|
|
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:Waterford3 Steam Electric Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Entergy, by: | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| 43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinisch@kldcompanies.com November 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 502
| |
| | |
| Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 12 1.2 The Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Location ...................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 19 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions .......................................................................................... 22 2.3 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 25 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 311 3.4 Employees ................................................................................................................................ 315 3.5 Medical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 319 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population .............................................................. 319 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 319 3.8 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 321 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Study Area ........................................... 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 MultiLane Highway ........................................................................................................... 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 56 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution .................................................................... 511 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 512 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 516 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways ....................................................................................... 517 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 73 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate ............................................................................ 82 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 84 8.3 Medical Facility Demand ............................................................................................................ 84 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 85 8.5 Special Needs Population......................................................................................................... 811 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 812 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 101 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 111 12 CONFIRMATION TIME .................................................................................................................. 121 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C5 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C5 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C5 C.1.3 Lane Assignment .............................................................................................................. C13 C.2 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... C13 C.2.1 Computational Procedure ................................................................................................ C13 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ................................................... C16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F3 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F8 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ..................................................................................................... F10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F12 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. PROTECTIVE ACTION SECTION BOUNDARIES .................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M3 M.4 Effect of Flood at the Interchange of Interstate 10 and Interstate 55 .................................... M5 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| List of Figures Figure 11. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Location ......................................................................... 14 Figure 12. W3SES LinkNode Analysis Network ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 31. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ ................................................................................. 33 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 36 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 37 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 39 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................... 310 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector............................................................................................. 313 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 314 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 317 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 318 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 55 Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................ 510 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 514 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region ........................................................................................................................................... 521 Figure 61. W3SES EPZ Protective Action Sections ................................................................................... 65 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 716 Figure 72. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Shadow Region ............................................................ 717 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 718 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 719 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 720 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................... 721 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 722 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 813 Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 814 Figure 83. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 815 Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 103 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C4 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ........................................................................................................... C6 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 .............................................................................. C7 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C15 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Overview of Schools within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E9 Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E10 Figure E3. Schools within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E11 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .......................................................................................... E12 Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E13 Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E14 Figure E7. Lodging within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E15 Figure E8. Lodging within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E16 Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ................................................................................... E17 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F4 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F4 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households ...................................................................... F5 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households .................................................................... F5 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F6 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F7 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F8 Figure F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F9 Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F9 Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School .............................................................. F11 Figure F11. Work to Home Travel Time ................................................................................................. F11 Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F12 Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the W3SES Site .............................................................................. G2 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H15. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H23 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J8 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J8 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J9 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J9 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) .............................................................................................................................................. J10 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) .............. J10 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J11 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8) .............. J11 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) ............................... J12 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10) ............................................................................................................................................ J12 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11) ............................................................................................................................................ J13 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) ............................................................................................................................................ J13 Figure K1. LinkNode Analysis Network ................................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ............................................................................... K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ............................................................................... K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ............................................................................... K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ............................................................................... K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ............................................................................... K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ............................................................................... K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ............................................................................... K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ............................................................................... K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ............................................................................... K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ............................................................................... K45 Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 ............................................................................... K46 Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 ............................................................................... K47 Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 ............................................................................... K48 Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 ............................................................................... K49 Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 ............................................................................... K50 Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 ............................................................................... K51 Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 ............................................................................... K52 Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 ............................................................................... K53 Figure K53. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 52 ............................................................................... K54 Figure K54. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 53 ............................................................................... K55 Figure K55. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 54 ............................................................................... K56 Figure K56. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 55 ............................................................................... K57 Figure K57. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 56 ............................................................................... K58 Figure K58. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 57 ............................................................................... K59 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 23 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 27 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 34 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAZ ............................................................. 35 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 38 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles...................................... 316 Table 36. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ External Traffic ....................................................... 320 Table 37. Summary of Population Demand ........................................................................................... 322 Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand ................................................................................................. 323 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 53 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 56 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 57 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 58 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 59 Table 56. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 511 Table 57. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 512 Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 518 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ......................... 520 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 66 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 67 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 68 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 78 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 713 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 714 Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 816 Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 817 Table 83. School Reception Centers ...................................................................................................... 819 Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 820 Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources.................................................................................. 821 Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .............................................................. 826 Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain............................................................................... 828 Table 89. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes .......................................................................... 830 Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................ 831 Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain ......................................................... 832 Table 812. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................. 833 Table 813. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain .............................................................. 834 Table 814. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ................................... 835 Table 815. Correctional Facility Evacuation Time Estimates ................................................................. 835 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 123 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C2 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C3 Table C3. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................C8 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E4 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E5 Table E4. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ .............................................................................................. E7 Table E5. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E8 Table F1. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Telephone Survey Sampling Plan .................................... F2 Table H1. Percent of Protective Action Section Population Evacuating for Each Region....................... H2 Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections........................................ J2 Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J4 Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J5 Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K60 Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled ........................................ K124 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M1 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M2 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M4 Table M4. ETE Variation with Flood Scenario ........................................................................................ M5 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| EXECUTIVE
| |
| | |
| ==SUMMARY==
| |
| | |
| This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (W3SES) located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Entergy and State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.
| |
| In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:
| |
| Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.
| |
| Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/FEMAREP1, Rev. 1, November 1980.
| |
| Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.
| |
| 10CFR50, Appendix E - Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities Overview of Project Activities This project began in September, 2011 and extended over a period of 10 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:
| |
| Attended kickoff meetings with Entergy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and parish governments.
| |
| Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.
| |
| Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant.
| |
| Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.
| |
| Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each parish.
| |
| Telephone calls to specific facilities supplemented the data provided.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The traffic demand and tripgeneration rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.
| |
| Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 16 Protective Action Sections (PAS). These PASs are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 27 Evacuation Regions.
| |
| The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain). One special event scenario, the Alligator Festival, in Luling was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on US 61 northbound for the duration of the evacuation.
| |
| Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.
| |
| As per NUREG/CR7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:
| |
| A rapidly escalating accident at the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate occurs within a timely manner of the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.
| |
| While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent upper bound estimates. This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.
| |
| If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers located outside the EPZ.
| |
| Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.
| |
| Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the Waterford 3 Nuclear Unit Safety Information brochure. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, minibus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.
| |
| Computation of ETE A total of 324 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 27 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 12 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Scenarios (27 x 12 = 324). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.
| |
| Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.
| |
| The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population, within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to voluntarily evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.
| |
| Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (noncompliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace.
| |
| The computational procedure is outlined as follows:
| |
| A linknode representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures.
| |
| The evacuation trips are generated at locations called zonal centroids located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.
| |
| The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.
| |
| The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The use of a public outreach (information) program to emphasize the need for evacuees to minimize the time needed to prepare to evacuate (secure the home, assemble needed clothes, medicines, etc.) should also be considered.
| |
| Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes. These existing plans are adequate and no changes are recommended as a result of this study.
| |
| Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.
| |
| Figure 61 displays a map of the W3SES EPZ showing the layout of the 16 PASs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.
| |
| Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each PAS based on the 2010 Census data.
| |
| Table 61 defines each of the 27 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAS.
| |
| Table 62 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.
| |
| Tables 71 and 72 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.
| |
| Tables 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2mile region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.
| |
| Table 87 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.
| |
| Table 810 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.
| |
| Figure H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.
| |
| Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 324 unique cases - a combination of 27 unique Evacuation Regions and 12 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:45 (hr:min) to 3:35 at the 90th percentile. There is no congestion in the 2mile region, while there is significant congestion beyond 2 miles, especially in PASs A2, A4, B3, B4 and D3.
| |
| See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| Inspection of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result of the congestion within the EPZ. When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ.
| |
| Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Section 7.4 and Figures 78 through 719.
| |
| Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and produces a negative impact on the ETE for those evacuating from within the 5mile region. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 8 (winter, weekend, midday) and 11 (winter, weekend, midday, Alligator Festival in Luling) in Table 72 indicates that the special event has a moderate impact on the ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles for several evacuation regions, with increases of up to 15 and 25 minutes, respectively. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - one lane northbound on US61 from the intersection with LA48 (Apple St) to the end of the analysisnetwork at the intersection with LA50 (Amedia Rd) - has a material impact on 90th and 100th percentile ETE, with increases up to 50 minutes. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.
| |
| La Place, New Sarpy and Luling are the most congested areas within the EPZ during an evacuation. The last congested routes in the EPZ are US61 and US90 in New Sarpy and Luling. All congestion within the EPZ clears by approximately 3 hours and 40 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.
| |
| Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities. The average singlewave ETE for schools, medical facilities, homebound special needs persons and transit dependent population are comparable to or less than the general population ETE for the entire EPZ at the 90th percentile. The ETE for correctional facilities are approximately an hour longer than the 90th percentile general population ETE. See Section 8 for more information.
| |
| Table 85 indicates that there are enough buses and wheelchairaccessible vehicles available to evacuate the transitdependent population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are insufficient ambulances to evacuate the bedridden population in a single wave. The secondwave ETE for ambulances exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.
| |
| The general population ETE at the 90th and 100th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 3 hours 45 minutes due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M1.
| |
| The general population ETE is relatively insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region from 0% to 20%. Tripling the shadow percentage increases the ETE by 5 minutes and 15 minutes for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively. See Table M2.
| |
| Population increases of 9% or more will result in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| A flood at the interchange of Interstate 10 and Interstate 55 significantly increases ETE for the full EPZ - 1 hour and 40 minutes at the 90th percentile and 2 hours and 45 minutes at the 100th percentile. See Section M.4.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. W3SES EPZ Protective Action Sections Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAS 2000 Population 2010 Population A1 363 888 A2 28,522 30,167 A3 205 A4 11,222 12,398 B1 B2 5,140 4,518 B3 16,489 16,638 B4 C1 751 793 C2 927 803 C3 1,759 1,682 C4 D1 2 D2 2,655 3,083 D3 13,618 14,743 D4 1,756 1,957 TOTAL 81,446 87,877 EPZ Population Growth: 7.90%
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Description A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R01 2Mile Ring X X X X R02 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R04 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R05 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R06 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R07 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R09 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R10 N 348.8 11.3 X X X X X X R11 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X X X R12 ENE 56.3 78.8 X X X X X X R13 E, ESE 78.8 123.8 X X X X X X X X R14 SE, SSE 123.8 168.8 X X X X X X X X X R15 S 168.8 191.3 X X X X X X X X R16 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X X X R17 WSW 236.3 258.8 X X X X X X X X R18 W, WNW 258.8 303.8 X X X X X X X X X R19 NW 303.8 326.3 X X X X X X X X X R20 NNW 326.3 348.8 X X X X X X X Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R21 N/A 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R22 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R23 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R24 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R25 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R26 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R27 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) Evacuate until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenarios Season1 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 10 Winter Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Alligator Festival 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact Lane Closure on US 61 NB 1
| |
| Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and EPZ R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R01 R02 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:40 R02 R03 3:05 3:25 3:00 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:25 3:05 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:15 R03 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 R04 R05 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 R05 R06 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:55 R06 R07 2:40 2:50 2:45 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:55 2:40 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 R07 R08 2:35 2:50 2:45 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:55 2:40 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:40 R08 R09 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:35 2:25 R09 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R10 1:55 2:00 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:00 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:50 R10 R11 1:55 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:55 R11 R12 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:00 R12 R13 2:30 2:35 2:15 2:20 2:05 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:20 2:30 R13 R14 3:20 3:35 3:20 3:35 3:10 3:20 3:45 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:20 3:15 R14 R15 3:20 3:40 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:25 3:45 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:20 3:15 R15 R16 2:35 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:40 R16 R17 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 3:15 R17 R18 2:45 2:55 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:50 3:00 2:35 2:45 2:30 2:45 3:10 R18 R19 2:50 3:05 2:40 2:50 2:35 2:55 3:05 2:40 2:50 2:35 2:50 3:10 R19 R20 3:00 3:10 2:45 3:00 2:40 3:00 3:15 2:45 3:05 2:35 2:55 3:00 R20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 3:25 3:35 3:25 3:40 3:30 3:25 3:35 3:25 3:40 3:30 3:25 3:25 R21 R22 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 R22 R23 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 R23 R24 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 R24 R25 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:30 R25 R26 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:30 3:30 R26 R27 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:30 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and EPZ R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R01 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R02 R03 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:45 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:25 4:40 4:25 4:25 4:35 R03 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R04 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R08 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R09 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R10 R11 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R11 R12 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R12 R13 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R13 R14 4:20 4:45 4:10 4:40 4:05 4:20 4:50 4:05 4:40 4:05 4:10 4:20 R14 R15 4:20 4:45 4:10 4:40 4:00 4:20 4:45 4:05 4:40 4:05 4:10 4:20 R15 R16 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R16 R17 3:55 4:00 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:35 R17 R18 3:55 4:10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 4:35 R18 R19 3:55 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:58 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:05 4:35 R19 R20 3:55 4:20 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:05 3:55 R20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:25 4:35 4:25 4:25 4:30 R21 R22 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R22 R23 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R23 R24 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R24 R25 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:45 4:20 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:30 R25 R26 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:45 4:25 4:35 4:25 4:25 4:30 R26 R27 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R01 R02 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R04 R05 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R05 R06 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R06 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R07 R08 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R08 R09 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R09 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R21 R22 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R22 R23 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R23 R24 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R24 R25 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R25 R26 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R26 R27 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R01 R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R04 R05 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R05 R06 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R07 R08 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R08 R09 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R09 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R21 R22 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R22 R23 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R23 R24 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R24 R25 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R25 R26 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R26 R27 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA Norco Elementary School 90 15 8.4 25.9 20 2:05 7.1 11 2:20 Sacred Heart School 90 15 8.4 25.9 20 2:05 7.1 11 2:20 Destrehan High 90 15 6.6 11.7 34 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 Ethel Schoeffner Elementary 90 15 6.0 11.1 33 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 Harry Hurst Middle School 90 15 5.6 55.0 7 1:55 7.1 11 2:10 New Sarpy Elementary 90 15 6.0 11.1 33 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 St. Charles Borromeo 90 15 5.6 55.0 7 1:55 7.1 11 2:10 G. W. Carver Early Learning Center 90 15 8.7 6.7 78 3:05 10.2 16 3:25 A A Songy Kindergarten 90 15 2.1 3.3 39 2:25 10.2 16 2:45 Boutte Christian Academy 90 15 3.4 2.6 81 3:10 11.4 18 3:30 Lakewood Elementary School 90 15 2.1 3.3 39 2:25 10.2 16 2:45 Luling Elementary School 90 15 4.5 3.6 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Mimosa Park Elementary 90 15 1.8 2.5 45 2:30 10.2 16 2:50 R .K. Smith Middle School 90 15 5.2 4.3 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Satellite Center 90 15 5.2 4.3 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Hahnville High 90 15 4.2 45.9 6 1:55 15.1 23 2:20 J. B. Martin Middle School 90 15 2.5 31.8 5 1:50 15.1 23 2:15 R. J. Vial Elementary 90 15 2.5 31.8 18 2:05 15.1 23 2:30 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA Ascension of Our Lord School 60 15 8.8 8.5 62 2:20 28.6 43 3:05 Ascension of Our Lord School 60 15 7.8 8.8 54 2:10 47.5 72 3:25 East St. John Elementary School 60 15 6.6 3.9 102 3:00 45.7 69 4:10 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 60 15 7.7 7.3 64 2:20 28.6 43 3:05 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 60 15 9.6 9.2 63 2:20 47.5 72 3:35 John L. Ory Magnet 60 15 7.4 6.8 65 2:20 33.7 51 3:15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| John L. Ory Magnet 60 15 8.8 8.9 60 2:15 47.5 72 3:30 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 60 15 5.6 8.5 40 1:55 28.6 43 2:40 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 60 15 9.8 13.0 46 2:05 47.4 72 3:20 LaPlace Elementary School 60 15 8.4 8.6 59 2:15 33.7 51 3:10 LaPlace Elementary School 60 15 7.5 8.5 53 2:10 47.5 72 3:25 St. Charles Catholic High School 60 15 7.8 8.0 59 2:15 28.6 43 3:00 St. Charles Catholic High School 60 15 7.9 6.4 74 2:30 47.5 72 3:45 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 60 15 8.5 8.7 59 2:15 33.7 51 3:10 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 60 15 8.3 8.4 60 2:15 47.5 72 3:30 East St. John High School 60 15 5.1 20.1 16 1:35 45.7 69 2:45 Fifth Ward Elementary 60 15 7.5 5.6 80 2:35 45.7 69 3:45 Garyville/Mt. Airy Math & Science 60 15 2.3 53.5 3 1:20 45.7 69 2:30 Magnet School Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program 60 15 6.7 5.6 72 2:30 45.7 69 3:40 Lifehouse Daniel Academy 60 15 4.5 53.5 6 1:25 45.7 69 2:35 Our Lady of Grace School 60 15 7.5 22.9 20 1:35 45.7 69 2:45 Riverside Academy 60 15 5.1 13.9 23 1:40 45.7 69 2:50 St. John Alternative School 60 15 6.7 5.6 72 2:30 45.7 69 3:40 St. John Child Development Center 60 15 4.0 20.1 12 1:30 45.7 69 2:40 St. John Redirection Center 60 15 1.6 22.9 5 1:20 45.7 69 2:30 St. Peter's Catholic School 60 15 5.1 35.9 9 1:25 45.7 69 2:35 West St. John Elementary School 60 15 5.6 30.7 11 1:30 39.1 59 2:30 West St. John High School 60 15 7.5 20.1 23 1:40 39.1 59 2:40 Maximum for EPZ: 3:10 Maximum: 4:10 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 3:00 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 90 11.9 54.1 13 30 2:15 33.7 51 5 10 85 30 5:20 4 90 7.3 54.2 8 30 2:10 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:00 2 4 110 7.3 48.8 9 30 2:30 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:20 5 130 7.3 53.4 8 30 2:50 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:40 6 90 9.1 54.1 10 30 2:15 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 5:50 3
| |
| 7 110 9.1 49.7 11 30 2:35 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 6:10 4 1 90 9.2 54.1 10 30 2:15 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 5:50 4 90 6.9 54.2 8 30 2:10 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 5:35 5 4 110 6.9 48.8 8 30 2:30 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 5:55 4 130 6.9 53.4 8 30 2:50 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 6:15 6 4 90 8.4 54.2 9 30 2:10 7.1 11 5 10 33 30 3:40 4 90 8.6 54.2 10 30 2:10 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 3:40 7 5 110 8.6 49.7 10 30 2:35 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 4:05 5 130 8.6 53.4 10 30 2:50 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 4:20 8 1 90 4.0 54.0 4 30 2:05 6.6 10 5 10 20 30 3:20 9 1 90 10.8 54.1 12 30 2:15 37.3 56 5 10 85 30 5:25 10 1 90 9.6 54.1 11 30 2:15 37.3 56 5 10 81 30 5:20 11 2 90 7.5 54.2 8 30 2:10 37.3 56 5 10 75 30 5:10 12 1 90 5.2 54.2 6 30 2:10 37.3 56 5 10 69 30 5:00 13 1 90 11.5 54.1 13 30 2:15 10.3 15 5 10 59 30 4:15 14 3 90 7.4 54.2 8 30 2:10 10.3 15 5 10 52 30 4:05 4 90 1.2 54.0 1 30 2:05 10.3 15 5 10 36 30 3:45 15 4 110 1.2 49.4 1 30 2:25 10.3 15 5 10 27 30 3:55 5 130 1.2 53.1 1 30 2:45 10.3 15 5 10 19 30 4:05 16 2 90 2.5 54.0 3 30 2:05 15.9 24 5 10 31 30 3:45 Maximum ETE: 2:50 Maximum ETE: 6:15 Average ETE: 2:25 Average ETE: 4:50 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H8. Region R08 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (W3SES), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. ETE provide State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.
| |
| In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:
| |
| * Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, November 2011.
| |
| * Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.
| |
| * Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.
| |
| * Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR 6863, January 2005.
| |
| The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.
| |
| Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Meetings to define data requirements and set up contacts with local government agencies. Obtain Entergy emergency planning personnel W3SES Emergency Preparedness Plan, Previous W3SES ETE Report Obtain St. Charles Parish Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for W3SES, school, major St. Charles Parish DHSEP employer and correctional facility data, special event data, NIMI, transportation resources, and traffic and access control information.
| |
| Obtain St. John the Baptist Parish Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for W3SES, school, St. John the Baptist Parish OHSEP major employer, medical and correctional facility data, NIMI, transportation resources, and traffic and access control information.
| |
| Obtain Louisiana Peacetime Radiological Response Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Plan.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:
| |
| : 1. Information Gathering:
| |
| : a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from Entergy.
| |
| : b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from St. Charles Parish DHSEP and St. John the Baptist Parish OHSEP to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.
| |
| : c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.
| |
| : d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census.
| |
| : e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.
| |
| : f. Contacted lodging facilities to supplement data provided by St. John the Baptist Parish.
| |
| : 2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.
| |
| : 3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios. These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.
| |
| : 4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.
| |
| : 5. Used existing Protective Action Sections (PAS) to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 16 PAS along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous PAS for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : 6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at Special Facilities and for transit dependent persons at home.
| |
| : 7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.
| |
| : a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Entergy and from the telephone survey.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.
| |
| : c. Developed the linknode representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.
| |
| : d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.
| |
| : e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each origin (location of each source where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station.
| |
| : 8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, transients and employees (general population) with access to private vehicles. Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.
| |
| : 9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : 10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transitdependent population and for homebound special needs population.
| |
| 1.2 The Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Location The Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (W3SES) is located along the shores of the Mississippi River, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The site is approximately 20 miles west of New Orleans, LA and 50 miles southeast of Baton Rouge, LA. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes in Louisiana. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the W3SES. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.
| |
| 1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 11. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Location Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.
| |
| Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 12:
| |
| Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)
| |
| Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.
| |
| Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1530 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.
| |
| The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.
| |
| As documented on page 155 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 1530. These links may be Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.
| |
| Traffic signals are either pretimed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.
| |
| These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.
| |
| If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pretimed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance.
| |
| Figure 12 presents the linknode analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 12 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.
| |
| Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.
| |
| Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.
| |
| These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.
| |
| This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transitdependent residents.
| |
| Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate source links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.
| |
| Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (DYnamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 12. W3SES LinkNode Analysis Network Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| DYNEV II consists of four submodels:
| |
| A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).
| |
| A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each origin (O) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are generated over time. This establishes a set of OD tables.
| |
| A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the OD tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.
| |
| A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.
| |
| Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.
| |
| The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.
| |
| The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.
| |
| For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:
| |
| NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:
| |
| Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.
| |
| Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.
| |
| Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station.
| |
| DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| countermeasures may then be tested with the model.
| |
| 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2003 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:
| |
| A decrease in permanent resident population. Population used for the old study included the towns of Bayou Gauche and Des Allemands which are located outside the EPZ.
| |
| Vehicle occupancy and Tripgeneration rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.
| |
| Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.
| |
| The highway representation is far more detailed.
| |
| Dynamic evacuation modeling.
| |
| Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study 2000 US Census Data at block group level; ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Population = 91,116
| |
| * Census blocks; area ratio method Resident Population Basis Note: Population used for this study includes used.
| |
| the towns of Bayou Gauche and Des Population = 87,877 Allemands which are located outside the EPZ.
| |
| Vehicle occupancy based on numbers of persons and vehicles per household.
| |
| Traditional demand assumption is 2.93 2.70 persons/household, 1.44 Resident Population persons/vehicle for St. Charles Parish and evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy 3.01 for St. John the Baptist Parish.
| |
| yielding: 1.88 persons/vehicle.
| |
| Enhanced demand assumption is 2.33 for St. Charles Parish and 2.52 for St. John the Baptist Parish.
| |
| Employee estimates provided by the Parish emergency planning agencies which surveyed major employers. 1.1 employees Employee estimates based on per vehicle (weekday) and 1.0 (weekend). information provided about Employee Employees *: major employers in EPZ. 1.09 Population Midweek Midday: 8,483 employees per vehicle based on Weekend Midday = 1,148 telephone survey results.
| |
| * Note Population used for this study Employees = 7,420 includes the towns of Bayou Gauche and Des Allemands which are located outside the EPZ.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Estimates based upon U.S.
| |
| Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 2,476 people who do not have Vehicle demand is calculated for the access to a vehicle, requiring 84 TransitDependent residential population based on occupancy buses to evacuate. An additional Population factors that are applied to those with no 151 homebound special needs available vehicles. persons needed special transportation to evacuate (110 required a bus, 29 required a wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 12 required an ambulance).
| |
| Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based on information information provided about from Parish emergency planning agencies transient attractions in EPZ, Transient and the 2002 AAA Tour Book listings. supplemented by supplemented Population by phone calls to the individual Midweek Midday = 1,872 facilities and observations of the Weekend Midday = 1,872 facilities during the road survey.
| |
| Transients = 2,878 Special facility population based on information provided by each Parish Special facility population based emergency management agencies. on information provided by each Special Facility Population: parish within the EPZ.
| |
| Special Facilities Weekday = 2,124 Current census = 635 Population Weekend - 1,663 Buses Required = 15 Vehicles originating at special facilities: Wheelchair Bus Required = 18 Weekday = 530 Ambulances Required = 26 Weekend - 229 School population based on information School population based on provided by each Parish emergency information provided by each management agencies. parish within the EPZ.
| |
| Student enrollment: 21,233 School enrollment = 18,814 School Population Vehicles originating at schools: Buses required = 382 Buses = 430 Adult learning centers, with 200 additional students, will use Autos = 1,370 personal vehicles to evacuate.
| |
| Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas Not considered the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be Figure 21) evacuated Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered within the Shadow Region (see Figure 72)
| |
| Network Size 174 links; 145 nodes 1,593 links; 1,015 nodes Field surveys conducted in September 2011. Roads and Field surveys conducted in 2002.
| |
| Roadway Geometric intersections were video Data Road capacities based on 1985 and 1965 archived.
| |
| HCM.
| |
| Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.
| |
| Direct evacuation to designated Reception Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Centers. Reception Centers.
| |
| 50 percent of transitdependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.
| |
| Based on residential telephone Trip Generation based upon discussions with survey of specific pretrip emergency preparedness officials: mobilization activities:
| |
| Permanent residents evacuate between 15 Residents with commuters and 165 minutes after the advisory to returning leave between 20 and evacuate. 225 minutes.
| |
| Trip Generation for Employees leave between 30 and 60 Residents without commuters Evacuation minutes. returning leave between 10 and Transients leave between 15 and 75 minutes. 165 minutes.
| |
| Based upon previous studies, medical and Employees and transients leave correctional facilities would evacuate between 10 and 105 minutes.
| |
| between 15 and 165 minutes. All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| Normal or Rain. The capacity Normal or Rain. The capacity and free flow and free flow speed of all links in Weather speed of all links in the network are reduced the network are reduced by 10%
| |
| by 20% in the event of rain.
| |
| in the event of rain.
| |
| DYNEV II System - Version Modeling NetVac2 4.0.15.0 Alligator Festival Special Events None considered Special Event Population = 6,000 additional transients.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study 27 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent 11 Regions and 4 Scenarios producing 44 Evacuation Cases sector technique used) and 12 unique cases.
| |
| Scenarios producing 324 unique cases.
| |
| ETE reported for 90th percentile for a full EPZ ETE reported for 90th and 100th Evacuation Time evacuation and 100th percentile population percentile population. Results Estimates Reporting for all regions. Results presented by Region presented by Region and and Scenario. Scenario.
| |
| Winter Weekday Midday (Traditional Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time demand), Good Weather: 2:30 Good Weather: 3:10 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, (Traditional Summer Weekend, Midday, demand), Good Weather: 2:20 Good Weather: 3:00 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.
| |
| 2.1 Data Estimates
| |
| : 1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.
| |
| : 2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies and surveys of major employers in the EPZ.
| |
| : 3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from parish emergency management offices and from phone calls to specific facilities.
| |
| : 4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.
| |
| : 5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).
| |
| : 6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.70 persons per household and 1.44 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:
| |
| : a. Employees: 1.09 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.
| |
| : b. Lodging: Vehicle occupancy based upon data gathered from local facilities.
| |
| : c. Special Events: St. Charles Parish stated that there were 2.5 persons per vehicle for the Alligator Festival.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions
| |
| : 1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of Protective Action Section that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.
| |
| : 2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : 3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.
| |
| : 4. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Protective Action Section included within these underlying configurations.
| |
| : 5. As indicated in Figure 22 of NUREG/CR7002, 100% of people within the impacted keyhole evacuate. 20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. 20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 21 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).
| |
| : 6. A total of 12 Scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 21.
| |
| : 7. Scenario 12 considers the closure of a single lane northbound on US61 from the intersection with LA48 (Apple St) to the end of the analysisnetwork at the intersection with LA50 (Amedia Rd).
| |
| : 8. The models of the IDYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanik1). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment. The DYNEV II System is used to compute ETE in this study 1
| |
| Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of Scenarios Season Day of Week Weather Special Day 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 10 Winter Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Alligator Festival Roadway Impact 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on US 61 NB *
| |
| * A single lane on US 61 will be closed in the northbound direction from LA-48 (Apple St) to the end of the analysisnetwork at the intersection with LA50 (Amedia Rd).
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 2.3 Study Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following:
| |
| : a. Advisory to Evacuate occurs within a timely manner of the siren notification.
| |
| : b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.
| |
| : c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| : 2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of protective action sections forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.
| |
| : 3. 67 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 67 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 45 percent (67% x 67% = 45%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.
| |
| : 4. The ETE will also include consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. Normal traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.
| |
| : 5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 60 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 60 minute time period.
| |
| : 6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:
| |
| : a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.
| |
| : b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.
| |
| : c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.
| |
| : d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.
| |
| : e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.
| |
| In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : 7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:
| |
| : a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated reception center.
| |
| : b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.
| |
| : c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.
| |
| : d. Transitdependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.
| |
| : e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.
| |
| : f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.
| |
| : g. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.
| |
| : h. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.
| |
| : 8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transitdependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will rideshare with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies2, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : 9. One type of adverse weather scenario is considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios. It is assumed that the rain begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued. No weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed.
| |
| : 10. Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.
| |
| The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations3; the factors are shown in Table 22.
| |
| 2 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transitdependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 510).
| |
| 3 Agarwal, M. et. Al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 MidContinent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 1015 in the HCM 2010.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : 11. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle and high schools for St.
| |
| Charles Parish. St. John the Baptist supplied the number of buses needed which was used to calculate the bus capacity for schools located in that parish. Transit buses used to transport the transitdependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.
| |
| Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Scenario Capacity* Speed* Mobilization Time for General Population Rain 90% 90% No Effect Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:
| |
| : 1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).
| |
| : 2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.
| |
| : 3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.
| |
| Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.
| |
| Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These nonresidents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.
| |
| The potential for doublecounting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:
| |
| A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.
| |
| A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.
| |
| Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.
| |
| Analysis of the population characteristics of the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:
| |
| Permanent residents people who are year round residents of the EPZ.
| |
| Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.
| |
| Employees people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses within the EPZ on a daily basis.
| |
| Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each PAS and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).
| |
| The Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ is subdivided into 16 PASs. The EPZ is shown in Figure 31.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.70 persons/household - See Figure F1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.44 vehicles/household - See Figure F8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.
| |
| Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the PAS and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAS based on this methodology.
| |
| The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station. This rose was constructed using GIS software.
| |
| It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:
| |
| Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a twoweek period over the summer.
| |
| Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each twoweek interval.
| |
| Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.
| |
| On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the offseason. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 31. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAS 2000 Population 2010 Population A1 363 888 A2 28,522 30,167 A3 205 A4 11,222 12,398 B1 B2 5,140 4,518 B3 16,489 16,638 B4 C1 751 793 C2 927 803 C3 1,759 1,682 C4 D1 2 D2 2,655 3,083 D3 13,618 14,743 D4 1,756 1,957 TOTAL 81,446 87,877 EPZ Population Growth: 7.90%
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAZ 2010 PAS 2010 Population Resident Vehicles A1 888 474 A2 30,167 16,090 A3 205 109 A4 12,398 6,616 B1 B2 4,518 2,419 B3 16,638 8,871 B4 C1 793 423 C2 803 430 C3 1,682 898 C4 D1 2 2 D2 3,083 1,650 D3 14,743 7,875 D4 1,957 1,044 TOTAL 87,877 46,901 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.
| |
| Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.
| |
| Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector Population Evacuating Vehicles N 1 1 NNE 2 1 NE ENE 16,846 8,989 E 68,771 36,672 ESE 7,566 4,035 SE 159 85 SSE 2,025 1,080 S 2,476 1,323 SSW SW 915 486 WSW 3,862 2,060 W 2,460 1,314 WNW 8,208 4,381 NW 1 1 NNW TOTAL 113,292 60,428 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (lodging). Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at hotels or motels.
| |
| Surveys of lodging facilities within the EPZ were conducted to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 2,878 transients in 1,006 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.
| |
| Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAS. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles PAS Transients Transient Vehicles A1 A2 1,948 720 A3 296 74 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 634 212 D4 TOTAL 2,878 1,006 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:
| |
| Those who live and work in the EPZ Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.
| |
| Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.
| |
| In Table E3, the Employees (Max Shift) is multiplied by the percent NonEPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.09 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.
| |
| Table 35 presents nonEPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by PAS. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 35. Summary of NonEPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles PAS Employees Employee Vehicles A1 A2 253 233 A3 A4 1,010 927 B1 B2 731 672 B3 214 197 B4 C1 82 76 C2 C3 C4 D1 1,164 1,070 D2 D3 535 492 D4 TOTAL 3,989 3,667 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by the parishes for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.
| |
| 3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.
| |
| After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - I10, I55, US 61, and US 90. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 60 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 36, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 1 hour (access control points - ACP - are assumed to be activated at 60 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 8,593 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 40% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and
| |
| : 10) as discussed in Section 6.
| |
| 3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 11) is considered for the ETE study - The Alligator Festival in Luling.
| |
| Data were obtained from St. Charles Parish. This event takes place during a weekend in September with an attendance of approximately 15,000 people; Six thousand of which come from outside the EPZ. It was reported that the vehicle occupancy rate per vehicle for this event was 2.5 people, resulting in an additional 2,400 vehicles. These vehicles were distributed across several parking locations for the festival. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 36. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Road Name Direction HPMS1 KFactor2 DFactor2 Hourly External Node Node AADT Volume Traffic 8004 4 I55 SB 20,200 0.107 0.5 1,081 1,081 8010 615 I10 EB 36,000 0.107 0.25 963 963 8018 18 I10 WB 36,000 0.107 0.25 963 963 8024 24 US 61 EB 22,200 0.107 0.5 1,188 1,188 8888 132 US 61 WB 22,200 0.107 0.5 1,188 1,188 8057 1017 US 90 NB 30,000 0.107 0.5 1,605 1,605 8065 65 US 90 SB 30,000 0.107 0.5 1,605 1,605 TOTAL: 8,593 1
| |
| Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 2
| |
| HCM 2010 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 37 and Table 38, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transitdependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 140,424 people and 73,337 vehicles are considered in this study.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 37. Summary of Population Demand Transit Special Shadow External PAS Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total A1 888 25 913 A2 30,167 851 1,948 253 636 5,122 38,977 A3 205 6 296 507 A4 12,398 349 1,010 125 3,735 17,617 B1 0 B2 4,518 127 731 851 6,227 B3 16,638 469 214 118 3,328 20,767 B4 0 C1 793 22 82 525 1,422 C2 803 23 826 C3 1,682 47 581 2,310 C4 0 D1 2 0 1,164 1,166 D2 3,083 87 157 3,327 D3 14,743 415 634 535 128 2,886 19,341 D4 1,957 55 2,354 4,366 Shadow Region 22,658 22,658 Total 87,877 2,476 2,878 3,989 1,532 19,014 22,658 0 140,424 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 21 for additional information.
| |
| NOTE: Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 38. Summary of Vehicle Demand Transit Special Shadow External PAS Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Population Traffic Total A1 474 2 476 A2 16,090 52 720 233 65 224 17,384 A3 109 2 74 185 A4 6,616 22 927 17 186 7,768 B1 0 B2 2,419 8 672 24 3,123 B3 8,871 30 197 17 120 9,235 B4 2 2 C1 423 2 76 36 537 C2 430 2 432 C3 898 4 26 928 C4 2 2 D1 2 2 1,070 1,074 D2 1,650 6 6 1,662 D3 7,875 26 212 492 19 84 8,708 D4 1,044 4 94 1,142 Shadow Region 12,086 8,593 20,679 Total 46,901 166 1,006 3,667 154 764 12,086 8,593 73,337 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.
