ML12356A174

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:03, 18 March 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Kld TR-505, Rev. 1, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Part 4 of 8
ML12356A174
Person / Time
Site: Monticello Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/2012
From:
KLD Engineering, PC
To:
Northern States Power Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Xcel Energy
References
L-MT-12-112 KLD TR-505, Rev 1
Download: ML12356A174 (50)
v • d • e


Text

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 D-1.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 boundary.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 from phone calls to major employers and data provided from county and municipal sources. Transient data were obtained from local/state 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 county and municipal sources.Step3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and local emergency managers, on-site and off-site utility emergency managers, local and state law enforcement agencies).

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 pre-timed traffic signals, and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.Step 5 A telephone survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuation-related demographic information of the EPZ population.

This information was used to determine important study factors including Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant D-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform pre-evacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a link-node 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 link-specific characteristics were introduced to the network description.

Traffic signal timings were input accordingly.

The link-node 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 12 Sub-Areas.

Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Sub-Area) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of time-of-day, day-of-week, seasonal and weather-related 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 model-assigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and network-wide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined.

The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software which operates on data produced by DYNEV II) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant D-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 is a labor-intensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion.

This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

  • The results are satisfactory; or* The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems.

These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, 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 transit-dependent 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 route-specific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario-specific evacuation cases to be simulated.

This process was automated through the UNITES user Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant D-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 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 case-specific 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 transit-dependent 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/CR-7002.

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.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant D-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I Step 1 Create GIS Base Map Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Study Area Il Step 3 Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Step 4 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area-F Step 5 Conduct Telephone Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics Step 6 Create and Calibrate Link-Node Analysis Network Step 7 Develop Evacuation Regions a Step 8 Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Streamr I Step 14_ _ _ Step 9 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Step 15 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Evacuation Cases I Step 16 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes I Step 17 F -Documentation Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist B'I-Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate D-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 APPENDIX E Special Facility Data E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of July 2012, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the MNGP EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, pre-schools, day care centers, hospitals and other medical care facilities, and correctional facilities.

Transient population data is included in the tables for campgrounds, parks, golf courses and lodging facilities.

Employment data is included in the tables for major employers.

Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straight-line distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, pre-school, day care center, medical facility, campground, park, golf course, lodging facility, major employer, and correctional facility are also provided.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-1. Schools within the EPZ!N 4./ NNW t3ecKer Higfl IZUUU HanCOCK 5t BecKer ( /bS) b:L-45U1 BUU tsu 5N 4.5 NNW Becker Intermediate Elementary 12000 Hancock St Becker (763) 261-4504 656 45 School 5N 4.4 NNW Becker Middle School 12000 2nd St SE Becker (763) 261-6333 700 60 5N 4.4 NNW Becker Primary School 12050 2nd St SE Becker (763) 261-6330 583 79 5E 5.7 E Independence Elementary School 701 Minnesota Ave Big Lake (763) 262-2537 888 123 SE 6.1 E Liberty Elementary School 17901 205th Ave NW Big Lake (763) 262-8100 703 100 5E 3.4 E Big Lake Middle School 601 Minnesota Ave Big Lake (763) 262-2567 816 79 5E 5.4 E Big Lake High School 501 Minnesota Ave Big Lake (763) 262-2547 942 104 2 2.6 SE Pinewood Elementary School 1010 W Broadway St Monticello (763) 272-2003 993 125 2 1.4 SE Prairie House 305 Prairie Rd Monticello (651) 785-5647 7 1 5S 3.8 SE Alternative Learning Program 1248 Edmonson Ave Monticello (763) 272-3200 28 5 55 4.9 SE Eastview Elementary (Family Center) 9375 Fenning Ave NE Monticello (763) 272-2003 565 42 5S 4.5 SE Little Mountain Elementary School 9350 Fallon Ave NE Monticello (763) 272-2600 820 86 5S 4.7 SE Monticello High School 5225 School Blvd Monticello (763) 272-3000 1,175 128 5S 3.8 SE Monticello Middle School 800 E Broadway St Monticello (763) 272-2100 957 106 5S 3.1 SE Swan River Montessori School 500 Maple St Monticello (763) 271-7926 175 30 10SE 10.6 SE Fieldstone Elementary School 5255 Jansen Ave NE St. Michael (763) 497-0904 643 77 10SE 10.1 ESE Kaleidoscope Charter School 7525 Kalland Ave NE Otsego (763) 428-1890 404 50 10SE 10.2 SE St. Michael-Albertville High School 5800 Jamison Ave Albertville (763) 497-6590 1,450 130 10S 10.0 S Buffalo Community Middle School 1300 Hwy 25 N Buffalo (763) 682-8200 1,272 106 10S 10.5 S Buffalo High School 877 Bison Blvd Buffalo (763) 682-8706 1,740 149 10S 9.8 S Cornerstone High School 1405 3rd Ave NE Buffalo (763) 684-2276 18 10 10S 9.8 S Eastern Wright Elementary School 1405 3rd Ave NE Buffalo (763) 684-2276 12 8 10S 9.2 5 St. Francis Parochial School 233 19th St NW Buffalo (763) 684-0075 215 40 10S 10.6 S Tatanka Elementary School 703 8th St. NE Buffalo (763) 682-8606 545 51 10S 9.8 S Wright Technical Center Headstart 1405 3rd Ave NE Buffalo (763) 684-2276 50 8 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I lOS 9.8 S Wright Technical Center High School 1405 3rd Ave NE Buffalo (763) 684-2276 350 40 1OSW 10.0 SW Maple Lake Elementary School 200 State Highway 55 E Maple Lake (320) 963-3170 936 140 1OSW 10.0 SW Maple Lake High School 200 State Highway 55 E Maple Lake (320) 963-3170 105W 10.3 SW St. Timothy's Catholic School 241 Start East St Maple Lake (320) 963-3417 120 10 105W 10.4 SW Westside School 33 Birch S Ave Maple Lake (320) 963-3778 25 5 S.R 11.0 S Discovery Elementary School 301 2nd Ave NE Buffalo (763) 682-8400 259 104 S.R 10.5 SSW Northwinds Elementary School 1111 7th Ave NW Buffalo (763) 682-8800 637 66 S.R 10.9 S Parkside Elementary School 207 3rd St. NE Buffalo (763) 682-8500 424 47 S.R 10.6 S Phoenix Learning Center 800 8th St NE Buffalo (763) 682-8706 30 4 R 11 " n PRIrF Tranditinnc 1 r 1 et Avpniip rni ith ri itp A RlIfifln 17611 AR)-RM771 1 A Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation rime Estimate E-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Table E-2. Pre-Schools and Daycares within the EPZ I 5N 4.4 1 NN'W i tseCKer Primary bcnooi tariy Lfliiafloo i izublU zna bt:)t I t~eC~er I /bi)Zb1-b3iU I 185 1 Z I I + +5S 3.3 SE Playhouse Child Care Center 109 Sandberg Rd Monticello (763) 295-6668 65 12 55 5.3 SE Pumpkin Patch Pre-School 9225 Jason Ave NE Monticello (763) 295-5040 30 5 105 9.2 S St. Francis Xavier Child Development 233 19th St NW Buffalo (763) 684-0075 75 10 Preschool 23_9ht__ufao(_3__-07_5_

