim es .................................................................. 49 6.1. Summary of ETE Results for General Public ............................................. 49 6.2. Discussion of Scenario Results ...................................................................... 52 6 .2 .1. G eneral T rend s ..................................................................................................................... 52 6.2.2. Evacuation Area: 0-2 Miles ............................................................................................. 53 6.2.3. Evacuation Area: 0-5 Miles ............................................................................................. 53 6.2.4. Evacuation Area: 0-10 Miles ........................................................................................... 53 6.3. ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents ........................ 54 6.4. ETE Results for School Population ............................................................... 54 6.5. Example Model Output .................................................................................. 54 7.0 Supplem ental Analysis ............................................................................ 58 7.1. Confirmation of Evacuation .......................................................................... 58 7.2. Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures ............................................................................................................... 59 8.0 Sensitivity Study on Population Change ................................................ 62 9.0 Conclusion and Recom m endations ........................................................ 64 9.1. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 64 Appendix A: Geographical Boundaries of Evacuation Zones ........................ A-1 Appendix B: Evacuation Network Links (Detailed Information) .................... B-I Appendix C: Telephone Survey ......................................................................... C-1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... C-1 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan .................................................................. C-1 Survey Results ............................................................................................................... C-2 Appendix D: PTV Vision Quality Assurance and Industry Acceptance Inform ation ........................................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: ETE Review Criteria Checklist ....................................................... E-1 Page iv IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Tables and Figures Figure 1: Vogtle ElectricGeneratingPlantSite Location ....................................................................... 2 Figure2: VEGP EPZ Boundary and ProtectiveAction Zones ................................................................ 4 Table 1: ETE Comparison Chart....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled* ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 3: EvacuationAreas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole ............................................................. 13 Figure 3: Example of the Area Ratio Method Applied to a Census Block Divided into Sub-Areas..... 16 Table 4: 2012 PermanentResident PopulationDistributionsby Sector and Ring.......................... 17 Figure 4:2012 VEGP Sector and Ring PermanentResident Population Map.................................. 18 Table 5: 2012 PermanentResident PopulationDistributionsby Zones ........................................... 19 Table 6: 2012 Transient Population Distributionsby Sector and Ring.............................................. 20 Figure 5:2012 VEGP Sector and Ring Transient PopulationsMap ................................................... 20 Table 7: 2012 Transient Population Distributionsby Zones .............................................................. 21 Table 8: 2012 Peak and Average Transient Population...................................................................... 22 Table 9: TransitDependent PermanentResidents ............................................................................... 22 Table 10: Transit Dependent PermanentResident Evacuation Information ................................... 23 Table 11: School Locations............................................................................................................................ 23 Table 12: School Evacuation Information............................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Map of Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................... 24 Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by PopulationCategories........................................................... 25 Table 14: PopulationSummary Table .................................................................................................... 25 Table 15: Vehicle Summary Table ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7: VEGP Evacuation Network ....................................................................................................... 28 Table 16: Reception Centers ......................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 8: Designated Evacuation Routes and Reception Centers ..................................................... 31 Table 17: Intersection Control Type ....................................................................................................... 32 Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections.............................................................. 33 Figure 9: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Transients, Special Facilities(SeriesA) ........ 36 Figure 10: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning Hom e (Series B) ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Page v IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page v

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences with Family Members Returning Hom e (Series C)............................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 19: Trip Generation Estimate for Different EvacuationActivity Series .................................. 37 Figure 12: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems ...................................... 39 Figure 13: Distributionof Trip Generation Times by Population Group ............................................. 40 Table 20: Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent PermanentResidents................................ 41 Table 21: Trip Generation Time for Population in Schools................................................................... 41 Figure 14: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM .............................................................................. 42 Figure 15: Roadway Type ClassificationMethod .................................................................................. 44 Table 22: Grade Adjustment Factors (fG) .................................................................................................... 45 Table 23: Adjustment (fnp) for Effect of No-PassingZones on Average Travel Speed on Two-Way S egments .......................................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 24: 2012 100%ETEs in Minutes .................................................................................................. 50 Table 25:2012 90% ETEs in Minutes .................................................................................................... 51 Table 26: Transit Dependent PermanentResident Evacuation Times .............................................. 54 Table 27: School Evacuation Times .......................................................................................................... 54 Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percents at Exit Roads ............................................................. 56 Figure 16: Mobilizationand Evacuation Curve .................................................................................... 56 Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes................................................................. 57 Table 30: Georgia Traffic Control Points for the VEGP EPZ ...................................................................... 59 Table 31: South CarolinaTraffic Control Points for the VEGP EPZ ................................................... 60 Figure 17: Traffic Control Points in and around VEGP EPZ................................................................ 61 Table 32: GeographicalBoundariesof VEGP EPZ EvacuationZones .............................................. A-1 Figure 18: DetailedRoadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant............................................ B-1 Figure 19: DetailedRoadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant................................................ B-2 Figure 20: DetailedRoadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant................................................ B-3 Figure 21: DetailedRoadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant................................................. B-4 Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs ..................................................................... B-5 Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics............................................................................................. B-5 Table 35: Household Size .............................................................................................................................. C-2 Figure22: Household Size ............................................................................................................................ C-2 Page vi IEM 2012

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

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page viii Page viii IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) is a two-unit pressurized water reactor operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). In order to ensure the safety of the public living in the vicinity of the power plant, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires nuclear power plants in the nation to conduct evacuation studies for the population within the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) at regular intervals. This population evacuation study fulfills regulatory requirements outlined in the NRC Criteriafor Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies (NUREG/CR-7002). 2 SNC contracted LEM to perform a population evacuation study for the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway EPZ surrounding VEGP. This document presents the results of that study. It describes the assumptions and methodologies used by IEM to obtain population and evacuation network data and to perform evacuation time estimates (ETE) analyses. ETEs in this evacuation study incorporate the actual population numbers3 for the year 2012. This document reports the updated population figures, evacuation road network information, and ETEs.

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

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

1.1. Site Location VEGP is located on the southwestern bank of the Savannah River in Burke County, Georgia. The plant is approximately 15 miles east-northeast of the City of Waynesboro.

The small town of Girard is approximately seven miles south of the plant. The closest population center is the town of Sardis, which is approximately 12 miles south of the plant. Figure 1 shows location of the VEGP site.

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

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 1: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site Location IEM 2012 Page 2 IEM 201L2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 1.2. Emergency PlanningZone The plume exposure pathway EPZ includes the majority of the 10-mile geographic area surrounding VEGP. The VEGP EPZ covers areas in both Georgia and South Carolina.

The land within the plume exposure pathway is divided almost equally by the Savannah River. The EPZ covers portions of the counties of Burke and Richmond, Georgia, and Barnwell, Allendale, and Aiken, South Carolina. Burke County has the largest resident population within the EPZ. This population is small and dispersed.

The major portion of the EPZ in South Carolina is within the United States Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS). DOE's Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR), pursuant to a memorandum of agreement 4 between Georgia Power Company (GPC), as assigned to SNC, will be responsible for all emergency response actions on the SRS whenever an emergency occurs at VEGP. For this reason, a portion of the VEGP EPZ located in Barnwell County in South Carolina contained by the DOE-SR facility is not included in the study.

The areas in South Carolina that are not Federally-owned or controlled are along the Savannah River lowlands in Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell counties. The segment in Aiken County, approximately 8-10 miles north-northwest of VEGP, is part of the Cowden Plantation, which has no resident population. The segments in Barnwell and Allendale counties, approximately 9-10 miles east-southeast of VEGP, are largely comprised of portions of the Creek Plantation, a horse farm. Within the South Carolina portion of the EPZ, the only housing is located within the Creek Plantation in Barnwell County, where there are only a limited number of permanent residences.

The State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) 5 and VEGP Emergency Plan are the bases for the geographical and political boundaries for the EPZ. For evacuation and emergency response planning purposes, the 10-mile radius plume exposure pathway EPZ has been divided into 13 Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPAs) known as protective action zones (PAZ).6 The PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from the VEGP Emergency Plan, VEGP's 2012 emergency information calendar 7 , county REP8 , and discussions with both SNC and VEGP representatives. The PAZs were selected based on existing political boundaries and prominent physical features-either natural (e.g., rivers and lakes) or man-made (e.g., roads and bridges)-to enhance direction and coordination of the public in the affected area. Figure 2 shows a map of the PAZs for VEGP. Appendix A of this document contains boundary descriptions of the PAZs within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ of the plant.

4 A copy of the memorandum of agreement is located in the SNC planning office.

5 State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) - Annex D - Plant Vogtle. Georgia Emergency Management Agency. January 2009.

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

7 2012 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

8 Annex D - Plant Vogtle - Burke County Emergency Management Radiological Plan. May 2009. (Obtained from State of Georgia REP).

IEM 2012 Page 3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 2: VEGP EPZ Boundary and Protective Action Zones 1.3. Comparison with Previous ETE Study Table 1 identifies information that is useful in comparing the 2006 and 2012 ETE studies.

Note that the 2006 ETE study was modeled using both 2006 and 2010 estimated population data. For comparison purpose, Table 1 lists the information for the 2010 estimated population from the 2006 study, as well as the 2012 population from this study.

Table 1: ETE Comparison Chart Permanent Residents

- Total Population 3,224 3,080

- Vehicle Occupancy Rate 2.75 1.7-1.8 IEM 2012 Page 4 Page IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ETE Element Previous ETE (for 2010) Updated-ETE (for 2012)

Transit Dependent Population

- Total Population 0 29

- Number of Buses/Standard Vans 0 86

- Number of Ambulances 0 12

- Number of Special Equipped Vehicles 0 5 Transient Population

- Total Population 753 871 Special Facilities 9

- Total Population 0 0

- Number of Buses N/A N/A

- Other Transportation Resources N/A N/A Schools

- Total Student Population 50 50

- Number of Buses 2 2 Shadow Evacuation Percent Estimated 0 20%

Special Event(s)

- Population N/A N/A

- Location N/A N/A

- Duration N/A N/A Adverse Weather (rain, snow, ice, fog) Heavy Rain Heavy Rain Evacuation Model - name and version VISUM 10 VISUM11 Scenarios Combination of time Combination of time (Weekday, Weeknight, (Weekday, Weeknight, Weekend) and weather Weekend) and weather (adverse and normal) (adverse and normal) 9No special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

Page 5 2012 IEM 2012 Page 5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ETE Element Previous ETE (for 2010) UpdatedlETtE(for 2012)

Assumptions

• One evacuation vehicle

• Vehicle occupancy rates per household for for residents are based on residents telephone survey

" Mobilization time for

• Mobilization time for resident and transient resident and transient population are based on population are based on literature1 o telephone survey

" No shadow evacuation

• 20% of residents in 10-15 considered mile ring are shadow evacuees 1o Rogers, G. 0., et al., Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies (ORNL-6615). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1990.

Page 6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

.0-

• ASSUM;PT IONS AND MET HODOLOGY 2.1. General Assumptions IEM made the following general assumptions to model the population evacuation study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

" There is only one school in the EPZ. Initial notification will be received the same time as the general public within the EPZ.

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

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

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT load into the roadway network. No significant impact of pass-through traffic on the ETEs is expected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

" The 13 PAZ descriptions were obtained and verified from VEGP's 2012 emergency information calendar 12, the GA REP , the county REP 14 , and discussions with SNC and VEGP representatives.

" The 2012 population estimates, as well as business location data, were obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the 2012 Plant VEGP Tone Alert Radio (TAR) 5 Database, and the population estimates from Synergos Technologies, Inc.,

" The peak and average estimated employment level at VEGP obtained from SNC representatives reflects office and operations personnel.

" Roadway geometric data was obtained from PTV. PTV data is based on high-quality, regularly updated, NAVTEQ street network data. NAVTEQ networks are detailed and include neighborhood streets in every community in North America. This data was validated by IEM during a "ground truthing" field trip in April 2012.

" Roadway and intersection approach capacities were calculated using the concepts and procedures defined in the Highway Capacity Manual1 6 published by the Transportation Research Board.

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

12 2012 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Emergency Information Calendar.

13State of Georgia Radiological Emergency Plan - Annex D - Plant Vogtle. Georgia Emergency Management Agency. January 2009.

14 Annex D - Plant Vogtle - Burke County Emergency Management Radiological Plan. May 2009. (Obtained from State of Georgia REP).

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

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

Page 8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

" Warning diffusion and mobilization times were based on the data presented in Evaluating Protective Actions for Chemical Agent Emergencies17 published by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The data in this report was collected during evacuations executed in response to large-scale chemical spills, and explicitly incorporates the time required for communication of the warning (warning diffusion) and the time required for an individual to respond to the warning (mobilization). The data collected in this meta-study were based on permanent residents and transient populations. Section 5.1 of this report provides more information on warning diffusion and mobilization time assumptions.

" Vehicle occupancy rates for the different population categories were derived based on telephone surveys and discussions with the counties' and plant's emergency planning staffs. Section 5.1.1 provides more information on population and vehicle demand assumptions.