| |
| NOTE: Transitdependent buses assigned to PAS B4 and C4 are servicing pickup points identified in the Waterford 3 Nuclear Unit Safety Information brochure.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).
| |
| In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes freeflow and highspeed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.
| |
| Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is Service Volume (SV). Service volume is defined as The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service. This definition is similar to that for capacity. The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.
| |
| This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.
| |
| Other factors also influence capacity. These include, but are not limited to:
| |
| Lane width Shoulder width Pavement condition Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)
| |
| Percent truck traffic Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)
| |
| Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)
| |
| These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1
| |
| A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 1515)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).
| |
| As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain.
| |
| Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.
| |
| Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by uninterrupted flow; and (2) approaches to at grade intersections where flow can be interrupted by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.
| |
| 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the parish emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.
| |
| The perlane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:
| |
| 3600 3600 where:
| |
| Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph) hm = Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G = Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.
| |
| m = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.
| |
| The turnmovementspecific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.
| |
| Formally, we can write, where:
| |
| hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:
| |
| 2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &
| |
| Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For LargeScale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 2226, 2012 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| That is, the turnmovementspecific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.
| |
| The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,, influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (185) of the HCM 2010.
| |
| The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of allred time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre timed, the yellow and allred times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.
| |
| 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections as distinct from approaches to intersections is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 41 illustrates this relationship.
| |
| As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity (capacity drop). Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.
| |
| The value of VF can be expressed as:
| |
| where:
| |
| R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a falloff in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.
| |
| Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a realistic estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.
| |
| Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as uninterrupted flow facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as interrupted flow facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.
| |
| Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.
| |
| The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1530 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.
| |
| The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.
| |
| 3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks, Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 4.3 Application to the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Study Area As part of the development of the linknode analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:
| |
| 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
| |
| Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.
| |
| The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:
| |
| TwoLane roads: Local, State MultiLane Highways (atgrade)
| |
| Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.
| |
| 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand: capacity relations.
| |
| Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:
| |
| Most sections of twolane roads within the EPZ are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.
| |
| Class II highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.
| |
| 4.3.2 MultiLane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 142 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.
| |
| 4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.
| |
| Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1117 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.
| |
| Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+
| |
| PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:
| |
| capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.
| |
| Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).
| |
| Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 138 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1310 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.
| |
| The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2way and allway) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the timevarying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.
| |
| The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left turns, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.
| |
| 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools. The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks. Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:
| |
| The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system.
| |
| This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.
| |
| All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG CR7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.
| |
| The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.
| |
| 5.1 Background In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details):
| |
| : 1. Unusual Event
| |
| : 2. Alert
| |
| : 3. Site Area Emergency
| |
| : 4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, that a rapidly escalating accident will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:
| |
| : 1. The Advisory to Evacuate occurs within a timely manner of the siren notification.
| |
| : 2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the siren notification.
| |
| : 3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:
| |
| : 1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863.
| |
| : 2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.
| |
| It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.
| |
| For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.
| |
| Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.
| |
| The notification process consists of two events:
| |
| : 1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).
| |
| : 2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.
| |
| The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 310 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.
| |
| The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.
| |
| As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.
| |
| For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and wordofmouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.
| |
| As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.
| |
| Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:
| |
| Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below:
| |
| Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.
| |
| An Event is a state that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)
| |
| An Activity is a process that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)
| |
| As such, a completed Activity changes the state of an individual (e.g. the activity, travel home changes the state from depart work to arrive home). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an Event Sequence; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.
| |
| An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 51. A household within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 51(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.
| |
| Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/nighttime, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 51(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 51(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.
| |
| It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.
| |
| Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.
| |
| In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1
| |
| for Commuters Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, Transients 1 2 4 5 Return to residence, away from then evacuate Residence Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening2 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home
| |
| : 5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1
| |
| Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.
| |
| 2 Applies throughout the year for transients.
| |
| Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions - not scalar numbers).
| |
| Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 In accordance with the 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, 100% of the population is notified within 45 minutes.
| |
| It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below:
| |
| Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0.0%
| |
| 5 7.1%
| |
| 10 13.3%
| |
| 15 26.5%
| |
| 20 46.9%
| |
| 25 66.3%
| |
| 30 86.7%
| |
| 35 91.8%
| |
| 40 96.9%
| |
| 45 100.0%
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 3 shown in Table 53 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52.
| |
| Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0.0% 40 94.3%
| |
| 5 49.5% 45 96.2%
| |
| 10 64.8% 50 96.3%
| |
| 15 75.3% 55 96.5%
| |
| 20 80.2% 60 99.5%
| |
| 25 81.1% 65 99.6%
| |
| 30 92.3% 70 99.8%
| |
| 35 94.0% 75 100.0%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the Dont know responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.
| |
| Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 50 94.0%
| |
| 5 9.5% 55 94.1%
| |
| 10 28.2% 60 97.9%
| |
| 15 41.9% 65 98.4%
| |
| 20 57.4% 70 98.8%
| |
| 25 64.2% 75 99.2%
| |
| 30 78.5% 80 99.5%
| |
| 35 81.8% 85 99.7%
| |
| 40 86.9% 90 100.0%
| |
| 45 93.4%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.
| |
| Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0.0% 70 89.4%
| |
| 5 6.3% 75 91.3%
| |
| 10 12.6% 80 92.2%
| |
| 15 18.9% 85 93.1%
| |
| 20 32.9% 90 94.0%
| |
| 25 46.8% 95 94.1%
| |
| 30 60.8% 100 94.3%
| |
| 35 63.6% 105 94.4%
| |
| 40 66.3% 110 95.9%
| |
| 45 69.1% 115 97.5%
| |
| 50 74.6% 120 99.0%
| |
| 55 80.2% 125 99.4%
| |
| 60 85.7% 130 99.7%
| |
| 65 87.6% 135 100.0%
| |
| NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Mobilization Activities 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| Notification Prepare to Leave Work 40% Travel Home Prepare Home 20%
| |
| Percent of Households Completing Mobilizaton Activity 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)
| |
| Figure 52. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions. As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the worktohome trip (Activity 3 4) must precede Activity 4 5.
| |
| To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 56 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.
| |
| Table 56. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Table 57 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 57. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.
| |
| B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).
| |
| Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home C
| |
| to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
| |
| Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D
| |
| to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).
| |
| 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say four hours and 4 say six or more hours.
| |
| These outliers must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?
| |
| In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:
| |
| : 1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;
| |
| : 2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);
| |
| : 3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.
| |
| The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered outliers for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.
| |
| There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.
| |
| In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| are used:
| |
| : 1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;
| |
| : 2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 56, Table 57);
| |
| : 3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.
| |
| special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;
| |
| : 4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.
| |
| In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.
| |
| When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps a to d are repeated.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : 5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 53.
| |
| 100.0%
| |
| 90.0%
| |
| 80.0%
| |
| Cumulative Percentage (%)
| |
| 70.0%
| |
| 60.0%
| |
| 50.0%
| |
| 40.0%
| |
| 30.0%
| |
| 20.0%
| |
| 10.0%
| |
| 0.0%
| |
| 112.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 Center of Interval (minutes)
| |
| Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution
| |
| : 6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:
| |
| Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.
| |
| Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a normal curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;
| |
| : 7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 16, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.
| |
| This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - i.e., preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent -
| |
| for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)
| |
| The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.
| |
| The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 58 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).
| |
| The final time period (13) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:
| |
| : 1. Protective Action Sections comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately
| |
| : 2. Protective Action Sections comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2 mile region is cleared
| |
| : 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation
| |
| : 4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary
| |
| : 5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%
| |
| Assumptions
| |
| : 1. The EPZ population in Protective Action Sections beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region
| |
| : 2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all nonstaged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.
| |
| : 3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.
| |
| : 4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.
| |
| Procedure
| |
| : 1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.
| |
| : 2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:
| |
| : a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the Protective Action Sections comprising the two mile region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.
| |
| : b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : i. The nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%
| |
| of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter noncompliance).
| |
| ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*
| |
| iii. Following time TScen*, the balance of trips are generated:
| |
| : 1. by stepping up and then following the nonshelter trip generation curve (if TScen* is < max trip generation time) or
| |
| : 2. by stepping up to 100% (if TScen* is > max trip generation time)
| |
| : c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR7002 uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.
| |
| The value of TScen* is 1:45.
| |
| : 3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:
| |
| : a. Residents with returning commuters
| |
| : b. Residents without returning commuters Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is 105 minutes. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.
| |
| Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After TScen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.
| |
| Table 59 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.
| |
| 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways Section E.5 of the St. Charles Parish Radiological Emergency Response Plan (January 2010) indicates that the U.S. Coast Guard will notify ships along the Mississippi River.
| |
| There are no boats launched from within the EPZ. This study will therefore assume that boats along the Mississippi River will exit the EPZ and return to their point of origin.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents with Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 8% 8% 0% 1%
| |
| 2 15 36% 36% 0% 11%
| |
| 3 15 34% 34% 3% 25%
| |
| 4 15 14% 14% 11% 25%
| |
| 5 15 5% 5% 17% 15%
| |
| 6 15 2% 2% 18% 10%
| |
| 7 15 1% 1% 16% 5%
| |
| 8 15 0% 0% 13% 2%
| |
| 9 15 0% 0% 8% 3%
| |
| 10 15 0% 0% 5% 2%
| |
| 11 15 0% 0% 4% 1%
| |
| 12 15 0% 0% 2% 0%
| |
| 13 15 0% 0% 2% 0%
| |
| 14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%
| |
| 15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| NOTE:
| |
| Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distribution C for good weather.
| |
| Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters 100 80 60 40 20
| |
| % of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)
| |
| Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*
| |
| Residents Residents with Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 0% 0%
| |
| 2 15 0% 2%
| |
| 3 15 1% 5%
| |
| 4 15 2% 5%
| |
| 5 15 3% 3%
| |
| 6 15 4% 2%
| |
| 7 15 3% 1%
| |
| 8 15 65% 76%
| |
| 9 15 8% 3%
| |
| 10 15 5% 2%
| |
| 11 15 4% 1%
| |
| 12 15 2% 0%
| |
| 13 15 2% 0%
| |
| 14 30 1% 0%
| |
| 15 600 0% 0%
| |
| *Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 58) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters 100 80 60 40 20
| |
| % of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Evacuating Advisory (min)
| |
| Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.
| |
| The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:
| |
| Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Protective Action Section that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.
| |
| Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions. Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.
| |
| A total of 27 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Protective Action Section considered. These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Protective Action Section configurations are identified in Figure 61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R09) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R10 through R20). Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R21 through R27 are identical to Regions R03, and R04 through R09, respectively; however, those Protective Action Sections between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.
| |
| A total of 12 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 27x12=324 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.
| |
| Each combination of region and scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. Table 63 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each scenario.
| |
| Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ.
| |
| The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation scenario. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:
| |
| The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 67% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 67%
| |
| (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Employment is assumed to be at its peak during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.
| |
| Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.
| |
| Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during winter weekends and less (50%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there is lodging offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be high during evening hours - 75% for summer and 100% for winter. Transient activity on summer weekends is estimated to be 75%.
| |
| As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:
| |
| 3,520 20% 1 22%
| |
| 21,054 25,847 One special event - Alligator Festival - was considered as Scenario 11. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 11, and 0% for all other scenarios.
| |
| It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances. As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. Transit buses for the transitdependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.
| |
| External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Description A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R01 2Mile Ring X X X X R02 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R04 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R05 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R06 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R07 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R09 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R10 N 348.8 11.3 X X X X X X R11 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X X X R12 ENE 56.3 78.8 X X X X X X R13 E, ESE 78.8 123.8 X X X X X X X X R14 SE, SSE 123.8 168.8 X X X X X X X X X R15 S 168.8 191.3 X X X X X X X X R16 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X X X R17 WSW 236.3 258.8 X X X X X X X X R18 W, WNW 258.8 303.8 X X X X X X X X X R19 NW 303.8 326.3 X X X X X X X X X R20 NNW 326.3 348.8 X X X X X X X Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R21 N/A 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R22 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R23 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R24 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R25 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R26 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R27 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) Evacuate until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 61. W3SES EPZ Protective Action Sections Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of Scenarios Season1 Day of Week Weather Special Day 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Evening Good None Weekend 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good Alligator Festival Roadway Impact 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on US 61 NB 1
| |
| Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Traffic 1 45% 55% 96% 50% 22% 0% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 2 45% 55% 96% 50% 22% 0% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| 3 4% 96% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 4 4% 96% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 5 4% 96% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 6 45% 55% 100% 50% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 7 45% 55% 100% 50% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| 8 4% 96% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 9 4% 96% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 10 4% 96% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%
| |
| 11 4% 96% 10% 100% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%
| |
| 12 45% 55% 96% 50% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%
| |
| Resident Households with Commuters .......Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
| |
| Resident Households with No Commuters ..Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.
| |
| Employees..................................................EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ..................................................People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.
| |
| Shadow ......................................................Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.
| |
| Special Events ............................................Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.
| |
| School and Transit Buses ............................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).
| |
| External Through Traffic .............................Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 1 hour after the evacuation begins.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Households Households With Without Total Returning Returning Special School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses 1 Through Traffic Vehicles 1 21,054 25,847 3,520 503 12,993 0 76 228 8,593 72,814 2 21,054 25,847 3,520 503 12,993 0 76 228 8,593 72,814 3 2,105 44,796 367 755 12,180 0 0 228 8,593 69,024 4 2,105 44,796 367 755 12,180 0 0 228 8,593 69,024 5 2,105 44,796 367 755 12,180 0 0 228 3,437 63,868 6 21,054 25,847 3,667 503 13,031 0 764 228 8,593 73,687 7 21,054 25,847 3,667 503 13,031 0 764 228 8,593 73,687 8 2,105 44,796 367 1,006 12,180 0 0 228 8,593 69,275 9 2,105 44,796 367 1,006 12,180 0 0 228 8,593 69,275 10 2,105 44,796 367 1,006 12,180 0 0 228 3,437 64,119 11 2,105 44,796 367 1,006 12,180 2,400 0 228 8,593 71,675 12 21,054 25,847 3,520 503 12,180 0 76 228 8,593 72,001 1
| |
| Transit buses include buses used to evacuate the transitdependent permanent resident population and those buses used to evacuate the correctional facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)
| |
| This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 27 regions within the W3SES EPZ and the 12 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.
| |
| The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2mile region for both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.
| |
| The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II System outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.
| |
| 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are people within the EPZ in PAS for which an Advisory to Evacuate has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some people from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.
| |
| The ETE for the W3SES EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in PAS outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.
| |
| Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 113,292 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.
| |
| Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the W3SES location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.
| |
| 7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:
| |
| : 1. PAS comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.
| |
| : 2. PAS comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in place while the two mile region is cleared.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : 3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.
| |
| : 4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 2 mile region boundary.
| |
| : 5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.
| |
| See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.
| |
| 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).
| |
| Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 55):
| |
| The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have exceeded a specified service measure value, or combination of service measure values, that most users would consider unsatisfactory. However, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is. Several measures are available to describe individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:
| |
| * Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which capacity is exceeded during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%, etc.);
| |
| * Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h); and
| |
| * Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue, and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.
| |
| All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Figure 73 displays the fully developed congestion within the population centers of La Place, New Sarpy, and Luling, just 1 hour after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). The 2mile region does not experience any congestion.
| |
| At two hours after the ATE, congestion still persists in La Place, New Sarpy, and Luling as shown in Figure 74. There is significant congestion at the interchange of US51, I10 and I55 in La Place. Congestion continues to build along the major evacuation routes of US61, US55, and SH
| |
| : 18. I10 is clear of congestion within the EPZ due to the establishment of ACPs at 1 hour after the ATE.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| At 3 hours after the ATE, as shown in Figure 75, traffic begins to clear in La Place, New Sarpy, and Luling. Congestion persists on US61 westbound within Laplace and Reserve. SH 3188 experiences LOS F due to the queuing of vehicles trying to access I10 westbound and the limited capacity of the onramps.
| |
| At 3 hours and 30 minutes, as shown in Figure 76, all PAS with the exception of A2 and A4 (Laplace) are clear of congestion. US61 westbound still experiences heavy congestion. SH 3188 still experiences congestion due to the queuing of vehicles trying to access I10 westbound.
| |
| Finally, Figure 77 displays that last bit of congestion within the EPZ, at 4 hours after the ATE, which is just after the completion of the tripgeneration (mobilization) time. The last roadway to clear of congestion in the Shadow Region is US61 westbound Laplace and Reserve. The EPZ completely clears of congestion at 4 hours and 15 minutes after the ATE.
| |
| 7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 719. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.
| |
| As indicated in Figure 78, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.
| |
| This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.
| |
| 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 27 Evacuation Regions and all 12 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table Contents ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 71 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
| |
| ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 72 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.
| |
| ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 73 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.
| |
| ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 74 population within the 2mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.
| |
| The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 77.
| |
| Most of the congestion is located in Protective Action Sections A2, A4, B3, B4 and D3 which are beyond the 2mile region; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:
| |
| There is no congestion (LOS F) within the 2mile region. The 90th percentile ETE are 1:45 (hr:min) on average. Most of the population in the 2mile region is plant employees, which mobilize in 1:45 according to Table 58. Thus, ETE parallel mobilization time.
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for the 5mile region is approximately 30 minutes longer than the 2mile region, on average, as a result of the traffic congestion in PAS A2.
| |
| The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 (full EPZ) is approximately 40 minutes longer, on average, than the ETE for the 5mile region due to the traffic congestion in PAS A4, B3, B4 and D3.
| |
| The 100th percentile ETE for all regions and all scenarios within 5 miles are comparable to mobilization time. This fact implies that the congestion within the 5mile region dissipates prior to the end of mobilization for the 5mile region. However, for Region R03 (full EPZ) and Regions R10 through R20 (which extend to the EPZ boundary), ETE are significantly longer than the mobilization time, implying that traffic congestion does not clear prior to the completion of mobilization time. The congestion is pronounced in regions with wind direction from the south and southeast (R14 and 15) where ETE are 10 to 25 minutes longer (up to 50 minutes during adverse weather scenarios).
| |
| Comparison of Scenarios 8 and 11 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - Alligator Festival in Luling - increases ETE by up to 10 minutes for Regions R19 through R20 at the 90th and 100th percentile. The additional 2,400 vehicles present for the special event increase congestion on the local roads for keyhole regions which include PAS D3, where the event is held.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - a single lane northbound on US61 from the intersection with LA48/Apple St to the end of the analysis network at the intersection with LA50/Amedia Rd - does have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE for keyhole regions with winds from the west (Regions R08, R09, and R17 through R19), with up to 45 minute increases in ETE. Wind from the west carries the plume over Norco and New Sarpy, which routes evacuees onto US61 northbound. With a lane closed on US61 northbound, the capacity is reduced to half, increasing congestion and prolonging ETE. The 100th percentile ETE are also significantly impacted, with increases in ETE of up to 40 minutes.
| |
| The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on US61, could impact ETE. State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane or rerouting of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming US61. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage on US61.
| |
| 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE for the 2mile region compiled for the concurrent (unstaged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R21 through R27 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, and R04 through R09, respectively.
| |
| To determine whether the staged evacuation strategy is worthy of consideration, one must show that the ETE for the 2mile region can be reduced without significantly affecting the region between 2 miles and 5 miles. In all cases, as shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the ETE for the 2 mile region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented. As shown in Figure 73 and discussed in Section 7.5, the traffic congestion between 2 and 5 miles does not propagate upstream into the 2 mile region. Thus, those evacuating from the 2 mile region are not delayed.
| |
| While failing to provide assistance to evacuees from within 2 miles of the W3SES, staging produces a negative impact on the ETE for those evacuating from within the 5mile region. A comparison of ETE between Regions, R02 and R04 through R09 and Regions R21 through R27, respectively, reveals that staging retards the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by up to 1 hour (see Table 71 and Table 72). This extending of ETE is due to the delay in beginning the evacuation trip, experienced by those who shelter, plus the effect of the tripgeneration spike (significant volume of traffic beginning the evacuation trip at the same time) that follows their eventual ATE, in creating congestion within the EPZ area beyond 2 miles.
| |
| In summary, the staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits to evacuees from within 2 miles and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles from the W3SES.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen Table may then be identified using the following procedure:
| |
| : 1. Identify the applicable Scenario:
| |
| * Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)
| |
| * Day of Week Midweek Weekend
| |
| * Time of Day Midday Evening
| |
| * Weather Condition Good Weather Rain
| |
| * Special Event Alligator Festival Road Closure (A single lane on US 61 EB is closed)
| |
| * Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:
| |
| * The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (2) and (4) apply.
| |
| * The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (9) for rain apply.
| |
| * The seasons are defined as follows:
| |
| Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.
| |
| Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.
| |
| * Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.
| |
| : 2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:
| |
| * Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from N, NNE, NE,
| |
| * Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the nuclear Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| power plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below:
| |
| 2 Miles (Region R01)
| |
| To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 through R09)
| |
| To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R10 through R20)
| |
| * Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the W3SES. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.
| |
| : 3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:
| |
| * The columns of Table 71 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.
| |
| * Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.
| |
| * The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.
| |
| Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:
| |
| * Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.
| |
| * It is raining.
| |
| * Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).
| |
| * Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).
| |
| * The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.
| |
| * A staged evacuation is not desired.
| |
| Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:
| |
| : 1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 71, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.
| |
| : 2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the NE and read Region R11 in the first column of that row.
| |
| : 3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R11. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R11; it contains the ETE value of 1:50.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and EPZ R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R01 R02 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:40 R02 R03 3:05 3:25 3:00 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:25 3:05 3:20 2:55 3:05 3:15 R03 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 R04 R05 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 R05 R06 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:55 R06 R07 2:40 2:50 2:45 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:55 2:40 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 R07 R08 2:35 2:50 2:45 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:55 2:40 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:40 R08 R09 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 1:35 1:40 1:40 1:35 2:25 R09 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R10 1:55 2:00 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:55 2:00 1:40 1:45 1:45 1:40 1:50 R10 R11 1:55 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:00 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:55 R11 R12 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:00 R12 R13 2:30 2:35 2:15 2:20 2:05 2:30 2:40 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:20 2:30 R13 R14 3:20 3:35 3:20 3:35 3:10 3:20 3:45 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:20 3:15 R14 R15 3:20 3:40 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:25 3:45 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:20 3:15 R15 R16 2:35 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:50 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:40 2:40 R16 R17 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 3:15 R17 R18 2:45 2:55 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:50 3:00 2:35 2:45 2:30 2:45 3:10 R18 R19 2:50 3:05 2:40 2:50 2:35 2:55 3:05 2:40 2:50 2:35 2:50 3:10 R19 R20 3:00 3:10 2:45 3:00 2:40 3:00 3:15 2:45 3:05 2:35 2:55 3:00 R20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 3:25 3:35 3:25 3:40 3:30 3:25 3:35 3:25 3:40 3:30 3:25 3:25 R21 R22 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 R22 R23 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 R23 R24 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 R24 R25 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:30 R25 R26 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:35 3:30 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:30 3:30 3:30 R26 R27 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:30 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and EPZ R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R01 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R02 R03 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:45 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:25 4:40 4:25 4:25 4:35 R03 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R04 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R08 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R09 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R10 R11 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R11 R12 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R12 R13 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R13 R14 4:20 4:45 4:10 4:40 4:05 4:20 4:50 4:05 4:40 4:05 4:10 4:20 R14 R15 4:20 4:45 4:10 4:40 4:00 4:20 4:45 4:05 4:40 4:05 4:10 4:20 R15 R16 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R16 R17 3:55 4:00 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:35 R17 R18 3:55 4:10 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 4:35 R18 R19 3:55 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:58 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:05 4:35 R19 R20 3:55 4:20 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 4:15 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:05 3:55 R20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:50 4:25 4:35 4:25 4:25 4:30 R21 R22 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R22 R23 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R23 R24 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R24 R25 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:45 4:20 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:30 R25 R26 4:20 4:45 4:15 4:35 4:20 4:20 4:45 4:25 4:35 4:25 4:25 4:30 R26 R27 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R01 R02 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R04 R05 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R05 R06 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R06 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R07 R08 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R08 R09 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R09 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R21 R22 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R22 R23 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R23 R24 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R24 R25 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R25 R26 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R26 R27 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Scenario:
| |
| Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Region Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R01 R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R04 R05 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R05 R06 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R07 R08 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R08 R09 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R09 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R21 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R21 R22 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R22 R23 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R23 R24 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R24 R25 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R25 R26 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R26 R27 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Description A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R01 2Mile Ring X X X X R02 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R04 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R05 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R06 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R07 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R08 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R09 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R10 N 348.8 11.3 X X X X X X R11 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X X X R12 ENE 56.3 78.8 X X X X X X R13 E, ESE 78.8 123.8 X X X X X X X X R14 SE, SSE 123.8 168.8 X X X X X X X X X R15 S 168.8 191.3 X X X X X X X X R16 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X X X R17 WSW 236.3 258.8 X X X X X X X X R18 W, WNW 258.8 303.8 X X X X X X X X X R19 NW 303.8 326.3 X X X X X X X X X R20 NNW 326.3 348.8 X X X X X X X Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R21 N/A 5Mile Ring X X X X X X X X R22 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 X X X X X R23 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 X X X X X X R24 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 X X X X X R25 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 X X X X X X R26 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 X X X X X X WSW, W, R27 236.3 326.3 X X X X X X WNW, NW PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) Evacuate until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 72. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Shadow Region Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%
| |
| 70 60 Vehicles Evacuating 50 40 (Thousands) 30 20 10 0
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)
| |
| Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles. The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups: (1) residents with no vehicles available; (2) residents of special facilities such as schools, medical facilities, and correctional facilities; and (3) homebound special needs population.
| |
| These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs.
| |
| This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.
| |
| Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.
| |
| Specifically:
| |
| * Bus drivers must be alerted
| |
| * They must travel to the bus depot
| |
| * They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 60 minutes for schools in St. John the Baptist Parish, 90 minutes for schools in St. Charles Parish, and 90 minutes for all medical facilities, extending from the Advisory to Evacuate to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.
| |
| During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The Louisiana Peacetime Radiological Response Plan indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to reception centers at emergency action levels of Site Area Emergency or higher, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at reception centers. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency. Therefore, children are evacuated to reception centers. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. It is assumed that children at daycare centers are picked up by parents or guardians and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:
| |
| * Estimate demand for transit service
| |
| * Estimate time to perform all transit functions
| |
| * Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers 8.1 Transit Dependent People Demand Estimate The telephone survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:
| |
| * Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.
| |
| * Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.
| |
| In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.
| |
| Table 81 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:
| |
| * Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren. For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates. However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.
| |
| * It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that 50 percent of transit dependent persons will ride share, in accordance with NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 81 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.
| |
| 2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 81 indicates that transportation must be provided for 2,476 people. Therefore, a total of 83 bus runs are required to transport this population to reception centers.
| |
| To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the W3SES EPZ:
| |
| : Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 32,547 0.0421 1.86 0.2385 2.08 1 0.67 0.33 0.5010 2.69 2 0.67 0.33 4,952 0.5 30 84 These calculations are explained as follows:
| |
| * All members (1.86 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (4.21%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 32,547 (number of households) x 0.0421 x 1.86, accounts for these people.
| |
| * The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (23.85%), who are at home, equal (2.081).
| |
| The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (32,547 x 0.2385 x 0.67 x 0.33), as 67% of EPZ households have a commuter, 33% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.
| |
| * The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (50.10%), who are at home, equal (2.69 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 32,547 x 0.5010 x (0.67 x 0.33)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).
| |
| * Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.
| |
| * The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.
| |
| The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 81 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the parishes (discussed below in Section 8.5). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8.2 School Population - Transit Demand Table 82 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20112012 school year. This information was provided by the local parish emergency management agencies. The column in Table 82 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:
| |
| * No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.
| |
| * While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.
| |
| * Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and 50 for middle and high schools for St. Charles Parish schools. St. John the Baptist Parish provided number of buses needed for their schools.
| |
| * Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.
| |
| * No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.
| |
| It is recommended that the parishes in the EPZ introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot, to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities).
| |
| Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.
| |
| Table 83 presents a list of the school reception centers for each school in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these centers where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families.
| |
| 8.3 Medical Facility Demand Table 84 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. 635 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The capacity and current census (including number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients) for each facility were provided by the parish emergency management agencies.
| |
| The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table
| |
| : 84. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair bus runs assumes 15 wheelchairs per trip; wheelchair vans accommodate 4 wheelchairs per trip; minibuses accommodate 6 wheelchairs per trip; and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8.4 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.
| |
| When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pickup points.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimates for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.
| |
| Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)
| |
| Mobilization is the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, school bus drivers for St. Charles Parish would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transitdependent facilities. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes when raining. St. John the Baptist Parish would require 60 minutes in good weather, 70 minutes when raining.
| |
| Activity: Board Passengers (CD)
| |
| Based on discussions with offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain) for school buses is used.
| |
| For multiple stops along a pickup route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:
| |
| 2 ,
| |
| Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e. pickup time, P) to service passengers is:
| |
| Assigning reasonable estimates:
| |
| * B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop
| |
| * v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec
| |
| * a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain.
| |
| Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)
| |
| School Evacuation Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ parish emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 85. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population, homebound special needs (discussed below in Section 8.5) and correctional facilities (discussed below in Section 8.6). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave, with the exception of the bedridden population within the EPZ.
| |
| The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 75 minutes for St.
| |
| John the Baptist Parish and 105 minutes for St. Charles Parish after the advisory to evacuate -
| |
| mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5 minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 86 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather for St. Charles Parish) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| . 60 .
| |
| . . 1 .
| |
| 60 .
| |
| 1 .
| |
| The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 87 and Table 88 for school evacuation, and in Table 810 and Table 811 for the transit vehicles evacuating transitdependent persons, which are discussed later. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the Reception Center was computed assuming an average speed of 40 mph and 35 mph for good weather and rain, respectively.
| |
| Speeds were reduced in Table 87 and Table 88 and in Table 810 and Table 811 to 55 mph (50 mph for rain - 10% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in Louisiana is 55 mph.
| |
| Table 87 (good weather) and Table 88 (rain) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ: (1) The elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the reception center. The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 min. + 15 + 20 = 2:05 for Norco Elementary School, with good weather). The evacuation time to the School Reception Center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time. Note that several schools in St. John the Baptist Parish can evacuate to two possible reception centers, as shown in Table 83. ETE are provided for each reception center in Table 87 and Table 88 for these schools.
| |
| Evacuation of TransitDependent Population The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), 90 percent of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 90 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. PASs A2, A4, B3 and D3 have high transitdependent populations and require more buses than any other PASs (Table 89). As such, three waves of buses have been identified for each of these PASs. The start of service on each wave of buses on these routes is separated by 20 minute headways, as shown in Table 810 and Table 811.
| |
| The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| up. Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in rain to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.
| |
| Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Transitdependent pickup locations are provided annually to EPZ residents in the Waterford 3 Nuclear Unit Safety Information brochure. This brochure does not define bus routes to service these pickup locations. The 16 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 82 and Figure 82 and described in Table 89 were designed as part of this study to service the major routes through each PAS and to service the predefined pickup locations. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at these predesignated pickup locations, and that they can arrive at the stops within the 90 minute bus mobilization time (good weather).
| |
| As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. A longer pickup time of 40 minutes is used for rain.
| |
| The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.
| |
| Table 810 and Table 811 present the transitdependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather and rain.
| |
| For example, the ETE for the bus route 1 (servicing PAS A1) is computed as 90 + 13 + 30 = 2:15 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 13 minutes is the time to travel 11.9 miles at 54.1 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 90 minutes.
| |
| The ETE for a second wave (discussed below) is presented in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers, as previously discussed.
| |
| Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)
| |
| The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 101. For a onewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a twowave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 40 mph and 35 mph for good weather and rain respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.
| |
| Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)
| |
| A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute break.
| |
| Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GC)
| |
| The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transit dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.
| |
| The secondwave ETE for the bus route 1 (servicing PAS A1) is computed as follows for good weather:
| |
| * Bus arrives at reception center at 3:06 in good weather (2:15 to exit EPZ + 51 minute travel time to reception center).
| |
| * Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.
| |
| * Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 51 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 16 minutes (11.9 miles @ 42.6 mph) + 18 (11.9 miles @ 40 mph)= 85 minutes
| |
| * Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.
| |
| * Bus exits EPZ at time 2:15 + 0:51 + 0:15 + 1:25 + 0:30 = 5:20 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 810 and Table 811. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of transit dependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile.
| |
| The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the parishes decide to do so, is not considered in this study.
| |
| Evacuation of Medical Facilities The transit operations of these facilities are similar to school evacuation except:
| |
| * Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients. Wheelchair buses can accommodate 15 patients, and ambulances can accommodate 2 patients.
| |
| * Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively.
| |
| Table 84 indicates that 15 bus runs, 15 wheelchair bus runs, 5 minibus runs, and 26 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the medical facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 85, the parishes can collectively provide 658 buses, 17 minivans with lifts, 4 vans, 18 wheelchair accessible buses, 2 wheelchair accessible vans and 8 ambulances. Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound persons from the medical facilities in a single wave, but an insufficient number of ambulances are available to evacuate bedridden patients in a single wave.
| |
| It is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes for medical facilities. Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90 minute timeframe.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 812 and Table 813 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather and rain. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain)
| |
| Region 3, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the average distance of 6 miles by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed, such that the maximum loading times for buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances are 30, 75, and 30 minutes, respectively. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for the Ormond Nursing & Care Center with 72 ambulatory residents during good weather is:
| |
| ETE: 90 + 30 x 1 + 22 = 142 min. or 2:25 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.
| |
| The following outlines the ETE calculations for a second wave for ambulances, in good weather:
| |
| : a. ETE to the EPZ boundary (average bedridden ETE from Table 812): 2:55
| |
| : b. There are several hospitals and medical centers in Baton Rouge and New Orleans that could host bedridden evacuees from the EPZ. It is estimated that 45 minutes, on average, would be needed to travel from the EPZ boundary to a host medical facility.
| |
| : c. Ambulance discharges passengers (30 minutes and driver takes a 10minute rest): 40 minutes.
| |
| : d. Travel time back to EPZ: 45 minutes.
| |
| : e. Travel time back to facility: 52 minutes (average Travel Time to EPZ boundary for bedridden patients from Table 810)
| |
| : f. Loading Time: 30 minutes
| |
| : g. Travel time to EPZ boundary: Ambulance is ready to leave medical facility at time 2:55 +
| |
| 0:45 + 0:40 + 0:45 + 0:52 + 0:30 = 6:30. As discussed in Section 7.5, all traffic congestion in the study area is clear at this time. Thus, ambulances would be able to travel at free flow speed - assume 45 mph on average - at this time and could travel the 6 miles to the EPZ boundary in 8 minutes.
| |
| ETE: 2:55 + 0:45 + 0:40 + 0:45 + 0:52 + 0:30 + 0:08 = 6:35 after the Advisory to Evacuate (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes).
| |
| Therefore, a second wave evacuation for ambulances requires an additional 2 hours and 50 minutes relative to a single wave evacuation. As shown in Table 85, 4 waves of ambulance service would be needed to fulfill the 26 ambulances needed to evacuate medical facilities.
| |
| However, as indicated in Table 85, Acadian Ambulance could secure more ambulances from nearby Acadian resources. These additional resources could be called in at the ATE to reduce the number of waves required and reduce the ETE for bedridden patients at medical facilities within the EPZ.
| |
| It is assumed that medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8.5 Special Needs Population The parish emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and homebound special needs persons. Based on data provided by the parishes, there are an estimated 61 homebound special needs people within the St. Charles Parish portion of the EPZ and 90 people within the St. John the Baptist Parish portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate. The parishes provided details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people. There are 110 ambulatory persons, 29 wheelchairbound persons and 12 bedridden persons.
| |
| ETE for Homebound Special Needs Persons Table 814 summarizes the ETE for homebound special needs people. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles to reduce the number of stops per vehicle.
| |
| It is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound special needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10% slower in rain). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain). The last HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.
| |
| For example, assuming no more than one special needs person per HH implies that 110 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 4 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 14 buses are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 8 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations:
| |
| : 1. Assume 14 buses are deployed, each with about 8 stops, to service a total of 110 HH.
| |
| : 2. The ETE is calculated as follows:
| |
| : a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes
| |
| : b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes
| |
| : c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 7 @ 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20 mph) = 63 minutes
| |
| : d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 7 @ 5 minutes = 35 minutes
| |
| : e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 12 minutes (5 miles @24.2 mph).
