L-2018-081, Kld Engineering, Pc - 2017 Population Update Analysis: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:L e ge n d | ||
* St.Luci* Q Area \.-:. 2, 5, 10 | * St.Luci* Q Area \.-:. 2 , 5 , 10 M Ii, R i n 1s Sept em b er 2 0, 2017 ENGINEERING, RC. St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 2017 Population Update Analysis .... .... ' ' ' ' ' ':' I I / / / / / / Work performed for Florida Power & light, by: KLD Engineering, P.C. 1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 E-mail: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com Final Repor t , Rev 0 ' ' \ ' \ I I I I / \ I j 6 ' I I *1-* 10 M i le.s KLD T R-937 Executive Summary Federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to lOCFR part SO) require nuclear power plant licensees to estimate the permanent resident population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the plant at least annually during the years between decennial censuses. If the population increases such that the longest 90 th percentile Evacuation Time Estimate (ET E) for the 2-mile region, 5-mile region or the entire EPZ increases by 25 percent or 30 minutes , whichever is less, a full ETE update is required. | ||
.... .... ' ' ' ' ' ':' I I / / / / / / Work performed for Florida Power & light, by: KLD Engineering, P.C. 1601 Veterans Memorial | Based on U.S. Census Bureau data , the population within the 2-mile region, 5-mile region and the entire EPZ for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie) has increased by +11.0%, +11.8% and +12.9%, respectively , since the 2010 Census. Based on the population sensitivity study documented in the 2012 St. Lucie ETE report, population growth of +10% or greater is needed to increase the 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes or more. As such , the population within the EPZ has grown enough at this time to trigger a full ETE update. As per federal regulations , the full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Florida Power & Light (FPL) acknowledges that lOCFRSO, Appendix E, Section IV.4 requires a full ETE analysis to be done within 365 days of the availability of the most recent decennial census data. The last full ETE analysis (KLD TR-533, dated December 2012) was based on the data from the 2010 Census. FPL continues to perfo r m annual permanent resident population estimates for the EPZ (as documented in this report) in the years between the decennial censu s es , in accordance with lOCFRSO, Appendix E , Section IV.5. The annual update for 2017 indicates that permanent resident population within the EPZ has grown enough to significantly impact ETE , thereby triggering a full ETE analysis. | ||
Introduction The federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to lOCFR part 50) stipulate: During th e years between decennial censuses, nuclear power reactor licensees shall estimate EPZ permanent resident population changes once a year, but no later than 365 days from the date of the previous estimate, using the most recen t U.S. Census Bureau annual resident population estimate and State/local government population data , if available. These licensees shall maintain these estimates so that they are available for NRC inspection during the period between decennial censuses and shall submit these estimates to the NRC with any updated ETE analysis. St. Lucie Nuclear Pow er Plant Popu l ation Updat e A na ly s i s -2017 1 KLD Enginee r ing , P.C. Rev.0 If at any time during the decennial period, the EPZ permanent resident population increases such that it causes the longest ETE value for the 2-mile zone or 5-mile zone, including all affected Emergency Response Planning Area s, or for the entire 10-mile EPZ to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less, from the nuclear power reactor licensee's currently NRC approved or updated ETE, the licensee shall update the ETE analysis to reflect the impact of that population increase. | |||
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the population within the 2-mile region, 5-mile region and the entire EPZ for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie) has increased by +11.0%, +11.8% and +12.9%, respectively | The licensee shall s ubmit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under§ 50.4 no late r than 365 days after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities for use in developing offsite protective action strategies. FPL h as contracted KLD Engineering, P.C. to estimate annual population changes between the decennial censuses for St. Lucie in accordance with the aforementioned federal regulations. FPL and the offsite response organizations (OROs) -Martin and St. Lucie Counties , the State of Florida -have reviewed and approved the methodology and Census growth rates provided below. US Census Growth Rates The population analysis for the 2012 St. Lucie ETE was performed using 2010 Census population data provided on the U.S. Census Bureau website 1* The Census Bureau QuickFacts 2 website provides annual population updates for each state, county, and municipality3 in the United States. The most recent population updates for counties and municipalities available on the QuickFacts website are for the time period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 4. The population change for each county and municipality within the study area (EPZ plus the Shadow Region, which extends to 15 miles radially from the plant) provided by QuickFacts is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. 1 www.census.go v 2 h ttps://www.census | ||
, since the 2010 Census. Based on the population sensitivity study documented in the 2012 St. Lucie ETE report, population growth of +10% or greater is needed to increase the 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes or more. As such, the population within the EPZ has grown enough at this time to trigger a full ETE update. As per federal regulations | .gov/quickfacts/table/PS T0 45216/00 3 https://www.census .qov/data/tab l es/2016/demo/popest/tota l-cities-and-t owns. html 4 The a nnual populatio n estim at es prepared by th e Ce n s u s Bur eau for t he e ntire U.S. involv es an extensive data gathering process. As s uch , popu l a ti on estimates are a year behind -20 1 6 data are r eleased in 2017. T h e sc h e dule for re l ease o f Census data is provid e d on the Census webs ite: https://www | ||
