ML12355A750

From kanterella
Revision as of 17:31, 11 November 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
Evacuation Time Estimate Study; Appendix H, Page H-39 Through Appendix N
ML12355A750
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde  Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/14/2012
From:
KLD Engineering, PC
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Arizona Public Service Co
References
Download: ML12355A750 (95)
v • d • e


Text

Figure H-36. Region R36 Palo Verde H-39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-37. Region R37 Palo Verde H-40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-38. Region R38 Palo Verde H-41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-39. Region R39 Palo Verde H-42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-40. Region R40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde H-43 H-43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-41. Region R41 Palo Verde KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-42. Region R42 Palo Verde H-45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-43. Region R43 Palo Verde H-46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-44. Region R44 Palo Verde H-47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-45. Region R45 Palo Verde H-48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-46. Region R46 Palo Verde H-49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-47. Region R47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo verde H-50 H -50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-48. Region R48 Palo Verde H-51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-49. Region R49 Palo Verde H-52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-50. Region R50 Palo Verde H-53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-51. Region R51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde H-54 H-54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-52. Region R52 Palo Verde H-55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV IISYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System. Table J-1 provides the volumes and maximum residual queues for all four signalized intersections in the study area. A residual queue exists at the start of the RED signal indication, indicating that the demand could not be entirely served by the GREEN phase. A zero residual queue indicates that the traffic movement is pinder-saturated (i.e., not congested) throughout the duration of evacuation. Refer to Table K-2 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each intersection.

The decision to install a signal at an intersection is based upon "warrants" that are specified in the Manual of Traffic Control Devices'. A total of 9 warrants are presented; most of these require that significant traffic volumes are serviced through the intersection in order to justify the expense of installing a signal. Thus, the vast majority of signals are installed at grade intersections that would service the heaviest volumes of traffic during an evacuation. The low population density and limited traffic volume in the study area results in fewer than ten signalized intersections.

Table J-2 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Table J-3 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, Scenarios 2, 4, 7 and 9, which are rain scenarios, exhibit the slower average speeds and longer average travel times than good weather scenarios. Scenario 12 (single lane closed on 1-10 eastbound) exhibits the slowest average speed and longest travel time because less vehicles are using the high speed interstate.

Table J-4 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation route -

Interstate for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed throughout the report access control along 1-10 is established 45 minutes after the ATE. As such, the average speeds are slower and travel times are longer during the first hour of the evacuation when external trips are still traveling along 1-10.

Table J-5 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to Table K-1 and the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J-1 through Figure J-12 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 12 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short 1 MUTCD: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.Rov/pdfs/2009rlr2/part4.pdf Palo Verde J-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion. As seen in Figure J-1 through Figure J-12, the curves are close together as a result of the minimal traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

Palo Verde J-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J-1. Characteristics of the Four Signalized Intersections 78 167 0 56 MC85 and US Hwy85 SB Actuated 169 1,333 0 TOTAL 1,500 85 1,109 '00 Actuated 186 0 25 S Wintersburg Rd and W 25 ~~Salome HwyAcutd 1600 TOTAL 1,109 56 1,049 0 167 MC 85 and US Hwy 85 NB Actuated 55 9 0 TOTAL 1,058 135 693 0 41 S Wintersburg Rd and 1-10 Actuated 86 57 0 Westbound On Ramp 9 0 0 TOTAL 750 Palo Verde J-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input V ehicles.0 .

Entering0 .0 Lin Newr Dietoa DetntonVD Istiatio 47 233 N 8023 4,500 8062 3,810 72 23 E 8156 1,700 8198 1,700 8062 3,810 101 55 SE 8156 1,700 8198 1,700 8062 3,810 118 145 SE 8156 1,700 8198 1,700 131 232 NE 8100 3,810 8021 4,500 151 59 NE 8023 4,500 8100 3,810 167 55 NW 8023 4,500 8062 3,810 216 196 E 8156 1,700 8198 1,700 153 112 NE 8021 4,500 8023 4,500 26 SW 8021 4,500 241 8023 4,500 Palo Verde J-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

I Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Network-Wide Average 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.3 Travel Time (Min/Veh-Mi)