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

• South Carolina Emergency Management Division

• Aiken County Emergency Management Division

• Barnwell County Emergency Management Agency

• Allendale County Emergency Management Agency

• Georgia Emergency Management Agency

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

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

- weekend night, and weekend daytime.

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

Evacuation conditions are modeled for the populations of the year 2012, in addition to the construction workforce for the new units being built at the VEGP site. Table 2 presents the snapshot of the ETE scenarios that were modeled for the study.

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

IEM 2012 Page 9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 2: ETE Scenarios Modeled*

Scenario Day Time Weather 1 Midweek Daytime Normal 2 Midweek Daytime Adverse 3 Midweek and Weekend Night Normal 4 Midweek and Weekend Night Adverse 5 Weekend Daytime Normal 6 Weekend Daytime Adverse

• Per discussions with SNC emergency planning staff special events and seasonal variation scenarioswere not modeled. However, peak recreationalpopulation numbers were used for the weekend scenarios (5 and 6). This condition would most likely occur during any weekend day during the hunting season (i.e., September 15 through January 6), when there would be a large number of hunters andlfishermen at various points along the Savannah River.

The various population components for different scenarios are summarized below:

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

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

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

• Workplaces are fully staffed at daytime levels.

• Schools are in session.

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

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

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

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

• Workplaces are fully staffed at daytime levels.

• Schools are in session.

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

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

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

Page 10 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

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

• Workplaces are at nighttime levels.

• Schools are closed.

• There are no recreational (hunting and fishing) activities.

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

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

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

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

" Workplaces are at nighttime levels.

" Schools are closed.

• There are no recreational (hunting and fishing) activities.

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

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

• The plant site is at an estimated peak weekend level.

• Workplaces are at weekend levels.

• Schools are closed.

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

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

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

" The plant site is at an estimated peak weekend level.

• Workplaces are at weekend levels.

• Schools are closed.

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

IEM 2012 Page 11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 2.5. Evacuation Areas Modeled NUREG/CR-7002 recommends that the EPZ be subdivided into evacuation areas for performing the evacuation time estimate analyses.'8 As indicated in Table 3, each evacuation area includes one or more affected PAZ's to support the various evacuation logic including keyhole and staged evacuations. Based on the geography and political boundaries in the EPZ, 17 unique areas were defined by IEM for the VEGP EPZ, in agreement with the SNC personnel. As shown in the lower part of Table 3, separate evacuation areas are modeled for the 0-2 mile zone and the 2-5 mile zone to support protective action decision making for a staged evacuation.

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

IEM 2012 Page 12 Page 12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged Evacuation Keyhole Affected AecPAsPAZs Evacuation ea A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 B-IO C-10 D-I0 E-IO F-10 G-IO H-10

• (ERPAs) Area A 0-2 miles X A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, 0-5 miles X X X X X X F-5 All Evacuation 0-10 miles, Full Zones EPZ Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind Wind Direction Affected PAZs (EPRAs)

(from) A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 B-1O C-1O 13-10 E-IO F-JO G-AO H-1O B-5 N X B-5, C-5 NNE X X C-5 NE X D-5 ENE X D-5, E-5 E X X E-5, F-5 ESE X X F-5 SE X F-5 SSE X F-5 S X N/A SSW - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N/A SW - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N/A WSW - - - - - - - - - - - - -

N/A W - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B-5 WNW X B-5 NW X IEM 2012 Page 13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Affected PAZs Evacuation A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 B-1O C-10 D-IO E-IO F-IO G-IO H-IO (ERPAs) Area ... . ..

B-5 NNW X Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5-miles downwind Wind Direction Affected PAZs (EPRAs)

(from) A B-5 C-5 D-5 E-5 F-5 B-IO C-10 D-1O E-1O F-1O G-IO H-IO A, B-5 N X X A, B-5, C-5 NNE X X X A, C-5 NE X X A, D-5 ENE X X A, D-5, E-5 E X X X A, E-5, F-5 ESE X X X A, F-5 SE X X A, F-5 SSE X X A, F-5 S X X A SSW X A SW X A WSW X A W X A, B-5 WNW X X A, B-5 NW X X A, B-5 NNW X X IEM 2012 Page 14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

'3.0' POPULATION AND VEHICLE DEMAND ESTIMATION IEM identified three population segments19 within the EPZ surrounding VEGP, as specified in the NUREG/CR-7002 guidelines. These populations include the permanent residents and transient population, transit dependent permanent residents, and school population. The permanent resident population is made up of individuals residing in the 10-mile EPZ. The transient population is comprised of individuals working and/or visiting within the EPZ but not living there. The transit dependent population includes permanent residents who do not have access to a vehicle or are dependent upon help from outside the home to evacuate (e.g., lift equipped vehicles or ambulances). The school population consists of students and staff and may require additional consideration in the event of an evacuation.

VEGP is located in a densely-wooded rural area of Georgia. There are no concentrated population centers, and there is minimal transient population within the 10-mile EPZ. The transient facilities include the VEGP and the recreational attraction sites that consist of parks and the hunter/boater population. There are no special facility populations within the 10-mile EPZ. The only school is a private school (The Lord's House of Praise Christian School).The majority of the population consists of permanent residents, workers, school students, and a varying number of recreational visitors who are mainly located on or around the Savannah River.

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

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

To calculate population by each zone and radial sector, census block populations were aggregated within each of the sectors. Since boundaries of the sectors do not follow census block boundaries, many of the blocks had to be divided into sub-areas based on 19 Special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were not identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

IEM 20:12 Page 15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT sector boundaries. To do this, IEM overlaid the census blocks with the zones and 10-mile radius sectors. The blocks were then split into sub-areas and allocated the block population to the sub-areas based on an area ratio method. The populations of the block sub-areas within the sector boundaries were then aggregated for each radius sector.

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

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

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 3.1.1. Auto-Owning Population IEM collected information for auto-owning population by conducting a telephone survey of the residents within the VEGP EPZ. The survey indicates an average household size of 2.6 persons for the VEGP EPZ. The collected data also indicate that 96% of the households within the EPZ have more than one vehicle per household. Additionally, the respondents indicated that each household would use an average of 1.7 to 1.8 vehicles during the evacuation depending on the day of the week and time of the day.

3.1.2. Non-Auto-Owning Population The telephone survey indicates that 4% of the households within the EPZ do not own a vehicle. It is assumed that privately-owned vehicles of friends and/or relatives will be available to evacuate the majority of this population component. This assumption is used since it provides the most realistic representation of evacuation traffic generated from the non-auto-owning households. For an estimate of the vehicle demand associated with the non-auto-owning population, IEM assumed one vehicle would be made available to evacuate each household. This is based on the assumptions stated above that a family would use a vehicle from neighbors, friends, and relatives, or they will be evacuated through coordinated efforts by county emergency management officials.

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

Table 4: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Sector and Ring Population Mile Subtotal by Ring.

Cumulative Population 0-2 42 42 2-3 91 133 3-4 155 288 4-5 360 648 5-6 367 1,015 6-7 468 1,483 7-8 722 2,205 8-9 489 2,694 9-10 554 3,248 10-11 1,009 4,257 11-12 1,878 6,135 Page 17 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 17

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 12-13 2,878 9,013 13-14 3,103 12,116 14-15 4,326 16,442 Figure 4: 2012 VEGP Sector and Ring Permanent Resident Population Map IEM 2012 Page 18 Page 18 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 5 shows the distribution of the permanent resident population by zone.

Table 5: 2012 Permanent Resident Population Distributions by Zones Zone Permanent Resident Population A 71 B-5 51 B-IO 249 C-5 31 C-10 739 D-5 93 D-1O 588 E-5 89 E-10 510 F-5 141 F-IO 492 G-IO 6 H-1O 20 3.2. Transient Populations The transient population for the VEGP EPZ area is derived from a combination of daytime populations, recreation populations, and employment data. The employment data was obtained from Synergos Technologies. These populations were combined with other contributors, such as the percentage of the population that is of working age, to daytime population estimations and assigned to population centroids in a manner similar to the permanent resident populations. The daytime populations incorporate employment and workforce information, such as county working-age population and unemployment statistics.

The recreational population shown for the VEGP site considers users of private land and wildlife management areas by hunters and fishermen along the Savannah River. Through conversations with SNC's emergency planning staff, IEM estimated recreational population approximates within the EPZ. There are three public boat landings in the VEGP EPZ. Two are in Burke County, Georgia-the Vogtle Boat Landing in zone B-5 and Brigham's Landing in zone B-10. The third boat landing is in Aiken County, South Carolina-Grays Landing located in zone G-10. It is estimated that there will be 200 hunters/boaters in zones G-10 and H-10 during the hunting season.

A vehicle occupancy rate of 1.0 was used to estimate the number of vehicles used by recreational area users, such as hunters and fishermen.

Page 19 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 19

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

Table 6: 2012 Transient Population Distributions by Sector and Ring 0-2 2,173 2,173 2-3 23 2,196 3-4 56 2,252 4-5 236 2,488 5-6 114 2,602 6-7 81 2,683 7-8 96 2,779 8-9 49 2,828 9-10 79 2,907 Figure 5: 2012 VEGP Sector and Ring Transient Populations Map IEM 2012 Page 20 Page 20 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 7 shows the distribution of the transient population by zone.

Table 7: 2012 Transient Population Distributions by Zones Zone Transient' Population A 2,173 B-5 56 B-10 44 C-5 3 C-10 12 D-5 9 D-10 32 E-5 10 E-10 96 F-5 21 F-10 59 G-10 200 H-10 200 3.2.1. Transient Facilities The transient facilities consist of the VEGP site and a few hunter/boater recreational attraction sites. VEGP is the largest employer in the EPZ, which has peak number of workers at 2,882 during the weekdays. The construction workforce at VGEP is divided into two categories: permanent and temporary. The permanent construction workers would stay for a period of two years or longer and would bring families. The temporary construction workers would stay for less than two years and would not bring family. The permanent construction workers are assumed to be housed outside the VEGP EPZ, and the temporary construction workers are assumed to be housed inside the VEGP EPZ at a temporary housing location. SNC emergency planners estimate that a total of 203 temporary workers would be living at the temporary housing location in 2012.

The peak recreational population occurs on fall weekend periods during the hunting season (normally mid-September through early January). It is estimated that approximately one seventh of peak recreational population is expected for other scenarios (weekday and weeknight). Table 8 shows the peak and average transient populations.

Page 21 IEM 2012 IEM 20+/-2 Page 21

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 8: 2012 Peak and Average Transient Population Employer Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Burke A 2,882 898 25%

Boat Landing Vogtle Boat Landing Burke B-5 50 8 50%

Boat Landing Brigham's Landing Burke B-1O 50 8 50%

Boat Landing Gray's Landing Aiken G-IO 50 8 50%

3.3. Transit Dependent Permanent Residents The transit dependent population includes permanent residents who do not have access to a vehicle or are dependent upon help from outside the home to evacuate (e.g., lift equipped vehicles or ambulances). The transit dependent permanent resident population in the VEGP EPZ was obtained from the county EMA through SNC emergency planning staff. As shown in Table 9 there are 29 transit dependent permanent residents in the 10-mile EPZ. A roster of these individuals is maintained in the Burke County EOC. The EMA Director maintains coordination with the County Health Department and County Department of Family and Children Services on maintenance of the roster and dispatching the Burke County Transit Authority to evacuate as needed.

Table 9: Transit Dependent Permanent Residents Transit Dependent Category Burke County Aiken County Allendale County Barnwell County Wheelchair 18 0 0 0 Transportation 10 0 0 0 Immobile 1 0 0 0 To evacuate the transit dependent permanent residents, the Burke County Board of Education has 83 county school buses that will travel their regular routes to provide transportation to those individuals lacking personal transportation.-0 The Burke County Transit Authority has three 14-passenger standard vans with low band radio communications, four 10-passenger coaches with wheelchair lifts and low band radio communications, and one 16-passenger coach with a wheelchair lift and low band radio communications. In addition, the Burke County EMA has a total of 12 ambulances. The special equipped vehicles and ambulances will be dispatched directly to the homes of non-ambulatory individuals requiring special transportation. The key information for evacuating the transit dependent population is shown in Table 10. The information shown includes the number of transit dependent permanent residents by category, number of evacuation vehicles by type and its mobilization time, and evacuee loading time.

20 Annex D - Plant Vogtle - Burke County Emergency Management Radiological Plan. Attachment H - Evacuation and Sheltering.. May 2009.

Page 22 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 10: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Information Transit Dependent Category Population Number Vehiclesof. Mobilization Time Loading Time Wheelchair 18 5 15 min 5 min Transportation 10 8621 15 min 2 min Immobile 1 12 10 min 10 min 3.4. Special Facility and School Populations No special facilities, as defined in NUREG/CR-7002, were found within the EPZ; however, LEM identified one private school-Lord's House of Praise Christian School-within the EPZ (Table 11). The key information for evacuating the population at this facility is shown in Table 12. The information shown includes the enrollment, number of evacuation vehicles and its mobilization time, evacuee loading time and distance from the facility to the EPZ boundary.