| |
| ETE: 90 + 5 + 63 + 35 + 12= 3:25 Similar to evacuation of medical facilities, homebound bedridden population would also require multiple waves of ambulance evacuation. The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed using ambulances after medical facilities have been evacuated, in good weather:
| |
| : a. Single wave ETE for ambulance for medical facilities (from Table 812): 2:55 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : b. Travel to host medical facility: 45 minutes
| |
| : c. Unload passengers: 30 minutes
| |
| : d. Driver takes rest: 10 minutes
| |
| : e. Travel time back to EPZ: 45 minutes
| |
| : f. Ambulance travels to all stops: 2 stops @ 5 minutes = 10 minutes
| |
| : g. Loading time at all stops: 2 stops @ 15 minutes = 30 minutes
| |
| : h. Travel time to EPZ boundary: 5 minutes (5 miles @ 55.0 mph)
| |
| ETE: 2:55 + 45 + 30 + 10 + 45 + 10 + 30 + 5 = 5:50 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) 8.6 Correctional Facilities Table 815 summarizes the ETE for good weather and rain for the two correctional facilities within the EPZ - St. Charles Correctional Facility and Sherman Walker Correctional Center. As indicated in Table E5, there are 525 inmates at the St. Charles Correctional Facility and 372 at the Sherman Walker Correctional Center. Eighteen (18) buses and 13 buses (based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus) are needed, respectively, to evacuate these facilities.
| |
| Mobilization time is assumed to be 90 minutes (100 minutes in rain). It is conservatively estimated that it takes 120 minutes to load the inmates onto buses. The detailed evacuation plans for these facilities are confidential. The shortest route distance (measured using GIS software) for each facility traveling away from the plant to the EPZ boundary was measured using GIS software and is shown in Table 815. The average speed for each route output by DYNEV was used to calculate the travel time to the EPZ boundary. For example, the calculation of ETE for the St. Charles Correctional Facility during good weather is:
| |
| ETE: 90 + 120 + 8 (7.4 miles at 55 mph) = 3:40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| (Subsequent Wave)
| |
| A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 82. TransitDependent Bus Routes Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 83. TransitDependent Bus Routes Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 81. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2010 EPZ of Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 87,877 1.86 2.08 2.69 32,547 4.21% 23.85% 50.10% 67% 33% 4,952 50% 2,476 2.8%
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 82. School Population Demand Estimates PAS School Name Enrollment Buses Required B2 Norco Elementary School 611 9 B2 Sacred Heart School 140 3 B3 Destrehan High 1,396 28 B3 Ethel Schoeffner Elementary 457 7 B3 Harry Hurst Middle School 469 10 B3 New Sarpy Elementary 536 8 B3 St. Charles Borromeo 470 7 D2 G. W. Carver Early Learning Center 157 3 D3 A A Songy Kindergarten 210 3 D3 Boutte Christian Academy ** 330 2 D3 Lakewood Elementary School 565 8 D3 Luling Elementary School 645 10 D3 Mimosa Park Elementary 578 9 D3 R .K. Smith Middle School 278 6 D3 Satellite Center 180 4 D4 Hahnville High 1,422 29 D4 J. B. Martin Middle School 570 12 D4 R. J. Vial Elementary 362 6 A2 Ascension of Our Lord School 420 9 A2 East St. John Elementary School 705 15 A2 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 560 10 A2 John L. Ory Magnet 443 10 A2 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 808 18 A2 LaPlace Elementary School 1,040 22 A2 St. Charles Catholic High School 440 12 A2 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 706 16 A4 East St. John High School 1,407 33 A4 Fifth Ward Elementary 501 11 A4 Garyville/Mt. Airy Math & Science Magnet School 386 9 A4 Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program 95 4 A4 Lifehouse Daniel Academy 50 2 A4 Our Lady of Grace School 150 5 A4 Riverside Academy 785 17 A4 St. John Alternative School 84 2 A4 St. John Child Development Center 92 3 A4 St. John Redirection Center 30 2 A4 St. Peter's Catholic School 155 5 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| PAS School Name Enrollment Buses Required C3 West St. John Elementary School 369 8 C3 West St. John High School 212 5 TOTAL: 18,814 382 B2 Norco Adult Learning Center (NL)
| |
| * 100 0 D3 Boutte Adult Learning Center
| |
| * 100 0 TOTAL (USE PERSONAL VEHICLES TO EVACUATE): 200 0 GRAND TOTAL: 19,014 382
| |
| * Students use personal vehicles to evacuate.
| |
| ** Parents pick up students, and St. Charles Parish supplies 2 buses.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 83. School Reception Centers School Reception Center G. W. Carver Early Learning Center A A Songy Kindergarten Lakewood Elementary School Luling Elementary School Alario Center Mimosa Park Elementary R .K. Smith Middle School Satellite Center Hahnville High J. B. Martin Middle School R. J. Vial Elementary Central Lafourche High School West St. John Elementary School West St. John High School Emily C. Watkins Elementary Hammond High School or The River Center Norco Elementary School Sacred Heart School Destrehan High Ethel Schoeffner Elementary Pontchartrain Center Harry Hurst Middle School New Sarpy Elementary St. Charles Borromeo Boutte Christian Academy Ascension of Our Lord School East St. John Elementary School East St. John High School Fifth Ward Elementary Garyville/Mt. Airy Math & Science Magnet School John L. Ory Magnet Lake Pontchartrain Elementary LaPlace Elementary School Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program The River Center Lifehouse Daniel Academy Our Lady of Grace School Riverside Academy St. Charles Catholic High School St. Joan of Arc Catholic School St. John Alternative School St. John Child Development Center St. John Redirection Center St. Peter's Catholic School Boutte Adult Learning Center Students use personal vehicles to evacuate.
| |
| Norco Adult Learning Center (NL)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 84. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Mini Cap Current Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Bus PAS Facility Name acity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs Ambulance ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA B3 Ormond Nursing & Care Center 141 118 72 37 9 3 3 0 5 D3 Luling Nursing Home Inc. 101 80 67 10 3 3 0 2 2 D3 St. Charles Parish Hospital 59 48 41 2 5 2 0 1 3 St. Charles Parish Subtotal: 301 246 180 49 17 8 3 3 10 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA A2 Place DuBourg 82 66 29 30 7 1 2 0 4 A2 River Parishes Hospital 106 85 52 27 6 2 1 2 3 Twin Oaks Nursing and 1 6 0 4 A2 Convalescent Home 148 113 21 85 7 Southeast Louisiana War Veterans 3 3 0 5 A4 Home 156 125 77 39 9 St. John the Baptist Subtotal: 492 389 179 181 29 7 12 2 16 TOTAL: 793 635 359 230 46 15 15 5 26 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 85. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Mini Wheelchair Wheelchair Resource Buses Buses1 Vans Buses Vans Ambulances Resources Available Jefferson Parish 196 Tangipahoa Parish 103 LaFourche Parish 64 St. Charles Parish 18 St. Charles Parish EMS 2 St. Charles Parish School Board 137 6 St. John Parish School Board 66 7 St. James Parish School Board 39 6 Plaquemines Parish School Board 50 Council on Aging 3 2 River Parish Transit Authority 4 Place DuBourg 1 Acadian Ambulance 2 Twin Oaks Nursing and Convalescent 1
| |
| Home TOTAL: 658 17 4 18 2 8 Resources Needed Schools (Table 82): 382 Medical Facilities (Table 84): 15 5 15 26 TransitDependent Population 82 (Table 810):
| |
| Homebound Special Needs (Section 8.5): 4 2 6 Correctional Facilities (Section 8.6): 31 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 514 5 0 17 0 32
| |
| : 1. Mini buses with lifts have a capacity of 8 ambulatory persons and 6 wheelchair bound persons.
| |
| : 2. Acadian Ambulance has 2 ambulances on site. More ambulances could be secured through nearby Acadian resources.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 86. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Number Description EPZ Boundary 640, 262, 143, 564, 559, 638, 637, 141, Transportation pickup point in the Montz 140, 401, 139, 260, 87, 103, 29, 546, 1 Community in Section A1 58, 259, 482, 165 Transportation pickup point in the LaPlace 2 87, 103, 29, 546, 58, 259, 482, 165 Community in Section A2 Transportation pickup point in the LaPlace 87, 476, 255, 474, 105, 104, 28, 478, 3 Community in Section A2 59, 630, 356, 7 Transportation pickup point in the LaPlace 4 352, 355, 167, 6, 7, 358, 624, 8 Community in Section A3 Transportation pickup point in the Reserve 90, 977, 91, 976, 370, 368, 102, 366, 5 and Garyville Communities in Section A4 100, 27 Transportation pickup point in the Norco, 660, 241, 239, 306, 501, 31, 32, 236, New Sarpy and Good Hope Communities in 6 235, 237, 19, 651 Section B2 Transportation pickup point in the Destrehan 7 31, 32, 236, 235, 237, 19, 651 and St. Rose Communities in Section B3 8 Transportation pickup point in Section B4 31, 32, 236, 235, 33 Transportation pickup point in the Killona 9 71, 44, 315, 43, 42 Community in Section C1 Transportation pickup point in the Lucy 10 566, 73, 390, 42, 41, 40 Community in Section C2 Transportation pickup point in the Edgard, Wallace and Johnson Communities in Section 73, 390, 42, 41, 40 11 C3 Transportation pickup point in the Pleasure 12 42, 41, 40 and Bend Communities in Section C4 70, 342, 917, 569, 79, 915, 574, 913, Transportation pickup point in the Taft 340, 80, 341, 909, 81, 576, 898, 82, 13 Community in Section D1 594, 598, 62, 333 Transportation pickup point in the Hahnville 915, 574, 913, 340, 80, 341, 909, 81, 14 Community in Section D2 576, 898, 82, 594, 598, 62, 333 Transportation pickup point in the Luling, Boutte, and Mimosa Park Communities in 598, 62, 333 15 Section D3 Transportation pickup point in the Paradis 16 603, 602, 600, 2, 998 Community in Section D4 A A Songy Kindergarten, Lakewood 17 Elementary 589, 334, 333 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Number Description EPZ Boundary 570, 571, 569, 79, 915, 574, 913, 340, 80, 341, 909, 81, 576, 898, 82, 594, 18 G.W. Carver Early Learning Center 598, 62, 333 264, 509, 510, 642, 646, 151, 643, 644, 645, 31, 32, 236, 238, 650, 237, 19, 19 Destrehan High 651 375, 372, 391, 970, 98, 972, 368, 102, 20 East St. John Elementary School 366, 100, 27 Emily C. Watkins Elementary to Hammond 139, 260, 87, 103, 29, 546, 58, 259, 21 High School 482, 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 352, 5 Ethel Schoeffner Elementary, New Sarpy 511, 510, 642, 646, 151, 643, 644, 645, 23 Elementary 31, 32, 236, 238, 650, 237, 19, 651 Garyville/Mt Airy Math & Science Magnet 24 School 620, 389, 536, 623, 27 25 Hahnville High 349, 348, 600, 2, 998 Harry Hurst Middle School, St. Charles 984, 272, 152, 273, 265, 20, 648, 649, 26 Borromeo 350, 19, 651 27 J.B. Martin Middle, R.J. Vial Elementary 603, 602, 600, 2, 998 87, 103, 29, 546, 58, 259, 482, 165, 28 John L. Ory Magnet to Hammond High School 167, 355, 354, 353, 352, 5 87, 476, 255, 474, 105, 104, 28, 478, 29 John L. Ory Magnet to The River Center 59, 630, 356, 357, 7, 358, 624, 8 554, 254, 253, 251, 249, 29, 546, 58, LaPlace Elementary School to Hammond High 259, 482, 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 352, 30 School 5 554, 479, 478, 59, 630, 356, 357, 7, 31 LaPlace Elementary School to The River Center 358, 624, 8 Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program, St. John 90, 977, 91, 976, 370, 368, 102, 366, 32 Alternative School 100, 27 33 Lifehouse Daniel Academy 98, 972, 368, 102, 366, 100, 27 577, 580, 576, 898, 82, 594, 598, 62, 34 Luling Elementary School 333 35 Mimosa Park Elementary 332, 62, 333 Our Lady of Grace School, Fifth Ward 625, 90, 392, 391, 970, 98, 972, 368, 36 Elementary 102, 366, 100, 27 340, 80, 341, 909, 81, 576, 898, 82, 37 R.K. Smith Middle School, Satellite Center 594, 598, 62, 333 Riverside Academy, East St. John High School, 38 St. Peter's Catholic School 370, 368, 102, 366, 100, 27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Number Description EPZ Boundary 494, 489, 310, 30, 241, 239, 306, 501, 39 Sacred Heart School, Norco Elementary 31, 32, 236, 238, 650, 237, 19, 651 475, 474, 255, 253, 251, 249, 29, 546, St. Joan of Arc Catholic School to Hammond 58, 259, 482, 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 40 High School 352, 5 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School to The River 475, 474, 105, 104, 28, 478, 59, 630, 41 Center 356, 357, 7, 358, 624, 8 541, 543, 538, 92, 380, 93, 620, 389, 42 St. John Child Development Center 536, 623, 27 43 West St. John High School 73, 390, 42, 41, 40 44 West St. John Elementary School 42, 41, 40 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary to Hammond 546, 58, 259, 482, 165, 167, 355, 354, 45 High School 353, 352, 5 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary to The River 546, 58, 259, 482, 165, 167, 6, 7, 358, 46 Center 624, 8 657, 552, 481, 252, 251, 249, 29, 546, Ascension of Our Lord School to Hammond 58, 259, 482, 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 47 High School 352, 5 Ascension of Our Lord School to The River 657, 552, 553, 479, 478, 59, 630, 356, 48 Center 357, 7, 358, 624, 8 49 Boutte Christian Academy 991, 591, 894, 62, 333 St. Charles Catholic High School to Hammond 252, 251, 249, 29, 546, 58, 259, 482, 50 High School 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 352, 5 St. Charles Catholic High School to The River 254, 253, 28, 478, 59, 630, 356, 357, 7, 51 Center 358, 624, 8 52 St. John Redirection Center 537, 536, 623, 27 911, 130, 131, 585, 991, 591, 894, 62, 53 Luling Nursing Home Inc. 333 512, 510, 642, 646, 151, 643, 644, 645, 54 Ormond Nursing & Care Center 31, 32, 236, 238, 650, 237, 19, 651 376, 375, 372, 391, 970, 98, 972, 368, 55 River Parishes Hospital 102, 366, 100, 27 56 Southeast Louisiana War Veterans Home 98, 972, 368, 102, 366, 100, 27 331, 579, 81, 576, 898, 82, 594, 598, 57 St. Charles Parish Hospital 62, 333 476, 87, 103, 29, 546, 58, 259, 482, 58 Twin Oaks Nursing and Convalescent Home 165, 167, 355, 354, 353, 352, 5 254, 253, 28, 478, 59, 630, 356, 357, 7, 59 Place DuBourg 358, 624, 8 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Bus Route Nodes Traversed from Route Start to Number Description EPZ Boundary 377, 375, 372, 391, 970, 98, 972, 368, 60 Sherman Walker Correctional Center 102, 366, 100, 27 61 St. Charles Correctional Facility 315, 43, 42, 41, 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 87. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA Norco Elementary School 90 15 8.4 25.9 20 2:05 7.1 11 2:20 Sacred Heart School 90 15 8.4 25.9 20 2:05 7.1 11 2:20 Destrehan High 90 15 6.6 11.7 34 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 Ethel Schoeffner Elementary 90 15 6.0 11.1 33 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 Harry Hurst Middle School 90 15 5.6 55.0 7 1:55 7.1 11 2:10 New Sarpy Elementary 90 15 6.0 11.1 33 2:20 7.1 11 2:35 St. Charles Borromeo 90 15 5.6 55.0 7 1:55 7.1 11 2:10 G. W. Carver Early Learning Center 90 15 8.7 6.7 78 3:05 10.2 16 3:25 A A Songy Kindergarten 90 15 2.1 3.3 39 2:25 10.2 16 2:45 Boutte Christian Academy 90 15 3.4 2.6 81 3:10 11.4 18 3:30 Lakewood Elementary School 90 15 2.1 3.3 39 2:25 10.2 16 2:45 Luling Elementary School 90 15 4.5 3.6 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Mimosa Park Elementary 90 15 1.8 2.5 45 2:30 10.2 16 2:50 R .K. Smith Middle School 90 15 5.2 4.3 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Satellite Center 90 15 5.2 4.3 74 3:00 10.2 16 3:20 Hahnville High 90 15 4.2 45.9 6 1:55 15.1 23 2:20 J. B. Martin Middle School 90 15 2.5 31.8 5 1:50 15.1 23 2:15 R. J. Vial Elementary 90 15 2.5 31.8 18 2:05 15.1 23 2:30 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA Ascension of Our Lord School 60 15 8.8 8.5 62 2:20 28.6 43 3:05 Ascension of Our Lord School 60 15 7.8 8.8 54 2:10 47.5 72 3:25 East St. John Elementary School 60 15 6.6 3.9 102 3:00 45.7 69 4:10 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 60 15 7.7 7.3 64 2:20 28.6 43 3:05 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 60 15 9.6 9.2 63 2:20 47.5 72 3:35 John L. Ory Magnet 60 15 7.4 6.8 65 2:20 33.7 51 3:15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 826 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Time Travel Dist. from Dist. To Time to EPZ EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| John L. Ory Magnet 60 15 8.8 8.9 60 2:15 47.5 72 3:30 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 60 15 5.6 8.5 40 1:55 28.6 43 2:40 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 60 15 9.8 13.0 46 2:05 47.4 72 3:20 LaPlace Elementary School 60 15 8.4 8.6 59 2:15 33.7 51 3:10 LaPlace Elementary School 60 15 7.5 8.5 53 2:10 47.5 72 3:25 St. Charles Catholic High School 60 15 7.8 8.0 59 2:15 28.6 43 3:00 St. Charles Catholic High School 60 15 7.9 6.4 74 2:30 47.5 72 3:45 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 60 15 8.5 8.7 59 2:15 33.7 51 3:10 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 60 15 8.3 8.4 60 2:15 47.5 72 3:30 East St. John High School 60 15 5.1 20.1 16 1:35 45.7 69 2:45 Fifth Ward Elementary 60 15 7.5 5.6 80 2:35 45.7 69 3:45 Garyville/Mt. Airy Math & Science 60 15 2.3 53.5 3 1:20 45.7 69 2:30 Magnet School Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program 60 15 6.7 5.6 72 2:30 45.7 69 3:40 Lifehouse Daniel Academy 60 15 4.5 53.5 6 1:25 45.7 69 2:35 Our Lady of Grace School 60 15 7.5 22.9 20 1:35 45.7 69 2:45 Riverside Academy 60 15 5.1 13.9 23 1:40 45.7 69 2:50 St. John Alternative School 60 15 6.7 5.6 72 2:30 45.7 69 3:40 St. John Child Development Center 60 15 4.0 20.1 12 1:30 45.7 69 2:40 St. John Redirection Center 60 15 1.6 22.9 5 1:20 45.7 69 2:30 St. Peter's Catholic School 60 15 5.1 35.9 9 1:25 45.7 69 2:35 West St. John Elementary School 60 15 5.6 30.7 11 1:30 39.1 59 2:30 West St. John High School 60 15 7.5 20.1 23 1:40 39.1 59 2:40 Maximum for EPZ: 3:10 Maximum: 4:10 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 3:00 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 827 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 88. School Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Travel Travel Dist. Time Dist. Time to EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA Norco Elementary School 100 20 8.4 22.0 23 2:25 7.1 13 2:40 Sacred Heart School 100 20 8.4 22.0 23 2:25 7.1 13 2:40 Destrehan High 100 20 6.6 10.5 38 2:40 7.1 13 2:55 Ethel Schoeffner Elementary 100 20 6.0 11.4 32 2:35 7.1 13 2:50 Harry Hurst Middle School 100 20 5.6 50.0 7 2:10 7.1 13 2:25 New Sarpy Elementary 100 20 6.0 11.4 32 2:35 7.1 13 2:50 St. Charles Borromeo 100 20 5.6 50.0 7 2:10 7.1 13 2:25 G. W. Carver Early Learning Center 100 20 8.7 7.3 71 3:15 10.2 18 3:35 A A Songy Kindergarten 100 20 2.1 2.8 45 2:45 10.2 18 3:05 Boutte Christian Academy 100 20 3.4 2.6 79 3:20 11.4 20 3:40 Lakewood Elementary School 100 20 2.1 2.8 45 2:45 10.2 18 3:05 Luling Elementary School 100 20 4.5 4.5 60 3:00 10.2 18 3:20 Mimosa Park Elementary 100 20 1.8 2.3 48 2:50 10.2 18 3:10 R .K. Smith Middle School 100 20 5.2 4.3 73 3:15 10.2 18 3:35 Satellite Center 100 20 5.2 4.3 73 3:15 10.2 18 3:35 Hahnville High 100 20 4.2 43.4 6 2:10 15.1 26 2:40 J. B. Martin Middle School 100 20 2.5 35.1 5 2:05 15.1 26 2:35 R. J. Vial Elementary 100 20 2.5 35.1 5 2:05 15.1 26 2:35 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA Ascension of Our Lord School 70 20 8.8 8.4 63 2:35 28.6 50 3:25 Ascension of Our Lord School 70 20 7.8 5.8 81 2:55 47.5 82 4:20 East St. John Elementary School 70 20 6.6 3.8 105 3:15 45.7 79 4:35 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 70 20 7.7 7.4 63 2:35 28.6 50 3:25 Emily C. Watkins Elementary 70 20 9.6 6.7 86 3:00 47.5 82 4:25 John L. Ory Magnet 70 20 7.4 7.1 62 2:35 33.7 58 3:35 John L. Ory Magnet 70 20 8.8 6.4 84 2:55 47.5 82 4:20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 828 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Travel Travel Dist. Time Dist. Time to EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry Bdry to ETE to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to R.C. R.C. R.C.
| |
| School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 70 20 5.6 9.1 38 2:10 28.6 50 3:00 Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 70 20 9.8 14.9 40 2:10 47.4 82 3:35 LaPlace Elementary School 70 20 8.4 9.3 55 2:25 33.7 58 3:25 LaPlace Elementary School 70 20 7.5 5.5 82 2:55 47.5 82 4:20 St. Charles Catholic High School 70 20 7.8 7.9 60 2:30 28.6 50 3:20 St. Charles Catholic High School 70 20 7.9 4.9 96 3:10 47.5 82 4:35 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 70 20 8.5 9.2 56 2:30 33.7 58 3:30 St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 70 20 8.3 6.2 81 2:55 47.5 82 4:20 East St. John High School 70 20 5.1 15.6 20 1:50 45.7 79 3:10 Fifth Ward Elementary 70 20 7.5 4.5 99 3:10 45.7 79 4:30 Garyville/Mt. Airy Math & Science Magnet 70 20 2.3 20.8 7 1:40 45.7 79 3:00 School Leon Godchaux Accelerated Program 70 20 6.7 15.8 26 2:00 45.7 79 3:20 Lifehouse Daniel Academy 70 20 4.5 10.9 25 1:55 45.7 79 3:15 Our Lady of Grace School 70 20 7.5 4.5 99 3:10 45.7 79 4:30 Riverside Academy 70 20 5.1 15.6 20 1:50 45.7 79 3:10 St. John Alternative School 70 20 6.7 15.8 26 2:00 45.7 79 3:20 St. John Child Development Center 70 20 4.0 17.4 14 1:45 45.7 79 3:05 St. John Redirection Center 70 20 1.6 13.0 8 1:40 45.7 79 3:00 St. Peter's Catholic School 70 20 5.1 15.6 20 1:50 45.7 79 3:10 West St. John Elementary School 70 20 5.6 50.0 7 1:40 39.1 67 2:50 West St. John High School 70 20 7.5 49.9 10 1:40 39.1 67 2:50 Maximum for EPZ: 3:20 Maximum: 4:35 Average for EPZ: 2:30 Average: 3:25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 829 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 89. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes No. of Length Route PAS Buses Route Description (mi.)
| |
| 1 A1 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Montz Community in Section A1. 11.9 Servicing transportation pickup point in the LaPlace Community in Section A2 to Hammond 2 A2 13 High School (In Figure 82 route is referred to as Section A21.). 7.3 Servicing transportation pickup point in the LaPlace Community in Section A2 to The River 3 A2 13 Center (In Figure 82 route is referred to as Section A22.) 9.1 4 A3 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the LaPlace Community in Section A3. 9.2 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Reserve and Garyville Communities in Section 5 A4 12 A4. 6.9 Transportation pickup point in the Norco, New Sarpy and Good Hope Communities in 6 B2 4 Section B2. 8.4 7 B3 14 Transportation pickup point in the Destrehan and St. Rose Communities in Section B3. 8.6 8* B4 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in Section B4. 4.0 9 C1 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Killona Community in Section C1. 10.8 10 C2 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Lucy Community in Section C2. 9.6 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Edgard, Wallace and Johnson Communities in 11 C3 2 Section C3. 7.5 12* C4 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Pleasure and Bend Communities in Section C4. 5.2 13* D1 1 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Taft Community in Section D1. 11.5 14 D2 3 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Hahnville Community in Section D2. 7.4 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Luling, Boutte, and Mimosa Park Communities 15 D3 13 in Section D3. 1.2 16 D4 2 Servicing transportation pickup point in the Paradis Community in Section D4. 2.5 Total: 83
| |
| * Note: These PASs have zero population. However, The Waterford 3 Nuclear Unit Safety Information brochure specifies pickup points within these PASs.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 830 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 810. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 90 11.9 54.1 13 30 2:15 33.7 51 5 10 85 30 5:20 4 90 7.3 54.2 8 30 2:10 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:00 2 4 110 7.3 48.8 9 30 2:30 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:20 5 130 7.3 53.4 8 30 2:50 33.7 51 5 10 71 30 5:40 6 90 9.1 54.1 10 30 2:15 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 5:50 3
| |
| 7 110 9.1 49.7 11 30 2:35 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 6:10 4 1 90 9.2 54.1 10 30 2:15 47.5 71 5 10 95 30 5:50 4 90 6.9 54.2 8 30 2:10 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 5:35 5 4 110 6.9 48.8 8 30 2:30 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 5:55 4 130 6.9 53.4 8 30 2:50 45.6 68 5 10 87 30 6:15 6 4 90 8.4 54.2 9 30 2:10 7.1 11 5 10 33 30 3:40 4 90 8.6 54.2 10 30 2:10 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 3:40 7 5 110 8.6 49.7 10 30 2:35 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 4:05 5 130 8.6 53.4 10 30 2:50 6.5 10 5 10 32 30 4:20 8 1 90 4.0 54.0 4 30 2:05 6.6 10 5 10 20 30 3:20 9 1 90 10.8 54.1 12 30 2:15 37.3 56 5 10 85 30 5:25 10 1 90 9.6 54.1 11 30 2:15 37.3 56 5 10 81 30 5:20 11 2 90 7.5 54.2 8 30 2:10 37.3 56 5 10 75 30 5:10 12 1 90 5.2 54.2 6 30 2:10 37.3 56 5 10 69 30 5:00 13 1 90 11.5 54.1 13 30 2:15 10.3 15 5 10 59 30 4:15 14 3 90 7.4 54.2 8 30 2:10 10.3 15 5 10 52 30 4:05 4 90 1.2 54.0 1 30 2:05 10.3 15 5 10 36 30 3:45 15 4 110 1.2 49.4 1 30 2:25 10.3 15 5 10 27 30 3:55 5 130 1.2 53.1 1 30 2:45 10.3 15 5 10 19 30 4:05 16 2 90 2.5 54.0 3 30 2:05 15.9 24 5 10 31 30 3:45 Maximum ETE: 2:50 Maximum ETE: 6:15 Average ETE: 2:25 Average ETE: 4:50 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 831 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 811. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 100 11.9 46.4 15 40 2:40 33.7 58 5 10 97 40 6:10 4 100 7.3 49.0 9 40 2:30 33.7 58 5 10 68 40 5:35 2 4 120 7.3 46.5 9 40 2:50 33.7 58 5 10 68 40 5:55 5 140 7.3 47.6 9 40 3:10 33.7 58 5 10 68 40 6:15 6 100 9.1 47.5 12 40 2:35 47.5 81 5 10 93 40 6:25 3
| |
| 7 120 9.1 47.0 12 40 2:55 47.5 81 5 10 93 40 6:45 4 1 100 9.2 47.5 12 40 2:35 47.5 81 5 10 92 40 6:25 4 100 6.9 49.0 8 40 2:30 45.6 78 5 10 87 40 6:15 5 4 120 6.9 46.5 9 40 2:50 45.6 78 5 10 87 40 6:35 4 140 6.9 47.6 9 40 3:10 45.6 78 5 10 87 40 6:55 6 4 100 8.4 47.5 11 40 2:35 7.1 12 5 10 23 40 4:10 4 100 8.6 47.5 11 40 2:35 6.5 11 5 10 22 40 4:05 7 5 120 8.6 47.0 11 40 2:55 6.5 11 5 10 22 40 4:25 5 140 8.6 47.5 11 40 3:15 6.5 11 5 10 22 40 4:45 8 1 100 4.0 48.9 5 40 2:25 6.6 11 5 10 16 40 3:50 9 1 100 10.8 47.5 14 40 2:35 37.3 64 5 10 78 40 5:55 10 1 100 9.6 47.5 12 40 2:35 37.3 64 5 10 75 40 5:50 11 2 100 7.5 49.0 9 40 2:30 37.3 64 5 10 73 40 5:45 12 1 100 5.2 49.0 6 40 2:30 37.3 64 5 10 70 40 5:40 13 1 100 11.5 47.5 15 40 2:35 10.3 18 5 10 41 40 4:30 14 3 100 7.4 49.0 9 40 2:30 10.3 18 5 10 38 40 4:25 4 100 1.2 48.9 1 40 2:25 10.3 18 5 10 36 40 4:15 15 4 120 1.2 45.4 2 40 2:45 10.3 18 5 10 21 40 4:20 5 140 1.2 47.8 2 40 3:05 10.3 18 5 10 19 40 4:40 16 2 100 2.5 48.9 3 40 2:25 15.9 27 5 10 31 40 4:20 Maximum ETE: 3:15 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 2:45 Average ETE: 5:25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 832 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 812. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Ambulatory 90 1 72 30 22 2:25 Ormond Nursing Wheelchair bound 90 5 37 75 6.0 8 2:55
| |
| & Care Center Bedridden 90 15 9 30 22 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 67 30 70 3:10 Luling Nursing Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 30 5.6 70 3:10 Home Inc.
| |
| Bedridden 90 15 3 30 70 3:10 Ambulatory 90 1 41 30 61 3:05 St. Charles Parish Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 4.6 78 3:00 Hospital Bedridden 90 15 5 30 61 3:05 Ambulatory 90 1 29 29 74 3:15 Place DuBourg Wheelchair bound 90 5 30 75 7.8 49 3:35 Bedridden 90 15 7 30 74 3:15 Ambulatory 90 1 52 30 80 3:20 River Parishes Wheelchair bound 90 5 27 75 6.7 46 3:35 Hospital Bedridden 90 15 6 30 80 3:20 Twin Oaks Ambulatory 90 1 21 21 45 2:40 Nursing and Wheelchair bound 90 5 85 75 24 3:10 7.6 Convalescent 2:45 Home Bedridden 90 15 7 30 43 Southeast Ambulatory 90 1 77 30 17 2:20 Louisiana War Wheelchair bound 90 5 39 75 4.4 9 2:55 Veterans Home Bedridden 90 15 9 30 17 2:20 Maximum ETE: 3:35 Average ETE: 3:00 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 833 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 813. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Ambulatory 100 1 72 30 19 2:30 Ormond Nursing Wheelchair bound 100 5 37 75 6.0 7 3:05
| |
| & Care Center Bedridden 100 15 9 30 19 2:30 Ambulatory 100 1 67 30 64 3:15 Luling Nursing Wheelchair bound 100 5 10 30 5.6 64 3:15 Home Inc.
| |
| Bedridden 100 15 3 30 64 3:15 Ambulatory 100 1 41 30 58 3:10 St. Charles Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 4.6 72 3:05 Parish Hospital Bedridden 100 15 5 30 58 3:10 Ambulatory 100 1 29 29 69 3:20 Place DuBourg Wheelchair bound 100 5 30 75 7.8 42 3:40 Bedridden 100 15 7 30 69 3:20 Ambulatory 100 1 52 30 76 3:30 River Parishes Wheelchair bound 100 5 27 75 6.7 41 3:40 Hospital Bedridden 100 15 6 30 76 3:30 Twin Oaks Ambulatory 100 1 21 21 42 2:45 Nursing and Wheelchair bound 100 5 85 75 19 3:15 7.6 Convalescent Home Bedridden 100 15 7 30 39 2:50 Southeast Ambulatory 100 1 77 30 15 2:25 Louisiana War Wheelchair bound 100 5 39 75 4.4 8 3:05 Veterans Home Bedridden 100 15 9 30 15 2:25 Maximum ETE: 3:40 Average ETE: 3:05 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 834 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 814. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Mobiliza Loading Loading Time to People tion Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)
| |
| Normal 90 63 12 3:25 Buses 110 14 8 5 35 Rain 100 70 14 3:45 Wheelchair Normal 90 63 13 3:30 29 4 8 5 35 Buses Rain 100 70 12 3:45 Normal 90 10 14 2:25 Ambulances 12 6 2 15 15 Rain 100 11 13 2:35 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 3:15 Table 815. Correctional Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Travel Time to Total EPZ Weather Mobilization Number of Number of Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary Correctional Facility Conditions (min) Buses Inmates Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) ETE (hr:min)
| |
| St. Charles Normal 90 8 3:40 18 525 120 7.4 Correctional Facility Rain 100 9 3:50 Sherman Walker Normal 90 27 4:00 13 372 120 9.2 Correctional Center Rain 100 52 4:35 Maximum ETE: 4:35 Average ETE: 4:05 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 835 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested traffic control and management strategy that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this strategy include:
| |
| * Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).
| |
| * Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. These devices should comply with the guidance of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. The state and parish transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.
| |
| * A plan that defines all locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.
| |
| The functions to be performed in the field are:
| |
| : 1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.
| |
| : 2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.
| |
| The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated. For example:
| |
| * A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.
| |
| * An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.
| |
| * The driver may be an emergency worker en route to perform an important activity.
| |
| The implementation of a plan must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The traffic management plan is the outcome of the following process:
| |
| : 1. The existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : 2. Computer analysis of the evacuation traffic flow environment (see Figures 73 through 77).
| |
| This analysis identifies the best routing and those critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion. Any critical intersections that are not identified in the existing offsite plans are suggested as additional TCPs and ACPs
| |
| : 3. The existing TCPs and ACPs, and how they were applied in this study, are discussed in Appendix G.
| |
| : 4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.
| |
| Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas located far away from the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located in close proximity to the power plant. As shown in Figures 73 through 77, traffic congestion is concentrated in LaPlace, New Sarpy, and Luling. Those existing TCPs and ACPs in LaPlace, New Sarpy, and Luling, should be considered top priority when assigning personnel and equipment for traffic and access control.
| |
| The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies (if available) can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees en route through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information.
| |
| Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while on board navigation systems (GPS units), cell phones, and pagers can be used to provide information en route. These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process. Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.
| |
| The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals.
| |
| Chapters 2N and 5G, and Part 6 of the 2009 MUTCD are particularly relevant and should be reviewed during emergency response training.
| |
| The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 1 hour have elapsed from the ATE.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning ACPs and TCPs.
| |
| Study Assumptions 5 and 6 in Section 2.3 discuss ACP and TCP staffing schedules and operations.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 10 EVACUATION ROUTES Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:
| |
| * Routing from a Protective Action Section being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.
| |
| * Routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.
| |
| Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.
| |
| This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.
| |
| See Appendices B through D for further discussion.
| |
| The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.
| |
| The Waterford 3 Safety Information Brochure identify reception centers for the general population and school children.
| |
| Figure 101 present a map showing the general population and school reception centers for evacuees. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 102.
| |
| It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate reception center and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception center for each parish. This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers, if the parishes do make the decision to relocate evacuees.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 101. General Population and School Reception Centers Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure 102. Evacuation Route Map Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS There is a need for surveillance of traffic operations during the evacuation. There is also a need to clear any blockage of roadways arising from accidents or vehicle disablement. Surveillance can take several forms.