Network-Wide Average 60.0 55.0 60.0 56.7 60.0 60.0 55.0 60.0 56.4 60.0 60.0 45.1 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 13,537 13,654 11,654 11,735 9,539 14,080 14,160 12,001 12,087 10,005 15,177 14,084 Exiting NetworkIIIIIIIII KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde i-S J-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) 1-10 Eastbound 34.5 49.9 41.5 72.3 28.6 72.8 28.4 73.1 28.3 74.9 27.6 1-10 Westbound 34.5 58.0 35.7 74.7 27.7 74.7 27.7 74.7 27.7 75.0 27.6 Palo Verde J-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 2,708 5,388 6,143 6,366 6,415 38 47% 47%

49% 48% 47%

1,995 3,648 4,064 4,187 4,213 36% 32% 31% 31% 31%

135 399 452 464 467 2% 4% 3% 3% 3%

67 214 234 239 240 108 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

133 49 324 476 523 535 1% 3% 4% 4% 4%

137 387 426 435 438 225 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

294 641 781 828 834 228 5% 6% 6% 6% 6%

111 298 369 390 394 263 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Palo Verde J-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

-Trip Generation mETE 100%

@1 80%

S 60%

4-0 I-0 40%

4-C GD U

I- 20%

GD a.

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed lime (min)

Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

-Trip Generation -ETE 100%

I U1 80%

60%

40%

C 9

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Palo Verde J-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

'A w

E1 80%

0

-40%

Lp 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed lime (min)

Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

- Trip Generation ,ETE 100%

u 80%

00 460%

i 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Palo Verde J-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

- Trip Generation mETE 100%

80%

M 60%

4' 40 N 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

-Trip Generation mETE 100%

80%

M 60%

40%

0 L 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Palo Verde J-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Midweek' Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8) n g, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimae Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)

-Trip Generation mETE 100%

I 80%

60%

L,40%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10)

-Trip Generation -ETE 100%

'go S80%

a'0p 0 60%

40 20%

0% J - j 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10)

Palo Verde J-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11)

-Trip Generation mETE 100%

V1 7E 0 80%

M 60%

-W 40% /7" I.-C CL 20% 1/

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)

- Trip Generation - ETE 100%

U1 80%

0 60% /ýOop_

0 4.

40% /Z a' 20%/1" 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 iSO 180 210 240 270 300 330 Elapsed Time (min)

Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12 Palo Verde J-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a link-node analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K-1 provides an overview of the link-node analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 17 more detailed figures (Figure K-2 through Figure K-18) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field survey conducted in February 2012. Table K-1 lists the characteristics of each roadway section modeled in the ETE analysis. Each link is identified by its road name and the upstream and downstream node numbers. The geographic location of each link can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided in Table K-1. The roadway type identified in Table K-1 is generally based on the following criteria:

" Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds

" Freeway ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway

  • Major arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction
  • Minor arterial: 2 or more lanes in each direction

" Collector: single lane in each direction

" Local roadways: single lane in each direction, local roads with low free flow speeds The term, "No. of Lanes" in Table K-1 identifies the number of lanes that extend throughout the length of the link. Many links have additional lanes on the immediate approach to an intersection (turn pockets); these have been recorded and entered into the input stream for the DYNEV II System.

As discussed in Section 1.3, lane width and shoulder width were not physically measured during the road survey. Rather, estimates of these measures were based on visual observations and recorded images.

Table K-2 identifies each node in the network that is controlled and the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre-timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point) at that node.

Uncontrolled nodes are not included in Table K-2. The location of each node can be observed by referencing the grid map number provided.

Palo Verde K-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-1. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Link-Node Analysis Network Palo Verde K-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

U-Grid I

)

  • PVNGS E] Sadew rail
  • Nods 0 2, S, 10MkI fbp
b. Unk water o Sector El IWex Grid Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 1 Palo Verde K-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 2 Palo Verde K-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 3 Dr Palo Verde K-5 Rev. 1 Evacuation Time Estimate

Figure K-S. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 4 Palo Verde K-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 5 Palo Verde K-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 6 Palo Verde K-8 K-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-S. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-9 K-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-9. Unk-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8 Palo Verde K-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

P~4G Evawcvson Time Estivmag Link Mode AneIpb Network Figum I IIII Md No 2S. 30MOO fto 2,

Grl 9 0 sector WANdGf Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9 Palo Verde K-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

  • Mad. 0 2,S,10MA "il IS Cl kitar m- widm ami
  • 0.5 1 Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 10 Palo Verde K-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

WWIW.-

"" tW*U"S

&VNCe ZOMWiMe EjShedew eggen LiM4dAalysis Netww*a Flurm U*M

~Unk r) seCWo 0 2,5,1isM~b N IWON dGrid WN I * *J S I Gi 11 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 11 Palo Verde K-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-13. Unk-Node Analysis Network - Grid 12 Palo Verde K-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 13 Palo Verde K-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 14 Palo Verde K-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 15 Palo Verde K-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1~6

=L ftwI Ewewetise TIMe fsWON Ue&k-Me* ARV Netorkfl I

-- o

  • M"d.