, the full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Florida Power & Light (FPL) acknowledges that lOCFRSO, Appendix E, Section IV.4 requires a full ETE analysis to be done within 365 days of the availability of the most recent decennial census data. The last full ETE analysis (KLD TR-533, dated December 2012) was based on the data from the 2010 Census. FPL continues to | .ce n sus.gov/prog r ams-survey s/pope s t/abo u t/schedule | ||
Introduction The federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to lOCFR part 50) stipulate | .ht m l St. Lucie Nuclear Pow er Plant Population Updat e A nal y s i s -2017 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O The Census does provide population estimates for the Cen s us Designated Places s (e.g., Indian River Estates , White City, River Park , etc.) within the study area at each decennial census. However, the Census Bureau does not provide annual population estimates for CDPs between decennial censuses. | ||
: During | Thus , a growth rate since the 2010 Census cannot be computed for CDPs. This analysis used county pop u lation growth rates for CDPs as population within the CDPs is included within the county pop u lation. The county, municipal, and CDP boundaries are shown in Figure 1. The U.S. Census Bureau works closely with state and local agencies to ensure that population estimates between decennial censuses are done consistently and to assure the highest quality in performing these estimates, as evidenced by the existence of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates 6 (FSCPE). The FSCPE meets twice a year and has an established set of by-laws to ensure consistency and quality in population estimates at the federal, state and local levels. The counties within the EPZ were asked for local data; no data was provided. | ||
Thus, this report uses U.S. Census growth rates. Thes e Census growth rates were reviewed by the planning agencies within each of the EPZ counties and found to be acceptable. Tab l e 1. County Population Change from April 1, 2010 to J uly 1, 2016 5 A Census Designated Place (CDP) is similar to an incorporated place (city , village, town , etc.) in that it is a place that people recog n ize by name. However , incorporat e d plac es have a separate municipal government , while CDPs do not. One of the main uses of Census data is political in terms of fund allocations (proportional to population size) to different municipalitie s by the state or co unty. The Census does not provid e annual population estimates for C DP s because they Jac k government and are not eligible for funding. 6 https://www.census.gov/programs | |||
. These licensees shall maintain these estimates so that they are available for NRC inspection during the period between decennial censuses and shall submit these estimates to the NRC with any updated ETE analysis. St. Lucie Nuclear | |||
The licensee shall | |||
. FPL | |||
. FPL and the offsite response organizations (OROs) -Martin and St. Lucie Counties, the State of Florida -have reviewed and approved the methodology and Census growth rates provided below. US Census Growth Rates The population analysis for the 2012 St. Lucie ETE was performed using 2010 Census population data provided on the U.S. Census Bureau | |||
. 1 www.census. | |||
.gov/quickfacts/table/PS | |||
. | |||
. | |||
Thus, a growth rate since the 2010 Census cannot be computed for CDPs. This analysis used county | |||
Thus, this report uses U.S. Census growth rates. | |||
. | |||
, while CDPs do not. One of the main uses of Census data is political in terms of fund allocations (proportional to population size) to different municipalitie s by the state or | |||
-surveys/popesUabouUfscpe | -surveys/popesUabouUfscpe | ||
.html St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis | .html St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. R e v.O Table 2. Municipality Population Change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 Municipality 2010 Population 7 2016 Population Percent Change Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 355 357 0.56% Sewall's Point 1 , 996 2,180 9.22% Stuart 15,588 16 ,623 6.64% St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 41,918 I 45,295 I 8.06% Port St. Lucie I 164,716 I 185 , 132 1 12.39% Shado w Region St. Lucie Village I 597 I 636 I 6.53% 7 The 2 010 Popu l at io n of Fort Pierce Ci ty and St. Lucie V ill age li sted i n Tab l e 2 do not m atch those numbers r e port ed in the ETE Updat e for 2 016 (KLD TR-872, Se ptember 2 1 , 2016). S li ght popu l ation adj u s tm e nt s have been mad e through th e Population Estimates Cha ll enge Program t o th e 2010 Cens u s Popula tion numbers. Thi s program a ll ows gove rnm e nt a l units to c hallen ge th eir popu l a t ion estimates by sub mitti ng additional data to the Census Bu r eau for eva l uat ion. This repo rt displays the 20 1 0 population data a s it is cu rr en tly published on the Ce n s u s Bureau website and m ay v ary from numbers reported i n previous ETE Updates. Ad dit ional details about th e Population Estimates C h a ll enge Program can be fou nd at th e fo ll owing webs it e: https://www.cens u s.gov/progra ms-s urveys/popesVabouVchallenqe-program | ||
-2017 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. | .html St. Lu cie Nuclear Pow er P l ant Popu l ation Update Anal y sis -2017 4 KL D Engineering, P.C. Re v.0 Legend | ||
.html St. | * St.Lucie CJ EP Z St. Lucie Count y Shadow Region County Boundary ( = 2 , 5, 10 , 15 Mile Rin1s Censu s Places Q Municipalit i es with Dat: 1 (? Census Des i 1nated Places (No Data) St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 ----' -..... -........ ' ' ' ' \. / ' I I I / ..... ' ' ' \ ' ' ' ' 'Atlantic | ||
* St.Lucie CJ | \ \ Ocean \ \ t JI :;ii r I I I I I / Martin G o unty ON: 1/l/2011 ~: CSIIIDffl1r111M.,.2016 llDf""'"'"""8,Aoflda,-.rllllht | ||
( = 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin1s | |||
-2017 ----' -..... -........ | |||
' ' ' ' \. / ' I I I / ..... ' ' ' \ ' ' ' ' 'Atlantic | |||
\ \ Ocean \ \ t JI :;ii r I I I I I / Martin | |||
......... | ......... | ||
/ / / Figure 1. Census Boundaries within the St. Lucie Study Area 5 / / / / / ' \ \ \ I I I / \ I \ \ I lOMiles I KLD | / / / Figure 1. Census Boundaries within the St. Lucie Study Area 5 / / / / / ' \ \ \ I I I / \ I \ \ I lOMiles I KLD Engineer ing, P.C. Rev. 0 Met h odology The compound growth formula (Equation | ||