1osw 10.0 SW Maple Lake Preschool 200 State Highway 55 E Maple Lake (320) 963-3170 25 5 low 11.5 WNW Bright Eyes Montessori School 205 Oak St Clearwater (320) 558-2445 19 6 low 11.0 WNW Clearwater Headstart 1155 County Rd 75 Clearwater (320) 963-6500 20 3 mm4KL Egmeeinmm.C Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-A KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ 40 SE New Kiver ivieuicai 5S 4 I Center 1013 Hart Blvd Monticello 1 (763) 295-2945 31 25 9 5 11 SS 4.0 ESE Center Long Term Care 1104 E River St Monticello (763) 271-2333 89 84 71 1 0 4.1 I Cntew Rivger m MdCal 1 04rie rt _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ I .-n 11 I 5S 4.4 S St. Benedict's Senior 1301 East 7th St SE Community Monticello (763) 295-4051 150 146 139 5 2 1 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-4. Major Employers within the EPZ I N I 4.. 1 NNW I tecKer I-urnliure woria I 151.U SIt bt I tbeCKer I l/tz$iJZbL-!IUUU I 15U I 4!170 I /4 5N I3.8 NNW SheMrco Plant 1n999 Industrial Blvd Becker (763) 261-4100 350 53% 186 5E 47.7 E RemmeB e Engineering, Inc.C 17701 198th Ave NW Big Lake (763) 263-2636 130 49% 64 S 1.0 SSE Electro Industries, Inc. 2150 West River St Monticello (763) 295-4138 24 25% 13 5 0.9 SE MNGP Training Center 2100 West River St Monticello (763) 261-4100 50 53% 27 2 --MNGP 2807 W CR 75 Monticello

((763) 295-2066 489 53% 259 5S !4.3 SE Bondlhus Corporation 1400 E Broadway St Monticello (763) 295-2162 30 20% 6 5SS 3.2 SE Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. 206 West 4th St Monticello (763) 271-5600 248 15% 37 S5 3.5 SE Hoglund Bus Company, Inc. 116 Oakwood Dr East Monticello (763) 295-5119 64 50% 32 5S 4.3 SE Integrated Recycling 9696 Fallon Ave Monticello (763) 295-6992 60 49% 29 Technologies (IRT)9 5S 4.3 SE Production Stamping, Inc. 9600 Fallon Ave NE Monticello (763) 295-8400 53 75% 40 5S 4.4 SE The Home Depot -Monticello 1 1385 7th Street East Monticello (763) 295-9500 80 49% 39 5 4.5 Ultra Machining Company 500 Chelsea Rd Monticello (763) 271-5200 100 75% 75 SE (UMC)5S 4.1 SE Walmart Supercenter 9320 Cedar St Monticello (763) 295-9800 150 50% 75 5S 4.1 SE Washburn Computer Group 218 Chelsea Rd Monticello (763) 295-5090 60 50% 30 5S 3.8 SE WSI Industries, Inc. 213 Chelsea Rd Monticello (763) 295-9202 50 50% 25 105 10.01315 Highway 25 Buffalo (763) 682-2958 156 75% 117 10S I10.0 S WamartNorth An average of 49% non-EPZ employees (based upon those facilities which did provide detailed data) was applied to those facilities which did not provide detailed data Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-S. Campgrounds within the EPZ I --I -- I -. .I ... ..I ..- -. ... ..... I ---- ... I -.. ---------------

I --- I Table E-6. Parks within the EPZ I ..I .- ... .I. ..... .I .. I- ..-----------....

I ---------------

I --- I --Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-7. Golf Courses within the EPZ 5N 5.2 1 N Pebble Creek Country Club 1 12311 185th Ave SE 14000 Club House Ln Becker (763) 263-4653 89 58 10NW 10.2 NW Travelers Country Club' 8520 85th Ave Clear Lake (320) 743-2268 89 58 10NW 8.9 WNW Travelers Country Club on the 11290 80th Ave SE Clear Lake (320) 743-3133 89 58 Mississippi' 2 2.2 SE Monticello Country Club 1209 Golf Course Rd Monticello (763) 295-4653 100 100 10SE 10.4 SE Cedar Creek Golf Course 5700 Jason Avenue NE Albertville (763) 497-8245 140 70 Averages toaseo upon mose faciiities wnicn OIa proviae aetaiiea oata) were appiema to tnose Taciities Tor wnicn aata was unaole to De coiiectea E-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Table E-8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ SN 3.5 N Crossings by GrandStay Inn & Suites 14435 Bank St ! Becker (763) 262-7700 214 92 SN 4.2 NW Super 8 Becker 13804 1st St Becker (763) 262-8880 58 19 5E 7.7 E Marketplace Inn 16776 19t v WBig Lake (763) 262-7666 34 26 SS 3.8 E Best Western Chelsea Inn & Suites 89 Chelsea Rd Monticello (763) 271-8880 62 35 5S 3.7 SE Days Inn Monticello 200 Oakwood Drive East Monticello (763) 295-1111 87 42 5S 3.6 SE Super 8 Monticello 1114 Cedar St Monticello (763) 295-5900 203 81 Table E-9. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-1. Overview of Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-1O KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-2. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas SN and 1OW Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-3. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas 5E, 5S and 10SE Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 i U-4 Wý-' In =I'Sdmoots PreSchool and D~aymr wRthn the p 5S opW -ym~ -i I Beffab OWNRB* I Wow 12 Mffwo HO an" Figure E-4. Schools, Pre-Schools, and Daycares within Sub-Areas 10S, 10SW and the Shadow Region Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-5. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-6. Major Employers within the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Si I I '7 i -.-- -IZ --- i Goff Courses, Cwmpgrounds