Although the school will require special consideration in an evacuation, it is estimated there are a sufficient number of evacuation vehicles available and no return trips are needed. The Burke County Board of Education maintains all buses and equipment at the bus maintenance shop. The Burke County EMA Director will dispatch County busses to the school if needed. All evacuees from the school will check in at the reception center at the Burke County Comprehensive High School located at 1057 Perimeter Road in Waynesboro 22, prior to being evacuated to their final destination. Figure 6 shows the location of these facilities.

Table 11: School Locations Facility Name Address City County Zone Lord's House of Praise Christian School 162 Daybreak Road Waynesboro Burke E-10 Table 12: School Evacuation Information School Name Population Number Nme Mobilization Loading, Distance to Student Staff of: Buses Time Time EPZ Boundary Lord's House of Praise 50 20 2 15 min 25 min 1.4 mi Christian School 21 The number of vehicles available for transportation dependent residents include 83 county school buses and 3 standard passenger vans.

22 Annex D - Plant Vogtle - Burke County Emergency Management Radiological Plan. May 2009. Attachment H -

Evaucaiton and Sheltering. May 2009.

IEM 2012 Page 23

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 6: Map of Schools within the EPZ IEM 2012 Page Page 24 24 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 3.5. Vehicle Occupancy Rate Different vehicle occupancy rates (VOR) were used for the various categories of population (e.g., 1.7-1.8 vehicles per household for permanent residents). All workers were assumed to evacuate with a VOR of 1.25, whereas the recreational population was assumed to evacuate with a VOR of 1.5. After consultation with SNC emergency planners, students were assumed to evacuate via two buses at a rate of 25 students per bus, with the remaining school population departing in their own cars (occupancy rate of 1.0). Table 13 shows the VORs by different population categories used for the evacuation modeling.

Table 13: Vehicle Occupancy Rates by Population Categories Population: Category Population Subtype Vehicle Occupancy-Rate Auto-Owning Permanent 1.7-1.8 Permanent Residents Non-Auto-Owning Permanent 2.6 Transients Work Force Transients 1.25 Recreational Transients 1.5 SchoolStf Students 25 Staff1 3.6. Summary of Demand Estimation The total evacuation population and vehicles for different types and different scenarios are summarized in Table 14 and Table 15. There are more resident evacuees during the night and weekend because people do not need to commute to work or school at those times. Transient evacuees are at its peak level during the weekday because the majority is workers. There is also a significant amount of transient population during the weekend when the recreational population is at its peak level. It is assumed that there are few transient evacuees during the night. The shadow evacuees, who are assumed to be 20% of residents in the 10-15 mile ring, remain the same for the weeknight and weekend scenarios. They are relatively less during the weekday because a portion of the residents commute to work or school. As the vehicle occupancy rates for residents (including shadow evacuees) and transient population are determined by telephone survey and vary by scenario, the evacuation can be different for different scenarios, even if the population remains the same.

Table 14: Population Summary Table Scenario Permanent residents Transients Schools Transit Dependent Shadow Population Weekday 1,746 2,433 70 29 1,492 Weeknight 3,119 78 - 29 2,665 Weekend 3,119 340 29 2,665 Page 25 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 25

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 15: Vehicle Summary Table tScenario : Permanent residents Transients Schools Transit Dependent Shadow Population Weekday 1,136 1,947 22 1,465 Weeknight 1,699 63 -- 2,229 Weekend 1,796 239 2,313 IEM 2012 26 Page 26 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 4.0 EVACU.ATION ROADWAY NETWORK The evacuation routes were modeled based on the information provided in the VEGP 2012 Emergency Information Calendar. Additional information regarding the evacuation routes was obtained from the past VEGP ETE report and the county REP. Maps and descriptions in both documents were used by IEM as the basis of network verification activity. IEM personnel also met with the VEGP emergency response planning staff and county emergency preparedness officials regarding additional information and clarifications.

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

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

IEM personnel drove along the designated evacuation routes in the direction of an evacuation, as marked in the 2012 emergency information calendar to collect complete and accurate information about the physical state of the roads. Any differences between information indicated in the calendar, NAVTEQ data, and existing field conditions were noted and were incorporated into the analyses, as necessary. Figure 7 shows the entire evacuation network (including the routes for shadow evacuees) that is modeled.

Page 27 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 27

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT jRcC(j)tioii Center Figure 7: VEGP Evacuation Network 4.1. Network Definition IEM performed a complete review of the evacuation roadway network. The evacuation network was developed using published evacuation routes and GIS road network data representing roads available from NAVTEQ 23 and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT).24 The high accuracy NAVTEQ street network GIS data, obtained for the PTV Vision simulation software, was used for field validation purposes and to build the digital evacuation network database. The GDOT data was used to supplement the NAVTEQ data where required. To ensure the accuracy of this data, the entire evacuation network, including those roads outside the 10-mile EPZ leading to the reception centers, was verified by traveling each route in the network in the direction of evacuation and collecting detailed information regarding the properties of each road section using a Global Positioning System (GPS)-enabled device. The GPS allowed locating-with a high degree of precision-any sections that had changed in channelization, curvature, speed limits, or other necessary network information.

23 PTV America, Inc. "NAVTEQ Data for PTV VISION." Online:

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

24 Georgia Department of Transportation. Online http://www.dot.state.ga.us/. GDOT road network data was downloaded from the Georgia GIS Clearinghouse website at https://gisl.state.ga.us/index.asp.

Page 28 IEM 201L2

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

" Land width (in feet, field observation)

" Shoulder width (in feet, field observation)

" Number of lanes (field observation)

" FFS (in mph, field observation)

" Speed limit (in mph, field observation)

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

" Intersection layout (taking pictures)

" Toll gates and lane channelization (taking picture)

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

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

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

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

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

" Separation line: whether the two travel directions are separated by center lines (field observation) 4.2. Evacuation Route Descriptions The evacuation network modeled for the ETE analyses covers Burke County in Georgia, and Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in South Carolina. The evacuation routes were originally developed to permit a general radial travel pattern away from the plant toward the designated reception center. The evacuation route network is composed of three kinds of roads: highways, major arterial (roads connecting to highways), and minor arterial or connector roads (residential roads connecting to major arterial roads).

Examples of state highways are GA Hwy 23 and GA Hwy 80. Examples of major arterials are Ben Hatcher Road and Thompson Bridge Road. Examples of connector roads are Claxton-Lively Road and Thomas Road. The connector roads, although not part of the evacuation routes as described in the 2012 emergency information calendar, actually load the evacuee population (in cars) onto the evacuation routes composed of highways, major, and minor arterial roads. The following items are descriptions of each evacuation route as mentioned in the calendar (see also Figure 8).

Page 29 2012 IEM 2012 Page 29

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Evacuation Route 1

• Ben Hatcher Road to Shell Bluff Spur to Georgia Hwy 80 to Georgia Hwy 56 to Perimeter Road to Burke County High School.

Evacuation Route 2

• Hancock Landing Road to Botsford Church Road to Seven Oaks Road to Cates Mead Road to Hwy 56 to Perimeter Road to Burke County High School.

Evacuation Route 3

• Ebenezer Church Road to Hwy 23 to Thompson Bridge Road to Georgia Hwy 24 to Perimeter Road to Burke County High School.

Evacuation Route 4

" Brigham's Landing Road to Georgia Hwy 23 to Tom Bargeron Road to Georgia Hwy 24 to Perimeter Road to Burke County High School.

" Royal Road to Stoney Bluff Road to Georgia Hwy 23 to Tom Bargeron Road to Georgia Hwy 24 to Perimeter Road to Burke County High School.

Evacuation Route 5 (Zone G-IQ, Cowden Plantation)

• West on County Road 5 to County Road 63 north to County Road 57 west to U.S.

Hwy 278 north to South Carolina Hwy 302 north to South Aiken High School.

Evacuation Route 6 (Zone H-10, Creek Plantation)

• South on South Carolina Hwy 125 to U.S. Hwy 278 to Allendale-Fairfax High School.

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

Table 16: Reception Centers Reception Center Address Evacuation Routes Burke County High School 1057 Perimeter Road 1, 2, 3, 4 Waynesboro, GA 30830 South Aiken High School 232 E Pine Log Road5 Aiken, SC 29803 Allendale-Fairfax High School 3581 Allendale-Fairfax Highway 6 Fairfax, SC 29827 IEM 2012 Page 30 Page 30 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 8: Designated Evacuation Routes and Reception Centers 4.3. Evacuation Network Characteristics The evacuation network, as modeled using the NAVTEQ street network data, contains 377 links25 in the direction of evacuation and includes the connector roads. The total length of the modeled network, again in the direction of evacuation and all the way to the 25 A link is defined as a road section where its characteristics (e.g., speed limit and number of lanes) are constant. An intersection starts a new link or ends a link.

IEM 20:12 Page 31

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT reception centers, is about 671.4 miles. Detailed information regarding the roads that make up the evacuation network is provided in Appendix B.

The state highways generally have a posted speed limit of 55 mph. The major and minor arterial or connector roads generally have a posted speed limit of 45 mph. On some of the roads, especially the highways, the posted speed limit decreases to 35 mph near city limit boundaries. Unpaved roads or dirt roads have randomly posted speed limits, so a speed limit of 20-25 mph was assumed for modeling purposes based on comfortable and safe driving speeds achieved by IEM personnel on these roads during field verification. Most of the links in the evacuation network (including highways) generally have one lane available in the direction of evacuation. There are no interstates within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway EPZ. Perimeter Road is the only road that has at least two lanes available in the direction of evacuation. Other roads that have network links with two lanes are River Road, SC 302 (Pine Log Road inside Aiken City limits), and SC 125 (Augusta Highway in Allendale City limits).

Traffic control along the evacuation routes is mostly managed using stop signs. Traffic lights were found at Perimeter Road, Pine Log Road, and Augusta Highway. However, they are either replaced by manned control during the evacuation or located way beyond the EPZ with little impacts on the ETE. Therefore, no fixed timing traffic signal is modeled in the evacuation network.

The number of intersections for different control types during the evacuation is listed in Table 17. There are 32 intersections that will be manned controlled and are modeled as actuated signal controlled, with varied cycle length.

Table 17: Intersection Control Type Control Type Number of Intersections Stop sign Control 64 Signal Control 0 Manned Control 32 The key information for the ten highest volume intersections is listed in Table 18. The majority of these intersections are manned controlled. However, there are three stop sign control intersections. It is recommended to set up manned control for these busy intersections to facilitate the traffic flow and avoid potential extensive delay.

Page 32 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 18: Information for Ten Highest Volume Intersections Turning Lane Location LctoCotoTye Control Type Le Length Green Time* Evacuation Direction Turn

• Caciy( Capacity (#

vehicle)*

Thompson Bridge Road at GA-24 Stop sign N/A N/A Right turn from Thompson Bridge Road 1 to GA-24 US-25/Perimeter Road at Burke Manned Vary 0-2 min Left and right turn from US-25 to Burke 13 County High School County High School GA-24 and US-25/Perimeter Road Manned Vary 0 - 2 min Right turn from GA-24 to US-25 13 GA-56 at US-25/Perimeter Road Manned Vary 0 - 5 min Left turn from GA-56 to US-25 8 Bates Road at GA-56 Stop sign N/A N/A Left turn from Bates Road to GA-56 0 Cates Mead Road at GA-56 Manned Vary 0 - 2 min Left turn from Cates Mead Road to GA-56 0 Shell Bluff Spur at GA-80 Manned Vary 0 - 2 min Left turn from Shell Bluff Spur at GA-80 0 GA-80 at GA-56 Manned Vary 0 - 5 mrin Left turn from GA-80 to GA-56 0 Hatchers Mill Road at Thompson Manned Vary 0 - 5 min Left turn from Hatchers Mill Road to 0 Bridge Road Thompson Bridge Road Bates Road at Thompson Bridge Road Right turn from Bates Road to Thompson Controlled Bridge Road

• Queue capacity for turning lane of the evacuation direction Page 33 2012 IEM 2012 Page 33

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 20+/-2 34 Page 34 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

ý5.0 EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY "

ETEs were developed using VISUM 11, one of the core components of the PTV Vision software suite. VISUM is used to estimate evacuation times for different scenarios (e.g.,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IEM 2012 Page 35

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

1. First notification of public

2. Individual's awareness of incident

3. Leave work/facilities

4. Arrive home

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

0 1 2: Receive notification 0 2 - 3: Prepare to leave work/facilities 0 3 - 4: Travel home 0 2 - 5: Prepare to leave home Transient evacuees, including travelers, boaters, hunters, and employees living outside the EPZ, will follow Series A as shown in Figure 9. They will be notified of the event and will leave their activities.