Unk 0 :L S.WM~hMW 25 WaSW I Grwd is o et WAUm LdsGM

  • Si I Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 16 Palo Verde K-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-19 K-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics 1 3 4 1-10 FREEWAY 11525 2 12 8 2250 75 3 2 3 21 1-10 FREEWAY 13903 2 12 8 2250 75 3 3 4 3 1-10 FREEWAY 11525 2 12 8 2250 75 3 4 4 5 1-10 FREEWAY 19738 2 12 8 2250 - 75 4 5 5 4 1-10 FREEWAY 19738 2 12 8 2250 75 4 6 5 6 1-10 FREEWAY 20168 2 12 8 2250 75 4 7 6 5 1-10 FREEWAY 20168 2 12 8 2250 75 4 8 6 7 1-10 FREEWAY 2849 2 12 8 2250 75 5 9 7 6 1-10 FREEWAY 2849 2 12 8 2250 75 5 10 7 8 1-10 FREEWAY 19055 2 12 8 2250 75 5 11 8 7 1-10 FREEWAY 19055 2 12 8 2250 75 5 12 8 9 1-10 FREEWAY 2722 2 12 8 2250 75 5 FREEWAY 13 8 135 1-10 OFF RAMP RAMP 1721 1 12 4 1700 45 5 14 9 8 1-10 FREEWAY 2722 2 12 8 2250 75 5 15 9 10 1-10 FREEWAY 24572 2 12 8 2250 75 6 FREEWAY 16 9 41 1-10 OFF RAMP RAMP 1781 1 12 4 1750 45 5 17 10 9 1-10 FREEWAY 24572 2 12 8 2250 75 6 18 10 11 1-10 FREEWAY 2346 2 12 8 2250 75 6 19 11 10 1-10 FREEWAY 2346 2 12 8 2250 75 6 20 11 12 1-10 FREEWAY 30842 2 12 8 2250 75 7 21 12 11 1-10 FREEWAY 30842 2 12 8 2250 75 7 22 12 13 1-10 FREEWAY 1988 2 12 8 2250 75 7 K-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

23 13 12 1-10 FREEWAY 1988 2 12 8 2250 75 7 24 13 14 1-10 FREEWAY 5519 2 12 8 2250 75 7 25 14 13 1-10 FREEWAY 5519 2 12 8 2250 75 7 26 14 15 1-10 FREEWAY 6653 2 12 8 2250 75 7 27 15 14 1-10 FREEWAY 6692 2 12 8 2250 75 8 28 15 16 1-10 FREEWAY 1554 2 12 8 2250 75 8 29 16 15 1-10 FREEWAY 1554 2 12 8 2250 75 8 30 16 17 1-10 FREEWAY 3937 2 12 8 2250 75 8 FREEWAY 31 16 60 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1670 1 12 4 1700 75 8 32 17 16 1-10 FREEWAY 3932 2 12 8 2250 75 8 33 17 18 1-10 FREEWAY 4244 2 12 8 2250 75 8 FREEWAY 34 17 132 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1135 1 12 4 1700 45 8 35 18 17 1-10 FREEWAY 4240 2 12 8 2250 75 8 36 18 19 1-10 FREEWAY 3631 2 12 8 2250 75 8 37 19 18 1-10 FREEWAY 3631 2 12 8 2250 75 8 38 19 20 1-10 FREEWAY 1591 2 12 8 2250 75 8 39 20 19 1-10 FREEWAY 1591 2 12 8 2250 75 8 40 21 3 1-10 FREEWAY 13903 2 12 8 2250 75 3 41 21 22 1-10 FREEWAY 3134 2 12 8 2250 75 3 42 22 21 1-10 FREEWAY 3134 2 12 8 2250 75 3 43 22 137 1-10 FREEWAY 2119 2 12 8 2250 75 3 FREEWAY 44 23 22 1-10 ON RAMP RAMP 1313 1 12 4 1700 45 3 Palo Verde K-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