: 1) was used for all population projections, where g is the | : 1) was used for all population projections, where g is the ann u al growth rate and X is the number of years projected forward from Year 2010. The compound growth formula can be solved for g as shown in Equation 2. The data provided in Table 1 and Table 2 wer e used in Equation 2 to compute the annual growth rate for each county and municipality in the stud y area using X = 6.25 (6 years and 3 months from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016). The computed annual growth rates for each county and municipality are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. Equation 1. Compound Growth Rate (Compound Growth for X years): Population 20lX = Population 2010 x (1 + g)x Equation 2. Annual Growth Rate (Solving for the annual growt h rate): g = (Popu lat ion 20lX St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 Table 3. Annual Growth Rate by County Table 4. Annual Growth Rate by Mun i cipality Municipality Annual Growth Rate Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 0.09% Sewall's Point 1.42% Stuart 1.03% St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 1.25% Port St. Lucie I 1.89% Shadow Region -St. Lucie Village I 1.02% 6 Population 2010/lx -l KLD Engineering , P.C. Rev.O The m ost detailed data should always be used when forecasting population. In terms of detailed data, mun i cipal data is the finest level of detail, then county data , and state data. The municipality growth rate was used first and if that was not available or applicable within the study area, then the county growth rate was used. County growth rates are available for the entire study area and were used (in the abse n ce of municipal data) as they are the finest level of detail available for the entire study area. Thus, state data was not used. The C ensus Bureau does not provide population data specific to the boundaries of the study area. As such , the county or municipality population reported in Table 1 and Table 2 was used to compute an annual growth rate. Then, the appropriate county or municipality growth rate was only applied to those Cens u s blocks located within the study area. All other blocks outside of the study area were not considered as part of the EPZ or Shadow Region population, even if they are located within one of the counties or municipalities that intersect the study area. Figure 2 maps the Census block centroids in the southwestern portion of the EPZ. The Martin County growth rate was applied to those designated centroids in the county, while the Port St. Lucie municipality growth rate was applied to those centroids located within the Port St. Lucie municipality boundary. | ||
. Equation | |||
-2017 Table 3. Annual Growth Rate by County Table 4. Annual Growth Rate by | |||
, P.C. Rev.O The | |||
. In terms of detailed data, | |||
As shown in Figure 2, parts of Port St. Lucie extend beyond the 15-mile Shadow Region boundary. | As shown in Figure 2, parts of Port St. Lucie extend beyond the 15-mile Shadow Region boundary. | ||
While the population in the Census blocks in those parts of the municipality beyond 15 miles was | While the population in the Census blocks in those parts of the municipality beyond 15 miles was c onsidered in the computation of the growth rate for the municipality, the population at those centroids beyond 15 miles was not included in the study area population. | ||
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software, the appropriate annual growth rate was | Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software, the appropriate annual growth rate was appli e d to each Census block in the study area depending on which county or municipality the block is locat e d within. The population was then projected to September 1, 2017 for this update using Equation 1 with X = 7.42 (7 years and 5 months from the April 1 , 2010 Census date to September 1, 2017). St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O O.i.: 7/i/l01' Co pyr1,t,i 1: URI D<<t .wt M*Ps J014 K lO l nc lM llflrc. f~ Po.et A utf,t Legend Census l"opulatlon Location Census Boundary Munlcipallty Growth Rate Munklpallty | ||
-2017 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O O.i.:7/i/l01' | : 6. Port St. Lucie County Growth Rate 0 Martin County c:::::J EPZ Q Shadow Region County LJMartln ( -::::. 15 Mile Ring 0 0.25 0.5 I I II I I Figure 2. County and Municipality Growth Rates Applied by Location St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Results The Areas which comprise the approximate 10-mile EPZ for St. Lucie are shown in Figure 3. Table 5 presents the 2010 permanent resident 8 population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for each Area, for the EPZ as a whole, and also for the 2 and 5 mile regions. Table 6 presents the 2010 permanent resident population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for the St. Lucie Shadow Region. Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the estimated 2017 EPZ and Shadow Region permanent resident population, respectively, by sector and distance from the St. Lucie site. These "pop u lation roses" were constructed using GIS software. | ||
: 6. Port St. Lucie County Growth Rate 0 Martin County c:::::J EPZ Q Shadow Region County LJMartln | Note that the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region do not conform exactly to the 2-mile and 5-mile radii due to the irregular shape of the Areas; see Figure 3. Thus, the 2-mile and 5-mile populations shown in Figure 4 do not exactly match the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region totals in Table 5. Equa t ion 3 was used to compute the percent change in population from 2010 to 2017. The percent change in population for the various regions of interest is summarized in Table 7. 8 As p e r federal regulations, only the permanent res ide nt population needs to be conside re d in the annual updates; transient and specia l facility populations are not considered. | ||
( -::::. 15 Mile Ring 0 0.25 0.5 I I II I I Figure 2. County and Municipality Growth Rates Applied by Location St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant | St. Lu c ie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Legend | ||