1 2 3 Figure 9: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Transients, Special Facilities (Series A)

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

1 2 5 C 0 Figure 10: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences without Family Members Returning Home (Series B)

The results of a phone survey suggest around 48% of residences have regular commuters who would wait for household members to return home before evacuating. This portion of the population will follow series C in Figure 11 to evacuate. Note the activities of the people at home (denoted with a subscript H) can be undertaken in parallel with those of the commuter (denoted with a subscript C). Specifically, an adult member of a household can prepare to leave home while others are traveling home from work. In this instance, Page 36 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT the household members would be able to evacuate sooner than a household that prepares to leave home after all members have returned home.

Commuters 1c 2c 3c 4c IN 2K mm~mmm mmmmmm mm mU mm People at Home Figure 11: Evacuation Events and Activity Series for Residences with Family Members Returning Home (Series C)

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

Table 19: Trip Generation Estimate for Different Evacuation Activity Series A {1-,2+2--3)

B (1,*2+2-,5)

C Max: ((Ic-+2 c+ 2 c--+*3 c+3 c-4 0, (IH-.2 H+2 H--+5))

Page 37 IEM 2012 IEM Page 37

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

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

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

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

Page 38 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 100% ..... - ----.

U,o S90%

~80%

70%

0

• 1160%

0.

CL CL 20%

30% _____-EAS + TARs 1..EAS, Siren and CL 10% - - - ---- TARs 0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Minutes from Warning Start 27 Figure 12: Notification Times for Selected Alert and Notification Systems Notification times for hunters, boaters, and park visitors were increased by 45 minutes to allow time for local emergency officials to patrol the forest, river, or park with loud speakers to warn visitors.

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

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

27 Ibid.

Page 39 IEM 2012 IEM Page 39

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

100%

90%

I I

80% ). /

/,' I 70%

I 60%

It 7!

50% Ii --- Residents with Returning Members (Day)

I 40%

a Residents without Returning Members (Day)

I----' - - Residents without Returning Members (Night) ii 30% - ,- Residents without Returning Members (Weekend) 4' 20%

'I $ - - Workers

-4 - HPN Workers 10%

/

Recretional Population

/ -

0%

b#0 7 0 Zo . VO0 4~

Minutes after Warning Figure 13: Distribution of Trip Generation Times by Population Group 5.1.3. Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents As described in Section 3.3, the transit dependent permanent residents in the VEGP EPZ are estimated at 29. Table 20 shows the assumptions for determining the trip generation time for evacuating the transit dependent population. The trip generation time for the transit dependent population was determined by consulting with relevant EMA personnel and the SNC planning staff.

IEM 2012 Page 40 Page 40 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 20: Trip Generation Time for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents Transit Dependent CateoryCounty Cnu sTrip AssumptibinsTm Generation Category. Time.

Wheelchair Burke Residents will evacuate by special equipped 20 minutes vehicles Transportation Burke Residents will evacuate by school bus and 17 minutes standard vans Immobile Burke Residents will evacuate by ambulance 20 minutes 5.1.4. Trip Generation Time for Schools As described in Section 3.4, there is one school within the VEGP EPZ. Table 21 shows the assumptions for determining the trip generation time for the school population. The trip generation time for the school was determined by consulting with relevant personnel at the school.

Table 21: Trip Generation Time for Population in Schools Facility Category Facility Name Assumptions Trip Generation Time School Students Lord's House of Praise Students will evacuate in 40 minutes Christian School 40 minutes.

Lord's House of Praise Staff will not leave until Trip generation time for School Staff Christian School students have evacuated. students 5 minutes(40 minutes) plus Page 41 20+/-2 IEM 2012 Page 41

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 5.2. Evacuation Simulation Evacuations were simulated using the population and vehicle demand data, evacuation network data, and loading distribution data discussed in the previous sections. VISUM 11 was used to simulate evacuations. Figure 14 describes the framework of the analysis and three of its main features: the demand model, the network model, and the impact model.

Network Model Contains Supply Data:

" Transport Systems

" Subareas

• Nodes

" Links

" Speed Umits

• Capacities

" Listing and statistim calculated atbi

" Indicator matrices: evacuation time o Figure 14: ETEs Analysis Framework Using VISUM 5.2.1. The Demand Model The demand model contains the travel demand data. The total number of vehicles originating from a zone is calculated by dividing a population with its expected vehicle occupancy rate. The total number of vehicles originating from a zone is then distributed to different time intervals based on the loading distribution curve for the zone. The loading distribution curve for the zone depends on the warning system available for that zone. The travel demand is described by an origin-destination (OD) matrix. The OD matrix refers to a time interval and the total number of vehicles departing in that time interval.

5.2.2. The Network Model The network model describes the relevant supply data of an evacuation network. The supply data consists of subareas, nodes, links, speed limits, and capacities. The subareas describe areas with particular boundaries based on demography, topography, land Page 42 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictions. They represent the origin and destination of trips within the evacuation network. Nodes define positions of intersections in the evacuation network. Links connect nodes and, therefore, describe the road infrastructure. Every network object is described by its attributes (e.g., speed limits and capacities for the links). The travel time of a vehicle on a given link depends on the permitted speed and the capacity (i.e., the traffic volume a road can handle before the formation of a traffic jam) of the link. The roadway capacities used in the evacuation analysis were calculated using the field collected road attributes and capacity calculation methodology from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration.2 8 Details of the roadway capacity calculation method are presented as follows.

(i) Roadway Capacity Calculation Method IEM estimate roadway capacity based on road type and free flow speed. Using the characteristics data field (e.g., access control, median type, number of lanes in one direction, pavement type), roadway is categorized into five types: 1) full access controlled road; 2) rural multilane highway; 3) urban multilane highway; 4) single lane road; 5) unpaved road. The classification method is shown in the flow chart in Figure 15.

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

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

IEM 2012 Page 43

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 15: Roadway Type Classification Method Page 44 IEM 2012

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

0 Full access controlled road: Capacity = 1700 + FFS

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

• 20 with maximum of 2200

" Urban multilane highway: Capacity = 1900

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

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

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

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

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

fG and VNp are adjustment factors for grades and adjustment value for no passing zones.

fG can be found from Table 22- . If no other information is available, one may assume the.

two-way flow rate is in the range 0-600 pcph.

Table 22: Grade Adjustment Factors (fG) 0-600 1.00 0.71 0.57

>600-1,200 1.00 0.93 0.85

>1,200 1.00 0.99 0.99 29 FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, Appendix N: Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity, Rural Tow-lane Capacity, Table 6, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn3.cfm IEM 2012 Page 45

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT VNp can be calculated as VNp =fNP / 0.00776, wherefNp is the adjustment factor for no-passing zones on average travel speed and can be found in Table 2330. If no other information is available, one may assume the two-way flow rate is in the range 101-300 pcph, with a no passing zone percentage of 50% for separated roads and 90% for non-separated roads.

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

Two-Way Demand Flow Rate, No-Passing Zones (%)

vp(pcph) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0-100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101-300 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.5 301-500 0.0 0.9 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 501-700 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.7 3.9 701-900 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0 901-1,100 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 1,101-1,300 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 1,301-1,500 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1,501-1,700 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1,701-1,900 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1,901-2,100 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 2,101-2,300 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 2,301-2,500 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 30 FHWA, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Field Manual, Appendix N: Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity, Rural Tow-lane Capacity, Table 8, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appn3.cfm Page 46 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Reduction In Average Travel Speed (mph)

Two-Way Demand Flow Rate, No-Passing Zones (%)

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

>3,300 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (ii) Roadway Capacity Calculation Example Link #5 (node 0259 to node 8908, shown in Figure 20 and Table 34) as a segment of Hephzibah McBean Road is a rural single lane road located in a level area with approximate 50% no-passing zones and the two-way traffic is estimated in a range of 101-300. Therefore, its capacity is estimated as 1700

• 1.0 - 1.9/0.00776 = 1455 pcph.

Another example is link #126 (node 5435 to 4517, shown in Figure 20 and Table 34) as a segment of U.S. Hwy 278 is a rural multi-lane highway with two lanes in each direction and free flow speed of 55 mph. Therefore, its capacity is estimated as 2

• max (2200, 1000 + 55

• 20) = 4200 pcph.

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

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

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

IEM 2012 Page 47

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page 48 Page 48 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EVACUATION, TIMES.

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

of the evacuating vehicles exit the EPZ.

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

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

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

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

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

IEM 2012 Page 49

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 24: 2012 100% ETEs in Minutes Normal Weather Adverse Weather AffectedERPAs Area Midweek MMidweek We Wekndeideeidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend AfeceaEPytreidwee Datime Evening Weekend iDaytime Daytime Evening Wekn Daytme Datm A 2-mile ring _ 150 145 145 150 150 145 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, F-5 5-mile ring 1_80 185 190 180 185 190 All Evacuation Zones 1O-mile EPZ 200 205 205 200 205 205 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5 N 130 135 165 135 140 170 B-5,C-5 NNE 135 140 165 140 145 175 C-5 NE 90 115 100 90 115 100 D-5 ENE 125 135 125 130 135 125 D-5,E-5 E 140 145 140 140 145 140 E-5,F-5 ESE 150 165 165 150 170 170 F-5 SE 140 145 140 140 150 140 F-5 SSE 140 145 140 140 150 140 F-5 S 140 145 140 140 150 140

- SSW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WSW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A W N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B-5 WNW 130 135 165 135 140 170 B-5 NW 130 135 165 135 140 170 B-5 NNW 130 135 165 135 140 170 Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A,B-5 N .55 155 170 155 155 175 A,8-5,C-5 NNE 155 155 170 160 160 175 A,C-5 NE 150 150 145 155 150 150 A,D-5 ENE 155 150 150 155 155 150 A,D-5,E-5 E 160 165 160 160 165 165 A,E-5,F-5 ESE 165 175 175 170 175 175 A,F-5 SE 160 165 165 160 165 165 A,F-5 SSE 160 165 165 160 165 165 A,F-5 S 160 165 165 160 165 165 IEM 2012 Page 50 Page 50 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Normal Weather Adverse Weather AffecWedERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Daytime Weekend Daytime Daytime Weekend D Evening Evening Daytme A SSW 150 145 145 150 150 145 A SW 150 145 145 150 150 145 A WSW 150 145 145 150 150 145 A W 150 145 145 150 150 145 A,B-5 WNW 155 155 170 155 155 175 A,B-5 NW 155 155 170 155 155 175 A,B-5 NNW 155 155 170 155 155 175 Table 25: 2012 90% ETEs in Minutes Normal: Weather Adverse Weather Affected ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Daytime Weekend Daytime Daytime Weekend Daytime Evening Evening A 2-mile ring 80 80 80 80 85 80 A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, F-5 5-mile ring 90 100 100 90 105 105 All Evacuation Zones 10-mile EPZ 100 110 115 100 115 115 Evacuate 2 to 5 miles downwind B-5 N 125 130 140 125 140 145 B-5,C-5 NNE 125 130 140 125 140 145 C-5 NE 110 115 100 110 115 100 D-5 ENE 115 125 110 115 130 115 D-5,E-5 E 115 125 110 115 130 115 E-5,F-5 ESE 110 120 110 110 120 115 F-5 SE 110 120 110 115 120 110 F-5 SSE 110 120 110 115 120 110 F-5 S 110 120 110 115 120 110 SSW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WSW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A W N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B-5 WNW 125 130 140 125 140 145 B-5 NW 125 130 140 125 140 145 IEM 2012 Page 51

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Normal Weather Adverse Weather ieekenddweek Affected. ERPAs Area Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Daytime Weekend Daytime Daytime Weekend Daytime Evening Evening B-5 NNW 125 130 140 125 140 145 Evacuate 2-mile zone and 5 miles downwind A,B-5 N 80 90 95 85 90 100 A,B-5,C-5 NNE 85 90 95 85 90 100 A,C-5 NE 80 85 80 80 85 85 A,D-5 ENE 80 85 85 85 90 85 A,D-5,E-5 E 85 90 85 85 95 90 A,E-5,F-5 ESE 85 95 90 85 95 90 A,F-5 SE 80 95 85 85 95 90 A,F-5 SSE 80 95 85 85 95 90 A,F-5 S 80 95 85 85 95 90 A SSW 80 80 80 80 85 80 A SW 80 80 80 80 85 80 A WSW 80 80 80 80 85 80 A W 80 80 80 80 85 80 A,B-5 WNW 80 90 95 85 90 100 A,B-5 NW 80 90 95 85 90 100 A,B-5 NNW 80 90 95 85 90 100 6.2. Discussion of Scenario Results 6.2.1. General Trends

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

" The ETEs for scenarios in adverse weather increased in a range of 0 to 10 minutes from the corresponding scenarios in normal weather. The adverse weather conditions have little impacts on ETEs, increasing with no more than 5 minutes increase for the majority of the scenarios. The increase is due more to reduced available speeds than to reduced roadway capacities.

" For most area, the weekend scenario produced the highest evacuation times. This is due to the increased amount of recreational transients in the area (hunters and boaters) on the weekend. This population has a higher warning and diffusion time than other Page 52 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT populations - up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 35 minutes, compared to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 5 minutes for permanent residents. The only exception is for zone A, where the majority of the workers at VEGP consist of the evacuation population and few recreational populations.