& Parks w-thn the ml IIW Montcelo Nudr Gee 10 ieruth Plant EPM 4 O~t06 Q W~~ OW" w m I- -: 7 -5 Pa[N Crook O'hm" 081~Ws 78i oaduic 'imW ow 9 frrwehra CWW C f SN I OE 3r JI- 7efII~I ,R 4 ,~j 10 *.5 '20 Legend-0 GoffCourse Park & Comp 2. 5, 10, 1S h Shgdow R"i w--d Be KWO Ion Ia FFP-ýr!--V -S. 2-1 Figure E-7. Recreational Areas within the EPZ E-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure E-8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate E-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Correctional Fadiftes;within the b ,-., i. ,.. ...,, ,/ , ., .....--Monticello Nuclear Generatingl PlantEZ/ ---.-"--. .:,(,.;-..-.-; 7Ep &7X , z- -.-.(

..'2(.. .o -g \ m ,r- " * ... " a IL .m"m a/\--* .-/ 'R, F.-", 1,- 1.Figure]a l-. ------a Fcltiswihnth P Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant E-18 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 Monticello 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 ...?")Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 +/-4.34% 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 F-1.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 F-1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F-1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.The completed survey adhered to the sampling plan.Table F-1. Monticello Telephone Survey Sampling Plan 55301 500 178 4 55302 456 179 4 55308 8,752 2,840 60 55309 17,975 5,915 124 553131 9,265 3,235 68 55319 1,518 543 11 55320 2,734 1,047 22 55330 3,445 1,222 26 55358 4,297 1,638 34 55362 18,239 6,597 139 55376 1,305 380 8 55398 39 13 0 55301 500 178 4 55302 456 179 4 Total 68,525 23,787 500 Average Household Size: 2.88 Total Sample Required:

500 I m f II Population tor the Wright County Jail are included in this zip code. Those 11U people were subtracted out oT tne sampling plan.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 "don't 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 F-i presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. The average household contains 2.74 people. The estimated household size (2.88 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F-i) was drawn from Census data. The difference between the survey data and the Census data is 5.1%, which is slightly more than the sampling error of 4.34%. This study uses the survey value of 2.74 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 68,635 residents.

Dividing by the average household size of 2.74 people results in in 25,049 households, while using the Census value of 2.88 results in 23,832 households

-also a difference of 5.1%. This would also correlate to a 5.1% 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 30% in population (also a 30% change in vehicles) does not significantly impact ETE results. Thus the difference of 5.1%between the average household size from the telephone survey and that from the Census will not significantly impact ETE results.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant F-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 Monticello Household Size 50%40%4A 0 30%0" 20%0 10%0%1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+Household Size Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.34. It should be noted that 1.8 percent of households do not have access to an automobile.

The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F-2. Figure F-3 and Figure F-4 present the automobile availability by household size. Note that the majority of households without access to a car are single person households.