| |
| : 1. Traffic control personnel, located at Traffic Control and Access Control points, provide fixedpoint surveillance.
| |
| : 2. Ground patrols may be undertaken along welldefined paths to ensure coverage of those highways that serve as major evacuation routes.
| |
| : 3. Aerial surveillance of evacuation operations may also be conducted using helicopter or fixedwing aircraft, if available.
| |
| : 4. Cellular phone calls (if cellular coverage exists) from motorists may also provide direct field reports of road blockages.
| |
| These concurrent surveillance procedures are designed to provide coverage of the entire EPZ as well as the area around its periphery. It is the responsibility of the Parishes to support an emergency response system that can receive messages from the field and be in a position to respond to any reported problems in a timely manner. This coverage should quickly identify, and expedite the response to any blockage caused by a disabled vehicle.
| |
| Tow Vehicles In a lowspeed traffic environment, any vehicle disablement is likely to arise due to a lowspeed collision, mechanical failure or the exhaustion of its fuel supply. In any case, the disabled vehicle can be pushed onto the shoulder, thereby restoring traffic flow. Past experience in other emergencies indicates that evacuees who are leaving an area often perform activities such as pushing a disabled vehicle to the side of the road without prompting.
| |
| While the need for tow vehicles is expected to be low under the circumstances described above, it is still prudent to be prepared for such a need. Consideration should be given that tow trucks with a supply of gasoline be deployed at strategic locations within, or just outside, the EPZ. These locations should be selected so that:
| |
| They permit access to key, heavily loaded, evacuation routes.
| |
| Responding tow trucks would most likely travel counterflow relative to evacuating traffic.
| |
| Consideration should also be given that the state and local emergency management agencies encourage gas stations to remain open during the evacuation.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 12 CONFIRMATION TIME It is necessary to confirm that the evacuation process is effective in the sense that the public is complying with the Advisory to Evacuate. The Louisiana Peacetime Radiological Response Plan (LPRRP) states:
| |
| Periodic patrols by law enforcement and/or other emergency personnel will canvas areas to confirm evacuation and remove remaining persons as required.
| |
| Should there be insufficient manpower to confirm evacuation using this method discussed above, the following alternative or complementary approach is suggested.
| |
| The suggested procedure employs a stratified random sample and a telephone survey. The size of the sample is dependent on the expected number of households that do not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate. It is reasonable to assume, for the purpose of estimating sample size that at least 80 percent of the population within the EPZ will comply with the Advisory to Evacuate.
| |
| On this basis, an analysis could be undertaken (see Table 121) to yield an estimated sample size of approximately 300.
| |
| The confirmation process should start at about 21/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, which is when approximately 90 percent of evacuees have completed their mobilization activities (see Table 58). At this time, virtually all evacuees will have departed on their respective trips and the local telephone system will be largely free of traffic.
| |
| As indicated in Table 121, approximately 71/2 person hours are needed to complete the telephone survey. If six people are assigned to this task, each dialing a different set of telephone exchanges (e.g., each person can be assigned a different set of PASs), then the confirmation process will extend over a timeframe of about 75 minutes. Thus, the confirmation should be completed before the evacuated area is cleared. Of course, fewer people would be needed for this survey if the Evacuation Region were only a portion of the EPZ. Use of modern automated computer controlled dialing equipment or other technologies (e.g., reverse 911 or equivalent, if available) can significantly reduce the manpower requirements and the time required to undertake this type of confirmation survey.
| |
| If this method is indeed used by the offsite agencies, consideration should be given to maintain a list of telephone numbers within the EPZ in the EOC at all times. Such a list could be purchased from vendors and could be periodically updated. As indicated above, the confirmation process should not begin until 21/2 hours after the Advisory to Evacuate, to ensure that households have had enough time to mobilize. This 21/2hour timeframe will enable telephone operators to arrive at their workplace, obtain a call list and prepare to make the necessary phone calls.
| |
| Should the number of telephone responses (i.e., people still at home) exceed 20 percent, then the telephone survey should be repeated after an hour's interval until the confirmation process is completed.
| |
| Other techniques could also be considered. After traffic volumes decline, the personnel Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 121 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| manning TCPs can be redeployed to travel through residential areas to observe and to confirm evacuation activities.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 122 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table 121. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation Problem Definition Estimate number of phone calls, n, needed to ascertain the proportion, F of households that have not evacuated.
| |
| | |
| ==Reference:==
| |
| Burstein, H., Attribute Sampling, McGraw Hill, 1971 Given:
| |
| No. of households plus other facilities, N, within the EPZ (est.) = 30,863 Est. proportion, F, of households that will not evacuate = 0.20 Allowable error margin, e: 0.05 Confidence level, : 0.95 (implies A = 1.96)
| |
| Applying Table 10 of cited reference, 0.25; 1 0.75 308 Finite population correction:
| |
| 306 1
| |
| Thus, some 300 telephone calls will confirm that approximately 20 percent of the population has not evacuated. If only 10 percent of the population does not comply with the Advisory to Evacuate, then the required sample size, nF = 215.
| |
| Est. Person Hours to complete 300 telephone calls Assume:
| |
| Time to dial using touch tone (random selection of listed numbers): 30 seconds Time for 6 rings (no answer): 36 seconds Time for 4 rings plus short conversation: 60 sec.
| |
| Interval between calls: 20 sec.
| |
| Person Hours:
| |
| 300 30 0.8 36 0.2 60 20 7.6 3600 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station 123 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms
| |
| | |
| A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.
| |
| Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.
| |
| Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.
| |
| Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.
| |
| Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.
| |
| Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,
| |
| Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).
| |
| Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).
| |
| Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.
| |
| The cycle length is expressed in seconds.
| |
| Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.
| |
| Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.
| |
| Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).
| |
| Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.
| |
| Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness.
| |
| Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.
| |
| Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.
| |
| Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.
| |
| Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model
| |
| | |
| B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEVII System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.
| |
| To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the EPZ for selected origins.
| |
| DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.
| |
| Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.
| |
| For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.
| |
| The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.
| |
| The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.
| |
| Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.
| |
| When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEVII using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.
| |
| The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:
| |
| It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.
| |
| The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.
| |
| DTRAD executes the TA algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical linknode analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.
| |
| Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as ca ta la sa ,
| |
| where ca is the generalized cost for link a, and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.
| |
| The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.
| |
| The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution).The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:
| |
| sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=
| |
| dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk
| |
| = Scaling factor The value of do = 15 miles, the outer distance of the shadow region. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:
| |
| Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.
| |
| The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,
| |
| commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.
| |
| Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Start of next DTRAD Session A
| |
| Set T0 Clock time.
| |
| Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)
| |
| Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;
| |
| Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?
| |
| No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)
| |
| Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model
| |
| | |
| C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.
| |
| Model Features Include:
| |
| Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.
| |
| Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the DTRAD model.
| |
| At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.
| |
| Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.
| |
| The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.
| |
| A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.
| |
| A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.
| |
| Provides MOE to animation software, EVAN Calculates ETE statistics Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.
| |
| To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).
| |
| Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.
| |
| Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)
| |
| Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)
| |
| Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)
| |
| Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)
| |
| GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)
| |
| Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)
| |
| Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)
| |
| DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.
| |
| DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)
| |
| Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.
| |
| The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k
| |
| . Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.
| |
| C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v
| |
| v L
| |
| Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.
| |
| The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E
| |
| time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.
| |
| The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.
| |
| h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.
| |
| k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.
| |
| The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k
| |
| link.
| |
| L The length of the link in feet.
| |
| The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.
| |
| The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.
| |
| L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.
| |
| M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.
| |
| The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.
| |
| The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O
| |
| link over a time interval.
| |
| The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.
| |
| The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P
| |
| executes a particular turn movement, x.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q
| |
| [beginning, end] of the time interval.
| |
| The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the HCM.
| |
| R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .
| |
| RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.
| |
| S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).
| |
| t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.
| |
| TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.
| |
| v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.
| |
| v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.
| |
| W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.
| |
| Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E
| |
| : 1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.
| |
| For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.
| |
| Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .
| |
| : 2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.
| |
| Q TI G Calculate Cap 3600 C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L
| |
| Calculate queue length, L Q LN
| |
| : 3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .
| |
| : 4. Then E E E ; t TI t
| |
| : 5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below
| |
| : 6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O
| |
| : 7. If M RCap , then Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| t Cap
| |
| : 8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if
| |
| : 9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A
| |
| : 10. Else t 0 M M If M ,
| |
| O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if
| |
| : 11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,
| |
| where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.
| |
| If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| : 12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .
| |
| End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.
| |
| : 13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,
| |
| where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .
| |
| E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.
| |
| Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, v Q Q M E Cap can be extended to Q L3 by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .
| |
| When t 0 and Q Cap:
| |
| L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .
| |
| LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| L t such that 0 t TI t E L v
| |
| TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .
| |
| t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.
| |
| C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.
| |
| C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.
| |
| The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.
| |
| Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.
| |
| With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.
| |
| The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.
| |
| The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.
| |
| Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A
| |
| Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B
| |
| Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:
| |
| Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?
| |
| Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?
| |
| Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :
| |
| No A Last Time - step ?
| |
| Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)
| |
| The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.
| |
| Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.
| |
| As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the DTA model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.
| |
| Additional details are presented in Appendix B.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station C16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure
| |
| | |
| D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates. The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1.
| |
| Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.
| |
| Step 1 The first activity was to obtain EPZ boundary information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and PAS boundaries.
| |
| Step 2 2010 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Employee data were estimated using the U.S. Census Bureaus Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics interactive website1, from Parish OEPs and phone calls to major employers. Transient data were obtained from local emergency management agencies and from phone calls to transient attractions. Information concerning schools, medical and other types of special facilities within the EPZ was obtained from parish and municipal sources, augmented by telephone contacts with the identified facilities.
| |
| Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, and onsite and offsite utility emergency managers). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to local emergency managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.
| |
| Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.
| |
| Step 5 1
| |
| http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| A telephone survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.
| |
| Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the UNITES software developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4). Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. 2010 Census data were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.
| |
| Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 16 PASs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of PAS) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.
| |
| The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.
| |
| Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II model, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.
| |
| Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.
| |
| The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.
| |
| Step 10 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.
| |
| Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:
| |
| The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.
| |
| This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.
| |
| Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems. Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.
| |
| Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.
| |
| Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.
| |
| Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.
| |
| Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities.
| |
| Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Results of Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct Telephone Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX E Special Facility Data
| |
| | |
| E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of June 2012, for special facilities, transient attractions, and major employers that are located within the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, hospitals and other medical care facilities, major employers and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the tables for major employers. Each table is grouped by parish. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, lodging facility, major employer, and correctional facility are also provided.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll PAS (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment Staff ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA B2 3.5 E Norco Adult Learning Center (NL) 149 Apple St Norco (985) 7648458 100 14 B2 3.5 ENE Norco Elementary School 102 Fifth St Norco (985) 7647079 611 60 B2 3.4 ENE Sacred Heart School 453 Spruce St Norco (985) 7649958 140 22 B3 5.7 ESE Destrehan High 1 Wildcat Ln Destrehan (985) 7649946 1,396 100 B3 5.7 ESE Ethel Schoeffner Elementary 140 Plantation Rd Destrehan (985) 7250123 457 36 B3 6.7 ESE Harry Hurst Middle School 170 Road Runner Ln Destrahan (985) 7646367 469 38 B3 6.0 ESE New Sarpy Elementary 130 Plantation Rd Destrehan (985) 7641275 536 44 B3 6.5 ESE St. Charles Borromeo 13396 River Rd Destrehan (985) 7646383 470 60 G. W. Carver Early Learning D2 3.7 ESE Center 337 Gum St Hahnville (985) 7832305 157 43 D3 9.7 SE A A Songy Kindergarten 523 East Heather Dr Luling (985) 7850299 210 55 D3 8.0 SE Boutte Adult Learning Center 13771 LA631 Ste A Boutte (985) 7851902 100 14 D3 8.3 SE Boutte Christian Academy 13271 US 90 Boutte (985) 7852447 330 55 D3 9.8 SE Lakewood Elementary School 501 East Heather Dr Luling (985) 7851161 565 43 D3 8.0 SE Luling Elementary School 904 Sugarhouse Rd Luling (985) 7856086 645 71 D3 9.3 SE Mimosa Park Elementary 222 Birch St Luling (985) 7858266 578 44 281 Judge Edward Dufresne D3 6.8 SE R .K. Smith Middle School Pkwy Luling (985) 3311018 278 37 285 Judge Edward Dufresne D3 6.8 SE Satellite Center Pkwy Luling (985) 7852080 180 10 D4 8.2 SSE Hahnville High 200 Tiger Dr Boutte (985) 7587537 1,422 106 D4 8.4 SSE J. B. Martin Middle School 434 South St Paradis (985) 7587579 570 45 D4 8.4 SSE R. J. Vial Elementary 510 Louisiana St Paradis (985) 7582771 362 29 St. Charles Parish Subtotals: 9,576 926 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Enroll PAS (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality Phone ment Staff ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA A2 6.2 N Ascension of Our Lord School 1809 Greenwood Dr LaPlace (985) 6524532 420 55 A2 6.3 NNW East St. John Elementary School 400 Ory Dr LaPlace (985) 5368450 705 87 A2 4.3 N Emily C. Watkins Elementary 938 LA628 LaPlace (985) 6521593 560 42 A2 5.0 N John L. Ory Magnet 182 West 5th St LaPlace (985) 6513700 443 43 A2 6.0 N Lake Pontchartrain Elementary 3328 US 51 LaPlace (985) 6522003 808 102 A2 6.1 NNW LaPlace Elementary School 393 Greenwood Dr LaPlace (985) 6525552 1,040 107 A2 5.7 NNW St. Charles Catholic High School 100 Dominican Dr LaPlace (985) 6523809 440 40 A2 5.3 NNW St. Joan of Arc Catholic School 412 Fir St LaPlace (985) 6521366 706 70 A4 7.1 NW East St. John High School #1 Wildcat Dr Reserve (985) 5364226 1,407 145 A4 5.4 NW Fifth Ward Elementary 158 Panther Dr Reserve (985) 5364224 501 53 Garyville/Mt. Airy Math &
| |
| A4 9.9 WNW Science Magnet School 240 LA54 Mt Airy (985) 5355400 386 78 Leon Godchaux Accelerated A4 5.7 NW Program 1880 LA44 Reserve (985) 5364283 95 22 A4 7.5 NW Lifehouse Daniel Academy 3556 Airline Hwy Reserve (504) 5362418 50 14 A4 5.3 NW Our Lady of Grace School 780 LA44 Reserve (985) 5364291 150 15 A4 7.1 NW Riverside Academy 332 Railroad Ave Reserve (985) 5364246 785 70 A4 5.7 NW St. John Alternative School 1880 LA44 Reserve (985) 5364283 84 12 St. John Child Development A4 9.3 WNW Center 117 Stebbins St Garyville (985) 5353917 92 25 A4 9.9 WNW St. John Redirection Center 152 West Azalea St Garyville (985) 5352717 30 5 A4 6.9 NW St. Peter's Catholic School 188 West 7th St Reserve (985) 5364296 155 50 C3 5.1 WNW West St. John Elementary School 2555 LA18 Edgard (985) 4973347 369 42 C3 6.3 WNW West St. John High School 480 LA3127 Edgard (985) 4973271 212 45 St. John the Baptist Parish Subtotals: 9,438 1,122 TOTAL: 19,014 2,048 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden PAS (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Census Patients Patients Patients ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA Ormond Nursing &
| |
| B3 6.0 ESE Care Center 22 Plantation Rd Destrehan (985) 7641793 141 118 72 37 9 Luling Nursing Home D3 7.7 SE Inc. 1125 Paul Maillard Rd Luling (985) 7851115 101 80 67 10 3 St. Charles Parish D3 7.7 SE Hospital 1057 Paul Maillard Rd Luling (985) 7856242 59 48 41 2 5 St. Charles Parish Subtotals: 301 246 180 49 17 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA A2 5.7 NNW Place DuBourg 201 Rue DuBourg LaPlace (985) 6521981 82 66 29 30 7 River Parishes A2 6.0 NNW Hospital 500 Rue De Sante LaPlace (985) 6527000 106 85 52 27 6 Twin Oaks Nursing and Convalescent A2 5.2 NNW Home 506 West 5th St LaPlace (985) 6529538 148 113 21 85 7 Southeast Louisiana A4 7.6 NW War Veterans Home 4080 West Airline Hwy Reserve (985) 4794080 156 125 77 39 9 St. John the Baptist Parish Subtotals: 492 389 179 181 29 TOTAL: 793 635 359 230 46 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Distance Dire Employees Non Employees PAS (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)
| |
| ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA Waterford 3 Steam D1 0.0 Electric Station 17265 River Rd Killona (504) 3638737 600 61% 366 Momentive B2 3.2 E Specialty Chemicals 16122 River Rd Norco (504) 4726557 80 70% 56 Motiva/Shell B2 4.2 ENE Chemical US 61 Norco (504) 4657111 750 50% 375 B2 4.4 E Valero St. Charles 257 Prospect Ave Norco (985) 7648611 500 60% 300 B3 7.7 ESE ADM Destrehan 12710 LA48 Destrahan (901) 4937339 63 61% 39 Bunge North B3 8.2 ESE America 12442 LA48 Destrahan (985) 7250977 130 60% 78 International Matex B3 9.0 ESE Tank Terminal 11842 River Rd Saint Rose (504) 4683997 120 60% 72 B3 6.4 E WinnDixie 12519 Airline Hwy Destrehan (985) 7643196 50 50% 25 St. Charles C1 1.9 W Correctional Facility 5061 LA3127 Killona (985) 7831164 133 61% 82 D1 1.5 SE Chemtura Co. 471 LA3142 Hahnville (985) 7836201 114 61% 70 Dow St. Charles D1 1.8 ESE Operations 355 LA3142 Hahnville (985) 7834411 850 50% 425 Mosaic Phosphates D1 0.8 SE Company 17245 LA18 Taft (225) 4744063 260 61% 159 D1 1.0 SE Occidental Chemical 266 LA3142 Hahnville (985) 7837200 180 50% 90 St. Charles Parish D1 1.7 E Government 15045 River Rd Hahnville (985) 7835000 540 10% 54 D3 8.6 SE Monsanto 12501 River Rd Luling (985) 7858211 750 50% 375 St. Charles Sheriff's D3 6.8 SE Office 260 Judge Edward Dufrense Pkwy Luling (985) 7836237 390 30% 117 Walmart D3 8.4 SE Supercenter 13001 US 90 Luling (985) 7641793 85 50% 43 St. Charles Parish Subtotals: 5,595 2,726 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distance Dire Employees Non Employees PAS (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone (max shift) EPZ (Non EPZ)
| |
| ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA Bayou Steel A2 3.3 NNE Corporation 138 LA3217 LaPlace (985) 6524900 350 52% 182 Sherman Walker A2 5.7 NNW Correctional Center 100 Deputy Barton Granier Dr LaPlace (985) 3598622 50 61% 31 Twin Oaks Nursing and Convalescent A2 5.2 NNW Home 506 West 5th St LaPlace (985) 6529538 65 61% 40 A4 5.3 NW DuPont 586 LA44 LaPlace (985) 5365512 360 75% 270 Marathon A4 9.6 WNW Petroleum Co. 155 Sugarcane Rd Garyville (985) 5357300 1,000 74% 740 St. John the Baptist Parish Subtotals: 1,825 1,263 TOTAL: 7,420 3,989 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E4. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire PAS (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone Transients Vehicles ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA D3 9.4 SE Best Western River Region Inn 12215 US 90 Luling (985) 3310064 80 40 D3 9.4 SE Comfort Inn 12177 US 90 Luling (985) 7851125 152 38 D3 6.6 SE Ramada 13889 LA18 Luling (985) 7852600 402 134 St. Charles Parish Subtotals: 634 212 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA A2 6.4 NNE Best Western La Place Inn 4289 Main St LaPlace (985) 6514000 276 138 A2 6.3 N Days Inn LaPlace New Orleans 3912 US 51 LaPlace (985) 6521223 184 46 A2 6.6 NNE Hampton InnLa Place 4288 US 51 LaPlace (985) 6525002 136 68 A2 6.5 NNE Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites La Place 4284 US 51 LaPlace (985) 6181600 364 182 A2 4.2 N LaPlace Motel 918 East Airline Hwy LaPlace (985) 6524665 276 69 A2 5.5 NNW Millet Motel 1525 West Airline Hwy LaPlace (985) 6524401 160 40 A2 6.3 N Quality Inn 3900 US 51 LaPlace (504) 4877007 356 89 A2 4.1 N Troxie Motel 1053 East Airline Hwy LaPlace (985) 6529950 52 52 A2 3.9 NNE Uncle Sam's Motel 1190 East Airline Hwy LaPlace (985) 6530986 144 36 A3 6.8 NNE Suburban Extended Stay 111 Jean St LaPlace (985) 6511799 296 74 St. John the Baptist Parish Subtotals: 2,244 794 TOTAL: 2,878 1,006 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table E5. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Cap Current PAS (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Phone acity Census ST. CHARLES PARISH, LA C1 1.9 W St. Charles Correctional Facility 5061 LA3127 Killona (985) 7831164 628 525 St. Charles Parish Subtotals: 628 525 ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LA Sherman Walker Correctional A2 5.7 NNW Center 100 Deputy Barton Granier Dr LaPlace (985) 3598622 373 372 St. John the Baptist Subtotals: 373 372 TOTAL: 1,001 897 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E1. Overview of Schools within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E2. Schools within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E3. Schools within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E6. Major Employers within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E7. Lodging within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E8. Lodging within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure E9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station E17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX F Telephone Survey
| |
| | |
| F. TELEPHONE SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station EPZ requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area.
| |
| Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.
| |
| These concerns are addressed by conducting a telephone survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.
| |
| Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. A sample size of approximately 500 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.35% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1.
| |
| Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.
| |
| The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.
| |
| Table F1. Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station Telephone Survey Sampling Plan Population within Required Zip Code EPZ (2010) Households Sample 70030 57 22 1 70039 2,847 994 16 70047 12,941 4,542 73 70049 2,480 882 14 70051 2,164 777 13 70057 4,099 1,475 24 70068 33,793 11,647 187 70070 12,075 4,293 70 70076 131 45 1 70079 3,151 1,205 20 70080 1,505 536 9 70084 7,551 2,682 43 70087 5,083 1,763 29 Total 87,877 30,863 500 Average Household Size: 2.85 Total Sample Required: 500 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.
| |
| A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know (DK) or refused entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a DK response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional DK/refused responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the DK/refused responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.
| |
| F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.70 people. The estimated household size (2.85 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F1) was drawn from Census data. The difference between the survey data and the Census data is 5.26%, which is slightly more than the sampling error of 4.35%. This study uses the survey value of 2.70 people per household, which is more conservative and will result in more households and more vehicles than the Census value. The permanent resident population within the EPZ is 87,877 residents. Dividing by the average household size of 2.70 people results in 32,547 households, while using the Census value of 2.85 results in 30,834 households - also a difference of 5.26%. This would also correlate to a 5.26% difference in evacuating vehicles.
| |
| As indicated in Appendix M, Section M.3, this study considered a population sensitivity study to estimate the impact on ETE of changes in EPZ population. A change of 10% in population (also a 10% change in vehicles) does not significantly impact ETE results. Thus, the difference of 5.26%
| |
| between the average household size from the telephone survey and that from the Census will not significantly impact ETE results.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Waterford Household Size 50%
| |
| 40%
| |
| % of Households 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
| |
| Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 1.97. It should be noted that 4.4 percent of households do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that a slight majority of households without access to a car have more than one person. As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.
| |
| Waterford Vehicle Availability 60%
| |
| 50%
| |
| % of Households 40%
| |
| 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Number of Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 15 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 69+ Person Households 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 6 to 9+ Person Households Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Ridesharing The overwhelming proportion (95%) of the households surveyed (who do not own a vehicle) responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Note, however, that only those households with no access to a vehicle - 22 total out of the sample size of 500 -
| |
| answered this question. Thus, the results are not statistically significant. As such, the NRC recommendation of 50% ridesharing is used throughout this study. Figure F5 presents this response.
| |
| Waterford Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 120%
| |
| 100%
| |
| % of Households 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.
| |
| Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.
| |
| The data shows an average of 1.22 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 67% of households have at least one commuter.
| |
| Waterford Commuters 50%
| |
| 40%
| |
| % of Households 30%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 10%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4+
| |
| Number of Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.09 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.
| |
| Waterford Travel Mode to Work 100%
| |
| 89.6%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 8.4%
| |
| 0.5% 0.8% 0.7%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)
| |
| Travel Mode Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:
| |
| How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.44 vehicles.
| |
| Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?
| |
| Of the survey participants who responded, 67 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 33 percent indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.
| |
| If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses to the survey, 27 percent of households do not have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 93 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets with them, as shown in Figure F9.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| % of Households 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
| |
| Number of Vehicles Figure F8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| Yes No Figure F9. Households Evacuating with Pets Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 71 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 29 percent would choose to evacuate the area. Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002. Thus, the data obtained through the survey is significantly higher than the federal guidance recommendation. As indicated in Appendix M (Table M2), a sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation (noncompliance of shelter advisory) on ETE. The results indicate that ETE are not materially impacted by a change in shadow evacuation from 20% to 29%.
| |
| Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that 62 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 38 percent would choose to begin evacuating immediately.
| |
| F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.
| |
| The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F10 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed within 75 minutes.
| |
| Eighty percent can leave within 20 minutes.
| |
| Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Travel Time (min)
| |
| Figure F10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F11 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 80 percent of commuters can arrive home within 35 minutes of leaving work; in all cases this activity is completed by 90 minutes.
| |
| Work to Home Travel 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Commuters 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 20 40 60 80 Travel Time (min)
| |
| Figure F11. Work to Home Travel Time Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?
| |
| Figure F12 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.
| |
| The distribution shown in Figure F12 has a long tail. About 85 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 75 minutes.
| |
| Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%
| |
| 80%
| |
| % of Households 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 60 120 Travel Time (min)
| |
| Figure F12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation F.4 Conclusions The telephone survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and mobilization time which can influence evacuation time estimates.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Telephone Survey Instrument Hello, my name is ___________ and Im working in cooperation COL. 1 Unused with local parish emergency management agencies to identify local COL. 2 Unused behavior during emergency situations. This information will be COL. 3 Unused used for emergency planning and will be shared with local officials COL. 4 Unused to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards; emergency planning for some hazards other than for hurricanes COL. 5 Unused may require evacuation. Your responses will greatly contribute to Sex COL. 8 local emergency preparedness. I will not ask for your name and the 1 Male survey shall take no more than 10 minutes to complete. 2 Female INTERVIEWER: ASK TO SPEAK TO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR THE SPOUSE OF THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.
| |
| (Terminate call if not a residence.)
| |
| DO NOT ASK:
| |
| 1A. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 911 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 1214
| |
| : 2. What is your home zip code? COL. 1519 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other running COL. 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually available to the household? 1 ONE Q. 4 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 2 TWO Q. 4 3 THREE Q. 4 4 FOUR Q. 4 5 FIVE Q. 4 6 SIX Q. 4 7 SEVEN Q. 4 8 EIGHT Q. 4 9 NINE OR MORE Q. 4 0 ZERO (NONE) Q. 3B X DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 3B 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the COL. 21 area with a neighbor or friend? 1 YES 2 NO X DONT KNOW/REFUSED
| |
| : 4. How many people usually live in this household? COL. 22 COL. 23 (DO NOT READ ANSWERS) 1 ONE 0 TEN 2 TWO 1 ELEVEN 3 THREE 2 TWELVE 4 FOUR 3 THIRTEEN 5 FIVE 4 FOURTEEN 6 SIX 5 FIFTEEN Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DONT KNOW/REFUSED
| |
| : 5. How many adults in the household commute to a COL. 24 SKIP TO job, or to college on a daily basis? 0 ZERO Q. 9 1 ONE Q. 6 2 TWO Q. 6 3 THREE Q. 6 4 FOUR OR MORE Q. 6 5 DONT KNOW/REFUSED Q. 9 INTERVIEWER: For each person identified in Question 5, ask Questions 6, 7, and 8.
| |
| : 6. Thinking about commuter #1, how does that person usually travel to work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER)
| |
| Commuter #1 Commuter #2 Commuter #3 Commuter #4 COL. 25 COL. 26 COL. 27 COL. 28 Rail 1 1 1 1 Bus 2 2 2 2 Walk/Bicycle 3 3 3 3 Drive Alone 4 4 4 4 Carpool2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Dont know/Refused 6 6 6 6
| |
| : 7. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 29 COL. 30 COL. 31 COL. 32 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X
| |
| /REFUSED /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 COL. 34 COL. 35 COL. 36 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 DONT KNOW DONT KNOW X X
| |
| /REFUSED /REFUSED
| |
| : 8. Approximately how much time does it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? (REPEAT QUESTION FOR EACH COMMUTER) (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COMMUTER #1 COMMUTER #2 COL. 37 COL. 38 COL. 39 COL. 40 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 2630 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| MINUTES AND 1 HOUR MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) (SPECIFY ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 COL. 42 COL. 43 COL. 44 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 4650 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 2 610 MINUTES 2 5155 MINUTES 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR 3 1115 MINUTES 3 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS 4 1620 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 1620 MINUTES 4 THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 5 2125 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 30 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 2630 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 45 MINUTES MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 7 3135 MINUTES 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS HOURS OVER 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY 8 3640 MINUTES 8 8 3640 MINUTES 8 (SPECIFY ______) ______)
| |
| 9 4145 MINUTES 9 9 4145 MINUTES 9 0 0 X DONT KNOW /REFUSED X DONT KNOW /REFUSED
| |
| : 9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate for a nonhurricane related event, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 1530 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 3145 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 4 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 5 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 5 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 6 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 6 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 7 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 7 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| 8 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 8 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 9 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 9 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 0 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS X 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES X OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY _______)
| |
| Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS COL. 47 1 DONT KNOW/REFUSED
| |
| : 10. Please choose one of the following (READ COL. 50 ANSWERS): 1 A If you were at home and were asked to evacuate, 2 B A. I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together.
| |
| B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DONT KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.
| |
| : 11. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 51 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE 4 FOUR 5 FIVE 6 SIX 7 SEVEN 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)
| |
| X DONT KNOW/REFUSED 12A. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in COL. 52 an emergency. Would you: (READ ANSWERS) 1 A A. SHELTER; or 2 B B. EVACUATE X DONT KNOW/REFUSED 12B. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home COL. 53 now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while 1 A people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would 2 B you: (READ ANSWERS)
| |
| X DONT KNOW/REFUSED A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE
| |
| : 13. If you have a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area?
| |
| (READ ANSWERS)
| |
| COL. 54 1 DONT HAVE A PET 2 YES 3 NO X DONT KNOW/REFUSED Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Thank you very much. _______________________________
| |
| (TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)
| |
| IF REQUESTED:
| |
| For additional information, contact your Parish Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours.
| |
| Parish EMA Phone St. Charles Parish (985) 7835050 St. John the (985) 6522222 Baptist Parish Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station F19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan
| |
| | |
| G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002 indicates that the existing TCPs and ACPs identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by each parish.
| |
| These plans were reviewed and the TCPs were modeled accordingly.
| |
| G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, traffic control points at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K2 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a Traffic Control Point, the control type is indicated as a TCP in Table K2.
| |
| Figure G1 maps the TCPs identified in the parish emergency plans. These TCPS are concentrated in La Place, New Sarpy, and Luling, which were identified as the congested areas/roadways in Section 7.3 as well as Reserve, Destrehan and Saint Rose. Theses TCPs would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.
| |
| G.2 Access Control Points It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 1 hour of the advisory to evacuate to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.7, external traffic was only considered on four routes which traverse the EPZ - I55, I10, US61 and US90 - in this analysis. The generation of these external trips ceased at 1 hour after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.
| |
| It is recommended that ACPs on the eastern and western boundaries of the EPZ along I10, US 61 and US90, as well as, the northern boundary along I55 be the top priority in assigning manpower and equipment as they are the major routes traversing the EPZ, which will typically carry the highest volume of through traffic.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure G1. Traffic Control Points for the W3SES Site Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions
| |
| | |
| H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions. The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 5 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.
| |
| Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table H1. Percent of Protective Action Section Population Evacuating for Each Region Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Description A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R01 2Mile Ring 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R02 5Mile Ring 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R04 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| R05 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| R06 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R07 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R08 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| WSW, W, WNW, R09 236.3 326.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| NW Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R10 N 348.8 11.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100%
| |
| R11 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%
| |
| R12 ENE 56.3 78.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R13 E, ESE 78.8 123.8 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R14 SE, SSE 123.8 168.8 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R15 S 168.8 191.3 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R16 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R17 WSW 236.3 258.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%
| |
| R18 W, WNW 258.8 303.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%
| |
| R19 NW 303.8 326.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| R20 NNW 326.3 348.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%
| |
| Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Protective Action Section (PAS)
| |
| Region Wind Direction From:
| |
| A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4 R21 5Mile Ring 100% X 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20%
| |
| R22 NNW, N 326.3 11.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20%
| |
| R23 NNE, NE 11.3 56.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20%
| |
| R24 ENE, E, ESE 56.3 123.8 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R25 SE, SSE, S 123.8 191.3 100% X 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| R26 SSW, SW 191.3 236.3 100% X 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%
| |
| WSW, W, WNW, R27 236.3 326.3 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% X 20% 20%
| |
| NW PAS(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate PAS(s) ShelterinPlace PAS(s) Evacuate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H1. Region R01 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H2. Region R02 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H3. Region R03 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H4. Region R04 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H5. Region R05 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H6. Region R06 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H7. Region R07 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H8. Region R08 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H9. Region R09 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H10. Region R10 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H11. Region R11 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H12. Region R12 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H13. Region R13 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H14. Region R14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H15. Region R15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H16. Region R16 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H17. Region R17 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H18. Region R18 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H19. Region R19 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H20. Region R20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H21. Region R21 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H22. Region R22 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H23. Region R23 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H24. Region R24 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H25. Region R25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H26. Region R26 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure H27. Region R27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System
| |
| | |
| J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J1 provides the volume and queues for the ten highest volume signalized intersections in the study area.
| |
| Refer to Table K2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.
| |
| Table J2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
| |
| Table J3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, Scenarios 2, 4, 7 and 9, which are rain scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times.
| |
| Table J4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -
| |
| Interstate55, Interstate10, US61, and US90 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3, and shown in Figures 73 through 77, US90 eastbound and US61 (both northbound and southbound) are congested for most of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than other evacuation routes.
| |
| Table J5 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to Table K1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.
| |
| Figure J1 through Figure J12 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 12 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion. As seen in Figure J1 through Figure J12, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections Max.
| |
| Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 616 11,417 0 608 1,453 0 26 US61 and SH 3213 Actuated 135 643 5 393 0 0 TOTAL 13,513 100 10,868 39 616 1,514 0 27 US61 and SH 54 Actuated 623 514 6 TOTAL 12,896 100 1,555 0 102 10,848 0 366 US61 and Terre Haute Rd Actuated 367 0 0 TOTAL 12,403 27 1,545 0 366 10,851 0 100 US61 and Marathon Ave Actuated 654 0 0 TOTAL 12,396 102 1,581 0 972 8,983 515 368 US61 and SH 637 Actuated 369 81 7 1047 1,690 190 TOTAL 12,335 63 8,699 0 468 0 0 396 US90 and Lapalco Blvd Actuated 403 2,758 0 TOTAL 11,457 62 6,338 775 334 2,117 363 333 US90 and Willowdale Rd Actuated 63 2,961 1 TOTAL 11,416 407 4,805 29 65 1,679 53 86 US90 and SH 18 Actuated 471 4,146 35 TOTAL 10,630 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Max.