-2017 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Results The Areas which comprise the approximate 10-mile EPZ for St. Lucie are shown in Figure 3. Table 5 presents the 2010 permanent | * St. Lucie GJ Area , -=. 2 , 5, 10 Mil* Rings St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Populat i on Update Analysis -2017 ------.... ' Figure 3. Areas Comprising the St. Lucie EPZ 10 -.... .... ' ' ' / / \ \ I I I ' ' ' / / ' ' ' / / / \ \ \ \ I I I I H w~, . 10 Mllu KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Table 5. EPZ Population 2017 2010 Extrapolated Area Population Population 1 3, 676 4 , 033 8 7 , 7 3 6 8 , 639 2-Mile Region Total: 11,412 12,672 2 13 ,1 99 14 , 75 2 6 22,5 05 2 5 , 737 7 2 1 , 995 2 4 , 071 5-Mile Reg i on Total: 69,111 77,232 3 3 7,7 13 4 1 , 547 4 38 ,3 91 4 3,764 5 72,494 83 , 161 t** ""'' ,,+/- ~°'. 'f; *~-I[~-:*;~"~"' | ||
Table 6 presents the 2010 permanent resident population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for the St. Lucie Shadow Region. Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the estimated 2017 EPZ and Shadow Region permanent resident population, respectively, by sector and distance from the St. Lucie site. These " | |||
Note that the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region do not conform exactly to the 2-mile and 5-mile radii due to the irregular shape of the Areas; see Figure 3. Thus, the 2-mile and 5-mile populations shown in Figure 4 do not exactly match the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region totals in Table 5. | |||
St. | |||
-2017 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Legend | |||
* St. Lucie GJ Area , -=. 2, 5, 10 Mil* Rings St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant | |||
-2017 ------.... ' Figure 3. Areas Comprising the St. Lucie EPZ 10 -.... .... ' ' ' / / \ \ I I I ' ' ' / / ' ' ' / / / \ \ \ \ I I I I H w~, . 10 Mllu KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Table 5. EPZ Population 2017 2010 Extrapolated Area Population Population 1 3,676 4,033 8 7, | |||
~*iA ~-V : t .. ~~:-~. fi,~,h,;i.,,.ec | ~*iA ~-V : t .. ~~:-~. fi,~,h,;i.,,.ec | ||
.. ti* ~--~~~'r,,;J.,<-";<;,, | .. ti* ~--~~~'r,,;J.,<-";<;,, | ||
Table 6. Shadow Population by Sector 2017 Extrapolated Sector 2010 Population Population N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 8,482 9,299 s 43,648 47,620 SSW 14, | Table 6. Shadow Population by Sector 2017 Extrapolated Sector 2010 Population Population N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 8,482 9,299 s 43 ,648 47,620 SSW 14, 0 4 1 15,486 SW 3 0 , 851 35 ,3 95 WSW 2 0 ,2 75 23 , 26 3 w 3 , 596 4,078 WNW 2 , 35 1 2, 649 NW 7, 109 7,985 NNW 5 , 3 82 6 , 03 2 **, s;,,,:l~'*.-t*>'r ,Jc*. ,v. "";;"''"' | ||
,Jc*. ,v. "";;"''"' | ;,:; St. Luc i e Nucl e a r Po wer P lan t Popul ation Upd a t e Anal y s i s -2 0 17 11 K L D En g i neering, P.C. R e v.O WNW !14,262! ,-w !31 , 772! I 0 I I WSW ~7,964! NW @4,043! , ; ' ,l.S7S SW ' ' @6,286! NNW 14,455 I SSW ~4,873! 2017 Extrapolated Resident Population Miles subtota l by R i ne Cumulative Total 0*1 180 180 1*2 335 515 2*3 412 927 3.4 8 , 919 9,846 4.5 20 , 564 30 , 410 5*6 27 , 630 58 , 040 6-7 36 , 066 94 , 106 7-8 47 , 634 141 , 740 8-9 49 , 460 191,200 9-10 40 , 925 232,125 10 | ||
;,:; St. | * EPZ 13 , 579 245 ,7 04 T otal: 245 , 704 0 0 s 120,0501 NNE CD .l ---SSE !11,689! w Figure 4. Permanent EPZ Resident Population by Sector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 12 , -' NE CD ; SE [ill] ENE CD -' ' E o* CD i ESE IT] 10 M i l e s to EPZ Boundary N E KLD Engineering , P.C. Rev.O WNW 12 , 649 1 w 14,01s I WSW I 23 , 2631 NW 7,985 SW 135 , 3951 NNW SSW 115,4861 ). , ' 2017 Extrapolated Shadow Population M i les Subtotal by R i ng Cumulative Total EPZ | ||
* EPZ 13,579 245, | * 11 3 6 , 864 36 , 864 11 | ||
w Figure 4. Permanent EPZ Resident Population by Sector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant | * 12 40 , 047 76,911 12 -13 37 , 620 11 4,531 13 | ||
-2017 12 , -' NE CD ; SE [ill] ENE CD -' ' E o* CD i ESE IT] 10 | * 14 1 9 , 488 134 , 019 14-15 1 7 , 788 151 , 807 T otal: 1 51,807 N 0 ' ' ' EPZ Res i dent Population Se e F i gure 4 , , .. --_,. Figure 5. Shadow Population by Sector St. L ucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analy s i s -2017 13 NNE 0 NE 0 ENE 0 E 0 ESE 0 SE 0 ' _, EPZ Bound a ry t o 11 M i l os KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Equation 3. Percent Population Change 2017 Extrapolated Population | ||
, P.C. Rev.O WNW 12,649 1 w 14,01s I WSW I 23,2631 NW 7,985 SW 135,3951 NNW SSW 115,4861 | |||
). , ' 2017 Extrapolated Shadow Population | |||
* 11 | |||
* 12 40,047 76,911 12 -13 37,620 | |||
* 14 | |||
-2010 Population | -2010 Population | ||
% population change= x 100% 2010 Population Table 7. Summary of Percent Population Changes Percent Region Population Change (2010-2017) 2-Mile Region +11.0% 5-Mile Region +11.8% EPZ +12.9% Shadow Region +11.8% EPZ + Shadow Region +12.5% As documented in the NRC's response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013-001, the licensee should consider the impact of a population increase on the longest goth percentile ETE for the scenarios identified in Table 1-3 of NUREG/CR-7002, with two possible exceptions: | % population change= x 100% 2010 Population Table 7. Summary of Percent Population Changes Percent Region Population Change (2010-2017) 2-Mile Region +11.0% 5-Mile Region +11.8% EPZ +12.9% Shadow Region +11.8% EPZ + Shadow Region +12.5% As documented in the NRC's response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013-001, the licensee should consider the impact of a population increase on the longest goth percentile ETE for the scenarios identified in Table 1-3 of NUREG/CR-7002, with two possible exceptions: | ||
: 1. The roadway impact scenario need not be considered because the only purpose of this scenario is to support the development of traffic control planning. | : 1. The roadway impact scenario need not be considered because the only purpose of this scenario is to support the development of traffic control planning. | ||
: 2. The need to include the special event scenario depends on the frequency of the special event analyzed. | : 2. The need to include the special event scenario depends on the frequency of the special event analyzed. | ||