FREEWAY 45 24 21 1-10 OFF RAMP RAMP 1420 1 12 4 1700 45 3 46 24 23 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 1561 1 12 0 1700 45 3 W SALOME 47 25 26 HWY COLLECTOR 12721 1 12 4 1700 65 5 zo WINTERSBURG 48 25 150 RD COLLECTOR 4098 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W SALOME 49 25 186 HWY COLLECTOR 3782 1 12 4 1700 60 11 W SALOME 50 26 189 HWY COLLECTOR 3617 1 12 4 1700 65 5 W SALOME 51 27 38 HWY COLLECTOR 434 1 12 4 1700 60 5 W SALOME 52 28 29 HWY COLLECTOR 12090 1 12 4 1700 65 4 W SALOME 53 29 32 HWY COLLECTOR 8366 1 12 4 1700 65 4 54 30 117 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 12660 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W SALOME 55 31 28 HWY COLLECTOR 6961 1 12 4 1700 65 5 W

COURTHOUSE 56 32 33 RD COLLECTOR 4771 1 12 4 1700 55 4 W SALOME 57 32 39 HWY COLLECTOR 13880 1 12 4 1700 50 4 Palo Verde K-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Sa u ato Fre Up Down Lae Sale lw Fo Steam St ea Ro d a Ro d a Le gt Wi t i t0ae 0o S e d G i W

COURTHOUSE 58 33 34 RD COLLECTOR 21548 1 12 4 1700 55 3 59 34 35 N 491ST AVE COLLECTOR 15811 1 12 4 1700 50 3 W

COURTHOUSE 60 34 108 RD COLLECTOR 15819 1 12 4 1700 55 3 61 35 36 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 5754 1 12 2 1700 45 3 62 36 140 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 8731 1 12 2 1700 45 3 63 37 110 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 655 1 12 4 1700 45 3 64 38 30 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 951 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W SALOME 65 38 31 HWY COLLECTOR 487 1 12 4 1700 45 5 W SALOME 66 39 40 HWY COLLECTOR 11833 1 13 2 1700 50 3 67 40 35 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 5291 1 13 2 1700 50 3 FREEWAY 68 41 8 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1346 1 12 4 1700 45 5 FREEWAY 69 42 6 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1464 1 12 4 1700 45 5 W SALOME 70 44 157 HWY COLLECTOR 3385 1 12 4 1700 65 12 71 44 188 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 4081 1 12 4 1700 50 12 W SALOME 72 45 46 HWY COLLECTOR 6059 1 12 4 1700 60 13 W SALOME 73 46 47 HWY COLLECTOR 4429 1 12 4 1700 65 13 Palo Verde K-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

! 74 47 187 W OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 8419 1 12 10 1700 55 13 75 49 63 W OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 5166 1 12 10 1700 55 13 S PALO VERDE 76 49 152 RD COLLECTOR 10740 1 12 4 1700 60 13 S PALO VERDE 77 50 77 RD COLLECTOR 5194 1 12 4 1700 60 13 78 50 152 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 300 1 12 4 1700 60 13 MINOR 79 53 52 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 13726 2 12 4 1900 70 17 MINOR 80 54 53 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 4163 2 12 4 1900 70 14 MINOR 81 55 54 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 9893 2 12 4 1900 70 14 MINOR 82 55 167 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 7554 2 12 4 1750 70 14 MINOR 83 56 55 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 7569 2 12 4 1900 70 14 84 56 167 MC 85 COLLECTOR 138 2 12 4 1750 45 14 MINOR 85 57 78 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 5306 2 12 4 1900 70 14 W SOUTHERN 86 57 165 AVE COLLECTOR 122 1 12 4 1700 60 14 MINOR 87 58 57 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 10784 2 12 4 1900 70 14 FREEWAY 88 58 59 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1585 2 12 4 1900 45 14 FREEWAY 89 59 17 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1750 1 12 4 1700 75 8 Palo Verde K-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

FREEWAY 90 59 131 1-10 RAMP RAMP 2324 1 12 4 1700 45 7 FREEWAY 91 60 58 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1466 2 12 41900 45 14 FREEWAY '

92 62 13 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1032 1 12 4 1700 45 7 93 63 64 W OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 5354 1 12 10 1700 55 13 94 64 155 S TURNER RD COLLECTOR 7322 1 12 4 1700 50 14 95 65 66 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 5254 1 12 4 1700 60 13 96 66 78 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 5254 1 12 4 1700 60 14