6.2.2. Evacuation Area: 0-2 Miles The majority of the population in the Zone A evacuation area consists of employees of VEGP and SNC contractors (e.g., Shaw). In addition, Zone A includes a small number of permanent residents and non-plant employees. For the weekday scenario, the plant workforce was modeled to reflect 2,682 workers who would evacuate during an event, excluding another 200 emergency personnel, who will not evacuate. For the weeknight and weekend scenarios, the workforce for the plant was modeled such that 78-90 contractor employees will evacuate all VEGP employees were emergency personnel and would remain during an event. Evacuees in the 2-mile radius will mainly use Thompson Bridge Road to leave the EPZ and evacuate to the Burke County reception Center.

The longest evacuation times for the 2-mile radius occurred in the weekday scenario, because there is little recreational population. The evacuation times are relatively low and were affected by the loading times and available speed limits, not by significant congestion in the network. However, due to the large number of workforce at the VEGP, potential congestion could occur along the VEGP evacuation route. For example, Ebenezer Church Road and Thompson Bridge Road each exhibited volumes exceeding their capacities.

6.2.3. Evacuation Area: 0-5 Miles This area includes the entire 5-mile EPZ, consisting of zones A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5 and F-5. There are several evacuation routes leading out of the EPZ; however, a portion of the evacuating population will converge on SR-23 and SR-80 and evacuate to Burke County reception Center. Evacuation times for the entire 5-mile EPZ are similar to maximum evacuation times for all subzones for each scenario, and are noticeably longer than evacuation times for the 2-mile radius scenarios. Though the traffic converges for the evacuation of the entire 5-mile boundary, the road network capacity is generally sufficient in both normal and adverse weather. However, moderate congestion along Ebenezer Church Road and Thompson Bridge Road was observed, similar to the 0-2 miles scenarios.

6.2.4. Evacuation Area: 0-10 Miles The evacuation times of the entire 10-mile EPZ was noticeably longer than those of 0-5 mile area, due to the additional evacuees from 5-10 mile area. Zones A, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5, F-5, B-10, C-10, D-10, E-10 and F-10 will evacuate to the Burke County Reception Center and will primarily use SR-80 and SR-24 to leave the EPZ. Zones G-10 will evacuate to the Aiken County Reception Center and will use local road to leave the EPZ.

Zones H-10 will evacuate to the Allendale County Reception Center and will primarily use SR-125 to leave the EPZ.

Population for this area includes permanent residents, transients working in the EPZ, the Lord's House of Praise Christian School, and recreational visitors including boaters on IEM 2012 Page 53

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT the Savannah River and hunters in the wooded areas. The population for the Lord's House of Praise Christian School was only considered for the weekday scenario. The recreational activities were considered at peak levels for the weekend scenario.

These evacuation times are mainly influenced by three factors: 1) the higher warning and diffusion times for hunters in the area; 2) moderate congestions on the roads and intersections along Ebenezer Church Road and Thompson Bridge Road; 3) larger evacuation population resulting in larger chance of having a few evacuees who need extensive long loading time.

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

Table 26: Transit Dependent Permanent Resident Evacuation Times Transit Dependent Vehicle Category ETE Special Equipped Vehicle 50 min School Bus/Standard Van 55 min Ambulance 50 min 6.4. ETE Results for School Population The ETEs, average travel speed, and travel time for school population when evacuating full EPZ on the weekday under normal weather conditions are shown in Table 27. The bus queue occurs due to two buses loading students simultaneously at the school. Lord's House of Praise Christian School is located just inside the EPZ boundary of the EPZ and it only takes an average of 6 min for the evacuees to travel 1.4 miles to the boundary.

Table 27: School Evacuation Times Shoa Outbound Triavel Time~te.. :Bus Queue Travel Speed EPZ Boundary Length Lord's House of Praise Christian 14 mph 6 mi 100 ft 55mi School 6.5. Example Model Output Some example model outputs are presented as follows for the weekday, full EPZ, normal weather evacuation scenario. The total volumes and hourly percents at each exit road are listed in Table 28. Due to the high concentration of evacuation population from VGEP, the highest evacuation exit traffic is observed at a segment of Thompson Bridge Road crossing the southern EPZ boundary. The network wide average travel time from the Page 54 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT origins to the reception centers is 33 minutes. The total number of vehicle exit the EPZ is 3,127 and is the same as the total number of vehicles (excluding shadow evacuees) loaded into the network. The mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ are plotted in Figure 16. The average speeds for the five designated evacuation routes are shown in Table 29.

IEM 2012 Page 55

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 28: Total Volumes and Hourly Percents at Exit Roads Thompson Bridge Road 1019 39.3% 2.8% 0.1%

River Road 17 88.2% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0%

GA Hwy 23 3 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Tom Bargeron Road 401 63.1% 31.9% 5.7% 0.0%

Bates Road 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cates-Mead Road/Cates Head Road 687 71.7% 26.1% 1.5% 0.0%

GA Hwy 80 934 64.1% 30.3% 5.6% 0.1%

SC Hwy 125 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Jackson Street 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

100% 1 90%

80%

70%

/7/

w 0 60% 7/

C 50%

40%

30%

20% Exited 10% - Mobilized 0%

0 20 40 o 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Minutes After Public Warning Figure 16: Mobilization and Evacuation Curve IEM 2012 Page 56 56 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 29: Average Speed for Different Evacuation Routes Evacuation Route Average Speed (mph),

1 45 2 41 3 35 4 35

.5 37 6 48 Page 57 IEM IEM 201.2 2012 Page 57

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

ý7.0. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS The analyses related to confirmation of evacuation and potential mitigating measures to effectively manage the traffic flow were performed and are provided in the following sections.

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

The time required for confirmation of evacuation is dependent upon the method employed. The most time-consuming method typically employed is to use ground vehicles. The time required involves the driving time for each route selected. Given the lack of congestion evident around VEGP in 2006, the evacuation confirmation process in this case would not need to wait for the bulk of the evacuation to complete. This indicates that the confirmation could be completed concurrently with the evacuation. Substantial congestion was, however, observed in 2012 scenarios, so confirmation in this case is recommended to be conducted after the evacuation had completed.

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

As noted in the county REP 3 ', evacuation confirmation will be accomplished by the county Sheriffs Department and supporting law enforcement agency personnel that will traverse roadways throughout the affected area to ensure that the residential population has evacuated their homes. Personnel from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Section and the county Emergency Management Agency will move along the Savannah River and tributaries in boats to ensure that hunters and fishermen within the 10-mile EPZ are evacuated from the area. Additional assistance is available from other State agencies (i.e., Georgia Forestry Commission and Department of Transportation).

3 Annex D - Plant Vogtle - Burke County Emergency Management Radiological Plan. May 2009. (Obtained from State of Georgia REP).

Page 58 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT The actual time associated with the confirmation process would depend on both the number of personnel and the amount of equipment available. These resources may change significantly under various emergency conditions.

7.2. Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures In order to efficiently promote smooth movement of traffic flow during an evacuation, several TCPs have been identified by the plant and county emergency response planning personnel. The TCPs are listed in Table 30 and Table 31, and shown graphically in Figure 17. The responsibility of supervising traffic controls during an evacuation will be shared between the State's and counties' emergency management and law enforcement agency personnel, as available. Each TCP will be manned and/or road blocks will be established to direct evacuees out of the EPZ and to deny access into the affected area.

Also, route markers will be placed along the evacuation routes at critical intersections and road block locations to promote more efficient traffic flow out from the EPZ.

Table 30: Georgia Traffic Control Points for the VEGP EPZ Location ID Description I Georgia Hwy 56 SP (River Road) at McBean Club Road 2 Georgia Hwy 23 at Spring Branch Church Road 3 Georgia Hwy 80 at Georgia Hwy 23 4 Georgia Hwy 23 at Hancock Landing Road 5 Botsford Church Road at Seven Oaks Road 6 Sam Mead Road at Seven Oaks Road 7 Georgia Hwy 80 at Shell Bluff Spur 8 Georgia Hwy 56 at Georgia Hwy 80 9 Georgia Hwy 56 at Cates Mead Road 10 Georgia Hwy 56 at Perimeter Road 11 Entrance to Reception Center, Perimeter Road 12 Georgia Hwy 24 at Perimeter Road 13 Thompson Bridge Road at Hatchers Mill Road 14 Georgia Hwy 24 at Tom Bargeron Road 15 Georgia Hwy 23 at Johnson Road 16 Ellison Bridge Road at Johnson Road 17 Ellison Bridge Road at Murray Hill Road 18 Millhaven Road, I mile south of Givens Church Road 19 Millhaven Road, Stony Bluff Road, Georgia Hwy 23 Intersection in Girard 20 Stony Bluff Road at Intersection at Oak Grove Church IEM 20:12 Page 59

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Location ID 'Description:

21 Royal Road at River Road 22 VEGP Main Access Road at River Road 23 River Road at Hancock Landing Road 24 Jack Delaigle Road at Ebenezer Church Road Table 31: South Carolina Traffic Control Points for the VEGP EPZ County Location Description ID I Route 437 (Browns Road) at Route 5 (direct traffic north on Route 5: restrict vehicles from traveling south on Route 437) 2 Route 5 at Route 299 (direct traffic north on Route 5)

Aiken 3 Route 5 at Route 63 (direct traffic west on Route 63) 4 Route 63 at Route 125 (allow traffic to flow on Route 63) 5 Route 63 at Route 57 (direct traffic north on Route 57)

Barnwell 6 Route 125 at Route 493 (direct traffic south on Route 125) 7 Route 125 at Route 12 (direct traffic south on Route 125)

Allendale 8 Route 125 at Route 17 (direct traffic south on Route 125)

IEM 2012 Page 60 Page 60 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 17: Traffic Control Points in and around VEGP EPZ Page 61 2012 IEM 2012 Page 61

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 18.0O SENS.ITIV1TY STUDY OW.POPULATI0ON::C:HANGE" ETEs vary with factors such as population, roadway networks and vehicle occupancy rates. In response to new federal regulations, IEM conducted a population sensitivity analysis for VEGP to address the uncertainty in population data by estimating the anticipated impact of a population change on ETEs. This sensitivity analysis will provide a basis for decisions on future ETE update thresholds.

IEM increased the residential population (for both EPZ and shadow evacuees) to determine the population value that will cause ETE values to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less for the scenario with the longest ETE. This scenario is evacuating the entire EPZ during the weekend under adverse weather conditions. The base ETE for this scenario is 205 minutes, and hence the threshold for triggering an ETE update is 30 minutes increase in ETE. IEM found that an increase of 30 minutes occurs with a permanent resident population increase of 278% or 8,671 people within the EPZ (along with the increase of shadow evacuees with the same percentage).

IEM 2012 Page 62 Page 62 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 63 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 63

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 9.0 CoNCLUSN AND R ECOM ME NDAT ION:S The ETEs developed for 17 evacuation areas within the 10-mile VEGP EPZ measured the time from the public notification to when the last evacuating vehicle exited the EPZ boundary.

The 100% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 90 minutes to 205 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 90 minutes to 205 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather, also. The 90% ETEs for the evacuation areas ranged from 80 minutes to 140 minutes for the normal scenarios, and from 80 minutes to 145 minutes for those occurring in adverse weather. Variations in ETEs between scenarios generally correlated to differences in the number of evacuating vehicles, the capacity of the evacuation routes, the roadway conditions, or the distance from the origin zones to the EPZ boundary.

Except for 0-2 mi area (where the workforce at VEGP consists the majority population and there are few recreational population), the weekend scenario produced the highest evacuation times due to the longer mobilization time for the higher number of recreational transients in the area (hunters and boaters) on the weekend.

The analysis shows that the capacity of the roadway network within the EPZ is adequate to accommodate the population for most scenarios. However, there are a few areas that could become congested during an evacuation. Examples of such route include the Ebenezer Church Road and Thompson Bridge Road, which are used by a large number of evacuees from VGEP.

In conclusion, based on the data gathered and the results of the evacuation study conducted, IEM believes that the existing evacuation strategy is functional for the year 2012 conditions, given the lack of severe congestion or very high ETEs.

9.1. Summary of Recommendations The following recommendations will help emergency managers to improve the evacuation times from an event at VEGP:

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

" Use traffic control points (TCP) to facilitate flow in the areas (e.g., intersection of Thompson Bridge Rd and GA-24) where vehicles might otherwise have to slow due to congestion and traffic signals.

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

IEM 2012 Page 64 Page 64 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

Page 65 IEM 2012 IEM 20:12 Page 65

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT APPENDIX A: GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARI ES OF EVACUATION ZONES.