As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.Monticello Vehicle Availability 50%40%0.30%O4- 20%0 10%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+Number of Vehicles Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant KID Engineering, p.c.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-4 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 1-5 Person Households E 1Person *2 People N3 People M4 People E5 People 100%80%0 15 60%0 x 40%0 N 20%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles 6 7 8 9+Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability

-i to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 6-9+ Person Households

  • 6People *7People *8People *9+People 100%80%0 60%0 S20%0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+Vehicles Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability

-6 to 9+ Person Households F-5 KID Engineering, P.C.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Ridesharing Seventy-five percent (75%) 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 -8 total households 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 F-5 presents this response.Monticello Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%80%gn Z a' 60%040%0 20%0%Yes No Figure F-5. Household Ridesharing Preference Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Commuters Figure F-6 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 1.16 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 67% of households have at least one commuter.Monticello Commuters 50%40%0 j 30%0 20%10%0%0 1 2 3 4+Number of Commuters Figure F-6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.F-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Commuter Travel Modes Figure F-7 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 show an average of 1.03 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle -on average -for carpools.Monticello Travel Mode to Work 100% 94.4%80%60%E E 8 40%20%0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.2% 3.3%0%Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)Mode of Travel Figure F-7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the population's 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 F-8. On average, evacuating households would use 1.39 vehicles."Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?" Of the survey participants who responded, 41 percent said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 59 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, 63 percent of households have a family pet.Of the households with pets, 90 percent of them indicated that they would take their pets with them, as shown in Figure F-9.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Vehicles Used for Evacuation 100%80%60%0 40%0"6 0%I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+Number of Vehicles Figure F-8. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Households Evacuating with Pets 100%80%0.~60%0 x 40%20%0%Yes No Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 87 percent of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 13 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/CR-7002.

Thus, the data obtained above is significantly less than the federal guidance recommendation.

As indicated in Appendix M (Table M-2), a sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation (non-compliance of shelter advisory) on ETE. The results indicate that ETE are not impacted by a change in shadow evacuation from 20% to 13%."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 74 percent of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 26 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 day-to-day lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responder's 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.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant F-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 "How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work?" Figure F-10 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed within 60 minutes.About ninety-four percent can leave within 30 minutes.Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%80%60%E 0 U 40%0 20%0%0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Preparation Time (min)Figure F-1O. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/School Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 "How long would it take the commuter to travel home?" Figure F-11 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. The distribution in Figure F-11 has a long tail. About 86 percent of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; the remaining commuters require an additional 75 minutes. This additional time may be attributed to those commuters who travel home from Minneapolis-St.

Paul.Work to Home Travel E E 0 U 0 100%80%60%40%20%0%0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Travel Time (min)Figure F-11. Work to Home Travel Time KI---u KLD EniernIpc vauion ime E imatUng lant Evacuation Time Estimate F-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 "How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?" Figure F-12 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a family's 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 F-12 has a long "tail." About 85 percent of households can be ready to leave home within 60 minutes; the remaining households require an additional 75 minutes.Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%80%0= 60%0 X 40%0 20%0%0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Preparation Time (min)Figure F-12. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation F-13 KID Engineering, P.C.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I "How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway?" During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street. Figure F-13 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

The time distribution for clearing the driveway has a long tail; about 91 percent of driveways are passable within 60 minutes. The last driveway is cleared 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 15 minutes after the start of this activity.

Note that those respondents (44%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity.

Essentially they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%80%060%0 X 40%4-0 20%0%0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 Time (min)Figure F-13. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow 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.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 ATTACHMENT A Telephone Survey Instrument F-15 KID Engineering, P.C.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. I Telephone Survey Instrument Hello, my name is _ and I'm working on a survey for your county emergency management agency to identify local behavior during emergency situations.

This information will be used for emergency planning and will be shared with local officials to enhance emergency response plans in your area for all hazards;emergency planning for some hazards may require evacuation.

Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness.

I will not ask for your name or any personal information, and the survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete.COL. 1 COL. 2 COL. 3 COL. 4 COL. 5 Sex Unused Unused Unused Unused Unused COL. 8 1 Male 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: IA. Record area code. To Be Determined COL. 9-11 1B. Record exchange number. To Be Determined COL. 12-14 2. What is your home zip code? COL. 15-19 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other COL. 20 SKIP TO vehicles are usually available to the household?