| |
| Approach Total Turn Intersection (Up Volume Queue Node Location Control Node) (Veh) (Veh) 208 1,328 0 217 5,749 0 60 US61 and Williams Blvd Actuated 841 1,621 0 834 1,685 0 TOTAL 10,383 972 1,594 0 970 6,139 1394 98 US61 and SH 53 Actuated 1044 2,579 251 371 38 3 TOTAL 10,350 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J2. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Network Directional Destination Destination Number on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8010 4,500 50 0 NW 8024 3,810 8050 1,900 259 58 N 8004 4,500 8050 1,900 464 20 N 8004 4,500 8404 3,810 678 81 SE 8065 3,810 8057 3,810 8888 5,700 842 189 SE 8018 6,750 8408 3,810 8404 3,810 920 266 SE 8065 3,810 8018 6,750 1060 34 E 8888 5,700 8408 3,810 8018 6,750 1175 45 E 8888 5,700 8408 3,810 8018 6,750 1269 20 E 8297 5,700 1402 32 W 8097 1,700 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)
| |
| Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 NetworkWide Average 2.4 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.4 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 25.4 21.3 23.9 20.3 23.2 24.9 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 80,065 80,419 76,010 76,408 68,082 80,982 Exiting Network Scenario 7 8 9 10 11 12 NetworkWide Average 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.5 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)
| |
| NetworkWide Average 21.1 23.7 20.0 23.0 22.8 24.0 Speed (mph)
| |
| Total Vehicles 81,367 76,281 76,694 68,403 79,247 78,941 Exiting Network Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)
| |
| Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I55 NB 3.8 67.2 3.4 67.2 3.4 67.2 3.4 67.2 3.4 I10 EB 16.1 70.0 13.8 53.4 18.1 70.0 13.8 70.0 13.8 I10 WB 16.1 70.0 13.8 70.0 13.8 69.3 14.0 70.0 13.8 US61 SB 13.9 40.8 20.5 45.6 18.3 42.4 19.7 50.4 16.6 US61 NB 13.9 10.8 77.4 2.2 382.9 7.0 120.1 37.1 22.5 US90 EB 8.6 8.9 58.2 4.1 127.2 9.9 52.5 58.4 8.9 US90 WB 8.6 50.6 10.2 51.9 10.0 51.0 10.2 58.4 8.9 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table J5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours)
| |
| Network 1 2 3 4 Exit Link Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 1,358 4,513 7,305 8,568 75 8% 10% 11% 11%
| |
| 1,658 4,174 5,924 6,460 124 10% 9% 9% 8%
| |
| 1,831 4,103 6,385 7,608 170 11% 9% 9% 10%
| |
| 255 733 1,026 1,070 189 2% 2% 2% 1%
| |
| 44 415 589 613 227 0% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 32 106 138 143 228 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 99 366 430 435 229 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 511 2,173 3,184 3,472 505 3% 5% 5% 4%
| |
| 3,430 10,180 14,669 15,238 510 21% 23% 21% 19%
| |
| 1,891 5,935 9,651 12,945 610 12% 13% 14% 16%
| |
| 672 1,989 3,744 5,246 615 4% 4% 5% 7%
| |
| 1,429 2,806 4,066 4,922 690 9% 6% 6% 6%
| |
| 147 506 730 801 695 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 1,332 2,696 3,719 3,984 970 8% 6% 5% 5%
| |
| 13 79 100 103 1216 0% 0% 0% 0%
| |
| 136 600 756 778 1395 1% 1% 1% 1%
| |
| 560 2,003 2,855 2,931 1403 3% 4% 4% 4%
| |
| 727 1,873 3,013 3,363 1532 5% 4% 4% 4%
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11)
| |
| ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)
| |
| Trip Generation ETE 100%
| |
| Percent of Total Vehicles 80%
| |
| 60%
| |
| 40%
| |
| 20%
| |
| 0%
| |
| 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 Elapsed Time (min)
| |
| Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network
| |
| | |
| K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 57 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K58) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.
| |
| The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in September 2011. Table K1 lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the ETE analysis. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in Table K1. The roadway type identified in Table K1 is based on the following criteria:
| |
| Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, No. of Lanes in Table K1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link. Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System.
| |
| As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.
| |
| Table K2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.
| |
| Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K1. LinkNode Analysis Network Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K49 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K50 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K51 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K52 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K53 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K53. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 52 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K54 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K54. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 53 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K55 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K55. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 54 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K56 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K56. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 55 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K57 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K57. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 56 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K58 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Figure K58. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 57 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K59 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table K1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1 1 52 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 1452 1 12 4 1700 45 4 2 2 600 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2145 2 12 4 1900 55 52 3 2 998 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 8213 2 12 4 1900 60 52 4 3 5 I55 FREEWAY 8705 2 12 4 2250 70 6 5 3 605 I55 FREEWAY 8883 2 12 4 2250 70 7 6 4 606 I55 FREEWAY 8592 2 12 4 2250 70 2 7 5 3 I55 FREEWAY 8705 2 12 4 2250 70 6 8 5 352 I55 FREEWAY 15151 2 12 4 2250 70 7 9 6 7 I10 FREEWAY 17142 2 12 4 2250 70 6 10 6 165 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1399 1 12 4 1750 45 21 11 6 166 I10 FREEWAY 2456 2 12 4 2250 70 21 12 7 6 I10 FREEWAY 17142 2 12 4 2250 70 6 13 7 358 I10 FREEWAY 1332 2 12 4 2250 70 6 14 8 9 I10 FREEWAY 32908 2 12 4 2250 70 5 15 8 624 I10 FREEWAY 12242 2 12 4 2250 70 6 16 9 8 I10 FREEWAY 32908 2 12 4 2250 70 5 17 9 365 I10 FREEWAY 9393 2 12 4 2250 70 4 18 10 25 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 36175 2 12 4 1900 65 3 19 10 360 ONRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1584 1 12 4 1700 45 3 20 10 362 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2405 2 12 4 1900 65 3 21 11 12 I10 FREEWAY 22896 2 12 4 2250 70 21 22 11 351 I10 FREEWAY 9346 3 12 4 2250 70 21 23 12 11 I10 FREEWAY 22896 2 12 4 2250 70 21 24 12 607 I10 FREEWAY 15924 2 12 4 2250 70 22 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K60 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 25 13 168 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 2840 2 12 4 1900 45 39 26 13 170 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 1710 1 12 4 1700 45 39 27 13 651 I310 FREEWAY 5721 2 12 8 2250 65 39 28 14 191 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 2453 2 12 4 1750 40 29 29 15 301 I10 FREEWAY 4584 3 12 4 2250 70 41 30 15 1026 I10 FREEWAY 1699 3 12 4 2250 70 40 31 16 294 I10 FREEWAY 641 3 12 4 2250 70 41 32 16 300 I10 FREEWAY 817 3 12 4 2250 70 41 33 18 300 I10 FREEWAY 3835 3 12 4 2250 70 41 34 19 350 I310 FREEWAY 4662 2 12 8 2250 65 38 35 19 651 I310 FREEWAY 5321 2 12 8 2250 65 38 36 20 265 I310 FREEWAY 1775 2 12 8 2250 70 43 37 20 648 I310 FREEWAY 3337 2 12 8 2250 70 43 38 21 337 OFFRAMP I310 FREEWAY RAMP 998 1 12 4 1700 45 43 39 21 344 I310 FREEWAY 9488 2 12 8 2250 70 43 40 22 344 I310 FREEWAY 1144 2 12 8 2250 70 52 41 22 1020 I310 FREEWAY 1625 3 12 8 2250 70 52 42 23 347 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1503 2 12 4 1900 60 52 43 23 960 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1359 2 12 4 1750 60 52 44 24 362 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 14247 2 12 4 1900 65 3 45 25 10 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 36175 2 12 4 1900 65 3 46 25 384 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4456 2 12 4 1900 65 9 47 26 135 SR641 MINOR ARTERIAL 1398 2 12 4 1750 50 10 48 26 393 SR641 MINOR ARTERIAL 3176 2 12 4 1900 65 10 49 26 608 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 5119 2 12 4 1900 60 10 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K61 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 50 26 616 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 7551 2 12 4 1900 65 10 51 27 100 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 9000 2 12 4 1750 65 11 52 27 616 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 10885 2 12 4 1900 65 11 53 27 623 SR54 COLLECTOR 724 1 12 4 1700 55 11 54 28 104 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 663 2 12 4 1750 45 13 55 28 253 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1389 2 12 4 1750 45 13 56 28 478 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 4789 2 12 4 1750 45 13 57 29 103 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 372 2 12 4 1750 45 14 58 29 249 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1981 2 12 4 1750 45 14 59 29 546 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 4581 2 12 4 1900 50 14 60 30 145 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 11867 2 12 4 1750 50 21 61 30 241 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1400 2 12 4 1750 50 21 62 30 310 SR48 COLLECTOR 1262 1 12 4 1575 35 21 63 31 32 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 9475 2 12 4 1750 60 37 64 31 501 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1750 50 37 65 31 645 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1434 1 12 4 1700 40 37 66 32 31 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 9475 2 12 4 1750 60 37 67 32 236 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2709 2 12 4 1900 60 38 68 33 232 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 7859 2 12 4 1750 60 39 69 33 235 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1587 2 12 4 1900 60 38 70 33 525 SR50 COLLECTOR 889 1 12 4 1575 35 38 71 34 217 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1346 2 12 4 1750 40 39 72 34 220 AIRPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 785 2 12 4 1900 40 39 73 34 222 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 836 2 12 4 1750 40 39 74 35 132 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 629 3 12 4 1900 40 41 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K62 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 75 35 426 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2451 3 12 4 1750 40 41 76 35 433 CLEARVIEW PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 2668 3 12 4 1750 50 41 77 38 122 SR3127 COLLECTOR 9304 1 12 4 1750 60 33 78 39 316 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1794 2 12 4 1900 60 33 79 39 317 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1119 2 12 4 1900 60 33 80 39 613 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1436 1 12 4 1700 60 33 81 40 41 SR3127 COLLECTOR 16059 1 12 4 1700 60 34 82 40 316 SR3127 COLLECTOR 17475 1 12 4 1700 60 33 83 41 40 SR3127 COLLECTOR 15965 1 12 4 1700 60 34 84 41 42 SR3127 COLLECTOR 7456 1 12 4 1700 60 18 85 42 41 SR3127 COLLECTOR 7456 1 12 4 1700 60 18 86 42 43 SR3127 COLLECTOR 8555 1 12 4 1700 55 19 87 42 390 SR640 COLLECTOR 8449 1 12 4 1700 55 18 88 43 42 SR3127 COLLECTOR 8555 1 12 4 1700 55 19 89 43 315 SR3127 COLLECTOR 11888 1 12 4 1700 55 35 90 44 45 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 14070 2 12 4 1750 70 35 91 44 71 SR3141 COLLECTOR 6757 1 12 4 1750 40 35 92 44 315 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1365 2 12 4 1900 55 35 93 45 44 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 14070 2 12 4 1750 70 35 94 45 46 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 10007 2 12 4 1750 70 42 95 45 70 SR3142 COLLECTOR 8119 1 12 4 1750 45 35 96 46 45 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 10007 2 12 4 1750 70 42 97 46 343 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1817 1 12 4 1700 55 42 98 46 990 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 5690 2 12 4 1900 70 42 99 47 990 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 9442 2 12 4 1900 70 42 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K63 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 100 47 1021 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 2031 2 12 4 1900 70 52 101 47 1022 I310 ONRAMP NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 497 1 12 4 1700 45 52 102 48 318 SR3213 COLLECTOR 9800 1 12 4 1700 60 16 103 48 614 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1917 1 12 4 1700 60 33 104 49 50 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1900 60 16 105 49 311 OFFRAMP SR3213 FREEWAY RAMP 1539 1 12 4 1575 35 16 106 49 318 SR3213 COLLECTOR 4227 1 12 4 1700 60 16 107 50 49 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1900 60 16 108 50 612 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 7936 2 12 4 1900 60 16 109 51 135 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 3814 2 12 4 1750 60 10 110 51 612 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 1849 2 12 4 1900 60 10 111 52 364 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1400 1 12 4 1700 45 4 112 52 365 I10 FREEWAY 1732 2 12 4 2250 70 4 113 52 604 I10 FREEWAY 4121 2 12 4 2250 70 4 114 53 998 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2276 2 12 4 1900 60 52 115 53 1001 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3579 2 12 4 1900 60 51 116 54 55 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 6157 2 12 4 1900 60 56 117 54 904 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 830 2 12 4 1900 60 56 118 55 54 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 6170 2 12 4 1900 60 56 119 55 56 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 10356 2 12 4 1900 60 56 120 56 55 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 10357 2 12 4 1900 60 56 121 56 327 US90 FREEWAY 19873 2 12 4 2250 70 56 122 57 327 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1642 2 12 4 1900 70 55 123 57 1017 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3312 2 12 4 1900 70 55 124 58 259 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 2380 2 12 4 1900 50 14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K64 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 125 58 546 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 4079 2 12 4 1900 50 14 126 59 478 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 2421 2 12 4 1750 45 13 127 59 630 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 1730 2 12 4 1900 45 6 128 60 208 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 776 2 12 4 1750 40 40 129 60 217 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 743 2 12 4 1750 40 40 130 60 834 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 695 2 12 4 1900 50 40 131 60 841 SR49 COLLECTOR 1369 2 12 4 1700 40 40 132 61 190 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 579 4 12 4 1900 50 29 133 61 451 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2504 3 12 4 1750 40 29 134 61 844 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 666 3 12 4 1900 50 29 135 62 333 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3882 2 12 4 1750 60 53 136 62 598 SR3060 COLLECTOR 1150 1 12 4 1700 40 53 137 62 894 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3684 2 12 4 1750 60 52 138 63 333 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 20557 2 12 4 1750 60 53 139 63 396 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 24573 2 12 4 1750 60 54 140 65 86 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2132 2 12 4 1750 60 47 141 66 303 SR3139 FREEWAY 1869 3 12 4 2250 60 41 142 66 423 ONRAMP US90 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1391 1 12 4 1700 45 41 143 66 425 SR3139 FREEWAY 4419 3 12 4 2250 60 41 144 67 54 SR632 COLLECTOR 4461 1 12 4 1700 55 56 145 69 599 SR306 COLLECTOR 5475 1 12 4 1700 40 52 146 69 1005 SR306 COLLECTOR 17065 1 12 4 1700 40 52 147 70 45 SR3142 COLLECTOR 8119 1 12 4 1750 45 35 148 70 342 SR18 COLLECTOR 9238 1 12 4 1700 45 36 149 71 44 SR3141 COLLECTOR 6757 1 12 4 1750 40 35 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K65 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 150 71 987 SR18 COLLECTOR 5619 1 12 4 1700 50 20 151 72 919 SR18 COLLECTOR 2693 1 12 4 1700 50 19 152 73 390 SR640 COLLECTOR 2400 1 12 4 1700 55 18 153 73 921 SR18 COLLECTOR 8307 1 12 4 1700 40 18 154 74 989 SR18 COLLECTOR 10942 1 12 4 1700 45 17 155 75 923 SR18 COLLECTOR 4410 1 12 4 1700 45 16 156 76 77 SR18 COLLECTOR 8304 1 12 4 1700 45 15 157 77 928 SR18 COLLECTOR 4124 1 12 4 1700 45 15 158 79 572 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1146 1 12 4 1700 55 36 159 79 915 SR18 COLLECTOR 2443 1 12 4 1700 40 36 160 80 338 ONRAMP I310 SOUTH FREEWAY RAMP 1664 2 12 4 1900 45 43 161 80 341 SR18 MINOR ARTERIAL 470 2 12 4 1900 35 43 162 81 576 SR18 COLLECTOR 1603 1 12 4 1700 40 43 163 81 579 SR52 COLLECTOR 2357 1 12 4 1575 35 43 164 82 594 SR3060 COLLECTOR 2052 1 12 4 1700 40 44 165 82 996 SR18 COLLECTOR 5647 1 12 4 1700 50 44 166 83 84 SR18 COLLECTOR 21219 1 12 4 1700 50 39 167 84 890 SR18 COLLECTOR 2414 1 12 4 1700 50 46 168 85 405 SR18 COLLECTOR 14068 1 12 4 1700 50 46 169 86 65 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2134 2 12 4 1900 60 47 170 86 471 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3309 3 12 4 1900 60 54 171 87 103 MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1677 2 12 4 1750 40 14 172 87 476 SR44 COLLECTOR 2957 1 12 4 1575 35 14 173 88 89 SR636 COLLECTOR 2272 1 12 4 1700 40 13 174 89 626 SR44 COLLECTOR 4407 1 12 4 1700 45 13 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K66 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 175 89 627 SR44 COLLECTOR 742 1 12 4 1575 35 13 176 90 977 SR44 COLLECTOR 2824 1 12 4 1700 45 13 177 90 1040 SR3179 COLLECTOR 3972 1 12 4 1700 50 13 178 91 976 SR44 COLLECTOR 1790 1 12 4 1700 45 12 179 91 1044 SR53 COLLECTOR 4853 1 12 4 1750 45 12 180 92 380 SR44 COLLECTOR 1953 1 12 4 1575 35 17 181 93 619 SR44 COLLECTOR 2002 1 12 4 1700 45 17 182 93 620 SR54 COLLECTOR 1650 1 12 4 1700 55 17 183 94 95 SR44 COLLECTOR 4233 1 12 4 1700 50 16 184 94 388 GAMMERCY EVACUATION ST COLLECTOR 2192 1 12 4 1700 40 10 185 95 934 SR44 COLLECTOR 2737 1 12 4 1700 50 16 186 95 940 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 1169 1 12 4 1350 30 16 187 96 97 SR44 COLLECTOR 4660 1 12 4 1700 50 15 188 97 611 SR44 COLLECTOR 3217 1 12 4 1700 50 15 189 98 970 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2191 2 12 4 1900 55 12 190 98 972 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1444 2 12 4 1900 55 12 191 98 1044 SR53 COLLECTOR 3876 1 12 4 1750 45 12 192 99 622 SR44 COLLECTOR 5456 1 12 4 1700 45 17 193 100 27 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 9000 2 12 4 1750 65 11 194 100 366 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2945 2 12 4 1750 65 12 195 101 99 SR44 COLLECTOR 4026 1 12 4 1700 45 12 196 101 102 W 19TH ST COLLECTOR 7557 1 12 4 1700 45 12 197 102 101 W 19TH ST COLLECTOR 7557 1 12 4 1700 45 12 198 102 366 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2741 2 12 4 1750 55 12 199 102 368 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4539 2 12 4 1750 55 12 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K67 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 200 103 29 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 372 2 12 4 1750 45 14 201 103 87 MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1677 1 12 4 1750 40 14 202 103 261 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 714 2 12 4 1900 45 14 203 103 1038 MAIN ST COLLECTOR 4749 1 12 4 1700 40 14 204 104 28 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 663 2 12 4 1750 45 13 205 104 105 SR3223 COLLECTOR 1919 1 12 4 1750 35 13 206 104 377 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1562 2 12 4 1750 45 13 207 105 104 SR3223 COLLECTOR 1919 1 12 4 1750 35 13 208 105 474 SR44 COLLECTOR 569 1 12 4 1575 35 13 209 105 629 SR44 COLLECTOR 1279 1 12 4 1575 35 13 210 106 107 SR307 COLLECTOR 3820 1 12 4 1700 45 50 211 106 324 SR307 COLLECTOR 2123 1 12 4 1575 35 50 212 107 108 SR307 COLLECTOR 11002 1 12 4 1700 45 50 213 108 109 SR307 COLLECTOR 7798 1 12 4 1575 35 55 214 109 110 SR307 COLLECTOR 4709 1 12 4 1700 55 55 215 110 111 SR307 COLLECTOR 5713 1 12 4 1700 55 55 216 111 325 SR307 COLLECTOR 1309 1 12 4 1700 40 55 217 112 114 SR307 COLLECTOR 3690 1 12 4 1700 40 55 218 114 326 SR307 COLLECTOR 4247 1 12 4 1700 40 55 219 115 116 SR307 COLLECTOR 14238 1 12 4 1700 50 50 220 116 117 SR307 COLLECTOR 6826 1 12 4 1700 50 49 221 117 323 SR307 COLLECTOR 4194 1 12 4 1700 40 49 222 118 122 SR20 COLLECTOR 3862 1 12 4 1750 50 33 223 118 319 SR20 COLLECTOR 5993 1 12 4 1700 50 33 224 119 321 SR20 LOCAL ROADWAY 625 1 12 4 1350 30 33 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K68 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 225 120 121 SR20 COLLECTOR 16710 1 12 4 1700 40 49 226 121 124 SR20 COLLECTOR 5232 1 12 4 1700 40 49 227 122 38 SR3127 COLLECTOR 9370 1 12 4 1700 60 33 228 122 78 SR20 COLLECTOR 14653 1 12 4 1700 50 33 229 122 118 SR20 COLLECTOR 3863 1 12 4 1700 50 33 230 122 317 SR3127 COLLECTOR 11024 1 12 4 1700 60 33 231 123 322 SR307 COLLECTOR 8290 1 12 4 1700 50 49 232 125 126 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 8110 1 12 4 1700 40 34 233 126 127 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 2285 1 12 4 1700 40 33 234 127 128 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 6254 1 12 4 1700 40 33 235 128 952 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 398 1 12 4 1700 40 33 236 129 945 HIGHWAY 644 COLLECTOR 2429 1 12 4 1700 40 33 237 129 948 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 4122 1 12 4 1700 40 33 238 130 131 SR52 COLLECTOR 332 1 12 4 1750 40 52 239 130 911 SR52 COLLECTOR 7881 1 12 4 1700 45 52 240 131 130 SR52 COLLECTOR 332 1 12 4 1700 45 52 241 131 346 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2076 2 12 4 1900 60 52 242 131 585 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1001 2 12 4 1900 60 52 243 132 35 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 629 3 12 4 1750 40 41 244 133 343 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1708 1 12 4 1700 55 42 245 133 572 SR3160 COLLECTOR 7666 1 12 4 1700 55 36 246 135 26 SR641 MINOR ARTERIAL 1398 2 12 4 1750 50 10 247 135 51 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 3814 2 12 4 1900 60 10 248 135 382 SR3125 COLLECTOR 951 1 12 4 1700 40 10 249 136 382 SR3125 COLLECTOR 5071 1 12 4 1700 40 10 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K69 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 250 136 385 SR3274 COLLECTOR 4526 1 12 4 1700 45 10 251 136 386 SR3274 COLLECTOR 4045 1 12 4 1700 50 9 252 136 944 SR3125 COLLECTOR 2591 1 12 4 1700 40 9 253 138 260 CARDINAL ST COLLECTOR 1121 1 12 4 1750 40 14 254 138 633 SR636 COLLECTOR 553 1 12 4 1700 40 14 255 139 260 SR628 COLLECTOR 3740 1 12 4 1750 35 14 256 140 401 SR628 COLLECTOR 1818 1 12 4 1700 40 20 257 141 140 SR628 COLLECTOR 2860 1 12 4 1700 40 20 258 141 636 SR3217 COLLECTOR 3396 1 12 4 1700 55 20 259 142 144 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2555 2 12 4 1750 50 21 260 142 243 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 6093 2 12 4 1750 50 20 261 142 636 SR3217 COLLECTOR 3468 1 12 4 1700 55 20 262 143 472 EVANGELINE RD COLLECTOR 3905 1 12 4 1700 40 20 263 143 564 SR628 COLLECTOR 1249 1 12 4 1700 40 20 264 144 142 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2555 2 12 4 1900 50 21 265 144 145 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2070 2 12 4 1750 50 21 266 145 30 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 11867 2 12 4 1750 50 21 267 145 144 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2070 2 12 4 1750 50 21 268 146 473 SR628 COLLECTOR 4545 1 12 4 1700 45 20 269 146 986 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 4422 1 12 4 1350 30 36 270 147 148 SR48 COLLECTOR 1231 1 12 4 1575 35 36 271 148 498 SR48 COLLECTOR 1578 1 12 4 1575 35 36 272 149 242 SR48 COLLECTOR 1384 1 12 4 1575 35 36 273 149 497 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 869 1 12 4 1350 30 36 274 150 513 SR48 COLLECTOR 1661 1 12 4 1700 40 43 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K70 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 275 150 641 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 2237 1 12 4 1700 40 43 276 151 643 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 438 1 12 4 1700 40 37 277 151 646 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 554 1 12 4 1700 40 37 278 152 272 SR48 COLLECTOR 839 1 12 4 1700 40 43 279 152 273 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 835 2 12 4 1900 45 43 280 152 277 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1166 2 12 4 1900 40 43 281 153 517 SR626 COLLECTOR 3504 1 12 4 1575 35 44 282 153 997 SR48 COLLECTOR 1808 1 12 4 1700 40 44 283 154 278 SR48 COLLECTOR 9446 1 12 4 1700 40 39 284 154 525 SR50 COLLECTOR 3545 1 12 4 1575 35 38 285 155 838 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 809 2 12 4 1900 40 40 286 155 841 SR49 COLLECTOR 1178 1 12 4 1700 40 40 287 156 281 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 2185 2 12 4 1900 45 40 288 156 283 CELESTE AVE COLLECTOR 654 1 12 4 1700 40 40 289 156 284 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 899 2 12 4 1750 45 40 290 157 848 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1395 2 12 4 1750 45 46 291 161 302 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 50 40 292 161 303 SR3139 MINOR ARTERIAL 2633 2 12 4 1900 60 40 293 162 410 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 481 2 12 4 1900 50 47 294 163 180 I10 FREEWAY 4068 3 12 4 2250 70 30 295 163 1058 I10 FREEWAY 2050 3 12 4 2250 70 30 296 164 197 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 855 2 12 4 1750 40 40 297 164 431 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2544 2 12 4 1750 40 40 298 164 439 DAVID DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2580 2 12 4 1750 45 40 299 165 166 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1182 1 12 4 1700 45 21 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K71 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 300 165 167 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 885 2 12 4 1750 50 21 301 166 6 I10 FREEWAY 2456 2 12 4 2250 70 21 302 166 167 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 897 1 12 4 1750 45 21 303 166 351 I10 FREEWAY 1794 2 12 4 2250 70 21 304 167 6 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 1722 1 12 4 1700 45 21 305 167 355 OLD US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 1076 2 12 4 1900 50 21 306 168 169 I10 FREEWAY 4107 2 12 4 2250 70 27 307 168 170 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 2125 2 12 4 1900 45 27 308 168 174 I10 FREEWAY 4842 3 12 4 2250 70 27 309 169 13 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 2449 1 12 4 1700 45 27 310 169 168 I10 FREEWAY 4120 2 12 4 2250 70 27 311 169 607 I10 FREEWAY 3781 2 12 4 2250 70 22 312 170 13 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1717 2 12 4 1900 45 39 313 170 169 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 2291 1 12 4 1700 45 27 314 171 175 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 671 2 12 4 1900 45 28 315 171 178 LOYOLA DR MINOR ARTERIAL 554 2 12 4 1750 45 28 316 172 171 LOYOLA DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 355 3 12 4 1750 45 28 317 172 174 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 1358 1 12 4 1700 45 28 318 173 172 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1430 1 12 4 1750 45 28 319 173 174 I10 FREEWAY 2752 3 12 4 2250 70 28 320 173 185 I10 FREEWAY 5631 3 12 4 2250 70 28 321 174 168 I10 FREEWAY 4842 3 12 4 2250 70 27 322 174 171 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1376 1 12 4 1750 45 28 323 174 173 I10 FREEWAY 2752 3 12 4 2250 70 28 324 175 173 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 721 1 12 4 1700 45 28 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K72 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 325 176 817 LOYOLA DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1766 3 12 4 1900 45 28 326 177 445 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2468 3 12 4 1750 40 30 327 177 448 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1259 3 12 4 1750 40 29 328 178 171 LOYOLA DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 554 3 12 4 1750 45 28 329 178 963 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 576 2 12 4 1900 40 28 330 179 180 I10 FREEWAY 1775 3 12 4 2250 70 29 331 179 185 I10 FREEWAY 3305 3 12 4 2250 70 29 332 180 163 I10 FREEWAY 4068 3 12 4 2250 70 30 333 180 179 I10 FREEWAY 1775 3 12 4 2250 70 29 334 181 180 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 4670 1 12 4 1700 45 29 335 182 178 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 2067 2 12 4 1750 40 39 336 183 832 ABERDEEN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1254 1 12 4 1350 30 39 337 184 794 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 625 3 12 4 1750 45 29 338 185 173 I10 FREEWAY 5631 3 12 4 2250 70 28 339 185 179 I10 FREEWAY 3305 3 12 4 2250 70 29 340 185 794 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1164 2 12 4 1750 45 29 341 187 179 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 2512 2 12 4 1700 45 29 342 187 184 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 710 2 12 4 1900 50 29 343 187 192 BRUIN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5649 1 12 4 1750 30 29 344 188 785 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 4500 2 12 4 1750 45 29 345 188 789 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1356 3 12 4 1750 50 29 346 189 181 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1471 1 12 4 1700 45 29 347 189 191 AIRPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 620 1 12 4 1700 55 29 348 189 220 AIRPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 8467 2 12 4 1900 55 40 349 190 61 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 579 3 12 4 1750 50 29 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K73 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 350 190 179 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 2176 1 12 4 1700 45 29 351 191 61 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 839 4 12 4 1750 40 29 352 192 196 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 260 3 12 4 1900 45 30 353 195 163 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 2368 1 12 4 1700 45 30 354 196 195 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1434 1 12 4 1700 45 29 355 196 965 POWER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 350 2 12 4 1750 45 30 356 197 164 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 855 2 12 4 1750 40 40 357 197 199 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2263 2 12 4 1750 40 40 358 198 197 SR3155 LOCAL ROADWAY 1392 1 12 4 1750 30 40 359 199 197 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2263 2 12 4 1750 40 40 360 199 200 N LESTER AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 2706 1 12 4 1350 30 40 361 199 204 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 850 2 12 4 1750 30 40 362 200 199 N LESTER AVE COLLECTOR 2706 1 12 4 1750 30 40 363 200 439 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 871 2 12 4 1750 45 40 364 203 199 S LESTER AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 825 1 12 4 1750 30 40 365 204 199 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 850 2 12 4 1750 40 40 366 204 205 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2791 2 12 4 1900 40 40 367 204 206 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1002 2 12 4 1750 40 40 368 205 200 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1010 2 12 4 1900 45 40 369 205 204 N HOWARD AVE COLLECTOR 2791 1 12 4 1750 40 40 370 206 204 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1002 2 12 4 1750 40 40 371 206 210 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1641 2 12 4 1750 40 40 372 207 206 LYNETTE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 818 1 12 4 1750 30 40 373 207 840 LYNETTE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2169 1 12 4 1350 30 40 374 208 60 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 776 2 12 4 1750 40 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K74 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 375 208 209 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1764 2 12 4 1750 40 40 376 208 215 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1987 1 12 4 1350 30 40 377 209 208 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1764 2 12 4 1750 40 40 378 209 210 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1700 2 12 4 1750 40 40 379 209 214 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 3539 1 12 4 1750 30 40 380 210 206 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1641 2 12 4 1750 40 40 381 210 209 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1700 2 12 4 1750 40 40 382 210 212 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3373 1 12 4 1350 30 40 383 211 210 ATLANTA ST COLLECTOR 1477 1 12 4 1750 30 40 384 212 210 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3373 1 12 4 1750 30 40 385 212 840 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1183 2 12 4 1900 45 40 386 212 842 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1688 1 12 4 1350 30 40 387 213 209 FILMORE ST COLLECTOR 550 1 12 4 1750 40 40 388 213 279 FILMORE ST COLLECTOR 2300 1 12 4 1750 40 40 389 214 209 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 3539 1 12 4 1750 30 40 390 214 212 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2461 2 12 4 1900 45 40 391 214 462 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1676 2 12 4 1900 45 40 392 214 843 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1652 1 12 4 1350 30 40 393 215 208 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1987 1 12 4 1750 30 40 394 215 462 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1923 1 12 4 1350 30 40 395 215 836 14TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 785 1 12 4 1350 30 40 396 217 34 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1346 2 12 4 1750 40 39 397 217 60 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 743 2 12 4 1750 40 40 398 217 219 DANIEL ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2158 1 12 4 1350 30 40 399 219 217 DANIEL ST COLLECTOR 2158 1 12 4 1750 40 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K75 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 400 219 836 14TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 709 1 12 4 1350 30 40 401 220 34 AIRPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 785 2 12 4 1750 40 39 402 220 189 AIRPORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 8466 2 12 4 1900 55 40 403 222 34 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 836 2 12 4 1750 40 39 404 222 227 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2071 2 12 4 1750 40 39 405 223 222 HOLLANDEY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2392 1 12 4 1750 30 39 406 223 835 SR48 COLLECTOR 2188 1 12 4 1700 40 39 407 224 227 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1005 2 12 4 1750 40 39 408 224 229 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4282 2 12 4 1750 40 39 409 225 224 SERVICE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 966 2 12 4 1750 30 39 410 226 224 FARRAR AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 646 1 12 4 1750 30 39 411 227 222 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2071 2 12 4 1750 40 39 412 227 224 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1005 2 12 4 1750 40 39 413 228 227 AIRPORT PARKING LOCAL ROADWAY 910 2 12 4 1750 30 39 414 229 224 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4281 2 12 4 1750 40 39 415 229 232 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2256 2 12 4 1750 40 39 416 230 229 ALLIANCE AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1533 1 12 4 1750 30 39 417 230 652 SR48 COLLECTOR 4322 1 12 4 1700 40 39 418 231 229 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1252 1 12 4 1750 30 39 419 232 33 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 7859 2 12 4 1750 60 39 420 232 229 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2256 2 12 4 1750 40 39 421 233 232 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 390 1 12 4 1750 30 39 422 234 232 JAMES BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 425 2 12 4 1750 30 39 423 235 33 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1587 2 12 4 1750 60 38 424 235 236 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4940 2 12 4 1900 60 38 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K76 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 425 235 237 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1989 1 12 4 1700 45 38 426 236 32 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2709 2 12 4 1750 60 38 427 236 235 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4940 2 12 4 1900 60 38 428 236 238 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 916 1 12 4 1700 45 38 429 237 19 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 602 1 12 4 1700 50 38 430 238 650 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 2685 1 12 4 1700 50 38 431 239 241 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 3421 2 12 4 1750 50 21 432 239 306 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1338 2 12 4 1750 50 37 433 240 239 SR627 MINOR ARTERIAL 993 2 12 4 1750 40 37 434 241 30 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1400 2 12 4 1750 50 21 435 241 239 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 3421 2 12 4 1750 50 21 436 242 149 SR48 COLLECTOR 1383 1 12 4 1750 35 36 437 242 308 SR48 COLLECTOR 3490 1 12 4 1750 35 36 438 243 142 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 6093 2 12 4 1900 50 20 439 243 244 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 849 2 12 4 1750 50 14 440 244 243 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 849 2 12 4 1750 50 14 441 244 261 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 5588 2 12 4 1900 45 14 442 245 243 MCREINE RD COLLECTOR 2492 1 12 4 1750 40 14 443 247 244 WINDSOR ST COLLECTOR 1159 1 12 4 1750 40 14 444 248 244 WINDSOR ST COLLECTOR 855 1 12 4 1750 40 14 445 249 29 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1981 2 12 4 1750 45 14 446 249 251 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1439 2 12 4 1750 45 14 447 250 249 CAMBRIDGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1970 1 12 4 1750 30 14 448 250 551 CAMBRIDGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 8383 1 12 4 1350 30 14 449 251 249 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1439 2 12 4 1750 45 14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K77 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 450 251 253 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1768 2 12 4 1750 45 14 451 252 251 ORMOND BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1035 2 12 4 1750 40 14 452 253 28 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1389 2 12 4 1750 45 13 453 253 251 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1768 2 12 4 1750 45 14 454 253 255 SR3224 MINOR ARTERIAL 1128 2 12 4 1750 40 14 455 254 253 CARROLLWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 1380 1 12 4 1750 40 14 456 254 554 CARROLLWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 1745 1 12 4 1700 40 14 457 255 253 SR3224 COLLECTOR 1128 1 12 4 1750 40 14 458 255 474 SR44 COLLECTOR 1108 1 12 4 1575 35 13 459 255 476 SR44 COLLECTOR 1497 1 12 4 1575 35 14 460 256 104 SUGAR RIDGE RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4549 2 12 4 1750 35 13 461 256 478 FAIRWAY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 969 1 12 4 1750 30 13 462 257 28 PERCY HERBERT RD COLLECTOR 630 2 12 4 1750 40 13 463 258 259 MAIN ST COLLECTOR 1863 1 12 4 1700 40 14 464 258 1038 COLLECTOR 3843 1 12 4 1700 40 14 465 259 258 COLLECTOR 1882 1 12 4 1700 40 14 466 259 482 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 1950 2 12 4 1750 50 14 467 260 87 SR628 COLLECTOR 578 1 12 4 1750 35 14 468 261 103 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 714 2 12 4 1750 45 14 469 261 244 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 5588 2 12 4 1750 45 14 470 262 143 SR628 COLLECTOR 1953 1 12 4 1700 40 20 471 263 146 SR628 COLLECTOR 1961 1 12 4 1700 40 35 472 264 509 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1426 1 12 4 1700 40 37 473 264 641 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1700 40 43 474 265 20 I310 FREEWAY 1775 2 12 4 2250 70 43 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K78 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 475 265 276 OFFRAMP I310 FREEWAY RAMP 791 1 12 4 1700 45 43 476 272 152 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 839 2 12 4 1750 40 43 477 272 984 SR48 COLLECTOR 544 1 12 4 1700 40 43 478 273 265 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1887 1 12 4 1700 45 43 479 274 152 OFFRAMP I310 FREEWAY RAMP 1033 2 12 4 1750 45 43 480 276 274 OFFRAMP I310 FREEWAY RAMP 1119 1 12 4 1700 45 43 481 277 515 SR48 COLLECTOR 4076 1 12 4 1700 45 43 482 278 230 SR48 COLLECTOR 941 1 12 4 1700 40 39 483 279 213 FILMORE ST COLLECTOR 2300 1 12 4 1700 40 40 484 279 281 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 3216 2 12 4 1900 40 40 485 279 838 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1756 2 12 4 1900 40 40 486 280 279 FILMORE ST COLLECTOR 392 1 12 4 1750 40 40 487 281 156 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 2108 2 12 4 1750 45 40 488 281 279 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 3216 2 12 4 1750 40 40 489 282 156 SR3155 LOCAL ROADWAY 469 1 12 4 1750 30 40 490 282 198 SR3155 LOCAL ROADWAY 4245 1 12 4 1350 30 40 491 283 282 SR3155 COLLECTOR 707 1 12 4 1700 40 40 492 284 287 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 828 2 12 4 1750 45 40 493 285 284 MANGANO DR COLLECTOR 926 1 12 4 1750 40 40 494 286 284 MARK TWAIN DR COLLECTOR 521 1 12 4 1750 40 40 495 287 157 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1489 2 12 4 1750 45 46 496 288 287 SUAVE RD COLLECTOR 1332 1 12 4 1750 40 40 497 289 164 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 1567 2 12 4 1750 50 40 498 289 302 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 1602 2 12 4 1750 50 40 499 291 296 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 394 1 12 4 1350 30 41 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K79 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 500 294 16 I10 FREEWAY 641 3 12 4 2250 70 41 501 294 301 I10 FREEWAY 806 3 12 4 2250 70 41 502 295 290 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 497 1 12 4 1350 30 41 503 295 298 CLEARVIEW PKWY MINOR ARTERIAL 465 2 12 4 1900 50 41 504 296 292 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 483 1 12 4 1350 30 41 505 296 295 CLEARVIEW PKWY MINOR ARTERIAL 1156 2 12 4 1900 50 41 506 297 1056 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 877 3 12 4 1900 40 31 507 298 297 CLEARVIEW PKWY MINOR ARTERIAL 1086 2 12 4 1750 50 41 508 299 296 CLEARVIEW PKWY MINOR ARTERIAL 308 2 12 4 1900 50 41 509 299 300 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1203 1 12 4 1700 45 41 510 300 16 I10 FREEWAY 817 3 12 4 2250 70 41 511 300 18 I10 FREEWAY 3835 3 12 4 2250 70 41 512 300 295 I10 OFF RAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2402 1 12 4 1700 45 41 513 301 15 I10 FREEWAY 4579 3 12 4 2250 70 41 514 301 294 I10 FREEWAY 806 3 12 4 2250 70 41 515 302 161 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1750 50 40 516 302 289 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 1622 2 12 4 1900 50 40 517 303 66 SR3139 FREEWAY 1869 3 12 4 2250 60 41 518 303 302 SR3139 MINOR ARTERIAL 2871 2 12 4 1750 60 40 519 304 161 SR3154 MINOR ARTERIAL 735 2 12 4 1750 50 40 520 305 32 SR626 COLLECTOR 9058 1 12 4 1750 55 38 521 306 239 