Table 32: Geographical Boundaries of VEGP EPZ Evacuation Zones

'Evacuation Geographical Boundaries Zones A Northeast-Savannah River Southeast, South/Southwest and West Northwest-2-mile area B-5 North-2-mile area West-Ebenezer Church Road Southwest-GA Hwy 23 South-Chance Road Southeast-Griffin's Landing Road Northeast-Savannah River B-10 Northwest-Griffin's Landing Road West-Dixon Road and City of Girard eastern boundary Southwest-Stony Bluff Road Southeast-Royal Road and then 10-mile area Northeast-Savannah River C-5 Northwest-Jack Delaigle Road Southwest-GA Hwy 23 East-Ebenezer Church Road C-10 North-Chance Road and GA Hwy 23 West-Brier Creek Road, Buck Road, and GA Hwy 23 South-Johnson Road, Ellison Bridge Road, Murray Hill Road, and the 10-mile area Southeast-Stony Bluff Road East-City of Girard eastern boundary and Dixon Road D-5 North-Hancock Landing Road West-Hancock Landing Road and Thomas Road Southwest-Hatchers Mill Road and Thompson Bridge Road South-Gordon Road and Tom Bargeron Road East-GA Hwy 23, Brier Creek Road, and Buck Road E-5 North-Ben Hatcher Road Page A-i IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page A-1.

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Evacuation Geographical Boundaries Zones East-River Road South-Hancock Landing Road West-Nathaniel Howard Road E-1O Northeast-Nathaniel Howard Road North-GA Hwy 80, GA Hwy 23, and Ben Hatcher Road West--l-mile area and Bates Road South-Thompson Bridge, Seven Oaks Road, and Botsford Church Road East-Hancock Landing Road F-5 North-Savannah River East-Savannah River West-5-mile radius and River Road South-2-mile area F-1O Northeast-Savannah River West-lO-mile radius and GA Hwy 23 South-Ben Hatcher Road East-River Road and the 5-mile area G-1O North-Gray's Landing on the Savannah River to the CSX track and Cowden Plantation Road East-SRS boundary and the CSX line South-Savanna River and the SRS boundary West-Savannah River Northeast-CSX track H-IO North-the SRS boundary and S125 extending into Allendale County's northern boundary East-Creek Plantation Road South-Savannah River West-SRS boundary IEM 2012 Page A-2 Page A-2 IEM 2012

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

i!qh Sc '-F airtax lend'ill lool Figure I8: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southeast Quadrant Page B-i 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 19: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Southwest Quadrant IEM 2012 B-2 Page B-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Figure 20: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northwest Quadrant Page 8-3 IEM 2012 IEM Page B-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ISmith Aiken Hi(=School h

Figure 21: Detailed Roadway Nodes and Links - Northeast Quadrant IEM 20i2 B-4 Page B3-4 IEM 201L2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Table 33: Glossary of Terms for Roadway Links Inputs Attribute Definition Link # The unique identifier for each roadway segment between two nodes.

U-Node Upstream node number for associated link.

D-Node Downstream node number for associated link.

Length Length of the roadway segment.

Lane Width Width of lane for the link.

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

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

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

FFS Free flow speed over the link.

Table 34: Roadway Network Characteristics Lane Number Saturation Link # U-Node D-Node Length Width of Lanes Roadway Type Flow Rate FFS 1 0058 3043 0.908 10 I Unpaved 800 30 2 0157 0161 0.124 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 3 0168 2126 2.755 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 50 4 0234 7399 1.470 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 5 0259 8908 2.143 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 6 0381 4096 6.418 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 7 0484 1087 1.431 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 8 0484 3037 3.576 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 9 0484 3191 2.070 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 10 0525 2011 0.035 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 11 0525 2012 0.033 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 12 0707 0715 4.694 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 13 0707 9506 0.125 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 14 0715 0722 1.926 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 15 0715 0759 1.389 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 16 0715 9833 1.297 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 IEM 2012 Page B-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane Number Saturation Link # U Node DANode Length Width of Lanes Flow Rate 17 0722 0759 2.029 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 18 0722 9620 5.191 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 19 0932 0872 9.028 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 20 0932 4088 1.376 11 Unpaved 800 35 21 0932 4390 4.897 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 22 0933 0872 0.189 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 23 0933 1092 4.536 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 24 0933 4323 2.429 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 40 25 1087 3030 1.292 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 26 1087 3043 1.226 10 Unpaved 800 30 27 1092 4690 1.714 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 28 1092 4820 3.379 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 29 1352 1417 0.846 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 30 1352 3018 0.514 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 31 1417 1680 1.515 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 32 1417 1952 1.773 10 Unpaved 800 30 33 1479 2095 3.134 11 Unpaved 800 35 34 1479 3037 0.892 10 Unpaved 800 30 35 1680 1952 0.993 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 36 1949 8775 0.857 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 37 2011 2012 0.043 11 Unpaved 800 35 38 2149 7396 0.526 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 50 39 2149 7673 0.555 11 Unpaved 800 35 40 2149 8690 0.966 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 50 41 2149 9616 0.359 11 Unpaved 800 35 42 2167 2432 1.614 10 Unpaved 800 30 43 2167 4311 0.475 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 44 2253 2894 1.310 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 45 2339 2356 0.133 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 46 2354 3681 3.222 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 47 2354 4800 2.579 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 48 2354 5563 2.210 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 49 2354 7883 1.234 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 IEM 2012 B-6 Page B-6 Page IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane NumberSaturation FF UrNode D-Node Length Lane Number Roadway Type F tow FFSR Link # Width of Lanes , Flow Rate 50 2356 4457 9.495 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 51 2400 9833 4.270 11 Unpaved 800 35 52 2432 2699 0.598 10 Unpaved 800 30 53 2432 4311 2.858 10 Unpaved 800 30 54 2448 2569 1.200 12 Ramp 570 25 55 2448 2680 0.774 12 Ramp 570 25 56 2451 2842 3.835 12 Ramp 570 25 57 2569 2451 3.371 12 Ramp 570 25 58 2569 8902 2.363 12 Ramp 570 25 59 2575 4174 1.758 11 Unpaved 800 35 60 2631 2699 2.821 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 61 2841 3185 1.181 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 62 2894 2575 1.417 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 63 3018 8778 0.548 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 64 3028 4820 0.266 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 65 3030 3043 1.133 10 Unpaved 800 30 66 3036 3037 1.740 10 Unpaved 800 30 67 3094 3132 2.517 11 Unpaved 800 35 68 3094 8696 0.689 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 69 3146 3445 0.427 11 Unpaved 800 35 70 3146 4657 2.281 11 Unpaved 800 35 71 3146 8832 0.472 11 Unpaved 800 35 72 3185 3368 0.582 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 73 3185 3837 1.865 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 74 3257 5310 0.289 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 75 3257 6741 0.607 10 Unpaved 800 35 76 3257 9350 0.260 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 77 3289 2400 1.473 12 Ramp 570 25 78 3289 3426 0.514 12 Ramp 570 25 79 3368 4412 2.229 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 80 3426 4029 1.331 11 Unpaved 800 35 81 3427 5173 2.293 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 82 3427 5314 1.303 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 Page B-7 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane Number Strto Link # U-Node D-Node Length Widt ofmanes Roadway Type Saturation FFS SWidth of Lanes .Flow.Rate 83 3427 9350 1.622 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 84 3445 8832 0.533 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 85 368+/- 8002 2.034 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 86 3696 3986 0.746 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 87 3696 4174 0.174 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 88 3849 3850 0.070 11 1. Unpaved 800 35 89 3849 385+/- 0.076 +/-11 I Unpaved 800 35 90 3849 3853 6.979 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 91 3850 385+/- 0.058 11 1. Unpaved 800 35 92 3850 8766 1.375 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 93 3851 1855 2.533 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 94 3858 3986 0.446 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 95 3881 0259 2.449 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 96 3881 3445 1.882 1+/- I Unpaved 800 35 97 3881 4657 1.802 12 +/- Single-Lane Road 1455 45 98 4029 2400 1.962 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 99 4029 4050 0.055 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 100 4088 4096 3.652 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 101 4088 9431 4.302 11 Unpaved 800 35 102 4096 1855 1.839 11 Unpaved 800 35 103 4096 9431 3.063 11 Unpaved 800 35 104 4361 7642 0.772 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 105 4361 7774 1.403 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 106 436+/- 8572 0.577 +/-2 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 107 4361 9594 1.083 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 108 4588 4596 0.402 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 109 4588 6743 0.303 10 Unpaved 800 30 110 4657 9941 4.049 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 111 4690 4822 1.550 11 Unpaved 800 35 112 4701 0259 0.350 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45

+/-13 4701 8990 1.418 11 Unpaved 800 35 114 4800 4801 0.580 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 115 4820 4822 5.390 11 Unpaved 800 35 IEM 20+/-2 B-8 Page B-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane Number Saturation Link # U-Node D-Noede Length

• • *Width Wiane Number of Lanes RoadwayType Roaday Tpet Flow Raten FFS F

116 4821 4822 0.524 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 117 5048 5049 0.325 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 118 5137 6088 1.535 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 119 5137 9041 1.015 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 120 5173 5174 0.011 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 121 5173 5179 1.667 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 122 5174 8002 0.383 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 123 5310 5314 0.681 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 124 5435 0168 0.280 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 125 5435 4457 0.103 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 126 5435 4517 4.804 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 127 5593 0337 2.879 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 128 5593 5594 2.437 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 129 5593 8855 1.618 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 130 5594 2472 3.813 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 131 5594 5137 1.598 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 132 5594 8908 1.142 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 133 5715 0168 5.929 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 134 5715 5744 2.587 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 135 5715 5760 0.433 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 136 5760 5761 2.044 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 137 5760 5911 6.896 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 138 5761 1855 8.786 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 139 5770 5771 0.223 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 140 5771 2011 3.042 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 141 5820 2126 2.898 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 142 5820 2841 0.770 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 143 5820 5911 1.832 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 144 5911 5915 0.592 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 145 5915 3368 0.730 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 146 6088 6508 2.066 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 147 6508 6720 1.330 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 148 6524 0161 0.749 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 IEM 2012 Page B-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Link # 'U-Nede I*,Nede" Length Ln Nubr Roadway Type. SauaIo

..  : FFS

• ~Width *of Lanes FwRate F16 ,

149 6524 6669 0.408 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 150 6643 9274 9.847 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 151 6669 6882 1.892 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 152 6741 6742 0.888 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 153 6858 6882 0.005 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 154 6862 3528 2.704 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 155 6862 3681 2.072 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 156 7081 3528 2.110 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 157 7081 5174 0.360 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 158 7081 8002 0.517 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 159 7144 5715 9.316 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 160 7159 4956 3.825 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 161 7159 5435 3.206 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 162 7159 5820 3.379 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 163 7189 7191 2.019 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 164 7189 7642 3.499 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 165 7189 8689 2.660 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 166 7191 6720 3.446 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 167 7191 7193 1.250 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 168 7193 5593 5.134 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 169 7193 6508 2.497 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 170 7212 5786 0.062 12 1 Ramp 570 25 171 7212 5915 0.754 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 172 7212 7214 0.045 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 173 7214 4390 3.025 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 174 7217 7218 0.019 12 1 Ramp 570 25 175 7217 7219 0.138 12 1 Ramp 570 25 176 7218 5761 4.637 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 177 7219 7222 0.052 12 1 Ramp 570 25 178 7219 7223 0.211 12 1 Ramp 570 25 179 7222 7224 0.208 12 1 Ramp 570 25 180 7222 7227 0.126 12 1 Ramp 570 25 181 7227 7228 0.030 12 1 Ramp 570 25 IEM 2012 B-b Page B-IO IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Link # U-Node D-Node Length Lane Number Roadway Type Saturation FFS Width of Lanes

• Flow: Rate 182 7228 4390 1.931 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 183 7376 3028 0.290 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 184 7376 9274 0.426 11 Unpaved 800 35 185 7396 7399 9.767 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 186 7396 7654 0.540 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 187 7410 6643 1.196 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 188 7410 6725 1.018 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 189 7411 2451 1.538 12 Ramp 570 25 190 7411 7413 3.405 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 191 7413 2680 2.911 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 192 7413 9833 3.243 11 Unpaved 800 35 193 7457 7458 0.021 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 194 7457 8063 1.488 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 195 7458 3396 2.863 10 Unpaved 800 30 196 7458 3528 0.486 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 197 7642 7673 0.634 11 Unpaved 800 35 198 7642 8688 0.921 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 199 7654 8697 0.704 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 200 7654 8703 0.699 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 50 201 7660 2842 1.594 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 202 7660 3094 3.297 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 203 7660 7880 3.270 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 204 7660 8902 1.392 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 205 7673 8572 0.138 11 Unpaved 800 35 206 7716 2448 1.495 12 Ramp 570 25 207 7716 8902 1.278 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 208 7718 2400 3.973 11 Unpaved 800 35 209 7718 7825 2.794 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 210 7720 0381 0.046 12 Ramp 570 25 211 7720 7218 0.220 12 Ramp 570 25 212 7720 7223 0.130 12 Ramp 570 25 213 7721 0381 0.022 12 Ramp 570 25 214 7721 7228 0.268 12 Ramp 570 25 Page B-Il IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 13-11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Link # U-Node D-Node, Length Lane Number RoadwayType Saturation, FFS Width of Lanes R Flow Rate 215 7721 7723 0.154 12 1 Ramp 570 25 216 7723 7222 0.217 12 1 Ramp 570 25 217 7723 7224 0.041 12 1 Ramp 570 25 218 7724 7219 0.176 12 1 Ramp 570 25 219 7724 7223 0.045 12 1 Ramp 570 25 220 7724 7726 0.142 12 1 Ramp 570 25 221 7726 5786 2.048 12 1 Ramp 570 25 222 7726 7217 0.249 12 1 Ramp 570 25 223 7727 5786 2.067 12 1 Ramp 570 25 224 7727 7224 0.129 12 1 Ramp 570 25 225 7727 7227 0.189 12 1 Ramp 570 25 226 7754 6720 0.944 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 227 7754 7761 1.299 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 228 7754 7770 0.785 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 229 7759 0157 2.341 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 230 7759 7760 0.207 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 231 7759 7762 2.004 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 232 7760 4091 1.352 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 233 7761 0157 2.260 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 234 7761 7762 0.331 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 235 7762 6088 2.390 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 236 7766 7768 1.922 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 237 7766 7776 0.701 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 238 7766 7786 2.460 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 239 7768 6720 1.606 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 240 7768 7770 0.483 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 241 7770 6882 1.173 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 242 7774 3132 1.746 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 243 7774 7776 1.184 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 244 7776 4588 2.567 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 245 7786 4596 1.310 10 1 Unpaved 800 35 246 7786 7787 0.812 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 247 7787 7789 0.843 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 Page B-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Link # U-Node j*

D-Node: *Width Length Lane Width Number

• of anesFlow of Lanes p.