Licensees should consider using this scenario if the special event chosen is repetitive during the year, such as multiple home football or baseball games, and not a one-time event such as a seasonal parade. As | Licensees should consider using this scenario if the special event chosen is repetitive during the year, such as multiple home football or baseball games, and not a one-time event such as a seasonal parade. As d o cumented in Table 7-1, "Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population" in th e 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report, the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE is Scenario 7 -a winter, midweek, midday scenario with rain -a non-special event. St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 14 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.0 Table 8 i s from Ta bl e M-3 in Appendix M of the 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report and documents the population s ensitiv i ty study c onducted under Scenario 7 conditions. | ||
-2017 14 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.0 Table 8 | A s di sc ussed in the introduction , federal regulations stipula t e that a full updated ETE study mu s t be conducted if population growth is large enough t o cause the longe s t go th percentile ETE to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Those populat i on changes which result in a go th percentile ETE change meeting or exceeding the federal cr i teria f~r a full ETE update are highlighted red in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, at least a 10% increase in populat i on in the EPZ is needed to inc r ease the longest goth percent i le ETE by 30 minute s. The EPZ population has increased by 12.g% as shown in Table 7. Thus, population has grown enough to trigger a full ETE update. As discussed in the introduction, the federal regulations indicate that the licensee shall submit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under §50.4 no later than 365 day s after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities fo r use in developing offsite protective action strategies. | ||
Thus, a full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Table 8. ETE Variation with Population Change Region Base 2-MILE 5: 35 5-MILE 4:05 Region Base 2-MILE 7: 05 5-MILE 7: 05 FULL EPZ 8:10 St. Lu c ie N u clear Powe r Plant Population Update An a ly s i s -201 7 3% 5: 40 4:05 3% 7:05 7: 05 8: 40 4% 5% 7% 5: 40 5:40 5: 45 4:15 4: 15 4: 20 Population Increase 4% 5% 7% 7:05 7: 10 7: 10 7: 05 7: 10 7: 10 8: 40 8:40 8: 40 15 10% 7: 20 7:2 0 8: 55 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O}} | |||
, federal regulations | |||
Thus, a full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Table 8. ETE Variation with Population Change Region Base 2-MILE 5:35 5-MILE 4:05 Region Base 2-MILE 7:05 5-MILE 7:05 FULL EPZ 8:10 St. |
Revision as of 01:48, 6 July 2018
ML18093A380 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Saint Lucie ![]() |
Issue date: | 09/20/2017 |
From: | KLD Engineering, PC |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
Shared Package | |
ML18093A362 | List: |
References | |
L-2018-081 KLD TR-937, Rev 0 | |
Download: ML18093A380 (16) | |
Text
L e ge n d
- St.Luci* Q Area \.-:. 2 , 5 , 10 M Ii, R i n 1s Sept em b er 2 0, 2017 ENGINEERING, RC. St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 2017 Population Update Analysis .... .... ' ' ' ' ' ':' I I / / / / / / Work performed for Florida Power & light, by: KLD Engineering, P.C. 1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 E-mail: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com Final Repor t , Rev 0 ' ' \ ' \ I I I I / \ I j 6 ' I I *1-* 10 M i le.s KLD T R-937 Executive Summary Federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to lOCFR part SO) require nuclear power plant licensees to estimate the permanent resident population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of the plant at least annually during the years between decennial censuses. If the population increases such that the longest 90 th percentile Evacuation Time Estimate (ET E) for the 2-mile region, 5-mile region or the entire EPZ increases by 25 percent or 30 minutes , whichever is less, a full ETE update is required.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data , the population within the 2-mile region, 5-mile region and the entire EPZ for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant (St. Lucie) has increased by +11.0%, +11.8% and +12.9%, respectively , since the 2010 Census. Based on the population sensitivity study documented in the 2012 St. Lucie ETE report, population growth of +10% or greater is needed to increase the 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes or more. As such , the population within the EPZ has grown enough at this time to trigger a full ETE update. As per federal regulations , the full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Florida Power & Light (FPL) acknowledges that lOCFRSO, Appendix E,Section IV.4 requires a full ETE analysis to be done within 365 days of the availability of the most recent decennial census data. The last full ETE analysis (KLD TR-533, dated December 2012) was based on the data from the 2010 Census. FPL continues to perfo r m annual permanent resident population estimates for the EPZ (as documented in this report) in the years between the decennial censu s es , in accordance with lOCFRSO, Appendix E ,Section IV.5. The annual update for 2017 indicates that permanent resident population within the EPZ has grown enough to significantly impact ETE , thereby triggering a full ETE analysis.
Introduction The federal regulations (Section IV of Appendix E to lOCFR part 50) stipulate: During th e years between decennial censuses, nuclear power reactor licensees shall estimate EPZ permanent resident population changes once a year, but no later than 365 days from the date of the previous estimate, using the most recen t U.S. Census Bureau annual resident population estimate and State/local government population data , if available. These licensees shall maintain these estimates so that they are available for NRC inspection during the period between decennial censuses and shall submit these estimates to the NRC with any updated ETE analysis. St. Lucie Nuclear Pow er Plant Popu l ation Updat e A na ly s i s -2017 1 KLD Enginee r ing , P.C. Rev.0 If at any time during the decennial period, the EPZ permanent resident population increases such that it causes the longest ETE value for the 2-mile zone or 5-mile zone, including all affected Emergency Response Planning Area s, or for the entire 10-mile EPZ to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less, from the nuclear power reactor licensee's currently NRC approved or updated ETE, the licensee shall update the ETE analysis to reflect the impact of that population increase.