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1338 2 12 4 1750 50 37 522 306 501 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 8588 2 12 4 1750 50 37 523 307 306 SR627 COLLECTOR 3746 1 12 4 1750 35 37 524 308 242 SR48 COLLECTOR 3508 1 12 4 1575 35 36 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K80 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 525 308 309 SR627 COLLECTOR 1645 1 12 4 1575 35 36 526 308 980 SR48 COLLECTOR 4661 1 12 4 1575 35 37 527 309 307 SR627 COLLECTOR 567 1 12 4 1575 35 36 528 309 308 SR627 COLLECTOR 1645 1 12 4 1750 35 36 529 310 30 SR48 COLLECTOR 1262 1 12 4 1750 35 21 530 310 489 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 1694 1 12 4 1350 30 21 531 311 314 OFFRAMP SR3213 FREEWAY RAMP 3779 1 12 4 1700 45 16 532 312 49 ONRAMP SR3213 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1517 1 12 4 1575 35 16 533 313 312 ONRAMP SR3213 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 4003 1 12 4 1700 45 16 534 313 314 SR18 COLLECTOR 341 1 12 4 1700 40 16 535 314 925 SR18 COLLECTOR 1706 1 12 4 1700 45 16 536 315 43 SR3127 COLLECTOR 11888 1 12 4 1700 55 35 537 315 44 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1365 2 12 4 1750 55 35 538 316 39 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1794 2 12 4 1900 60 33 539 316 40 SR3127 COLLECTOR 17518 1 12 4 1700 60 33 540 317 39 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 1119 2 12 4 1900 60 33 541 317 122 SR3127 COLLECTOR 11024 1 12 4 1750 60 33 542 318 48 SR3213 COLLECTOR 9800 1 12 4 1700 60 16 543 318 49 SR3213 COLLECTOR 4255 1 12 4 1700 60 16 544 319 320 SR20 COLLECTOR 1089 1 12 4 1700 45 33 545 320 119 SR20 LOCAL ROADWAY 611 1 12 4 1350 30 33 546 321 120 SR20 COLLECTOR 3280 1 12 4 1700 40 33 547 322 121 SR307 COLLECTOR 9148 1 12 4 1700 50 49 548 323 123 SR307 COLLECTOR 2956 1 12 4 1700 40 49 549 324 115 SR307 COLLECTOR 5397 1 12 4 1700 45 50 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K81 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 550 325 112 SR307 COLLECTOR 3517 1 12 4 1700 40 55 551 326 1023 SR307 COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1700 40 55 552 327 56 US90 FREEWAY 19873 2 12 4 2250 70 56 553 327 57 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1635 2 12 4 1900 70 55 554 328 2 SR306 COLLECTOR 875 1 12 4 1750 40 52 555 328 398 SR631 COLLECTOR 9813 1 12 4 1700 45 51 556 329 131 MAGNOLIA RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 1913 1 12 4 1750 40 52 557 330 601 SR631 COLLECTOR 7793 1 12 4 1700 45 52 558 330 1003 SR631 COLLECTOR 5426 1 12 4 1700 45 52 559 331 578 SR52 COLLECTOR 681 1 12 4 1700 45 43 560 331 579 SR52 COLLECTOR 1677 1 12 4 1575 35 43 561 332 62 LAKEWOOD DR COLLECTOR 928 1 12 4 1750 30 53 562 332 592 LOCAL ROADWAY 3565 1 12 4 1350 30 52 563 333 62 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3882 2 12 4 1750 60 53 564 333 63 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 20432 2 12 4 1900 60 53 565 334 333 WILLOWDALE BLVD COLLECTOR 6105 1 12 4 1750 40 53 566 334 589 E HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2092 1 12 4 1350 30 53 567 337 80 OFFRAMP I310 FREEWAY RAMP 2466 2 12 4 1750 45 43 568 338 339 ONRAMP I310 SOUTH FREEWAY RAMP 1434 1 12 4 1700 45 43 569 339 21 ONRAMP I310 SOUTH FREEWAY RAMP 573 1 12 4 1700 45 43 570 340 80 SR18 MINOR ARTERIAL 1696 2 12 4 1750 35 43 571 341 909 SR18 MINOR ARTERIAL 1495 2 12 4 1575 35 43 572 342 917 SR18 COLLECTOR 4907 1 12 4 1700 45 36 573 343 46 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1842 1 12 4 1750 55 42 574 343 133 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1698 1 12 4 1700 55 42 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K82 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 575 344 21 I310 FREEWAY 9362 2 12 8 2250 70 43 576 344 22 I310 FREEWAY 1018 2 12 8 2250 70 52 577 344 47 I310 OFFRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2319 1 12 4 1700 45 52 578 345 23 I310 MINOR ARTERIAL 2155 1 12 8 1750 70 52 579 345 347 I310 OFFRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 3119 1 12 4 1700 45 52 580 345 1020 I310 FREEWAY 4010 3 12 8 2250 70 52 581 346 131 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2076 2 12 4 1750 60 52 582 346 960 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 852 2 12 4 1750 60 52 583 346 961 I310 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 851 1 12 4 1700 45 52 584 347 23 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1503 2 12 4 1750 60 52 585 347 348 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1375 2 12 4 1750 55 52 586 348 347 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1375 2 12 4 1900 55 52 587 348 600 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 9821 2 12 4 1900 55 52 588 349 348 TIGER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1707 1 12 4 1750 30 52 589 350 19 I310 FREEWAY 4662 2 12 8 2250 65 38 590 350 649 I310 FREEWAY 4507 2 12 8 2250 70 38 591 351 11 I10 FREEWAY 9346 2 12 4 2250 70 21 592 351 166 I10 FREEWAY 1794 2 12 4 2250 70 21 593 351 352 I55 ONRAMP NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 4937 2 12 4 2250 60 21 594 352 5 I55 FREEWAY 15151 2 12 4 2250 70 7 595 352 351 I55 OFFRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 4946 2 12 4 2250 60 21 596 352 355 OFFRAMP I55 FREEWAY RAMP 2372 1 12 4 1700 45 7 597 353 352 ONRAMP I55 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1058 1 12 4 1700 45 7 598 354 353 ONRAMP I55 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 240 1 12 4 1125 25 7 599 354 355 OLD US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 1600 2 12 4 1900 50 7 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K83 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 600 354 1037 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 317 2 12 4 2250 55 7 601 355 167 OLD US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 1076 2 12 4 1750 50 21 602 355 354 OLD US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 1600 2 12 4 1900 50 7 603 356 7 ONRAMP I10 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1560 1 12 4 1700 45 6 604 356 357 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 2188 1 12 4 1700 45 6 605 356 630 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 2597 2 12 4 1900 45 6 606 357 7 ONRAMP I10 WEST FREEWAY RAMP 1536 1 12 4 1700 45 6 607 358 7 I10 FREEWAY 1332 2 12 4 2250 70 6 608 358 356 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1215 1 12 4 1700 45 6 609 358 624 I10 FREEWAY 2105 2 12 4 2250 70 6 610 359 363 I10 FREEWAY 3305 2 12 4 2250 70 3 611 359 615 I10 FREEWAY 6431 2 12 4 2250 70 3 612 360 359 ONRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 2558 1 12 4 1700 45 3 613 361 363 I10 FREEWAY 6852 2 12 4 2250 70 3 614 361 604 I10 FREEWAY 27120 2 12 4 2250 70 4 615 362 10 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2405 2 12 4 1900 65 3 616 362 24 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 14247 2 12 4 1900 65 3 617 363 359 I10 FREEWAY 3305 2 12 4 2250 70 3 618 363 361 I10 FREEWAY 6852 2 12 4 2250 70 3 619 363 362 ONRAMP US61 FREEWAY RAMP 2379 1 12 4 1700 45 3 620 364 1 SR641 COLLECTOR 2136 1 12 4 1700 60 4 621 364 393 SR641 COLLECTOR 13918 1 12 4 1700 65 4 622 365 1 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1394 1 12 4 1700 45 4 623 365 9 I10 FREEWAY 9393 2 12 4 2250 70 4 624 365 52 I10 FREEWAY 1732 2 12 4 2250 70 4 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K84 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 625 366 100 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2945 2 12 4 1750 65 12 626 366 102 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2741 2 12 4 1900 55 12 627 367 366 TERRE HAUTE RD COLLECTOR 1580 1 12 4 1750 45 12 628 368 102 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4539 2 12 4 1900 55 12 629 368 972 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2417 2 12 4 1900 55 12 630 368 1047 SR637 COLLECTOR 3926 1 12 4 1750 45 12 631 369 368 SR637 COLLECTOR 960 1 12 4 1750 40 12 632 370 101 SR44 COLLECTOR 4279 1 12 4 1700 45 12 633 370 1047 SR637 COLLECTOR 4027 1 12 4 1750 45 12 634 371 98 SR53 COLLECTOR 1325 1 12 4 1750 40 12 635 372 375 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1582 2 12 4 1750 55 13 636 372 391 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 5722 2 12 4 1750 55 13 637 373 372 BELLE POINTE BLVD COLLECTOR 818 1 12 4 1750 40 13 638 374 372 BELLE POINTE BLVD COLLECTOR 883 1 12 4 1750 40 13 639 375 372 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1582 2 12 4 1750 55 13 640 375 377 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 3328 2 12 4 1750 45 13 641 376 375 RUE DE ST COLLECTOR 2010 1 12 4 1750 40 13 642 377 104 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1562 2 12 4 1750 45 13 643 377 375 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 3328 2 12 4 1750 45 13 644 378 377 MAGNOLIA AVE COLLECTOR 7249 1 12 4 1750 40 13 645 379 91 SR640 COLLECTOR 549 1 12 4 1750 40 12 646 380 93 SR44 COLLECTOR 1993 1 12 4 1750 45 17 647 381 383 SR641 LOCAL ROADWAY 2158 1 12 4 1350 30 16 648 381 385 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 2019 1 12 4 1350 30 16 649 381 610 SR641 COLLECTOR 1939 1 12 4 1700 40 16 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K85 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 650 381 940 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 541 1 12 4 1350 30 16 651 382 135 SR3125 COLLECTOR 951 1 12 4 1750 40 10 652 382 136 SR3125 COLLECTOR 5071 1 12 4 1750 40 10 653 382 609 SR641 COLLECTOR 4817 1 12 4 1700 40 10 654 383 381 SR641 COLLECTOR 2158 1 12 4 1750 40 16 655 383 933 SR641 LOCAL ROADWAY 817 1 12 4 1750 30 16 656 384 25 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4456 2 12 4 1900 65 9 657 384 608 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1864 2 12 4 1900 65 9 658 385 136 SR3274 COLLECTOR 4526 1 12 4 1750 45 10 659 385 381 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 2019 1 12 4 1750 30 16 660 386 384 SR3274 COLLECTOR 1416 1 12 4 1700 50 9 661 387 51 ONRAMP SR3213 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 967 1 12 4 1700 45 10 662 388 94 GAMMERCY EVACUATION ST COLLECTOR 2192 1 12 4 1700 40 10 663 388 387 ONRAMP SR3213 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 1293 1 12 4 1700 45 10 664 389 536 SR54 COLLECTOR 2408 1 12 4 1700 55 11 665 389 620 SR54 COLLECTOR 4891 1 12 4 1700 55 11 666 390 42 SR640 COLLECTOR 8389 1 12 4 1700 55 18 667 390 73 SR640 COLLECTOR 2467 1 12 4 1700 55 18 668 391 372 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 5722 2 12 4 1750 55 13 669 391 392 SR22 COLLECTOR 2316 1 12 4 1700 50 13 670 391 970 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1502 2 12 4 1900 55 13 671 392 391 SR22 COLLECTOR 2316 1 12 4 1750 50 13 672 392 1040 SR3179 COLLECTOR 3670 1 12 4 1700 50 13 673 393 26 SR641 MINOR ARTERIAL 3175 2 12 4 1750 65 10 674 393 364 SR641 COLLECTOR 13918 1 12 4 1700 65 4 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K86 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 675 394 72 SR18 LOCAL ROADWAY 2424 1 12 4 1350 30 20 676 395 988 SR18 COLLECTOR 3800 1 12 4 1700 45 19 677 396 63 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 24573 2 12 4 1900 60 54 678 396 403 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3844 2 12 4 1900 60 54 679 397 130 SR631 COLLECTOR 3077 1 12 4 1700 45 52 680 398 998 SR635 COLLECTOR 1404 1 12 4 1575 35 51 681 398 1002 SR631 COLLECTOR 792 1 12 4 1700 45 51 682 399 400 SR631 COLLECTOR 3199 1 12 4 1700 45 56 683 400 55 SR631 COLLECTOR 470 1 12 4 1700 45 56 684 401 139 SR628 COLLECTOR 1503 1 12 4 1700 40 14 685 401 402 MCREINE RD COLLECTOR 780 1 12 4 1700 40 14 686 402 245 MCREINE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 440 1 12 4 1350 30 14 687 402 401 MCREINE RD COLLECTOR 780 1 12 4 1700 40 14 688 403 396 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3848 2 12 4 1750 60 54 689 403 404 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3947 2 12 4 1900 60 54 690 403 471 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1208 2 12 4 1900 60 54 691 404 1031 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 960 2 12 4 1900 60 54 692 405 406 SR18 COLLECTOR 3167 1 12 4 1700 50 46 693 406 407 SR18 MINOR ARTERIAL 7430 2 12 4 1900 50 47 694 407 86 SR18 MINOR ARTERIAL 1090 2 12 4 1750 50 47 695 409 162 ONRAMP US90 N FREEWAY RAMP 861 1 12 4 1750 30 47 696 409 408 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 944 2 12 4 1900 45 47 697 410 411 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 698 2 12 4 1900 50 47 698 411 412 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 594 2 12 4 1900 50 47 699 412 414 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 996 2 12 4 1900 50 47 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K87 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 700 413 424 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2815 2 12 4 1900 30 41 701 414 413 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1238 2 12 4 1900 50 41 702 415 413 CITRUS BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 635 2 12 4 1900 30 41 703 416 414 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 758 1 12 4 1900 30 47 704 417 414 VILLAGE E ST LOCAL ROADWAY 280 1 12 4 1900 30 47 705 418 412 MOUNES ST MINOR ARTERIAL 813 2 12 4 1900 30 47 706 419 412 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 652 1 12 4 1900 30 47 707 420 411 E CORPORATE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 536 1 12 4 1900 30 47 708 421 411 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 612 1 12 4 1900 30 47 709 422 410 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 631 1 12 4 1900 30 47 710 423 424 ONRAMP US90 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 2250 1 12 4 1700 45 41 711 424 35 SR3152 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2306 4 12 4 1750 30 41 712 425 887 SR3139 FREEWAY 993 3 12 4 2250 60 41 713 426 35 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 2451 3 12 4 1750 40 41 714 426 428 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 3158 2 12 4 1750 40 41 715 426 885 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2665 2 12 4 1750 35 41 716 427 436 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 3381 2 12 4 1750 45 41 717 427 885 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4203 2 12 4 1750 35 41 718 427 889 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1591 2 12 4 1900 35 41 719 428 426 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 3158 3 12 4 1750 40 41 720 428 431 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2157 2 12 4 1750 40 40 721 428 886 ELISE AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 2664 1 12 4 1750 30 41 722 429 428 STABLE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 510 2 12 4 1750 40 41 723 429 432 STABLE DR COLLECTOR 2138 1 12 4 1700 40 40 724 430 886 ELISE AVE COLLECTOR 1014 1 12 4 1750 30 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K88 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 725 431 164 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2544 2 12 4 1750 40 40 726 431 428 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2157 2 12 4 1750 40 40 727 432 429 STABLE DR COLLECTOR 2138 1 12 4 1700 40 40 728 432 431 STABLE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 624 2 12 4 1750 40 40 729 433 436 CLEARVIEW PKWY MINOR ARTERIAL 4233 3 12 4 1750 50 41 730 434 433 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 999 2 12 4 1750 45 41 731 436 299 CLEARVIEW PKWY MAJOR ARTERIAL 1067 1 12 4 1750 50 41 732 438 436 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1261 2 12 4 1750 45 41 733 439 442 DAVID DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4609 2 12 4 1750 45 40 734 439 879 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2036 2 12 4 1750 45 40 735 442 177 DAVID DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 3366 3 12 4 1750 45 40 736 442 427 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 8004 2 12 4 1750 45 40 737 443 442 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1408 2 12 4 1750 45 40 738 443 453 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 3580 2 12 4 1750 45 40 739 443 842 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1956 1 12 4 1350 30 40 740 445 1028 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 401 3 12 4 1900 40 40 741 446 192 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 472 3 12 4 1750 45 29 742 448 177 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1259 3 12 4 1750 40 29 743 448 449 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 920 3 12 4 1750 40 29 744 449 448 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 920 3 12 4 1750 40 29 745 449 450 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 778 3 12 4 1750 40 29 746 450 449 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 778 3 12 4 1750 40 29 747 450 451 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 768 3 12 4 1750 40 29 748 451 61 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 2504 3 12 4 1750 40 29 749 451 450 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 767 3 12 4 1750 40 29 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K89 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 750 452 451 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 455 1 12 4 1750 30 29 751 453 443 W NAPOLEON AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 3580 2 12 4 1900 45 40 752 453 451 ROOSEVELT BLVD COLLECTOR 3409 1 12 4 1750 40 40 753 453 465 23RD ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2484 2 12 4 1750 45 40 754 453 843 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1289 1 12 4 1350 30 40 755 454 450 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 478 2 12 4 1750 30 29 756 455 449 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 529 1 12 4 1750 30 29 757 456 449 MASSACHUSETTS AVE COLLECTOR 1959 1 12 4 1750 40 40 758 457 448 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 426 1 12 4 1750 30 29 759 458 448 MISSISSIPPI AVE COLLECTOR 492 1 12 4 1750 40 29 760 459 460 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1348 2 12 4 1750 50 40 761 459 462 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 733 2 12 4 1900 45 40 762 459 836 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1900 50 40 763 460 459 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1349 2 12 4 1750 50 40 764 460 465 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1463 2 12 4 1750 50 40 765 460 843 21ST ST COLLECTOR 2461 1 12 4 1700 40 40 766 462 214 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1676 2 12 4 1750 45 40 767 462 215 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1923 1 12 4 1350 30 40 768 462 459 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 732 2 12 4 1750 45 40 769 463 842 CLAUNCH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1133 1 12 4 1350 30 40 770 463 843 21ST ST COLLECTOR 1840 1 12 4 1700 40 40 771 464 460 21ST ST COLLECTOR 1349 1 12 4 1750 40 40 772 465 453 23RD ST MINOR ARTERIAL 2484 2 12 4 1750 45 40 773 465 460 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1463 2 12 4 1750 50 40 774 465 844 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 2532 2 12 4 1900 50 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K90 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 775 466 465 23RD ST COLLECTOR 612 1 12 4 1750 45 40 776 468 396 LAPAICO BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1849 1 12 4 1750 50 54 777 469 470 ONRAMP US90 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 1913 2 12 4 1900 45 54 778 470 404 ONRAMP US90 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 2110 2 12 4 1900 45 54 779 471 86 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3309 2 12 4 1750 60 54 780 471 403 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1208 2 12 4 1900 60 54 781 471 469 ONRAMP US90 EAST FREEWAY RAMP 771 2 12 4 1900 45 54 782 472 561 EVANGELINE RD COLLECTOR 2276 1 12 4 1700 40 20 783 473 500 SR628 COLLECTOR 1815 1 12 4 1700 45 20 784 474 105 SR44 COLLECTOR 569 1 12 4 1750 35 13 785 474 255 SR44 COLLECTOR 1108 1 12 4 1750 35 13 786 475 88 SR636 COLLECTOR 1517 1 12 4 1700 40 13 787 475 474 FIR ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2906 1 12 4 1350 30 13 788 476 87 SR44 COLLECTOR 2950 1 12 4 1750 35 14 789 476 255 SR44 COLLECTOR 1504 1 12 4 1750 35 14 790 477 476 MAHOGAMY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1710 1 12 4 1350 30 14 791 478 28 SR3188 MAJOR ARTERIAL 4790 3 12 4 1750 45 13 792 478 59 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 2421 2 12 4 1750 45 13 793 478 256 FAIRWAY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 969 1 12 4 1350 30 13 794 479 478 FAIRWAY DR COLLECTOR 2896 1 12 4 1750 40 13 795 481 252 MADEWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2488 1 12 4 1350 30 14 796 481 552 MADEWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1710 1 12 4 1350 30 14 797 481 554 GREENWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2119 1 12 4 1350 30 14 798 482 165 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 2301 2 12 4 1750 50 21 799 483 482 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2556 2 12 4 1750 40 14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K91 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 800 484 483 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1222 2 12 4 1900 40 14 801 485 551 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 925 2 12 4 1900 40 6 802 486 658 PALMETTO DR LOCAL ROADWAY 581 1 12 4 1350 30 14 803 487 631 ST. ANDREW'S BLVD COLLECTOR 1903 1 12 4 1700 40 6 804 488 354 FRENIER RD LOCAL ROADWAY 4007 1 12 4 1350 30 7 805 489 310 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 1694 1 12 4 1350 30 21 806 489 490 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 1135 1 12 4 1350 30 36 807 490 489 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 1135 1 12 4 1350 30 36 808 490 497 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 2171 1 12 4 1350 30 36 809 491 495 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 846 1 12 4 1350 30 36 810 492 494 5TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1676 1 12 4 1350 30 21 811 493 494 OAK ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1957 1 12 4 1350 30 21 812 494 489 5TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1835 1 12 4 1350 30 21 813 494 495 OAK ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1121 1 12 4 1350 30 21 814 495 490 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1831 1 12 4 1350 30 36 815 496 497 1ST ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3159 1 12 4 1350 30 36 816 496 498 WASHINGTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1026 1 12 4 1350 30 36 817 497 149 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 869 1 12 4 1750 30 36 818 497 490 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 2171 1 12 4 1350 30 36 819 498 149 SR48 COLLECTOR 3085 1 12 4 1750 35 36 820 499 496 WASHINGTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 906 1 12 4 1350 30 36 821 500 145 SR628 COLLECTOR 6561 1 12 4 1750 45 21 822 501 31 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2641 2 12 4 1750 50 37 823 501 306 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 8588 2 12 4 1750 50 37 824 502 532 HARDING ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1719 1 12 4 1350 30 37 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K92 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 825 502 979 SR48 COLLECTOR 445 1 12 4 1575 35 37 826 503 151 MAGNOLIA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 689 1 12 4 1350 30 37 827 504 503 DUNLEITH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5545 1 12 4 1350 30 37 828 505 503 DUNLEITH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3296 1 12 4 1350 30 37 829 506 508 SCHEXNAYDRE LN LOCAL ROADWAY 2193 1 12 4 1350 30 37 830 507 506 SCHEXNAYDRE LN LOCAL ROADWAY 1938 1 12 4 1350 30 37 831 507 509 THOMAS COLBY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 652 1 12 4 1350 30 37 832 508 150 SR48 COLLECTOR 1593 1 12 4 1750 35 43 833 509 264 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1533 1 12 4 1700 40 37 834 509 510 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1193 1 12 4 1700 40 37 835 510 509 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1193 1 12 4 1700 40 37 836 510 642 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1053 1 12 4 1700 40 37 837 511 510 PLANTATION RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2310 1 12 4 1350 30 37 838 512 510 PLANTATION RD LOCAL ROADWAY 701 1 12 4 1350 30 37 839 513 150 SR48 COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1750 40 43 840 513 661 SR48 COLLECTOR 1243 1 12 4 1700 40 43 841 514 661 MURRAY HILL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4178 1 12 4 1350 30 43 842 515 647 SR48 COLLECTOR 4318 1 12 4 1700 45 43 843 516 515 GORDAN ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2260 1 12 4 1350 30 43 844 517 305 SR626 COLLECTOR 1037 1 12 4 1575 35 44 845 518 517 LILLY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 250 1 12 4 1350 30 44 846 518 519 OAK ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3576 1 12 4 1350 30 44 847 519 153 SR48 COLLECTOR 210 1 12 4 1700 45 44 848 519 518 OAK ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3576 1 12 4 1350 30 44 849 520 519 SR48 COLLECTOR 1213 1 12 4 1700 45 44 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K93 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 850 521 520 PRESTON HOLLOW RD LOCAL ROADWAY 476 1 12 4 1350 30 44 851 522 521 TURTLE CREEK LN LOCAL ROADWAY 3821 1 12 4 1350 30 44 852 523 154 SR48 COLLECTOR 3286 1 12 4 1750 40 44 853 524 523 RUE LANDRY LOCAL ROADWAY 3687 1 12 4 1350 30 44 854 525 33 SR50 COLLECTOR 889 1 12 4 1750 35 38 855 525 154 SR50 COLLECTOR 3545 1 12 4 1750 35 38 856 526 525 TURTLE POND RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1696 1 12 4 1350 30 38 857 527 71 SR18 COLLECTOR 827 1 12 4 1750 35 35 858 528 527 KILONA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5125 1 12 4 1350 30 35 859 529 530 9TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1883 1 12 4 1350 30 37 860 530 501 HARDING ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4736 1 12 4 1750 30 37 861 530 532 HARDING ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2074 1 12 4 1350 30 37 862 531 530 9TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 811 1 12 4 1350 30 37 863 532 502 HARDING ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1718 1 12 4 1750 30 37 864 532 530 HARDING ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2074 1 12 4 1350 30 37 865 536 389 SR54 COLLECTOR 2411 1 12 4 1700 55 11 866 536 623 SR54 COLLECTOR 2746 1 12 4 1700 55 11 867 537 536 GARYVILLE NORTHERN ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3713 1 12 4 1350 30 11 868 538 92 SR44 COLLECTOR 461 1 12 4 1700 45 17 869 538 543 S CHURCH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3127 1 12 4 1350 30 17 870 539 537 W AZALEA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 957 1 12 4 1350 30 11 871 540 544 ANTHONY MONICA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 234 1 12 4 1350 30 11 872 541 543 ESPERANCE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 774 1 12 4 1350 30 17 873 541 544 HISTORIC WEST ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2888 1 12 4 1350 30 11 874 542 537 GARYVILLE NORTHERN ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2925 1 12 4 1350 30 11 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K94 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 875 542 543 ESPERANCE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 881 1 12 4 1350 30 17 876 543 538 S CHURCH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3127 1 12 4 1350 30 17 877 543 539 S CHURCH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2877 1 12 4 1350 30 11 878 544 539 ANTHONY MONICA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 275 1 12 4 1350 30 11 879 545 486 DEREK LN LOCAL ROADWAY 3047 1 12 4 1350 30 14 880 546 29 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 4581 3 12 4 1750 50 14 881 546 58 US51 MINOR ARTERIAL 4079 2 12 4 1900 50 14 882 547 546 SUMMERLIN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1357 1 12 4 1350 30 14 883 548 547 TUSCANY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1386 1 12 4 1350 30 14 884 549 550 ENGLISH COLONY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4009 1 12 4 1350 30 14 885 550 659 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2021 2 12 4 1900 40 14 886 551 550 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 868 2 12 4 1900 40 14 887 552 481 MADEWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1705 1 12 4 1350 30 14 888 552 553 FAIRWAY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 558 1 12 4 1350 30 14 889 553 479 FAIRWAY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1662 1 12 4 1350 30 14 890 553 487 COUNTRY CLUB DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3556 1 12 4 1350 30 14 891 554 254 CARROLLWOOD AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1740 1 12 4 1350 30 14 892 554 479 CARROLLWOOD AVE COLLECTOR 2006 1 12 4 1700 40 14 893 554 481 GREENWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2119 1 12 4 1350 30 14 894 555 554 GREENWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1106 1 12 4 1350 30 14 895 556 481 GREENWOOD RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1491 1 12 4 1350 30 14 896 557 487 COUNTRY CLUB DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1994 1 12 4 1350 30 6 897 558 487 ST. ANDREW'S BLVD COLLECTOR 1099 1 12 4 1700 40 14 898 559 638 SR628 COLLECTOR 3743 1 12 4 1700 40 20 899 560 559 COUNTRY COTTAGE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 2448 1 12 4 1350 30 20 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K95 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 900 561 144 EVANGELINE RD COLLECTOR 6817 1 12 4 1750 40 21 901 562 561 LEIGH LN LOCAL ROADWAY 394 1 12 4 1350 30 20 902 563 562 NORTHBEND LN LOCAL ROADWAY 801 1 12 4 1350 30 20 903 564 559 SR628 COLLECTOR 3167 1 12 4 1700 40 20 904 565 564 THOROUGHBRED AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 4239 1 12 4 1350 30 20 905 566 73 SR18 COLLECTOR 3870 1 12 4 1700 45 18 906 567 566 E 6TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3758 1 12 4 1350 30 19 907 568 74 W 3RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2377 1 12 4 1350 30 17 908 569 79 SR18 COLLECTOR 2213 1 12 4 1750 45 36 909 570 571 JULIA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 980 1 12 4 1350 30 36 910 571 569 JULIA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1677 1 12 4 1350 30 36 911 571 572 SYCAMORE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2164 1 12 4 1350 30 36 912 572 79 SR3160 COLLECTOR 1146 1 12 4 1750 55 36 913 572 133 SR3160 COLLECTOR 7666 1 12 4 1700 55 36 914 573 571 SYCAMORE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 603 1 12 4 1350 30 36 915 574 913 SR18 COLLECTOR 709 1 12 4 1700 40 42 916 575 574 LOWE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2070 1 12 4 1350 30 42 917 576 580 SUGARHOUSE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2802 1 12 4 1350 30 43 918 576 898 SR18 COLLECTOR 4121 1 12 4 1700 40 43 919 577 578 ANGUS DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1730 1 12 4 1350 30 43 920 577 580 SUGARHOUSE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2410 1 12 4 1350 30 43 921 578 331 SR52 COLLECTOR 680 1 12 4 1700 45 43 922 578 911 SR52 COLLECTOR 1722 1 12 4 1700 45 43 923 579 81 SR52 COLLECTOR 2357 1 12 4 1750 35 43 924 579 331 SR52 COLLECTOR 1677 1 12 4 1575 35 43 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K96 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 925 579 580 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1632 1 12 4 1350 30 43 926 580 576 SUGARHOUSE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2802 1 12 4 1350 30 43 927 580 577 SUGARHOUSE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2410 1 12 4 1350 30 43 928 580 579 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1632 1 12 4 1350 30 43 929 581 341 ASHTON PLANTATION BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1829 1 12 4 1350 30 43 930 582 581 ASHTON PLANTATION BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1651 1 12 4 1350 30 43 931 583 582 ASHTON PLANTATION BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 2106 1 12 4 1350 30 43 932 584 329 MAGNOLIA RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 4377 1 12 4 1700 40 52 933 585 131 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1001 2 12 4 1750 60 52 934 585 991 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3194 2 12 4 1900 60 52 935 586 585 MAGNOLIA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1448 1 12 4 1350 30 52 936 587 334 WILLOWDALE BLVD COLLECTOR 3418 1 12 4 1700 40 53 937 588 587 WILLOWDALE BLVD COLLECTOR 1390 1 12 4 1700 40 53 938 589 334 E HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2092 1 12 4 1350 30 53 939 589 592 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1734 1 12 4 1350 30 53 940 590 591 MARYLAND DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1506 1 12 4 1350 30 52 941 590 896 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 696 1 12 4 1350 30 52 942 590 995 LOCAL ROADWAY 812 1 12 4 1350 30 52 943 591 894 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1215 2 12 4 1750 60 52 944 591 991 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 5255 2 12 4 1900 60 52 945 592 332 LAKEWOOD DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3565 1 12 4 1350 30 52 946 592 589 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1733 1 12 4 1350 30 53 947 592 896 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2987 1 12 4 1350 30 52 948 593 592 LAKEWOOD DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3336 1 12 4 1350 30 52 949 594 82 SR3060 COLLECTOR 2053 1 12 4 1750 40 44 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K97 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 950 594 598 SR3060 COLLECTOR 2975 1 12 4 1700 40 44 951 595 594 NOLA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 985 1 12 4 1350 30 44 952 595 596 EVELYN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2781 1 12 4 1350 30 44 953 596 595 EVELYN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2781 1 12 4 1350 30 44 954 596 598 REX ST LOCAL ROADWAY 951 1 12 4 1350 30 53 955 597 595 EVELYN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 851 1 12 4 1350 30 44 956 598 62 SR3060 COLLECTOR 1137 1 12 4 1750 40 53 957 598 594 SR3060 COLLECTOR 2962 1 12 4 1700 40 44 958 599 2 SR306 COLLECTOR 1119 1 12 4 1750 40 52 959 600 2 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2158 2 12 4 1750 55 52 960 600 348 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 9816 2 12 4 1750 55 52 961 600 601 AUDUBON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 781 1 12 4 1350 30 52 962 601 328 SR631 COLLECTOR 1966 1 12 4 1700 45 52 963 601 600 AUDUBON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 781 1 12 4 1350 30 52 964 602 599 BARBER RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2172 1 12 4 1350 30 52 965 602 600 WISNER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1237 1 12 4 1350 30 52 966 603 602 BARBER RD LOCAL ROADWAY 2493 1 12 4 1350 30 52 967 604 52 I10 FREEWAY 4121 2 12 4 2250 70 4 968 604 361 I10 FREEWAY 27120 2 12 4 2250 70 4 969 605 3 I55 FREEWAY 8920 2 12 4 2250 70 6 970 605 606 I55 FREEWAY 4672 2 12 4 2250 70 2 971 606 4 I55 FREEWAY 8592 2 12 4 2250 70 2 972 606 605 I55 FREEWAY 4672 2 12 4 2250 70 2 973 607 12 I10 FREEWAY 15924 2 12 4 2250 70 22 974 607 169 I10 FREEWAY 3789 2 12 4 2250 70 22 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K98 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 975 608 26 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 4949 2 12 4 1750 65 10 976 608 384 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1860 2 12 4 1900 60 9 977 609 382 SR641 COLLECTOR 4817 1 12 4 1700 40 10 978 609 610 SR641 COLLECTOR 2232 1 12 4 1700 40 10 979 610 381 SR641 COLLECTOR 1874 1 12 4 1750 40 16 980 610 609 SR641 COLLECTOR 2232 1 12 4 1700 40 10 981 612 50 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 7918 2 12 4 1900 60 16 982 612 51 SR3213 MINOR ARTERIAL 1831 2 12 4 1900 60 10 983 613 39 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1412 1 12 4 1700 60 33 984 613 614 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1972 1 12 4 1700 60 33 985 614 48 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1917 1 12 4 1700 60 33 986 614 613 SR3213 COLLECTOR 1975 1 12 4 1700 60 33 987 615 359 I10 FREEWAY 6428 2 12 4 2250 70 3 988 616 26 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 7551 2 12 4 1750 65 10 989 616 27 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 10883 2 12 4 1750 65 11 990 617 94 SR44 COLLECTOR 5034 1 12 4 1700 45 10 991 618 617 SR44 COLLECTOR 2876 1 12 4 1700 45 10 992 619 618 SR44 COLLECTOR 7387 1 12 4 1700 45 11 993 620 93 SR54 COLLECTOR 1568 1 12 4 1750 55 17 994 620 389 SR54 COLLECTOR 4891 1 12 4 1700 55 11 995 621 538 SR44 COLLECTOR 931 1 12 4 1700 45 17 996 622 621 SR44 COLLECTOR 3640 1 12 4 1700 45 17 997 623 27 SR54 COLLECTOR 724 1 12 4 1750 55 11 998 623 536 SR54 COLLECTOR 2743 1 12 4 1700 55 11 999 624 8 I10 FREEWAY 12233 2 12 4 2250 70 6 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K99 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1000 624 358 I10 FREEWAY 2100 2 12 4 2250 70 6 1001 625 90 SR44 COLLECTOR 2928 1 12 4 1750 45 19 1002 626 625 SR44 COLLECTOR 2210 1 12 4 1700 45 13 1003 627 89 SR44 COLLECTOR 1360 1 12 4 1575 35 13 1004 627 628 SR44 COLLECTOR 1324 1 12 4 1575 35 13 1005 628 627 SR44 COLLECTOR 1324 1 12 4 1575 35 13 1006 628 629 SR44 COLLECTOR 2217 1 12 4 1575 35 13 1007 629 105 SR44 COLLECTOR 1279 1 12 4 1750 35 13 1008 629 628 SR44 COLLECTOR 2217 1 12 4 1575 35 13 1009 630 59 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 2014 2 12 4 1750 45 6 1010 630 356 SR3188 MINOR ARTERIAL 2589 2 12 4 1900 45 6 1011 631 632 ST. ANDREW'S BLVD COLLECTOR 1921 1 12 4 1700 40 6 1012 632 59 ST. ANDREW'S BLVD COLLECTOR 1525 1 12 4 1750 40 13 1013 633 475 SR636 COLLECTOR 3143 1 12 4 1700 40 14 1014 634 247 WINDSOR ST COLLECTOR 205 1 12 4 1700 40 14 1015 635 634 WINDSOR ST COLLECTOR 7872 1 12 4 1700 40 14 1016 636 141 SR3217 COLLECTOR 3396 1 12 4 1700 55 20 1017 636 142 SR3217 COLLECTOR 3472 1 12 4 1700 55 20 1018 637 141 SR628 COLLECTOR 1194 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1019 638 637 SR628 COLLECTOR 1220 1 12 4 1700 40 20 1020 640 262 SR628 COLLECTOR 1003 1 12 4 1700 40 35 1021 640 263 SR628 COLLECTOR 3093 1 12 4 1700 40 35 1022 641 150 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 2243 1 12 4 1750 40 43 1023 641 264 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1024 642 510 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1058 1 12 4 1700 40 37 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K100 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1025 642 646 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1324 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1026 643 151 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 438 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1027 643 644 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 3284 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1028 644 643 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 3284 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1029 644 645 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1464 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1030 645 31 ORMOND BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1436 2 12 4 1750 40 37 1031 645 644 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1484 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1032 646 151 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 467 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1033 646 642 ORMOND BLVD COLLECTOR 1237 1 12 4 1700 40 37 1034 647 982 SR48 COLLECTOR 6571 1 12 4 1700 45 44 1035 648 20 I310 FREEWAY 3331 2 12 8 2250 70 43 1036 648 649 I310 FREEWAY 5875 2 12 8 2250 70 38 1037 649 350 I310 FREEWAY 4511 2 12 8 2250 70 38 1038 649 648 I310 FREEWAY 5875 2 12 8 2250 70 38 1039 650 237 ONRAMP I310 NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 847 1 12 4 1700 50 38 1040 651 13 I310 FREEWAY 5728 2 12 8 2250 65 39 1041 651 19 I310 FREEWAY 5326 2 12 8 2250 65 38 1042 652 223 SR48 COLLECTOR 2359 1 12 4 1700 40 39 1043 653 537 ANTHONY F MONICA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 738 1 12 4 1350 30 11 1044 654 100 MARATHON AVE COLLECTOR 5350 1 12 4 1750 40 12 1045 655 99 MARATHON AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1667 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1046 656 553 RIDGEFIELD DR LOCAL ROADWAY 947 1 12 4 1350 30 14 1047 657 552 FAIRWAY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1417 1 12 4 1350 30 14 1048 658 58 PALMETTO DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1443 1 12 4 1350 30 14 1049 658 659 INDIGO PKWY LOCAL ROADWAY 1772 1 12 4 1350 30 14 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K101 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1050 659 484 WOODLAND DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1056 2 12 4 1900 40 14 1051 660 241 NINETH COLLECTOR 4184 1 12 4 1750 30 21 1052 660 242 NINETH MINOR ARTERIAL 2578 1 12 4 1350 30 36 1053 661 513 SR48 COLLECTOR 1242 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1054 661 984 SR48 COLLECTOR 3008 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1055 662 668 LOYOLA DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4170 2 12 4 1750 45 24 1056 662 671 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1351 2 12 4 1700 30 24 1057 663 667 CHATEAU BLVD COLLECTOR 3894 1 12 4 1750 45 28 1058 663 732 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1852 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1059 664 695 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 732 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1060 664 801 CHATEAU BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 335 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1061 665 728 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 691 3 12 4 1900 50 25 1062 667 743 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 994 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1063 668 176 LOYOLA DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1984 2 12 4 1750 45 28 1064 668 698 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1372 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1065 669 662 LOYOLA DR MINOR ARTERIAL 3358 2 12 4 1750 45 24 1066 669 680 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 605 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1067 670 667 CHATEAU BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 3133 1 12 4 1750 30 28 1068 670 739 RONSON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1346 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1069 671 698 E LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4278 1 12 4 1750 30 24 1070 671 798 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1492 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1071 672 664 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 544 2 12 4 1750 45 24 1072 673 671 E LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3246 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1073 673 685 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 626 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1074 674 678 WOODLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1125 1 12 4 1350 30 23 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K102 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1075 674 679 ZION ST LOCAL ROADWAY 813 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1076 675 676 VERDE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1923 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1077 676 715 TETON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 752 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1078 677 678 PLATT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1166 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1079 677 679 MESA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1141 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1080 678 699 PLATT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 315 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1081 678 715 WOODLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 2337 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1082 679 674 ZION ST LOCAL ROADWAY 450 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1083 679 677 MESA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 778 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1084 680 669 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 605 1 12 4 1750 40 24 1085 680 673 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 984 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1086 681 680 RUE PL PONTCHARTRAIN LOCAL ROADWAY 952 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1087 682 681 RUE DE LA RIVERE LOCAL ROADWAY 733 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1088 683 686 PETIT BERDOT DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1619 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1089 683 687 CABERNET DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1368 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1090 684 686 ECHEZEAUX DR LOCAL ROADWAY 281 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1091 685 673 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 626 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1092 685 687 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 1140 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1093 686 685 ECHEZEAUX DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1330 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1094 687 685 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 1140 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1095 687 689 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 448 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1096 688 689 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1797 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1097 689 672 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 1331 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1098 690 691 ROYAL PALM BLVD COLLECTOR 883 1 12 4 1700 40 24 1099 690 692 PALMETTO LOCAL ROADWAY 1367 1 12 4 1350 30 24 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K103 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1100 691 664 CHATEAU BLVD COLLECTOR 205 1 12 4 1750 40 24 1101 691 692 PALMETTO LOCAL ROADWAY 852 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1102 692 695 PALMETTO LOCAL ROADWAY 200 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1103 693 690 PALMETTO LOCAL ROADWAY 1010 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1104 693 691 PALMETTO LOCAL ROADWAY 1726 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1105 694 716 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 490 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1106 695 664 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 732 2 12 4 1750 45 24 1107 695 694 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 929 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1108 696 662 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1252 2 12 4 1750 30 24 1109 696 697 W LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4272 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1110 697 176 W LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2797 1 12 4 1750 30 27 1111 697 668 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1305 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1112 698 176 E LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2806 1 12 4 1750 30 28 1113 698 668 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1372 2 12 4 1750 30 28 1114 698 816 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 593 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1115 699 709 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 865 1 12 4 1700 40 23 1116 699 714 PLATT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1330 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1117 700 822 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 364 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1118 701 700 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 414 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1119 702 701 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1249 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1120 703 702 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 303 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1121 703 704 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1853 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1122 704 703 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1853 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1123 704 705 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 272 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1124 705 704 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 272 1 12 4 1350 30 27 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K104 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1125 705 706 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1214 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1126 706 705 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1214 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1127 706 820 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 798 2 12 4 1900 40 27 1128 707 706 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 2117 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1129 708 707 GRANDLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 2101 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1130 709 669 JOE YENNI BLVD COLLECTOR 1472 1 12 4 1750 40 24 1131 709 696 W LOYOLA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3292 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1132 710 711 ST. ELIZABETH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 294 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1133 711 700 PLATT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 691 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1134 712 710 ST. ELIZABETH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1121 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1135 712 713 ST. ELIZABETH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1161 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1136 712 714 SETON BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 314 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1137 713 699 ST. ELIZABETH DR LOCAL ROADWAY 449 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1138 714 711 PLATT ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1179 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1139 715 669 WOODLAKE BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 197 1 12 4 1750 30 24 1140 716 717 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 707 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1141 717 665 JOE YENNI BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1197 2 12 4 1750 45 25 1142 718 716 HORSESHOE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 708 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1143 718 717 HORSESHOE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 824 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1144 719 722 SR49 LOCAL ROADWAY 154 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1145 720 719 TREASURE CHEST CASINO LOCAL ROADWAY 1506 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1146 721 719 TREASURE CHEST CASINO LOCAL ROADWAY 1214 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1147 722 724 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 734 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1148 723 665 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 234 3 12 4 1750 45 25 1149 724 723 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 250 2 12 4 1900 45 25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K105 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1150 725 724 PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 1073 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1151 726 694 ALABAMA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 687 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1152 726 728 43RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2428 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1153 726 775 ALABAMA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 664 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1154 727 735 43RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1890 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1155 728 776 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 648 3 12 4 1900 50 25 1156 729 737 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 438 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1157 729 782 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1388 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1158 730 733 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2460 2 12 4 1750 45 25 1159 731 730 ALABAMA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 172 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1160 732 730 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 544 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1161 733 768 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 647 3 12 4 1900 50 25 1162 733 770 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 646 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1163 734 735 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1407 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1164 735 728 43RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1932 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1165 735 777 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 683 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1166 736 729 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 205 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1167 737 781 POWER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1442 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1168 738 667 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2017 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1169 738 816 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 374 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1170 739 670 RONSON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1346 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1171 739 738 CONTINENTAL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3393 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1172 740 1019 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 399 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1173 741 740 CATTLE FARM RD LOCAL ROADWAY 992 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1174 742 741 IRISH BEND RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1888 1 12 4 1350 30 28 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K106 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1175 743 740 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 618 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1176 744 743 SHOPPING CENTER LOCAL ROADWAY 465 2 12 4 1750 25 28 1177 745 748 W ESPLANADA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 96 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1178 745 749 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 201 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1179 746 745 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1088 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1180 747 745 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 170 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1181 748 747 W ESPLANADA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 75 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1182 749 188 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2830 2 12 4 1750 45 29 1183 749 745 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 201 2 12 4 1900 30 28 1184 750 749 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 1285 2 12 4 1750 30 28 1185 751 749 DELAWARE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 266 2 12 4 1750 30 28 1186 755 808 32ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 503 2 12 4 1900 30 29 1187 765 768 GRANADA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 679 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1188 765 769 GRANADA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1800 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1189 765 770 IDAHO AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 638 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1190 767 730 ALABAMA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 744 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1191 767 768 40TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2396 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1192 768 771 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1974 3 12 4 1750 50 29 1193 769 765 GRANADA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1800 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1194 769 780 GRANADA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 640 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1195 770 729 VINTAGE DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1755 2 12 4 1900 45 25 1196 771 188 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 1315 3 12 4 1750 50 29 1197 772 771 37TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2120 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1198 773 771 DRIFTWOOD BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1905 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1199 773 774 DRIFTWOOD BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1385 1 12 4 1350 30 29 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K107 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1200 774 779 37TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 295 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1201 775 731 ALABAMA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 461 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1202 775 776 42ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2436 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1203 776 733 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 745 3 12 4 1750 50 25 1204 777 736 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 605 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1205 777 776 42ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2135 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1206 778 777 42ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2861 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1207 779 782 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1559 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1208 779 784 37TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 678 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1209 780 782 39TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 379 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1210 781 784 POWER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1342 2 12 4 1900 45 29 1211 782 729 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1388 1 12 4 1350 30 25 1212 782 779 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1559 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1213 782 781 39TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 639 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1214 784 787 POWER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 936 2 12 4 1900 45 29 1215 785 786 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 683 2 12 4 1900 45 29 1216 785 796 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1053 3 12 4 1750 45 29 1217 786 795 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1174 2 12 4 1900 45 30 1218 787 785 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 618 3 12 4 1750 45 29 1219 788 779 LAKE TRAIL DR LOCAL ROADWAY 969 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1220 789 790 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 653 3 12 4 1750 50 29 1221 789 791 33RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5062 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1222 790 187 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 670 4 12 4 1900 50 29 1223 791 446 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 875 3 12 4 1750 45 29 1224 791 789 33RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5062 1 12 4 1750 30 29 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K108 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1225 792 790 32ND ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4638 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1226 793 789 33RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1844 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1227 794 190 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 143 3 12 4 1900 45 29 1228 796 791 POWER BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 316 3 12 4 1900 45 29 1229 797 796 WILTY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 316 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1230 798 663 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2087 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1231 799 798 BORDEAUX DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1868 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1232 799 800 ST. JULIEN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2597 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1233 800 663 CHATEAU BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1667 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1234 801 806 CHATEAU BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 255 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1235 802 801 CHATEAU DU LAC LOCAL ROADWAY 958 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1236 803 801 SUNSET BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1649 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1237 804 732 NORMANDY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1478 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1238 804 806 NORMANDY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1305 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1239 805 732 CHATEAU TRIANON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 909 1 12 4 1350 30 24 1240 806 800 CHATEAU BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 330 2 12 4 1900 45 24 1241 807 810 31ST ST LOCAL ROADWAY 6627 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1242 807 811 LOYOLA DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 220 3 12 4 1750 45 28 1243 808 814 32ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 355 2 12 4 1900 30 29 1244 809 807 CLEMSON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2548 1 12 4 1750 30 28 1245 810 808 ARKANSAS AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 921 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1246 811 172 LOYOLA DR MINOR ARTERIAL 687 2 12 4 1750 45 28 1247 812 811 30TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 256 1 12 4 1750 30 28 1248 813 812 30TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 995 1 12 4 1125 25 28 1249 813 815 30TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5970 1 12 4 1350 30 28 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K109 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1250 814 790 32ND ST MINOR ARTERIAL 1490 2 12 4 1750 30 29 1251 815 813 30TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5970 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1252 815 814 CALIFORNIA AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1519 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1253 816 698 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 593 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1254 816 738 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 373 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1255 816 819 OLE MISS DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3283 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1256 817 807 LOYOLA DR MAJOR ARTERIAL 1187 3 12 4 1750 45 28 1257 818 817 GEORGETOWN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2558 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1258 819 817 GEORGETOWN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1201 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1259 820 697 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 548 2 12 4 1900 40 27 1260 820 818 TULANE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3682 1 12 4 1350 30 27 1261 821 822 TULANE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2734 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1262 822 696 VINTAGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 665 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1263 822 820 TULANE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4348 1 12 4 1350 30 23 1264 823 786 REBECCA BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 3847 1 12 4 1350 30 29 1265 824 446 ASHER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 291 1 12 4 1750 30 29 1266 825 829 ALBANY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1835 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1267 826 14 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1268 827 830 27TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2054 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1269 828 14 LEXINGTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 759 1 12 4 1350 30 28 1270 829 826 ALBANY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 760 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1271 829 828 27TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1759 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1272 830 962 27TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 584 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1273 831 828 LEXINGTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 826 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1274 832 830 ABERDEEN DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1344 1 12 4 1350 30 39 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K110 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1275 833 832 23RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4192 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1276 834 60 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 695 2 12 4 1750 50 40 1277 834 836 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1435 2 12 4 1900 50 40 1278 835 155 SR48 COLLECTOR 731 1 12 4 1750 40 40 1279 835 217 DANIEL ST COLLECTOR 2475 1 12 4 1750 40 39 1280 836 459 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1804 2 12 4 1750 50 40 1281 836 834 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1435 2 12 4 1900 50 40 1282 838 155 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 809 2 12 4 1750 40 40 1283 838 208 CLAY ST COLLECTOR 2637 1 12 4 1750 40 40 1284 838 279 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1756 2 12 4 1750 40 40 1285 839 838 CLAY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 271 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1286 840 205 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1311 2 12 4 1900 45 40 1287 840 207 LYNETTE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2169 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1288 841 60 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 1369 2 12 4 1750 40 40 1289 841 155 SR49 COLLECTOR 1178 1 12 4 1750 40 40 1290 842 212 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1687 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1291 842 443 ATLANTA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1954 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1292 843 214 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1652 1 12 4 1750 30 40 1293 843 453 ROOSEVELT BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1289 1 12 4 1750 30 40 1294 843 460 21ST ST COLLECTOR 2461 1 12 4 1750 40 40 1295 843 463 21ST ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1840 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1296 844 61 SR49 MAJOR ARTERIAL 666 3 12 4 1750 50 29 1297 844 465 SR49 MINOR ARTERIAL 2532 2 12 4 1750 50 40 1298 845 840 LYNETTE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2519 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1299 846 157 GARDEN RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1082 1 12 4 1750 30 46 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K111 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1300 847 157 GARDEN RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1245 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1301 848 851 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1226 2 12 4 1750 45 46 1302 849 848 CITRUS RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1558 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1303 850 848 CITRUS RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1379 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1304 851 854 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 3559 2 12 4 1750 45 46 1305 852 851 UPSTREAM ST LOCAL ROADWAY 919 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1306 853 851 UPSTREAM ST LOCAL ROADWAY 861 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1307 854 857 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 3201 2 12 4 1750 45 46 1308 855 854 FOLSE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1742 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1309 856 854 HENNESSEY CT LOCAL ROADWAY 576 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1310 857 860 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 2166 2 12 4 1750 45 46 1311 858 857 COLONIAL CLUB DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1311 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1312 859 857 COLONIAL CLUB DR LOCAL ROADWAY 986 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1313 860 866 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1614 2 12 4 1900 45 47 1314 861 860 GORDON AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1016 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1315 862 860 RAVAN AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 777 1 12 4 1750 30 46 1316 863 868 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 925 2 12 4 1750 45 47 1317 864 863 SR3154 LOCAL ROADWAY 784 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1318 865 863 SR3154 LOCAL ROADWAY 819 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1319 866 867 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1117 2 12 4 1900 30 47 1320 867 863 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 834 2 12 4 1750 30 47 1321 868 870 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 2219 2 12 4 1750 45 47 1322 869 868 HORD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 636 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1323 870 872 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 1637 2 12 4 1750 45 47 1324 871 870 EDWARDS AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 1377 1 12 4 1750 30 47 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K112 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1325 872 874 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 309 2 12 4 1750 45 47 1326 873 872 ELMWOOD PARK BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1219 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1327 874 876 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 333 2 12 4 1900 45 47 1328 875 874 PLANTATION RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1051 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1329 876 409 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 2023 2 12 4 1900 45 47 1330 876 877 ONRAMP US90 N FREEWAY RAMP 1021 1 12 4 1350 30 47 1331 877 878 ONRAMP US90 N FREEWAY RAMP 503 1 12 4 1350 30 47 1332 878 162 ONRAMP US90 N FREEWAY RAMP 626 1 12 4 1750 30 47 1333 879 886 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2632 2 12 4 1750 45 40 1334 880 879 AIRLINE PARK BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 992 1 12 4 1750 30 40 1335 881 879 AIRLINE PARK BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 1108 1 12 4 1750 30 40 1336 885 426 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2664 2 12 4 1750 35 41 1337 885 427 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4203 2 12 4 1750 35 41 1338 885 433 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 2695 2 12 4 1750 45 41 1339 886 428 ELISE AVE COLLECTOR 2664 1 12 4 1750 40 41 1340 886 885 W METARIE AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 3196 2 12 4 1750 45 41 1341 889 427 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 1591 2 12 4 1750 35 41 1342 889 1049 WABASH ST COLLECTOR 1716 1 12 4 1575 35 41 1343 889 1055 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2703 2 12 4 1900 35 41 1344 890 85 SR18 COLLECTOR 1892 1 12 4 1700 50 46 1345 891 84 JEFFER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4694 1 12 4 1350 30 46 1346 892 890 AZALEA DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5011 1 12 4 1350 30 46 1347 893 85 DANDELION DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5793 1 12 4 1350 30 46 1348 894 62 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3684 2 12 4 1750 60 52 1349 894 591 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1215 2 12 4 1900 60 52 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K113 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1350 895 897 QUEENY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3649 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1351 895 899 QUEENY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1105 1 12 4 1350 30 44 1352 896 590 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 694 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1353 896 592 W HEATHER DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2986 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1354 896 894 OAK LN LOCAL ROADWAY 2235 1 12 4 1750 30 52 1355 897 894 QUEENY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2803 1 12 4 1750 30 52 1356 898 82 SR18 COLLECTOR 2200 1 12 4 1750 40 44 1357 899 895 QUEENY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1076 1 12 4 1350 30 44 1358 899 898 BARTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1300 1 12 4 1350 30 44 1359 900 899 BARTON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3380 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1360 901 399 SR631 COLLECTOR 3152 1 12 4 1700 45 56 1361 901 902 LEVEE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 782 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1362 902 54 LEVEE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 885 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1363 902 906 OLD U.S. 90 LOCAL ROADWAY 780 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1364 903 902 OLD U.S. 90 LOCAL ROADWAY 2662 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1365 904 54 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1063 2 12 4 1900 60 56 1366 904 908 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2944 2 12 4 1900 60 56 1367 905 901 SR631 COLLECTOR 1346 1 12 4 1700 45 56 1368 905 906 CARLON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 992 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1369 906 904 CARLON DR LOCAL ROADWAY 375 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1370 907 905 SR631 COLLECTOR 2874 1 12 4 1700 45 56 1371 907 908 MALONEY RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1630 1 12 4 1350 30 56 1372 908 904 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2944 2 12 4 1900 60 56 1373 908 1001 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2871 2 12 4 1900 60 51 1374 909 81 SR18 COLLECTOR 1143 1 12 4 1750 35 43 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K114 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1375 909 910 GASSEM ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5957 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1376 910 909 GASSEM ST LOCAL ROADWAY 5957 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1377 910 911 HACKBERRY ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1412 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1378 911 130 SR52 COLLECTOR 7859 1 12 4 1700 45 52 1379 911 578 SR52 COLLECTOR 1722 1 12 4 1700 45 43 1380 912 910 LAC BORGNE LOCAL ROADWAY 296 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1381 913 340 SR18 COLLECTOR 9151 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1382 914 913 JOHN RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1793 1 12 4 1350 30 42 1383 915 574 SR18 COLLECTOR 3741 1 12 4 1700 40 42 1384 916 915 KELLER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1818 1 12 4 1350 30 36 1385 917 569 SR18 COLLECTOR 2533 1 12 4 1700 45 36 1386 918 917 RIVER PARK DR LOCAL ROADWAY 4453 1 12 4 1350 30 36 1387 919 395 SR18 COLLECTOR 4304 1 12 4 1700 50 19 1388 920 919 E 14TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3171 1 12 4 1350 30 19 1389 921 74 SR18 COLLECTOR 8022 1 12 4 1700 40 18 1390 922 921 CASTLE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 5278 1 12 4 1350 30 18 1391 923 313 SR18 COLLECTOR 1660 1 12 4 1700 45 16 1392 924 923 W 8TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2357 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1393 925 76 SR18 COLLECTOR 5032 1 12 4 1700 45 16 1394 926 925 W 12TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4168 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1395 927 77 SIMON ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4634 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1396 928 78 SR18 COLLECTOR 3895 1 12 4 1700 45 15 1397 929 928 CHURCH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 7127 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1398 930 610 GOLDEN GROVE RD LOCAL ROADWAY 5412 1 12 4 1350 30 10 1399 932 936 SR641 LOCAL ROADWAY 864 1 12 4 1350 30 15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K115 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1400 933 383 SR641 LOCAL ROADWAY 817 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1401 933 938 SR3193 LOCAL ROADWAY 303 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1402 934 938 SR3193 LOCAL ROADWAY 1295 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1403 934 939 SR44 COLLECTOR 2636 1 12 4 1700 50 16 1404 935 137 SR3125 COLLECTOR 4045 1 12 4 1700 40 9 1405 935 936 N KINGS AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 6953 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1406 936 933 SR641 LOCAL ROADWAY 1574 1 12 4 1750 30 15 1407 936 935 N KINGS AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 6954 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1408 937 938 S RAILROAD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2472 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1409 937 939 ALEXANDER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1530 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1410 938 933 SR3193 LOCAL ROADWAY 303 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1411 938 934 SR3193 LOCAL ROADWAY 1295 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1412 938 937 S RAILROAD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2472 1 12 4 1350 30 15 1413 939 96 SR44 COLLECTOR 10482 1 12 4 1700 50 15 1414 940 95 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 1168 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1415 940 381 SR3274 LOCAL ROADWAY 540 1 12 4 1750 30 16 1416 941 940 RAILROAD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1709 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1417 942 940 RAILROAD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1088 1 12 4 1350 30 16 1418 943 383 3RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 6325 1 12 4 1350 30 9 1419 944 933 SR3193 LOCAL ROADWAY 6867 1 12 4 1750 30 15 1420 944 935 SR3125 COLLECTOR 1794 1 12 4 1700 40 9 1421 945 129 HIGHWAY 644 COLLECTOR 2429 1 12 4 1700 40 33 1422 945 947 HIGHWAY 644 COLLECTOR 3382 1 12 4 1700 40 33 1423 946 945 N SPRUCE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1883 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1424 947 319 HIGHWAY 644 COLLECTOR 3491 1 12 4 1700 40 33 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K116 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1425 947 948 S PEACH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1702 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1426 948 119 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 3500 1 12 4 1700 40 33 1427 948 947 S PEACH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1702 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1428 949 947 N PEACH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2942 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1429 950 128 S SPRUCE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1024 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1430 951 952 MIMOSA ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1449 1 12 4 1350 30 33 1431 952 129 HIGHWAY 643 COLLECTOR 3549 1 12 4 1700 40 33 1432 953 70 SR18 COLLECTOR 4554 1 12 4 1750 30 35 1433 953 527 SR18 COLLECTOR 6818 1 12 4 1575 35 35 1434 954 959 W3SES ROAD MAJOR ARTERIAL 879 3 12 4 1900 30 35 1435 955 954 W3SES ROAD MAJOR ARTERIAL 354 3 12 4 1900 30 35 1436 956 959 W3SES PARKING LOT LOCAL ROADWAY 381 1 12 4 1350 30 35 1437 959 953 W3SES ROAD MINOR ARTERIAL 325 2 12 4 1900 30 35 1438 960 23 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1358 2 12 4 1750 60 52 1439 960 346 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 852 2 12 4 1900 60 52 1440 960 961 I310 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 349 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1441 961 345 I310 ONRAMP FREEWAY RAMP 2172 2 12 4 1900 45 52 1442 962 829 27TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2402 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1443 962 963 BESSEMER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 823 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1444 963 178 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 576 2 12 4 1750 40 28 1445 963 826 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 2378 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1446 964 962 BESSEMER ST LOCAL ROADWAY 263 1 12 4 1350 30 39 1447 965 177 POWER BLVD MINOR ARTERIAL 1661 2 12 4 1750 45 30 1448 966 965 RIVERSIDE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 311 1 12 4 1750 30 30 1449 967 299 SOUTH I10 SERVICE RD W COLLECTOR 658 1 12 4 1750 35 41 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K117 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1450 968 299 SOUTH I10 SERVICE RD W LOCAL ROADWAY 412 1 12 4 1750 30 41 1451 969 635 SURREY DR LOCAL ROADWAY 389 1 12 4 1350 30 21 1452 970 98 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2191 2 12 4 1750 55 12 1453 970 391 US 61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1502 2 12 4 1750 55 13 1454 971 1042 HOMEWOOD PL LOCAL ROADWAY 1580 1 12 4 1350 30 13 1455 972 98 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 1444 2 12 4 1750 55 12 1456 972 368 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2417 2 12 4 1750 55 12 1457 973 972 NW 3RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4592 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1458 973 974 W 3RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3186 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1459 974 975 PINE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 217 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1460 975 976 W 3RD ST LOCAL ROADWAY 533 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1461 976 370 SR44 COLLECTOR 2314 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1462 977 91 SR44 COLLECTOR 1744 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1463 978 977 E 12TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 3145 1 12 4 1350 30 13 1464 979 508 SR48 COLLECTOR 4112 1 12 4 1575 35 37 1465 980 502 SR48 COLLECTOR 2334 1 12 4 1750 35 37 1466 981 980 TERRACE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2083 1 12 4 1350 30 37 1467 982 520 SR48 COLLECTOR 898 1 12 4 1700 45 44 1468 983 982 4TH ST LOCAL ROADWAY 4367 1 12 4 1350 30 44 1469 984 272 SR48 COLLECTOR 543 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1470 984 661 SR48 COLLECTOR 3008 1 12 4 1700 40 43 1471 985 984 S DESTREHAN AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 2677 1 12 4 1350 30 43 1472 986 147 SR48 LOCAL ROADWAY 3266 1 12 4 1350 30 36 1473 987 394 SR18 COLLECTOR 9045 1 12 4 1700 50 20 1474 988 566 SR18 COLLECTOR 4970 1 12 4 1700 45 19 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K118 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1475 989 75 SR18 COLLECTOR 9584 1 12 4 1700 45 17 1476 990 46 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 5691 2 12 4 1750 70 42 1477 990 47 SR3127 MINOR ARTERIAL 9442 3 12 4 1900 70 42 1478 991 585 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3194 2 12 4 1900 60 52 1479 991 591 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 5255 2 12 4 1900 60 52 1480 992 991 RIVER RIDGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1034 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1481 992 994 LOCAL ROADWAY 1989 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1482 993 992 RIVER RIDGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 1694 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1483 994 992 PRIMROSE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 1989 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1484 994 995 LOCAL ROADWAY 2770 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1485 995 590 MARYLAND DR LOCAL ROADWAY 812 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1486 995 994 PRIMROSE ST LOCAL ROADWAY 2769 1 12 4 1350 30 52 1487 996 83 SR18 COLLECTOR 10115 1 12 4 1700 50 44 1488 997 1029 SR48 COLLECTOR 1296 1 12 4 1700 40 44 1489 998 2 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 8212 2 12 4 1750 60 52 1490 998 53 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2261 2 12 4 1900 60 52 1491 999 1000 SR631 COLLECTOR 2163 1 12 4 1700 45 51 1492 1000 907 SR631 COLLECTOR 2629 1 12 4 1700 45 51 1493 1000 1001 JB GREEN RD LOCAL ROADWAY 1423 1 12 4 1350 30 51 1494 1001 53 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3611 2 12 4 1900 60 52 1495 1001 908 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 2820 2 12 4 1900 60 51 1496 1002 999 SR631 COLLECTOR 2669 1 12 4 1700 45 51 1497 1003 397 SR631 COLLECTOR 823 1 12 4 1700 45 52 1498 1004 584 MAGNOLIA RIDGE RD COLLECTOR 4011 1 12 4 1700 40 52 1499 1005 67 SR632 COLLECTOR 10822 1 12 4 1700 55 57 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K119 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1500 1005 69 SR306 COLLECTOR 17065 1 12 4 1700 40 52 1501 1006 1009 SR306 COLLECTOR 4353 1 12 4 1700 40 57 1502 1007 1011 SR306 COLLECTOR 1565 1 12 4 1700 40 57 1503 1008 1007 MATHERNE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3351 1 12 4 1350 30 57 1504 1009 1007 SR306 COLLECTOR 1495 1 12 4 1700 40 57 1505 1010 1009 BAYOU ESTATES DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3011 1 12 4 1350 30 57 1506 1011 1005 SR306 COLLECTOR 1097 1 12 4 1700 40 57 1507 1012 1011 MARK DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3336 1 12 4 1350 30 57 1508 1013 588 LAFAYETTE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 337 1 12 4 1350 30 53 1509 1014 1013 WILLOWRIDGE DR LOCAL ROADWAY 268 1 12 4 1350 30 53 1510 1015 1014 CYPRESS DR LOCAL ROADWAY 2466 1 12 4 1350 30 53 1511 1016 1015 CYPRESS DR LOCAL ROADWAY 446 1 12 4 1350 30 53 1512 1017 57 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 3312 2 12 4 1900 70 55 1513 1018 1019 DRIVEWAY LOCAL ROADWAY 88 1 12 4 1750 30 28 1514 1019 747 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 112 2 12 4 1900 40 28 1515 1020 22 I310 FREEWAY 1617 3 12 8 2250 70 52 1516 1020 345 I310 FREEWAY 4018 3 12 8 2250 70 52 1517 1021 1020 SR3127 FREEWAY RAMP 1538 1 12 4 1700 55 52 1518 1022 344 I310 ONRAMP NORTH FREEWAY RAMP 2267 1 12 4 1700 45 52 1519 1023 1024 SR182 LOCAL ROADWAY 1564 1 12 4 1350 30 55 1520 1024 57 SR182 COLLECTOR 524 1 12 4 1700 40 55 1521 1026 15 I10 FREEWAY 1696 3 12 4 2250 70 40 1522 1026 1052 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 615 1 12 4 1750 45 40 1523 1026 1058 I10 FREEWAY 1138 3 12 4 2250 70 40 1524 1027 445 DOWNS BLVD LOCAL ROADWAY 586 1 12 4 1750 30 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K120 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1525 1028 1026 ON RAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 1946 1 12 4 1700 45 40 1526 1028 1051 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 552 3 12 4 1750 40 40 1527 1029 523 SR48 COLLECTOR 491 1 12 4 1700 40 44 1528 1030 1029 PALOMINO DR LOCAL ROADWAY 3701 1 12 4 1350 30 44 1529 1032 1033 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 11057 1 12 4 2250 55 7 1530 1033 1034 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 8640 1 12 4 2250 55 6 1531 1034 1035 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 11801 1 12 4 2250 55 7 1532 1035 1036 OLD US 51 LOCAL ROADWAY 136 1 12 4 1350 30 2 1533 1035 1050 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 10355 1 12 4 2250 55 2 1534 1036 606 ONRAMP I55 FREEWAY RAMP 1649 1 12 4 1700 45 2 1535 1037 1032 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 4724 1 12 4 2250 55 7 1536 1038 103 COLLECTOR 4749 1 12 4 1750 40 14 1537 1038 258 MAIN ST COLLECTOR 3844 1 12 4 1700 40 14 1538 1039 1038 COLLECTOR 544 1 12 4 1700 40 14 1539 1040 90 SR3179 COLLECTOR 3971 1 12 4 1750 50 13 1540 1040 392 SR3179 COLLECTOR 3669 1 12 4 1700 50 13 1541 1041 1040 PERRILOUX DR COLLECTOR 681 1 12 4 1700 40 13 1542 1042 970 HOMEWOOD PL LOCAL ROADWAY 4032 1 12 4 1350 30 13 1543 1043 1042 LOCAL ROADWAY 483 1 12 4 1350 30 13 1544 1044 91 SR53 COLLECTOR 4852 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1545 1044 98 SR53 COLLECTOR 3875 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1546 1045 1044 LOCAL ROADWAY 252 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1547 1046 973 GUERET DR LOCAL ROADWAY 485 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1548 1047 368 SR637 COLLECTOR 3926 1 12 4 1750 45 12 1549 1047 370 SR637 COLLECTOR 4027 1 12 4 1750 45 12 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K121 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number 1550 1048 1047 LOCAL ROADWAY 681 1 12 4 1350 30 12 1551 1049 967 SOUTH I10 SERVICE RD W COLLECTOR 575 1 12 4 1575 35 41 1552 1051 1052 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1107 3 12 4 1750 40 30 1553 1052 1053 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 841 3 12 4 1750 40 30 1554 1053 1054 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1011 3 12 4 1750 40 30 1555 1054 1055 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 1976 3 12 4 1750 40 30 1556 1055 297 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 3036 3 12 4 1750 40 31 1557 1055 889 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 2703 2 12 4 1900 35 41 1558 1057 1051 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 592 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1559 1058 163 I10 FREEWAY 2019 3 12 4 2250 70 30 1560 1058 1026 I10 FREEWAY 1110 3 12 4 2250 70 40 1561 1058 1057 OFFRAMP I10 FREEWAY RAMP 872 1 12 4 1350 30 40 1562 1059 1053 W CANAL AVE LOCAL ROADWAY 641 1 12 4 1750 30 30 1563 1060 1054 GREEN ACRES RD LOCAL ROADWAY 447 1 12 4 1750 30 30 1564 1061 1054 GREEN ACRES RD LOCAL ROADWAY 440 1 12 4 1750 30 30 1565 1062 1055 TRANSCONTINENTAL DR MINOR ARTERIAL 420 2 12 4 1900 35 31 1566 8004 4 I55 FREEWAY 6554 2 12 4 2250 70 2 1567 8010 615 I10 FREEWAY 986 2 12 4 2250 70 3 1568 8018 18 I10 FREEWAY 2193 3 12 4 2250 70 41 1569 8024 24 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2593 2 12 4 1900 65 3 1570 8057 1017 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 968 2 12 4 1900 70 55 1571 8065 65 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1089 2 12 4 1900 65 47 EXIT LINK 4 8004 I55 FREEWAY 6554 2 12 4 2250 70 2 EXIT LINK 18 8018 I10 FREEWAY 2193 3 12 4 2250 70 41 EXIT LINK 24 8024 US61 MINOR ARTERIAL 2593 2 12 4 1900 65 3 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K122 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Saturation Free Up Down No. Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Length of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link # Node Node Roadway Name Roadway Type (ft.) Lanes (ft.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number EXIT LINK 38 8038 SR3127 COLLECTOR 6895 1 12 4 1700 60 32 EXIT LINK 65 8065 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 1089 2 12 4 1900 65 47 EXIT LINK 78 8078 SR18 COLLECTOR 6631 1 12 4 1700 45 33 EXIT LINK 124 8124 SR20 COLLECTOR 3621 1 12 4 1700 40 48 EXIT LINK 132 8888 US 61 MAJOR ARTERIAL 205 3 12 4 1900 40 41 EXIT LINK 137 8137 SR3125 COLLECTOR 1991 1 12 4 1700 40 15 EXIT LINK 408 8408 SR48 MINOR ARTERIAL 624 2 12 4 1900 45 47 EXIT LINK 887 8887 SR3139 FREEWAY 1424 3 12 4 2250 60 41 EXIT LINK 611 8097 SR44 COLLECTOR 1201 1 12 4 1700 50 8 EXIT LINK 615 8010 I10 FREEWAY 986 2 12 4 2250 70 3 EXIT LINK 795 8795 W ESPLANADA AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 1169 2 12 4 1900 45 30 EXIT LINK 1017 8057 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 967 2 12 4 1900 70 55 EXIT LINK 1031 8404 US90 MINOR ARTERIAL 833 2 12 4 1900 60 54 EXIT LINK 1050 8050 OLD US 51 FREEWAY 6654 1 12 4 2250 55 2 EXIT LINK 1056 8297 VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD MAJOR ARTERIAL 611 3 12 4 1900 40 31 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K123 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table K2. Nodes in the LinkNode Analysis Network which are Controlled X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 1 3486878 592169 Stop 4 2 3563951 501130 Actuated 52 14 3623520 549629 Stop 28 16 3645079 547105 Yield 41 23 3576916 508215 TCP Actuated 52 26 3486426 573122 Actuated 10 27 3504813 573832 TCP Actuated 11 28 3544295 573267 TCP Actuated 13 29 3550399 571037 TCP Actuated 14 30 3574077 552456 TCP Actuated 21 31 3588045 542373 TCP Actuated 37 32 3597098 539578 TCP Actuated 38 33 3605944 536923 TCP Actuated 38 34 3623543 540288 Actuated 39 35 3646721 538618 Actuated 41 39 3487145 540530 Stop 33 42 3526048 552247 Stop 18 44 3545629 543817 TCP Actuated 35 45 3557274 535919 TCP Actuated 35 46 3565564 530314 TCP Actuated 42 51 3487536 568030 Yield 10 54 3556371 482611 Stop 56 55 3550426 481125 Stop 56 57 3528292 458341 Yield 55 58 3556449 577233 Stop 14 59 3543012 580362 TCP Actuated 13 60 3625605 539958 Actuated 40 61 3626799 549780 Actuated 29 62 3593825 515634 TCP Actuated 53 70 3559810 543632 TCP Actuated 35 71 3549833 549107 TCP Actuated 35 73 3526956 562907 Stop 18 74 3511690 559516 Stop 17 77 3478697 552111 Stop 15 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K124 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 78 3471472 548632 Stop 33 79 3574567 536917 TCP Actuated 36 80 3584790 524126 TCP Actuated 43 81 3587779 523274 TCP Actuated 43 82 3595516 521561 TCP Actuated 44 84 3627504 532303 Stop 46 85 3629783 528730 Stop 46 86 3649650 518039 Actuated 47 87 3549416 569744 TCP Actuated 14 89 3541391 567775 Stop 13 90 3532728 564810 TCP Actuated 19 91 3528287 565879 TCP Actuated 12 93 3504253 561844 TCP Actuated 17 94 3488933 564225 Stop 16 95 3485442 561830 Stop 16 98 3527885 574598 TCP Actuated 12 99 3515997 566035 Stop 12 100 3513809 574098 Actuated 12 101 3519961 566741 Stop 12 102 3519491 574284 Stop 12 103 3550702 570821 TCP Actuated 14 104 3543641 573377 TCP Actuated 13 105 3543978 571488 TCP Actuated 13 119 3480074 524021 Stop 33 121 3469912 508367 Stop 49 122 3476419 534840 Actuated 33 128 3489183 520355 Stop 33 129 3487696 524012 Stop 33 130 3580232 511118 Stop 52 131 3580319 510798 TCP Actuated 52 135 3486716 571755 Actuated 10 136 3481361 568999 Actuated 9 141 3554712 561433 Stop 20 142 3561299 562877 Stop 20 144 3563348 561352 TCP Actuated 21 145 3564962 560056 TCP Actuated 21 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K125 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 149 3572074 545613 TCP Actuated 36 150 3580023 531135 TCP Actuated 43 151 3586836 536127 Stop 37 152 3586063 527573 Actuated 43 154 3607180 532666 TCP Actuated 44 155 3625052 537472 Actuated 40 156 3632252 534330 Actuated 40 157 3634055 531747 Actuated 46 161 3638389 535963 Actuated 40 162 3646011 530781 Actuated 47 164 3636437 539350 Actuated 40 165 3562585 578589 Actuated 21 167 3563135 579283 Actuated 21 171 3618786 549782 Actuated 28 172 3618725 550132 Actuated 28 176 3617515 553644 Actuated 28 177 3633007 549332 Actuated 30 178 3618780 549228 Actuated 28 188 3627205 554495 Actuated 29 191 3625963 549852 Actuated 29 192 3632618 551567 Actuated 30 197 3635583 539390 Actuated 40 199 3633324 539522 Actuated 40 200 3634697 541854 Stop 40 204 3632477 539603 Actuated 40 205 3633718 542103 Stop 40 206 3631477 539661 Actuated 40 208 3626379 539913 Actuated 40 209 3628141 539831 Actuated 40 210 3629838 539727 Actuated 40 212 3631312 542760 Stop 40 214 3628908 543286 Actuated 40 217 3624869 540059 Actuated 40 219 3625421 542145 Stop 40 222 3622725 540465 Actuated 39 224 3619716 541086 Actuated 39 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K126 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 227 3620711 540946 Actuated 39 229 3615596 539947 Actuated 39 232 3613448 539256 Actuated 39 239 3577768 549358 Actuated 21 241 3575194 551612 Actuated 21 242 3573358 545105 Stop 36 243 3556431 566543 Actuated 14 244 3555729 567021 Actuated 14 249 3548723 572092 TCP Actuated 14 251 3547385 572622 Actuated 14 252 3547406 573656 Stop 14 253 3545652 572973 TCP Actuated 14 255 3545612 571845 TCP Actuated 14 259 3558710 577247 Stop 14 260 3549664 569222 TCP Actuated 14 279 3627580 537039 Actuated 40 284 3632920 533729 Actuated 40 287 3633484 533122 Actuated 46 297 3644327 549334 Actuated 31 299 3644938 546384 Actuated 41 302 3638352 536930 Actuated 40 306 3578778 548481 TCP Actuated 37 308 3576347 543330 TCP Actuated 36 314 3490450 561439 Stop 16 319 3480110 525721 Stop 33 329 3581330 509174 Stop 52 333 3597560 516692 Actuated 53 334 3596032 510781 Stop 53 341 3585216 523929 Stop 43 347 3575490 507740 Yield 52 348 3574176 507335 Actuated 52 354 3564250 581679 Stop 7 355 3563767 580154 Yield 21 TCP 356 3543727 584307 6 Uncontrolled 362 3447230 602230 Yield 3 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K127 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 366 3516752 574213 Actuated 12 368 3524026 574486 Actuated 12 370 3524235 566536 TCP Actuated 12 372 3537297 574651 TCP Actuated 13 375 3538858 574399 Actuated 13 377 3542113 573702 Actuated 13 381 3484591 563313 Actuated 16 382 3485859 571341 Stop 10 383 3482694 562285 Stop 16 384 3479627 573901 Stop 9 391 3531575 574700 TCP Actuated 13 396 3642626 514427 Actuated 54 401 3553058 565635 Stop 14 410 3645769 531196 Actuated 47 411 3645483 531833 Actuated 47 412 3645253 532380 Actuated 47 413 3644465 534447 Actuated 41 414 3644850 533291 Actuated 47 424 3645835 536558 Yield 41 426 3644277 538808 Actuated 41 427 3642087 545317 Actuated 41 428 3641124 538998 Actuated 41 431 3638976 539188 Actuated 40 433 3646108 541215 Actuated 41 436 3645467 545399 Actuated 41 439 3635564 541778 Actuated 40 442 3634128 546158 Actuated 40 443 3632720 546119 Stop 40 445 3635465 549112 Actuated 40 446 3632436 552003 Actuated 29 448 3631754 549454 Actuated 29 449 3630834 549443 Actuated 29 450 3630061 549532 Actuated 29 451 3629298 549622 Actuated 29 453 3629141 546217 Actuated 40 459 3626558 543776 Actuated 40 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K128 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 460 3626596 545124 Actuated 40 462 3627288 543715 Stop 40 465 3626684 546584 Actuated 40 474 3544519 571665 Stop 13 475 3545013 568802 Yield 13 476 3547054 571486 Stop 14 478 3543492 577989 TCP Actuated 13 479 3546336 577953 Stop 14 481 3548527 575531 Stop 14 482 3560597 577431 TCP Actuated 14 487 3548247 580734 Stop 14 489 3573271 549612 Stop 21 490 3572958 548521 Stop 36 494 3571494 550069 Stop 21 495 3571189 548990 Stop 36 497 3572354 546435 Stop 36 498 3569099 546427 Stop 36 501 3585528 543171 TCP Actuated 37 502 3579390 537250 TCP Actuated 37 503 3587453 535821 Stop 37 508 3579780 532710 Stop 43 509 3583179 534914 Stop 37 510 3584029 535750 Stop 37 515 3590847 525429 Stop 43 517 3601423 530456 Stop 44 519 3602789 527125 Stop 44 520 3601842 526367 Stop 44 523 3605136 530106 Stop 44 525 3606166 536062 Stop 38 527 3550068 548870 Stop 35 530 3582128 539874 Stop 37 536 3505447 570453 Stop 11 537 3505826 566759 Stop 11 538 3507565 560825 Stop 17 539 3506783 566778 Stop 11 543 3507126 563921 Stop 17 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K129 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 544 3507047 566854 Stop 11 546 3553561 574352 Stop 14 550 3555064 580562 Stop 14 551 3554244 580850 Stop 14 552 3548377 577180 Stop 14 553 3547819 577203 Stop 14 554 3546451 575955 Stop 14 559 3554698 555614 Stop 20 561 3559260 555897 Stop 20 566 3530702 562212 Stop 19 569 3574201 539100 Stop 36 571 3572631 538512 Stop 36 572 3573490 536525 Stop 36 574 3575695 530859 Stop 42 576 3589335 522887 Stop 43 578 3585483 519157 Stop 43 579 3586655 521202 Stop 43 580 3588069 520387 Stop 43 585 3581257 511149 Stop 52 588 3595432 506081 Stop 53 590 3588796 512551 Stop 52 591 3589210 514000 Stop 52 592 3592310 511454 Stop 52 594 3594930 519594 Stop 44 596 3595227 516708 Stop 53 598 3594276 516692 Stop 53 599 3564564 500191 Stop 52 600 3565707 502362 Stop 52 601 3565244 502990 Stop 52 602 3566407 501341 Stop 52 610 3486130 564494 Stop 16 658 3555885 578503 Stop 14 659 3556960 579862 Stop 14 661 3582060 529378 Stop 43 662 3617907 559785 Actuated 24 663 3622631 558808 Stop 24 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K130 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 664 3623553 561223 Actuated 24 665 3627544 560503 Actuated 25 667 3621903 554983 Actuated 28 668 3617597 555627 Actuated 28 669 3618268 563123 Actuated 24 670 3620968 552118 Stop 28 671 3619257 559747 Stop 24 678 3615958 563501 Stop 23 680 3618873 563107 Stop 24 681 3618917 564058 Stop 24 685 3620409 562664 Stop 24 686 3620432 563995 Stop 24 687 3621431 562159 Stop 24 689 3621820 561938 Stop 24 690 3624063 562159 Yield 24 691 3623569 561427 Stop 24 692 3624330 561043 Stop 24 694 3625114 560654 Stop 25 695 3624204 560888 Stop 24 696 3616663 559920 Stop 23 697 3616292 555664 Stop 27 698 3618961 555479 Actuated 28 699 3615933 563187 Stop 23 700 3615637 560000 Stop 23 701 3615223 560007 Stop 23 702 3615088 558765 Stop 23 704 3614760 556894 Stop 27 705 3615032 556881 Stop 27 706 3614946 555671 Stop 27 711 3615675 560691 Stop 23 714 3615772 561867 Stop 23 715 3618266 563320 Stop 24 716 3625604 560635 Stop 25 717 3626309 560590 Stop 25 719 3627687 561866 Stop 25 724 3627623 560981 Stop 25 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K131 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 728 3627488 559815 Stop 25 729 3629864 558261 Stop 25 730 3625021 558673 Stop 25 731 3625016 558845 Stop 25 732 3624477 558663 Stop 24 733 3627468 558422 Actuated 25 735 3629416 559685 Stop 25 736 3629787 558452 Stop 25 737 3630301 558220 Stop 25 738 3619919 555350 Stop 28 739 3619631 551970 Stop 28 740 3623499 554760 Stop 28 743 3622885 554831 Actuated 28 745 3624178 554703 Stop 28 747 3624006 554703 Yield 28 748 3624085 554730 Yield 28 749 3624377 554674 Actuated 28 765 3628090 557742 Stop 25 768 3627412 557777 Stop 25 770 3628113 558379 Stop 25 771 3627271 555808 Actuated 29 774 3630299 555261 Stop 29 776 3627448 559168 Stop 25 777 3629578 559021 Stop 25 779 3630560 555398 Stop 29 780 3629820 556960 Stop 29 781 3630834 556880 Stop 29 782 3630196 556914 Stop 29 784 3631210 555592 Stop 29 785 3631688 554115 Actuated 29 786 3632371 554083 Stop 29 790 3627012 552496 Actuated 29 791 3632115 552817 Stop 29 794 3626870 550497 Actuated 29 796 3632050 553127 Actuated 29 798 3620746 559646 Stop 24 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K132 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 800 3623176 560383 Stop 24 801 3623376 560938 Stop 24 806 3623264 560709 Stop 24 807 3618643 550970 Actuated 28 808 3625167 552529 Stop 29 811 3618662 550750 Actuated 28 814 3625519 552479 Stop 29 817 3618098 552030 Stop 28 820 3615743 555630 Stop 27 822 3615999 559971 Stop 23 826 3621728 549422 Stop 28 828 3623543 548871 Stop 39 829 3621796 548665 Stop 39 830 3618823 548380 Stop 39 832 3618823 547036 Stop 39 836 3626120 542026 Stop 40 838 3625848 537330 Stop 40 840 3632452 542443 Stop 40 842 3631921 544334 Stop 40 843 3629049 544931 Stop 40 848 3634870 530615 Actuated 46 851 3635435 529528 Actuated 46 854 3635833 525991 Actuated 46 857 3637947 524045 Actuated 46 860 3640082 524108 Actuated 46 863 3642760 524861 Actuated 47 868 3643325 525594 Actuated 47 870 3644664 527352 Actuated 47 872 3645396 528816 Actuated 47 874 3645669 528963 Actuated 47 879 3637595 541638 Actuated 40 885 3643415 541329 Actuated 41 886 3640224 541506 Actuated 40 890 3629108 530498 Stop 46 894 3590376 514340 Actuated 52 896 3589448 512307 Stop 52 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K133 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 898 3593274 521676 Stop 44 899 3592830 520454 Stop 43 902 3555789 483278 Stop 56 904 3556753 483348 Stop 56 906 3556492 483617 Stop 56 908 3559104 485121 Stop 56 909 3586567 523288 Stop 43 910 3583245 518344 Stop 43 911 3584517 517732 Stop 43 913 3576039 530240 Stop 42 915 3574740 534481 Stop 36 917 3573472 541367 Stop 36 919 3543454 563565 Stop 19 921 3518661 563357 Stop 18 923 3492169 562429 Stop 16 925 3489089 560411 Stop 16 928 3474959 550371 Stop 15 933 3482247 561601 Actuated 16 934 3483174 560299 Stop 16 935 3477529 566866 Stop 9 936 3480901 560785 Stop 15 937 3480371 559965 Stop 15 938 3482418 561351 Stop 16 939 3481129 558636 Stop 15 940 3484880 562855 Stop 16 945 3486889 526303 Stop 33 947 3483548 525780 Stop 33 948 3483574 524078 Stop 33 952 3489049 520729 Stop 33 953 3555469 544933 Stop 35 959 3555336 544636 Stop 35 960 3578069 508933 Actuated 52 961 3577968 509145 Yield 52 962 3619405 548425 Stop 39 963 3619356 549246 Stop 28 965 3632766 550976 Actuated 30 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K134 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| X Coordinate1 Y Coordinate1 Control Grid Map Node (ft) (ft) Type Number 970 3530073 574705 Stop 13 972 3526441 574569 Stop 12 973 3526580 569979 Stop 12 976 3526536 566249 Stop 12 977 3530013 565586 Stop 13 980 3578942 539459 Stop 37 982 3601239 525892 Stop 44 984 3584810 528159 Stop 43 991 3584255 512250 Stop 52 992 3583849 511300 Stop 52 998 3561604 493305 Stop 52 1001 3560521 487618 Stop 51 1007 3567490 475702 Stop 57 1009 3567599 474211 Stop 57 1011 3567592 477263 Stop 57 1014 3595834 506093 Stop 53 1019 3623894 554701 Actuated 28 1023 3526617 457598 Stop 55 1029 3604834 529723 Stop 44 1038 3554579 573563 Stop 14 1040 3532269 568756 Stop 13 1042 3530258 570677 Stop 13 1044 3528070 570727 Stop 12 1047 3524078 570560 Stop 12 1051 3636410 549184 Actuated 40 1052 3637496 549402 Actuated 30 1053 3638313 549602 Actuated 30 1054 3639324 549639 Actuated 30 1055 3641295 549496 Actuated 31 1
| |
| Coordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 Louisiana South State Plane Zone Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station K135 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX L Protective Action Section Boundaries
| |
| | |
| L. PROTECTIVE ACTION SECTION BOUNDARIES PAS A1 Parish: St. Charles Community: Montz Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the 2 mile ring, on the east by LA 628 (CC Rd) extending due south to the Mississippi River, on the south and west by the Mississippi River.
| |
| PAS A2 Parish: St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Community: LaPlace Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by I10, on the east and west by the community limits of LaPlace, and on the south by the 2 mile ring and the Mississippi River.
| |
| PAS A3 Parish: St. John the Baptist Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the 10 mile ring, on the east by the community limits of LaPlace, on the south by the 5 mile ring and I10.
| |
| PAS A4 Parish: St. John the Baptist Community: Reserve, Garyville Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north and west by the 10 mile region, on the east by the community limits of LaPlace, on the south by the Mississippi River.
| |
| PAS B1 Parish: St. Charles Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north and east by the 2 mile ring, on the south by the Mississippi River, and on the west by LA 628 (CC Rd).
| |
| PAS B2 Parish: St. Charles Community: Norco, New Sarpy, Good Hope Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the 5 mile ring to US 61, on the east by Vans Lane, on the south by the Mississippi River, and on the west by the 2 mile ring and LA628 (CC Rd).
| |
| PAS B3 Parish: St. Charles Community: Destrehan, St. Rose Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by US 61, on the east by the 10 mile ring, on the south by the Mississippi River and on the west by Vans Lane.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| PAS B4 Parish: St. Charles Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north and east by the 10 mile ring, on the south by US 61 to the 5 mile ring, and on the west by the community limits of LaPlace.
| |
| PAS C1 Parish: St. Charles Community: Killona Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east by the community limits of Killona, and on south and west by the 2 mile ring.
| |
| PAS C2 Parish: St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Community: Lucy Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east by the 2 mile ring, and on the south and west by the 5 mile ring.
| |
| PAS C3 Parish: St. John the Baptist Community: Edgard, Wallace, Johnson Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east by the 5 mile ring, on the south by LA3127, and on the west by the 10 mile ring.
| |
| PAS C4 Parish: St. John the Baptist and St. Charles Community: Pleasure, Bend Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by LA3127, on the east by the 5 mile ring, on the west by the 10 mile ring and on the south by the Lafourche Parish boundary.
| |
| PAS D1 Parish: St. Charles Community: Taft Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east and south by the 2 mile ring, and on the west by the community limits of Taft.
| |
| PAS D2 Parish: St. Charles Community: Hahnville Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east and south by the 5 mile ring, and on the west by the community limits of Hahnville to the 2 mile ring.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| PAS D3 Parish: St. Charles Community: Luling, Boutte, Mimosa Park Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the Mississippi River, on the east by the 10 mile ring and the community limits of Mimosa Park, on the south by the community limits of Boutte and LA3127, and by the west by the 5 mile ring.
| |
| PAS D4 Parish: St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Community: Paradis Defined as the area within the following boundary: On the north by the 5 mile ring, on the east by LA3127, on the south by the 10 mile ring and the Lafourche Parish boundary, and on the west by the community limits of Paradis.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station L3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies
| |
| | |
| M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.
| |
| M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.
| |
| Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ th Trip Generation Period 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 1 Hour 45 Minutes 3:10 4:20 2 Hours 45 Minutes 3:10 4:20 3 Hours 45 Minutes (Base) 3:10 4:20 As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 3 hours and 40 minutes. As such, the ETE for both the 90th and 100th percentile are not affected by the trip generation time, but by the time needed to clear the congestion within the EPZ.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.
| |
| Table M2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is not significantly impacted by varying shadow evacuation from 0% to 20%.
| |
| Tripling the shadow percentage increases the ETE by 5 minutes and 15 minutes for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively - not a significant change. Increasing the shadow percentage to 29 percent, reflecting the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F, does not have an effect on ETE.
| |
| Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ th Evacuation Vehicles 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 3:10 4:15 15 9,773 3:10 4:15 20 (Base) 13,031 3:10 4:20 29 18,894 3:10 4:20 60 39,093 3:15 4:35 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:
| |
| : 1. The population within the study area was increased up to 20%. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and in the Shadow Region.
| |
| : 2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements were not considered.
| |
| : 3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).
| |
| : 4. The good weather scenario which yielded the highest ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 6).
| |
| Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study. Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that all of the base ETE values except the 90th percentile for the 2Mile Region are greater than 2 hours; 25 percent of the base ETE is typically greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the criterion for updating the 100th percentile and the 90th percentile for Regions R02 and R03.
| |
| Twentyfive percent of the 90th percentile ETE for the 2mile region (1:45) is 26 minutes, which is less than 30 minutes and is the criteria for the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region.
| |
| Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes are highlighted in red below - a 9% increase in the EPZ population. Entergy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 9% or more an updated ETE analysis will be needed.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Resident & Base Population Change Shadow 7% 8% 9%
| |
| Population 110,536 118,273 119,378 120,484 ETE for 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 7% 8% 9%
| |
| 2MILE 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 5MILE 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:50 FULL EPZ 3:10 3:20 3:25 3:25 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 7% 8% 9%
| |
| 2-MILE 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:50 5-MILE 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 FULL EPZ 4:20 4:40 4:45 4:50 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| M.4 Effect of Flood at the Interchange of Interstate 10 and Interstate 55 A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE for a flood at the interchange of Interstate 10 (I10) and Interstate 55 (I55). The case considered was Scenario 7, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, rain scenario for the evacuation of the entire EPZ.
| |
| Table M2 presents the ETE of the flood scenario. The results show that the ETE is significantly impacted by the road closure at the interchange of Interstate 10 and Interstate 55. The flood increases the ETE by 1 hour and 40 minutes at the 90th percentile and by 2 hours and 45 minutes for the 100th percentile. Traffic is diverted off I10 westbound onto I310 and off I10 eastbound onto LA3188 to access US61, significantly increasing traffic congestion along US61 and causing the increase in ETE. It is recommended that if a flood exists at the I10 and I55 interchange, ACPs should be established at the interchange of I10 and I310 near Kenner and at interchanges along I10 west of the flood, to facilitate the flow of traffic through the area.
| |
| Table M4. ETE Variation with Flood Scenario Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire ETE 90th Percentile Region Base Flood FULL EPZ 3:25 5:05 th 100 Percentile Region Base Flood FULL EPZ 4:50 7:35 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist
| |
| | |
| N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 1.0 Introduction
| |
| : a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.
| |
| : b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 11 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.
| |
| : c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 13 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison, of NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| 1.1 Approach
| |
| : a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.
| |
| : b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3
| |
| : c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.3, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G
| |
| : d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described. Section 5, Appendix F - 4.35% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions
| |
| : a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.
| |
| : b. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.
| |
| 1.3 Scenario Development
| |
| : a. The ten scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 21, 62 should be 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 approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.
| |
| 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas
| |
| : a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 61 (ERPAs) should be included.
| |
| : b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 61 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : c. A table similar to Table 14, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 75 Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002 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 developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Special facilities, schools - Section 8, Appendix E 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
| |
| : a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1 values, or another credible source should be provided.
| |
| : b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes 2010 used as the base year for analysis. No growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the growth of population necessary.
| |
| ETE.
| |
| : c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 32 Population by Sector, of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.
| |
| 2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles
| |
| : a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.88 persons per vehicle - Table 13 or justification should be provided for other values.
| |
| : b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E - Table E3 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.1.2 Transient Population
| |
| : a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.
| |
| : b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 34, 35 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate transient population by scenario.
| |
| : c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.
| |
| : d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.
| |
| : e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 21 Yes Figure 36 - transients of NUREG/CR7002, showing the population distribution Figure 38 - employees for the transient population.
| |
| 2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents
| |
| : a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 81 dependent residents should be discussed.
| |
| : b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 85, 89 should be quantified.
| |
| : c. The county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.4 residents should be used in the analysis.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.5 people with disabilities 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 types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 11 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 3.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.
| |
| : f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 81 - transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.4, registration programs were used in developing the estimate.
| |
| : g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.3 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Section 8.4 - page 89 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double Table 85, counting has not occurred.
| |
| 2.3 Special Facility Residents
| |
| : a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E, Tables E2 and E5 - list location, and average population should be provided. facilities, type, location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.
| |
| : b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Sections 8.2, 8.3 data was obtained.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Appendix E, E2 should be provided.
| |
| : d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.3 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Section 8.6 provided.
| |
| Tables 84, 85
| |
| : e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Sections 8.3,8.6 medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.
| |
| 2.4 Schools
| |
| : a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 82, Table E1 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.
| |
| : b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 82 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.
| |
| : c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.
| |
| : d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave.
| |
| 2.5.1 Special Events
| |
| : a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.7 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.7 population should be analyzed in the ETE.
| |
| : c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.7 should be estimated.
| |
| 2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation
| |
| : a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 21 from the NPP.
| |
| Section 3.2
| |
| : b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 34 Table 33
| |
| : c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 58 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 pass through traffic Yes Section 3.6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Table 36 reduced for nighttime scenarios.
| |
| Section 6 Table 63
| |
| : b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification. Section 3.6 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation
| |
| : a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the Yes Tables 37, 38 total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand used in each scenario.
| |
| 3.0 Roadway Capacity
| |
| : a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed.
| |
| 3.1 Roadway Characteristics
| |
| : a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.
| |
| : b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.
| |
| : c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, Roadway Yes Appendix K, Table K1 Characteristics, of NUREG/CR7002 should be provided.
| |
| : d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.
| |
| : e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K, Figures K1 through K58 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire linknode analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 31, Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments, of NUREG/CR links and nodes.
| |
| 7002.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 3.2 Capacity Analysis
| |
| : a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.
| |
| : b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.
| |
| 3.3 Intersection Control
| |
| : a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K, Table K2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.
| |
| : b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J1 within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.
| |
| : c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.
| |
| used in the calculations.
| |
| 3.4 Adverse Weather
| |
| : a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 21, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 22, Section 5.3 should be considered. (page 510)
| |
| : b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 - based on HCM 2010. The Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, of NUREG/CR7002 factors provided in Table 31 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR7002 are from HCM 2000.
| |
| values.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Not applicable.
| |
| streets and driveways, when applicable.
| |
| 4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time
| |
| : a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.
| |
| : b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.
| |
| : c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.
| |
| : d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.
| |
| 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population
| |
| : a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 63 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.
| |
| Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify 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 transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.
| |
| : d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.7 - attendees use personal special events where a large number of transients should vehicles.
| |
| be expected should be considered.
| |
| : e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 58 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.
| |
| 4.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents
| |
| : a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.4 - pages 87 and 88. Pre in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with established bus routes do not exist. Basic the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible bus routes were developed for the ETE authorities. analysis - see Figures 82, 83, Table 89.
| |
| : b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4, 8.5 ambulatory and nonambulatory residents.
| |
| : c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.4 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.
| |
| : d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.4, Figure 81 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.4 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.
| |
| : f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.4 passengers should be discussed.
| |
| : g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figures 82, 83
| |
| : h. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.4 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.
| |
| : i. Information should be provided to supports analysis of Yes Section 8.4 return trips, if necessary. Figure 81 Tables 810 and 811 4.1.3 Special Facilities
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes Section 8.4, 8.6 should be provided. Tables 812, 813, and 815
| |
| : b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes Sections 8.4 outbound speeds.
| |
| : c. The number of wheelchair and bedbound individuals Yes Table 84 should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.
| |
| : d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes Section 8.4, Tables 812 and 813 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4, Table 85 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips should be needed.
| |
| : f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes Section 8.4 vehicles should be provided.
| |
| : g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.4 residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.
| |
| : h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Section 8.4.
| |
| time elements for the return trips.
| |
| 4.1.4 Schools
| |
| : a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.4 should be provided.
| |
| : b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 86.
| |
| School bus speeds are presented in Tables 87 (good weather), and 88 (rain).
| |
| Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.
| |
| Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.
| |
| : c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 87 and 88, Discussion in Section 8.4 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.4 - page 86 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
| |
| : e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed.
| |
| should be provided.
| |
| : f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 83. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to receiving schools where they will be picked pass through the reception center prior to being up by parents or guardians.
| |
| evacuated to their final destination.
| |
| : g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 87 time elements for the return trips. and 88 provide time needed to arrive at reception center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary.
| |
| 4.2 ETE Modeling
| |
| : a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.8.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 13, Appendix B, Appendix C.
| |
| : b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.
| |
| the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input
| |
| : a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J2
| |
| : b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C1, C2 analysis.
| |
| 4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output
| |
| : a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.
| |
| : b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J5.
| |
| to support review: 2. Table J3.
| |
| : 1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J1.
| |
| node. 4. Table J3.
| |
| : 2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J1 through J12 (one plot
| |
| : 3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).
| |
| highest traffic volume. 6. Table J4. Network wide average
| |
| : 4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J3.
| |
| : 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.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 73 through 77 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) E and LOS F conditions, if they occur.
| |
| 4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public
| |
| : a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 71 and 72 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population
| |
| : b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general public
| |
| : c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 73 and 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole, of NUREG/CR7002.
| |
| : d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.4 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 87 and 88 Schools populations.
| |
| Tables 810 and 811 - Transit Dependent Tables 812 and 813 - Medical Facilities Table 815 - Correctional Facilities Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans
| |
| : a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.
| |
| : b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.
| |
| 5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time
| |
| : a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes Appendix M time should be provided.
| |
| : b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.
| |
| 5.3 State and Local Review
| |
| : a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 11 with these agencies should be discussed.
| |
| : b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes No unresolved issues remain.
| |
| that may affect the ETE.
| |
| 5.4 Reviews and Updates
| |
| : a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC.
| |
| 5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center
| |
| : a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 101 should be provided.
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1
| |
| | |
| NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis
| |
| : b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Sections 8.4, 8.5 discuss a multiwave return times for buses should be provided. evacuation procedure. Figure 81, Table 8 10 and 811
| |
| : c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7h are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Section 10 buses to the congregate care center.
| |
| Technical Reviewer _______________________________ Date _________________________
| |
| Supervisory Review _______________________________ Date _________________________
| |
| Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.
| |
| Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1}}
| |