Roadway Type Strio Rate FSaRation FS FFS 248 7788 7457 2.948 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 249 7788 7789 0.829 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 250 7788 7792 2.551 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 251 7789 6862 2.285 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 252 7792 3150 4.475 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 253 7792 8063 0.610 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 254 7792 8524 0.651 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 255 7797 1352 0.753 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 256 7797 1417 0.752 10 Unpaved 800 30 257 7797 7801 2.114 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 258 7801 3150 0.803 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 259 7801 7876 1.480 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 260 7803 3030 0.961 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 261 7803 7805 0.322 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 262 7803 8778 0.364 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 263 7805 8775 0.011 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 264 7805 8860 0.537 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 265 7808 0525 4.721 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 266 7808 7809 2.248 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 267 7808 7842 1.952 11 Unpaved 800 35 268 7809 2253 0.311 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 269 7809 7810 0.441 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 270 7810 2253 0.285 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 271 7810 7811 0.160 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 272 7811 1949 0.550 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 273 7811 7847 0.961 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 274 7815 3696 1.648 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 275 7815 3986 1.477 11 Unpaved 800 35 276 7825 3289 1.464 12 Ramp 570 25 277 7825 7828 1.172 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 278 7828 2699 0.603 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 279 7842 7846 0.050 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 280 7842 9043 4.584 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 Page B-13 2012 IEM 2012 Page B-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Length Lane Number Saturation F Linkl# U-Node D-Node Roadway Type Flow Rate FFS Width of Lanes 281 7843 7846 1.265 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 282 7843 7847 1.219 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 283 7843 9357 1.824 10 Unpaved 800 30 284 7846 1479 3.721 10 Unpaved 800 30 285 7847 7848 0.358 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 286 7848 1949 0.575 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 287 7848 8775 0.800 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 288 7850 2631 0.334 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 289 7850 7851 1.299 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 290 7851 1952 0.981 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 291 7851 7852 0.275 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 292 7852 2253 1.992 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 293 7852 8860 1.260 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 294 7853 2575 1.706 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 295 7853 2631 0.286 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 296 7862 0722 4.367 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 297 7862 4050 1.205 11 Unpaved 800 35 298 7862 7864 1.355 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 299 7864 3858 0.865 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 300 7864 4050 1.674 12 Ramp 570 25 301 7873 1601 2.644 10 Unpaved 800 30 302 7873 7874 0.368 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 303 7873 7880 0.549 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 304 7874 7875 1.425 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 305 7874 8886 1.711 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 306 7875 8524 1.893 10 Unpaved 800 30 307 7875 9282 0.743 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 308 7876 1680 3.416 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 309 7876 9282 2.325 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 310 7880 3132 4.543 11 Unpaved 800 35 311 7883 3968 1.668 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 312 7887 4800 0.940 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 313 7900 3150 3.533 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 IEM 2012 B-14 Page B-1.4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane Number Satur.ation "

Link.# U-Node ....

D-Node Length Width of Lanes *Flow Roadway Type Rate&-. FFS 314 7900 3396 1.421 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 40 315 7900 3427 0.442 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 316 8063 8366 1.447 10 Unpaved 800 30 317 8264 4701 0.667 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 318 8264 7760 1.026 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 319 8264 7887 3.161 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 320 8268 0707 3.068 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 321 8268 7399 2.601 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 322 8268 7411 0.837 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 323 8268 9117 4.319 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 324 8271 2894 4.244 11 Unpaved 800 35 325 8271 5771 4.704 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 326 8271 7815 1.093 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 327 8276 3285 1.768 10 Unpaved 800 30 328 8276 4596 1.841 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 329 8276 8886 0.983 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 330 8366 3396 1.457 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 40 331 8524 8886 1.321 11 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 332 8688 8689 0.062 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 333 8688 8690 0.070 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 334 8689 8690 0.068 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 50 335 8696 8697 0.014 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 336 8697 8703 0.511 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 337 8697 9594 1.275 12 Multi-Lane Hwy 4200 55 338 8832 8833 2.291 11 Unpaved 800 35 339 8907 8908 0.692 11 Unpaved 800 35 340 8907 8990 0.769 11 Unpaved 800 35 341 8907 9041 0.879 11 Unpaved 800 35 342 8990 9041 0.800 11 Unpaved 800 35 343 9043 2095 0.011 12 Ramp 570 25 344 9043 9100 6.682 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 345 9080 3696 0.222 12 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 346 9080 4174 0.306 11 Unpaved 800 35 Page B-IS 2012 IEM 20.12 Page B-15

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Lane.

Width Number

• of Lanes Saturation' Link # U-Node ......

D-Node. Length Width ouLaees Roadway ..Type'. Flow Rate, FlotRate F FFS 347 9080 9081 0.080 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 348 9081 3858 0.842 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 349 9081 7828 3.263 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 350 9081 7853 1.754 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 351 9100 5612 0.529 12 1 Ramp 570 25 352 9100 7410 14.177 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 353 9100 9105 5.155 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 354 9105 2012 4.760 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 355 9116 2680 1.413 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 356 9116 7716 1.192 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 357 9116 7718 0.376 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 358 9117 2842 2.089 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 359 9117 8703 3.946 12 2 Multi-Lane Hwy 4000 50 360 9120 6669 2.069 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 361 9120 7787 0.734 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 362 9120 7789 0.496 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 45 363 9120 7883 3.700 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 55 364 9227 9620 1.858 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 365 9281 9282 1.205 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 366 9350 5314 0.831 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 367 9427 0872 6.407 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 368 9427 9428 2.090 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 369 9427 9431 1.296 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 370 9428 1855 4.932 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 371 9428 6241 5.095 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 372 9609 9620 1.317 11 1 Unpaved 800 35 373 9630 0484 2.130 10 1 Unpaved 800 30 374 9630 3018 3.238 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 45 375 9630 5049 1.039 11 1 Single-Lane Road 1292 35 376 9630 6741 2.564 10 1 Unpaved 800 35 377 9763 2841 7.624 12 1 Single-Lane Road 1455 40 IEM 2012 B-16 Page B-16 Page IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

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

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

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

To ensure the highest quality of work was performed, a quality assurance plan was implemented in this survey process that included call-taker training, telephone monitoring by IEM, and extensive data quality control checks.

The sampling frame consisted of a list of households within the study area. The survey required over 500 completed surveys in order to achieve the desired margin of error of 4 percentage points or less. However, there were not enough telephone listings available in the databases used by STR to attain this sample size. Several efforts were made to get a more comprehensive listing. With the available telephone numbers, the survey effort produced a total of 200 completed surveys, resulting in a margin of error at 6.8% with 95% confidence level.

Page C-i 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Survey Results

• How many people live in your home?

Table 35: Household Size

. ZU/o 2 42%

3 17%

4 13%

5 or more 10%

100%-

80%-

60%-

42%

40%-

20%

17%

13%

20% - 100%

0%-

1 2 3 4 5 or more Household Size Figure 22: Household Size Page C-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT If instructed to evacuate, how many cars would your family use to evacuate...

0 During the day?

Table 36: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate During the Day 1 bil/O 2 27%

3 or more 9%

None 2%

100% -

80%-

63%

60%-

40% 27%

2f%

0%

1 1 - 2 9%

3 or more 2%

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT At night?

Table 37: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate at Night 2 25%

3 or more 9%

None 4%

100%-

80%

63%

60%

40% 25%

20% qo%

0%

1 2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate at night Figure 24: Number of cars used to evacuate at night Page C-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

• On most weekends?

Table 38: Percentage of Cars Used to Evacuate on Weekends 2 30%

3 or more 10%

None 3%

100%

80%

58%

60%

40%

20% 10%

0%

1 2 3 or more None Numberof cars used to evacuate on weekends Figure 25: Number of cars used to evacuate on weekends Page C-5 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page C-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Does anyone in your family rely on public transportation in the event of an evacuation?

Table 39: Percentage who rely on public transportation to evacuate I Ji0 2 1%

3 2%

4 0%

5 or more 1%

None 94%

94%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20% 3% 1% 2% 0% 1%

nO/ -ý - - -i I.

1 2 3 4 5or None more Number who rely on public transportation to evacuate Figure 26: Number who rely on public transportation to evacuate IEM 2012 Page C-6 Page C-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

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

Table 40: Percentage of Respondents who indicated there are commuters in the family 1 210 2 17%

3 12%

4 2%

5 or more 1%

None 43%

100%

80%

60%

43%

40% 27%

17%

12%

20% ]

2% 1%

nol

'JI 0O --

1 2 3 4 5or None more Numberwho commute at least4 times per week Figure 27: Number who commutes at least 4 times per week IEM 2012 Page C-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT How long would it take each family member who works to return home, including the preparation time to leave work and the travel time back home?

Table 41: Time to Return Home from Work 1-b minutes W/O 6-10 minutes 9%

11-15 minutes 4%

More than 15 minutes 82%

Time to return home from work 4 1-5 minutes E 6-10 minutes 11-15 minutes 0 More than 15 minutes Figure 28: Time it takes to return home from work Would the people at home evacuate on their own or wait for family members to come home before evacuating?

Table 42: Percentage who would Evacuate or Wait Evacuate on own 76%

Await the return of family members 25%

IEM 2012 Page 0-8 Page C-8 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT If you had to evacuate, how long would it take for the family to pack clothing, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations...

During the day?

Table 43: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations during the Day 1-5 minutes 17%

6-10 minutes 13%

11-15 minutes 7%

More than 15 minutes 65%

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

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

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT At night?

Table 44: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations at Night 1-5 minutes 12%

6-10 minutes 12%

11-15 minutes 8%

More than 15 minutes 69%

Time to complete evacuation preparations at night E 1-5 minutes 6-10 1 minutes 11-15 minutes N More than 15 minutes Figure 30: Time it takes to complete evacuation preparations at night Page C-10 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

° On most weekends?

Table 45: Time to Complete Evacuation Preparations on Weekends 1-5 minutes 12%

6-10 minutes 13%

11-15 minutes 10%

More than 15 minutes 66%

Time to complete evacuation preparations on weekends 0 1-5 minutes N 6-10 minutes 1 11-15 minutes N More than 15 minutes Figure 31: Time it takes to complete evacuation preparations on the weekends IEM 2012 Page C-11

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

• Do any family members require assistance because they don't drive or cannot drive?

If so, how many?

Table 46: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance 1 1i1o 2 5%

3 3%

4 0%

5 or more 1%

None 78%

100%

78%

80%

60%

40%

15%

20% 5% 3% 0% 1%

00/

1 2 3 4 5or None more Numberof family members who require evacuation assistance Figure 32: Number of family members who require evacuation assistance IEM 2012 Page C-12 Page C-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 0 What type of assistance is needed?

Table 47: Percentage of Respondents who indicated a family member needs assistance Just a ride, no special accommodations 96%

A wheelchair van 4%

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

medical attention.

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

required.

Other 0%

-o Other 0%

S0%

• Ambulance w/no medical attention C

S0%

M Ambulance w/medical attention 0 Awheelchair van 96%

Just a ride 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 33: Type of Evacuation Assistance Required IEM 2012 Page C-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page 0-14 Page C-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT APPE NDI:X D:; PTV VIsION QUALITY ASSUR ANCE AND INDUSTRY AcCEPTANCE INFORMATION March 28, 2006 4 ,_

ýA traffic mobility logistics.