The licensee shall s ubmit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under§ 50.4 no late r than 365 days after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities for use in developing offsite protective action strategies. FPL h as contracted KLD Engineering, P.C. to estimate annual population changes between the decennial censuses for St. Lucie in accordance with the aforementioned federal regulations. FPL and the offsite response organizations (OROs) -Martin and St. Lucie Counties , the State of Florida -have reviewed and approved the methodology and Census growth rates provided below. US Census Growth Rates The population analysis for the 2012 St. Lucie ETE was performed using 2010 Census population data provided on the U.S. Census Bureau website 1* The Census Bureau QuickFacts 2 website provides annual population updates for each state, county, and municipality3 in the United States. The most recent population updates for counties and municipalities available on the QuickFacts website are for the time period from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 4. The population change for each county and municipality within the study area (EPZ plus the Shadow Region, which extends to 15 miles radially from the plant) provided by QuickFacts is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. 1 www.census.go v 2 h ttps://www.census
.gov/quickfacts/table/PS T0 45216/00 3 https://www.census .qov/data/tab l es/2016/demo/popest/tota l-cities-and-t owns. html 4 The a nnual populatio n estim at es prepared by th e Ce n s u s Bur eau for t he e ntire U.S. involv es an extensive data gathering process. As s uch , popu l a ti on estimates are a year behind -20 1 6 data are r eleased in 2017. T h e sc h e dule for re l ease o f Census data is provid e d on the Census webs ite: https://www
.ce n sus.gov/prog r ams-survey s/pope s t/abo u t/schedule
.ht m l St. Lucie Nuclear Pow er Plant Population Updat e A nal y s i s -2017 2 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O The Census does provide population estimates for the Cen s us Designated Places s (e.g., Indian River Estates , White City, River Park , etc.) within the study area at each decennial census. However, the Census Bureau does not provide annual population estimates for CDPs between decennial censuses.
Thus , a growth rate since the 2010 Census cannot be computed for CDPs. This analysis used county pop u lation growth rates for CDPs as population within the CDPs is included within the county pop u lation. The county, municipal, and CDP boundaries are shown in Figure 1. The U.S. Census Bureau works closely with state and local agencies to ensure that population estimates between decennial censuses are done consistently and to assure the highest quality in performing these estimates, as evidenced by the existence of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates 6 (FSCPE). The FSCPE meets twice a year and has an established set of by-laws to ensure consistency and quality in population estimates at the federal, state and local levels. The counties within the EPZ were asked for local data; no data was provided.
Thus, this report uses U.S. Census growth rates. Thes e Census growth rates were reviewed by the planning agencies within each of the EPZ counties and found to be acceptable. Tab l e 1. County Population Change from April 1, 2010 to J uly 1, 2016 5 A Census Designated Place (CDP) is similar to an incorporated place (city , village, town , etc.) in that it is a place that people recog n ize by name. However , incorporat e d plac es have a separate municipal government , while CDPs do not. One of the main uses of Census data is political in terms of fund allocations (proportional to population size) to different municipalitie s by the state or co unty. The Census does not provid e annual population estimates for C DP s because they Jac k government and are not eligible for funding. 6 https://www.census.gov/programs
-surveys/popesUabouUfscpe
.html St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 3 KLD Engineering, P.C. R e v.O Table 2. Municipality Population Change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 Municipality 2010 Population 7 2016 Population Percent Change Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 355 357 0.56% Sewall's Point 1 , 996 2,180 9.22% Stuart 15,588 16 ,623 6.64% St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 41,918 I 45,295 I 8.06% Port St. Lucie I 164,716 I 185 , 132 1 12.39% Shado w Region St. Lucie Village I 597 I 636 I 6.53% 7 The 2 010 Popu l at io n of Fort Pierce Ci ty and St. Lucie V ill age li sted i n Tab l e 2 do not m atch those numbers r e port ed in the ETE Updat e for 2 016 (KLD TR-872, Se ptember 2 1 , 2016). S li ght popu l ation adj u s tm e nt s have been mad e through th e Population Estimates Cha ll enge Program t o th e 2010 Cens u s Popula tion numbers. Thi s program a ll ows gove rnm e nt a l units to c hallen ge th eir popu l a t ion estimates by sub mitti ng additional data to the Census Bu r eau for eva l uat ion. This repo rt displays the 20 1 0 population data a s it is cu rr en tly published on the Ce n s u s Bureau website and m ay v ary from numbers reported i n previous ETE Updates. Ad dit ional details about th e Population Estimates C h a ll enge Program can be fou nd at th e fo ll owing webs it e: https://www.cens u s.gov/progra ms-s urveys/popesVabouVchallenqe-program
.html St. Lu cie Nuclear Pow er P l ant Popu l ation Update Anal y sis -2017 4 KL D Engineering, P.C. Re v.0 Legend
- St.Lucie CJ EP Z St. Lucie Count y Shadow Region County Boundary ( = 2 , 5, 10 , 15 Mile Rin1s Censu s Places Q Municipalit i es with Dat: 1 (? Census Des i 1nated Places (No Data) St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 ----' -..... -........ ' ' ' ' \. / ' I I I / ..... ' ' ' \ ' ' ' ' 'Atlantic
\ \ Ocean \ \ t JI :;ii r I I I I I / Martin G o unty ON: 1/l/2011 ~: CSIIIDffl1r111M.,.2016 llDf""'"'"""8,Aoflda,-.rllllht
.........