1 ONE O. 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 DON'T 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 DON'T 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 7 SEVEN 6 SIXTEEN 8 EIGHT 7 SEVENTEEN 9 NINE 8 EIGHTEEN 9 NINETEEN OR MORE X DON'T 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 DON'T 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 Carpool-2 or more people 5 5 5 5 Don't 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 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56-i1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND I HOUR 5 21-25 MINUTES 5 MINUTES AND 1 30 MINUTES HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 6 26-30 MINUTES 6 MINUTES AND 1 45 MINUTES HOUR 45 MINUTES Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant F-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __-)9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __-)9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 33 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 34 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56-i1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __-)9 0 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED COL. 35 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 36 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND I HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY J 9 0 DON'T KNOW/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 46-50 MINUTES 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 2 6-10 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56-1 HOUR 3 11-15 MINUTES 3 56-i1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 4 16-20 MINUTES 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR MINUTES 15 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND I HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED COMMUTER #3 COMMUTER #4 COL. 41 1 5MINUTESORLESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 42 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56- 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT 4 LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 7 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY __ )9 0 X DON'T KNOW /REFUSED COL. 43 1 5 MINUTES OR LESS 2 6-10 MINUTES 3 11-15 MINUTES 4 16-20 MINUTES 5 21-25 MINUTES 6 26-30 MINUTES 7 31-35 MINUTES 8 36-40 MINUTES 9 41-45 MINUTES COL. 44 1 46-50 MINUTES 2 51-55 MINUTES 3 56 -1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN I HOUR 16 5 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 6 MINUTES AND I HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN I HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS 8 OVER 2 HOURS (SPECIFY__________

)9 0 X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED

9. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? (DO NOT READ ANSWERS)COL. 45 COL. 46 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 15-30 MINUTES 2 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 31-45 MINUTES 3 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 5 46 MINUTES- I HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 4 5 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 7 8 9 0 X 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 7 8 9 0 X 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS OVER 6 HOURS (SPECIFY__

.)Y 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS COL. 47 1 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 10 If there is 6-8" of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate?

If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 6-8" of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable. (DO NOT READ RESPONSES)

COL. 48 COL. 49 1 LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 1 OVER 3 HOURS (SPECIFY__

.)2 15-30 MINUTES 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 X Y z 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES- I HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT 11. Please choose one of the following (READ COL. 50 ANSWERS):

1 A A. I would await the return of household commuters to evacuate together.

2 B B. I would evacuate independently and meet X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED other household members later.12. 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 Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant F-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1 8 EIGHT 9 NINE OR MORE 0 ZERO (NONE)X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 13A. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home in an COL. 52 emergency.

Would you: (READ ANSWERS) I A A. SHELTER;or 2 B B. EVACUATE X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 13B. Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in COL. 53 an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in 1 A other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you: (READ 2 B ANSWERS)X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED A. SHELTER; or B. EVACUATE 14. 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 DON'T HAVE A PET 2 YES 3 NO X DON'T KNOW/REFUSED Thank you very much.(TELEPHONE NUMBER CALLED)IF REQUESTED:

For additional information, contact your County Emergency Management Agency during normal business hours.County EMA Phone Sherburne (763)-765-3508 County Wright (763)-682-7326 County Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate F-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR-7002 indicates that the existing TACPs 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 county.These plans were reviewed and the TACPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic and Access Control Points As discussed in Section 9, TACPs at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre-timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system. Table K-2 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 TACP, the control type is indicated as a TACP in Table K-2.It is assumed that TACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 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 two routes which traverse the EPZ 94 and US-10 -in this analysis.

The generation of these external trips ceased at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the advisory to evacuate in the simulation.

Figure G-1 maps the existing TACPs identified in the county emergency plans. Those TACPs concentrated on roadways giving access to the EPZ would be manned during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction away from MNGP and facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections.

This study did not identify any additional intersections that should be designated as TACPs.Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the MNGP EPZ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Evacuation Time Estimate G-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12356A174&oldid=1362885"