PTV America, Inc.

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

8555 United Plaza Blvd. Phone: 302-654-4384 Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Fax: 302-691-4740 www.ptvamerica.com RE: PTV Vision Quality Assurance and Industry Acceptance

Dear Mr. Chauhan:

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

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

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

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

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

Page D-1 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page 13-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT The following public agencies are currently using VISSIM:

traffic mobility logistics.

" Arkansas State Highway Dept,

• CALTRANS, PTV America, Inc.

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

• Florida DOT,

• Idaho DOT, Phone: 302-654-4384

• Kansas DOT, Fax: 302-691-4740

• Louisiana DOT, www.ptvamerica.com

• Michigan DOT,

• Missouri DOT,

• Nevada DOT,

• New Mexico DOT,

• NYSDOT.

• Ohio DOT,

• Oregon DOT,

• South Carolina DOT,

• UDOT,

• Washington DOT The following public agencies are currently using VISUM:

• AGFTC, Fort Edward NY

" BMPO, Bend OR

• BMTS, Binghamton NY

• CAMPO, Corvallis OR

• CDTC, Albany NY

• El Paso MPO, El Paso TX

• Farmington MPO, Farmington NM

• KMPO, Coeur D'Alene ID

• Las Cruces MPO, Las Cruces NM

• LCOG, Eugene OR

• METRO, Portland OR

• MWVCOG, Salem OR

• NOCTC, Goshen NY

• PPACG, Colorado Springs CO

• RATS, Rockford IL

• Santa Fe MPO, Santa Fe NM

• Skagit COG, Mount Vernon WA

• Southwest WA RTC, Vancouver WA

• SRTC, Spokane WA

• WVTC, Wenatchee, WA

• YVCOG, Yakima WA IEM 2012 Page D-2 Page D-2 IEM 2012

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

Sincerely yours, PrV America, Inc.

1300 N I'Mik.,t Street. SuitC, 603 Wuhnington. DE 19801-1809 Phono. 302-454-4384 Kiel Ova, P.E., PTOE Fax. 302_-6!1-4740 Project Manager www.pi~vamerica.co m Page D-3 2012 IEM 2012 Page D-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT This page intentionally left blank.

IEM 2012 Page D-4 Page D-4 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT

'AP'PE ND-U1:. ,E:. ET"E REVI:EW C RITE R IA GiE CKLi S T3v2 Table 48: NUREG/CR-7002 ETE Review Criteria Checklist Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) Yes Section 1.1 Site Location and surrounding area should be Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone described.

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

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

1.1 Approach

a. Adiscussion of the approach and level Yes Section 2.2 Methodology of detail obtained during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided. Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation (and sub-sections)

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

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

c. Discussion should be presented on use Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network of traffic control plans in the analysis. Characteristics Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic Management Locations and Other Potential Mitigating Measures 33 32 NRC. Criteriafor Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies. NUREG/CR-7002. November 2011.

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

IEM 2012 Page E-1

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for VogUe Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

e. Methods used to address data Yes Section 8.0 Sensitivity Study on uncertainties should be described. Population Change 1.2 Assumptions

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

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

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

1.3 Scenario Development

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

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

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

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone response planning areas (ERPAs) Figure 2: VEGP EPZ Boundary and should be included. Protective Action Zones

b. A table should be provided identifying Yes Section 1.2 Emergency Planning Zone the ERPAs considered the RP~ for each ETE orcosidred achETETable 3: Evacuation Areas for a Staged calculation by downwind direction in Evacuation Are each sector. Evacuation Keyhole 33 Because the VEGP EPZ does not have any population centers, traffic control plans have not been produced.

However, Section 4.3 discusses traffic control points.

Page E-2 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtie Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

2.0 Demand Estimation

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

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

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

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

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

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should Yes Section 3.1 Permanent Residents be between l and be 2btwee or or justification ustficaionSection JLand 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy Rate should be provided for other values.

b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Section 3.0 Population and Vehicle Demand Estimation Section 3.2 Transient Populations 2.1.2 Transient Population

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

Page E-3 2012 IEM 2012 Page E-3

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b. The average population during the Yes Section 3.2 Transient Populations season totaled should for eachbescenario.

used, itemized and Peak Pa recreational erainlpplto population numbers ubr were used for the fall weekend scenarios. Off-peak are estimated for other scenarios.

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

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

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

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

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

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

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

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

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

IEM 2012 E-4 Page E-4 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

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

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the N/A No special facilities, as defined in the type of facility, location, and average NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the population should be provided. Special EPZ.

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

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

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

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

provided.

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

other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

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

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

Page E-5 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page E-5

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

c. The estimate of high school students N/A There are no high schools in the +/-0-mile who will use their personal vehicle to EPZ.

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

d. The need for return trips should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School identified if necessary. Populations 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.A Special Events

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

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

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

the peak transient population should be analyzed in the ETE.

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

attending the event should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

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

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

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

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions pass-through traffic should be based It is assumed that little pass-through and on the average daytime traffic. Values background traffic would exist after the may be reduced for nighttime evacuees start to load into the roadway scenarios. network.

Page E-6 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b. Pass-through traffic should be Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions assumed to have stopped entering the It is assumed that little pass-through and EPZ about two hours after the initial background traffic would exist after the evacuees start to load into the roadway network.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided Yes Section 3.6 Summary of Demand that identifies the total populations Estimation and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schoolsshadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model capacity should be discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the Yes Section 4.1 Network Definition EPZ has been conducted.

b. Information should be provided Yes Section 4.1 Network Definition describing the extent of the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.

c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, Yes Table 34: Roadway Network "Roadway Characteristics," of Characteristics NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.

d. Calculations for a representative Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model roadway segment should be provided.

e. A legible map of the roadway system Yes Appendix B: Evacuation Network Lines that identifies node numbers and (Detailed Information) segments used to develop the ETE Figure 18 through Figure 21 should be provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR-7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model roadway capacity for the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

IEM 2012 Page E-7

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b. The capacity analysis identifies where Yes Section 5.2.2 The Network Model field information should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network provided that includes the total Characteristics numbers of intersections modeled Table 17: Intersection Control Type that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.

b. Characteristics for the 10 highest Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network volume intersections within the EPZ Characteristics are provided including the location, Table 18: Information for Ten Highest signal cycle length, and turn lane Volume Intersections queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how Yes Section 4.3 Evacuation Network time signal cycle is used in the Characteristics calculations.

3.4 Adverse Weather

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

b. The speed and capacity reduction Yes Section 2.1 General Assumptions factors identified in Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be used or a basis should be provided for other values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for N/A Because there are few extreme weather snow removal on streets and conditions such as heavy snow at the driveways, when applicable. VEGP, no significant impacts of adverse weather on mobilization are expected.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation generation times should be identified. Network

b. When telephone surveys are used, the Yes Appendix C: Telephone Survey scope of the survey, area of the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.

Page E-8 IEM 201.2

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

d. The trip generation time for each Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation population group should be developed Network from site specific information.

4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation evacuate from their homes but are not Network assumed to be at home at all times.

Trip generation time includes the assumption that a percentage of residents will need to return home prior to evacuating.

b. Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 5.1.2 Trip Generation Time time and method used to notify Estimate transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.

c. The trip generation time accounts for N/A No Hotels are found within the EPZ.

transients potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.

d. Effect of public transportation N/A No Special events are expected.

resources used during special events where a large number of transients are expected should be considered.

e. The trip generation time for the Yes Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation transient population should be Network integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent routes are used in the ETE analysis. If Permanent Residents new plans are developed with the ETE, There are no specialized bus routes or they should have been agreed upon by pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents the responsible authorities, will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

b. Discussion should be included on the Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent means of evacuating ambulatory and Permanent Residents non-ambulatory residents.

IEM 201.2 Page E-9

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

d. Logistical details, such as the time to Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent obtain buses, brief drivers and initiate Permanent Residents the bus route are provided. There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

e. Discussion should identify the time Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent estimated for transit dependent Permanent Residents residents to prepare and then travel to Section 5.1.3 Trip Generation Time for a bus pickup point, and describes the Transit Dependent Permanent Residents expected means of travel to the pickup point. Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit Dependent Permanent Residents There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

f. The number of bus stops and time Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent needed to load passengers should be Permanent Residents discussed. There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

g. A map of bus routes should be N/A There are no specialized bus routes or included. pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

IEM 2012 Page E-1O Page E-10 IEM 20:12

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

h. The trip generation time for non- Yes Section 3.3 Transit Dependent ambulatory persons includes the time Permanent Residents to mobilize ambulances or special Section 5.1.3 Trip Generation Time for vehicles, time to drive to the home of Transit Dependent Permanent Residents residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit provided. Dependent Permanent Residents There are no specialized bus routes or pick-up points. Per EMA SOPs, residents will be picked up at their homes by school buses running regular routes. No designated mass pick-up points will be used.

Information should be provided to N/A No return trips are expected.

support analysis of return trips, if necessary.

4.1.3 Special Facilities

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

b. Discussion should be provided on the N/A No special facilities, as defined by inbound and outbound speeds. NUREG/CR-7002, were identified in the 10-mile EPZ.

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

residents should be discussed.

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

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

additional trips are needed.

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

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

reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

Page E-11 IEM 2012 IEM 2012 Page E-11J

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

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

4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School and mobilization times should be Populations provided. Section 5.1.4 Trip Generation Time for Schools Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special Facility and School Population

b. Discussion should be provided on the Yes Section 6.4 ETE Results for Special inbound and outbound speeds. Facility and School Population

c. Time for loading of students should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School provided. Populations Section 5.1.4 Trip Generation Time for Schools

d. Information should be provided that Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School indicates whether the evacuation can Populations be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. If return trips are needed, the N/A No return trips are expected destination of school buses should be provided.

f. If used, reception centers should be Yes Section 3.4 Special Facility and School identified. Discussion should be Populations provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.

g. Supporting information should be N/A No return trips are expected provided to quantify the time elements for the return trips.

4.2 ETE Modeling

a. General information about the model Yes Section 5.2 Evacuation Simulation should be provided and demonstrates its use in ETE studies.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not N/A Atraffic simulation model was used for used to conduct the ETE calculation, the ETE study.

sufficient detail should be provided to validate the analytical approach used.

All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

Page E-12 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtie Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions Yes Section 3.5 Vehicle Occupancy and a representative set of model Section 3.6 Summary of Demand inputs should be provided. Estimation Section 5.1 Loading of the Evacuation Network Section 5.2 Evacuation Simulation

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

4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. Adiscussion regarding whether the Yes Section 5.2.3 The Impact Model traffic simulation model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs Yes Section 6.5 Example Model Output should be provided to support review:

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit mode.

2. Network wide average travel time.

3. Longest Queue length for the 10 intersections with the highest traffic volume.

4. Total vehicles exiting the network.

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps should be N/A No extensive LOS Eor LOS F was provided for various times (i.e., at 2, 4, observed.

6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E"and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to Yes Section 6.0 Analysis of Evacuation Times evacuate 90% and 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population.

IEM 2012 Page E-13

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed In Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No)

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public Yes Section 6.1 Summary of ETE Results for should include all members of the General Public general public. Any reductions or truncated data should be explained.

c. Tables should be provided for the 90 Yes Section 6.1 Summary of ETE Results for and 100 percent ETEs similar to Table General Public 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Table 24: 100% ETEs in Minutes Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002.

Table 25: 90% ETEs in Minutes

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 Yes Section 6.3 ETE Results for Transit percent evacuation of special Dependent Permanent Residents facilities, transit dependent, and Section 6.4 ETE Results for School school populations. Populations 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

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

b. A discussion of adjustments or Yes Section 7.2 Evacuation Traffic additions to the traffic control plan Management Locations and Other that affect the ETE should be provided. Potential Mitigating Measures 5.2 Enhancements In Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for Yes Section 9.0 Conclusion and improvement of evacuation time Recommendations should be provided.

b. A statement or discussion regarding Yes Section 9.0 Conclusion and presentation of enhancements to local Recommendations authorities should be provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the Yes Section 2.3 Sources of Data extent of interaction with these agencies should be discussed.

b. Information should be provided on any Yes The ETE has been reviewed and no unresolved issues that may affect the unresolved issues were found.

ETE.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

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

IEM 2012 Page E-14 Page E-14 IEM 2012

EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES FOR THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Criterion Review of ETE for Vogtle Electric Addressed in Comments Generating Plant Report ETE Analysis (Yes/No) 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and Yes Figure 7: VEGP Evacuation Network reception centers should be provided.

b. If return trips are required, N/A No return trips are expected assumptions used to estimate return times for buses should be provided.

c. It should be clearly stated if it is N/A The congregate care centers are located assumed that passengers are left at adjacent to the reception centers. No the reception center and are taken by separate buses are required.

separate buses to the congregate care center.

Page E-15 IEM 2012 Page E-15