/ / / Figure 1. Census Boundaries within the St. Lucie Study Area 5 / / / / / ' \ \ \ I I I / \ I \ \ I lOMiles I KLD Engineer ing, P.C. Rev. 0 Met h odology The compound growth formula (Equation
- 1) was used for all population projections, where g is the ann u al growth rate and X is the number of years projected forward from Year 2010. The compound growth formula can be solved for g as shown in Equation 2. The data provided in Table 1 and Table 2 wer e used in Equation 2 to compute the annual growth rate for each county and municipality in the stud y area using X = 6.25 (6 years and 3 months from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016). The computed annual growth rates for each county and municipality are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. Equation 1. Compound Growth Rate (Compound Growth for X years): Population 20lX = Population 2010 x (1 + g)x Equation 2. Annual Growth Rate (Solving for the annual growt h rate): g = (Popu lat ion 20lX St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 Table 3. Annual Growth Rate by County Table 4. Annual Growth Rate by Mun i cipality Municipality Annual Growth Rate Martin County, FL EPZ Ocean Breeze Park 0.09% Sewall's Point 1.42% Stuart 1.03% St. Lucie County, FL EPZ Fort Pierce I 1.25% Port St. Lucie I 1.89% Shadow Region -St. Lucie Village I 1.02% 6 Population 2010/lx -l KLD Engineering , P.C. Rev.O The m ost detailed data should always be used when forecasting population. In terms of detailed data, mun i cipal data is the finest level of detail, then county data , and state data. The municipality growth rate was used first and if that was not available or applicable within the study area, then the county growth rate was used. County growth rates are available for the entire study area and were used (in the abse n ce of municipal data) as they are the finest level of detail available for the entire study area. Thus, state data was not used. The C ensus Bureau does not provide population data specific to the boundaries of the study area. As such , the county or municipality population reported in Table 1 and Table 2 was used to compute an annual growth rate. Then, the appropriate county or municipality growth rate was only applied to those Cens u s blocks located within the study area. All other blocks outside of the study area were not considered as part of the EPZ or Shadow Region population, even if they are located within one of the counties or municipalities that intersect the study area. Figure 2 maps the Census block centroids in the southwestern portion of the EPZ. The Martin County growth rate was applied to those designated centroids in the county, while the Port St. Lucie municipality growth rate was applied to those centroids located within the Port St. Lucie municipality boundary.
As shown in Figure 2, parts of Port St. Lucie extend beyond the 15-mile Shadow Region boundary.
While the population in the Census blocks in those parts of the municipality beyond 15 miles was c onsidered in the computation of the growth rate for the municipality, the population at those centroids beyond 15 miles was not included in the study area population.
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping software, the appropriate annual growth rate was appli e d to each Census block in the study area depending on which county or municipality the block is locat e d within. The population was then projected to September 1, 2017 for this update using Equation 1 with X = 7.42 (7 years and 5 months from the April 1 , 2010 Census date to September 1, 2017). St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 7 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O O.i.: 7/i/l01' Co pyr1,t,i 1: URI D<<t .wt M*Ps J014 K lO l nc lM llflrc. f~ Po.et A utf,t Legend Census l"opulatlon Location Census Boundary Munlcipallty Growth Rate Munklpallty
- 6. Port St. Lucie County Growth Rate 0 Martin County c:::::J EPZ Q Shadow Region County LJMartln ( -::::. 15 Mile Ring 0 0.25 0.5 I I II I I Figure 2. County and Municipality Growth Rates Applied by Location St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 8 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Results The Areas which comprise the approximate 10-mile EPZ for St. Lucie are shown in Figure 3. Table 5 presents the 2010 permanent resident 8 population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for each Area, for the EPZ as a whole, and also for the 2 and 5 mile regions. Table 6 presents the 2010 permanent resident population and estimated permanent resident population for 2017 for the St. Lucie Shadow Region. Figure 4 and Figure 5 present the estimated 2017 EPZ and Shadow Region permanent resident population, respectively, by sector and distance from the St. Lucie site. These "pop u lation roses" were constructed using GIS software.
Note that the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region do not conform exactly to the 2-mile and 5-mile radii due to the irregular shape of the Areas; see Figure 3. Thus, the 2-mile and 5-mile populations shown in Figure 4 do not exactly match the 2-Mile Region and 5-Mile Region totals in Table 5. Equa t ion 3 was used to compute the percent change in population from 2010 to 2017. The percent change in population for the various regions of interest is summarized in Table 7. 8 As p e r federal regulations, only the permanent res ide nt population needs to be conside re d in the annual updates; transient and specia l facility populations are not considered.
St. Lu c ie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 9 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Legend
- St. Lucie GJ Area , -=. 2 , 5, 10 Mil* Rings St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Populat i on Update Analysis -2017 ------.... ' Figure 3. Areas Comprising the St. Lucie EPZ 10 -.... .... ' ' ' / / \ \ I I I ' ' ' / / ' ' ' / / / \ \ \ \ I I I I H w~, . 10 Mllu KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Table 5. EPZ Population 2017 2010 Extrapolated Area Population Population 1 3, 676 4 , 033 8 7 , 7 3 6 8 , 639 2-Mile Region Total: 11,412 12,672 2 13 ,1 99 14 , 75 2 6 22,5 05 2 5 , 737 7 2 1 , 995 2 4 , 071 5-Mile Reg i on Total: 69,111 77,232 3 3 7,7 13 4 1 , 547 4 38 ,3 91 4 3,764 5 72,494 83 , 161 t** "" ,,+/- ~°'. 'f; *~-I[~-:*;~"~"'
~*iA ~-V : t .. ~~:-~. fi,~,h,;i.,,.ec
.. ti* ~--~~~'r,,;J.,<-";<;,,
Table 6. Shadow Population by Sector 2017 Extrapolated Sector 2010 Population Population N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 0 0 ENE 0 0 E 0 0 ESE 0 0 SE 0 0 SSE 8,482 9,299 s 43 ,648 47,620 SSW 14, 0 4 1 15,486 SW 3 0 , 851 35 ,3 95 WSW 2 0 ,2 75 23 , 26 3 w 3 , 596 4,078 WNW 2 , 35 1 2, 649 NW 7, 109 7,985 NNW 5 , 3 82 6 , 03 2 **, s;,,,:l~'*.-t*>'r ,Jc*. ,v. "";;""'
- ,
- ; St. Luc i e Nucl e a r Po wer P lan t Popul ation Upd a t e Anal y s i s -2 0 17 11 K L D En g i neering, P.C. R e v.O WNW !14,262! ,-w !31 , 772! I 0 I I WSW ~7,964! NW @4,043! , ; ' ,l.S7S SW ' ' @6,286! NNW 14,455 I SSW ~4,873! 2017 Extrapolated Resident Population Miles subtota l by R i ne Cumulative Total 0*1 180 180 1*2 335 515 2*3 412 927 3.4 8 , 919 9,846 4.5 20 , 564 30 , 410 5*6 27 , 630 58 , 040 6-7 36 , 066 94 , 106 7-8 47 , 634 141 , 740 8-9 49 , 460 191,200 9-10 40 , 925 232,125 10
- EPZ 13 , 579 245 ,7 04 T otal: 245 , 704 0 0 s 120,0501 NNE CD .l ---SSE !11,689! w Figure 4. Permanent EPZ Resident Population by Sector St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analysis -2017 12 , -' NE CD ; SE [ill] ENE CD -' ' E o* CD i ESE IT] 10 M i l e s to EPZ Boundary N E KLD Engineering , P.C. Rev.O WNW 12 , 649 1 w 14,01s I WSW I 23 , 2631 NW 7,985 SW 135 , 3951 NNW SSW 115,4861 ). , ' 2017 Extrapolated Shadow Population M i les Subtotal by R i ng Cumulative Total EPZ
- 11 3 6 , 864 36 , 864 11
- 12 40 , 047 76,911 12 -13 37 , 620 11 4,531 13
- 14 1 9 , 488 134 , 019 14-15 1 7 , 788 151 , 807 T otal: 1 51,807 N 0 ' ' ' EPZ Res i dent Population Se e F i gure 4 , , .. --_,. Figure 5. Shadow Population by Sector St. L ucie Nuclear Power Plant Popu l ation Update Analy s i s -2017 13 NNE 0 NE 0 ENE 0 E 0 ESE 0 SE 0 ' _, EPZ Bound a ry t o 11 M i l os KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O Equation 3. Percent Population Change 2017 Extrapolated Population
-2010 Population
% population change= x 100% 2010 Population Table 7. Summary of Percent Population Changes Percent Region Population Change (2010-2017) 2-Mile Region +11.0% 5-Mile Region +11.8% EPZ +12.9% Shadow Region +11.8% EPZ + Shadow Region +12.5% As documented in the NRC's response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013-001, the licensee should consider the impact of a population increase on the longest goth percentile ETE for the scenarios identified in Table 1-3 of NUREG/CR-7002, with two possible exceptions:
- 1. The roadway impact scenario need not be considered because the only purpose of this scenario is to support the development of traffic control planning.
- 2. The need to include the special event scenario depends on the frequency of the special event analyzed.
Licensees should consider using this scenario if the special event chosen is repetitive during the year, such as multiple home football or baseball games, and not a one-time event such as a seasonal parade. As d o cumented in Table 7-1, "Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population" in th e 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report, the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE is Scenario 7 -a winter, midweek, midday scenario with rain -a non-special event. St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Population Update Analysis -2017 14 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.0 Table 8 i s from Ta bl e M-3 in Appendix M of the 2012 St. Lucie ETE Report and documents the population s ensitiv i ty study c onducted under Scenario 7 conditions.
A s di sc ussed in the introduction , federal regulations stipula t e that a full updated ETE study mu s t be conducted if population growth is large enough t o cause the longe s t go th percentile ETE to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Those populat i on changes which result in a go th percentile ETE change meeting or exceeding the federal cr i teria f~r a full ETE update are highlighted red in Table 8. As shown in Table 8, at least a 10% increase in populat i on in the EPZ is needed to inc r ease the longest goth percent i le ETE by 30 minute s. The EPZ population has increased by 12.g% as shown in Table 7. Thus, population has grown enough to trigger a full ETE update. As discussed in the introduction, the federal regulations indicate that the licensee shall submit the updated ETE analysis to the NRC under §50.4 no later than 365 day s after the licensee's determination that the criteria for updating the ETE have been met and at least 180 days before using it to form protective action recommendations and providing it to State and local governmental authorities fo r use in developing offsite protective action strategies.
Thus, a full ETE update must be completed and submitted to the NRC prior to September 20, 2018. Table 8. ETE Variation with Population Change Region Base 2-MILE 5: 35 5-MILE 4:05 Region Base 2-MILE 7: 05 5-MILE 7: 05 FULL EPZ 8:10 St. Lu c ie N u clear Powe r Plant Population Update An a ly s i s -201 7 3% 5: 40 4:05 3% 7:05 7: 05 8: 40 4% 5% 7% 5: 40 5:40 5: 45 4:15 4: 15 4: 20 Population Increase 4% 5% 7% 7:05 7: 10 7: 10 7: 05 7: 10 7: 10 8: 40 8:40 8: 40 15 10% 7: 20 7:2 0 8: 55 KLD Engineering, P.C. Rev.O