_m 97 66 155 STURNERRD COLLECTOR 3479 1 12 4 1700 50 14 FREEWAY 98 67 11 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1086 1 12 4 1700 45 6 99 67 134 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 599 1 12 4 1700 50 6 100 68 69 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 12217 1 12 4 1700 60 12 101 68 180 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 8283 1 12 4 1700 60 12 102 69 70 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 10327 1 12 4 1700 60 15 103 70 71 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 13691 1 12 4 1700 50 15 104 71 72 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 2470 1 12 4 900 20 15 105 72 73 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 2151 1 12 4 900 20 15 106 73 74 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 12181 1 12 4 1700 50 16 107 74 75 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 7750 1 12 8 1700 60 16 108 75 76 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 6358 1 12 8 1700 60 16 W SOUTHERN 109 77 57 AVE COLLECTOR 15916 1 12 4 1700 60 13 Palo Verde K-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

S PALO VERDE 110 77 191 RD COLLECTOR 9927 1 12 4 1700 60 13 MINOR 111 78 56 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 2564 2 12 4 1750 70 14 112 78 168 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 102 1 12 4 1700 60 14 113 79 82 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 2141 1 12 4 1700 50 12 114 80 130 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 5268 1 12 4 1700 50 12 115 81 147 S 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 4876 1 12 4 1700 55 12 116 81 158 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 2685 1 12 4 1700 60 12 117 82 80 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 8170 1 12 4 1700 50 12 118 82 83 S 351ST AVE COLLECTOR 11131 1 12 4 1700 55 12 W SALOME 119 83 44 HWY COLLECTOR 8880 1 12 4 1700 65 12 S WINTERBURG 120 84 85 RD COLLECTOR 6559 1 12 10 1700 65 11 S WINTERBURG 121 84 146 RD COLLECTOR 2354 1 12 10 1700 65 11 S WINTERBURG 122 85 25 RD COLLECTOR 5369 1 12 2 1750 65 11 S

WINTERSBURG 123 86 41 RD COLLECTOR 3541 1 12 4 1750 60 5 W INDIAN 124 86 153 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 5299 1 12 12 1700 50 5 W INDIAN 125 86 154 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 5229 1 12 12 1700 45 5 W TONOPAH-126 87 88 SALOME HWY COLLECTOR 3758 1 12 4 1700 40 6 Palo Verde K-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

l~~ WNDIAN ]1 127 87 126 SCHOOLRD COLLECTOR 10418 1 12 12 1700 60 6 128 87 134 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 10951 1 12 4 1700 50 6 W TONOPAH- LOCAL 129 88 170 SALOME HWY ROADWAY 5192 1 14 4 1700 40 6 MC DOWELL 130 89 90 RD COLLECTOR 1322 1 12 4 1700 50 7 W SUN VALLEY 131 90 98 PKWY COLLECTOR 10500 2 12 6 1900 65 7 N PALO VERDE 132 90 133 RD COLLECTOR 8892 2 12 6 1900 65 7 W SUN VALLEY 133 98 99 PKWY COLLECTOR 23765 2 12 6 1900 65 7 S WINTERBURG 134 100 143 RD COLLECTOR 13912 1 12 10 1700 65 11 135 100 174 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 6916 1 12 4 1700 60 11 136 100 178 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 3539 1 12 4 1700 50 11 137 101 102 S 435TH AVE COLLECTOR 5548 1 12 6 1700 50 10 138 102 103 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 10301 1 12 6 1700 50 10 139 103 104 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 2322 1 12 6 1575

  • 35 10 140 104 105 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 15196 1 12 6 1700 50 10 141 105 106 477TH AVE COLLECTOR 3164 1 12 6 1700 50 9 142 106 107 477TH AVE COLLECTOR 4905 1 12 6 1700 50 9 143 107 111 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 21382 1 12 6 1700 50 9 W

COURTHOUSE 144 108 34 RD COLLECTOR 15819 1 12 4 1700 55 3 Palo Verde K-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Sauato Free N

HARQUAHALA 145 108 142 RD COLLECTOR 25735 1 12 6 1700 55 3 N

HARQUAHALA 146 109 138 RD COLLECTOR 1818 1 12 4 1575 35 3 147 110 24 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 257 1 12 4 1700 45 3 N

HARQUAHALA 148 111 108 RD COLLECTOR 31621 1 12 4 1700 50 9 S

WINTERSBURG 149 112 135 RD COLLECTOR 10846 1 12 4 1700 60 5 W VAN BUREN 150 112 172 ST COLLECTOR 7474 1 12 4 1700 50 5 151 113 67 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 4246 1 12 4 1700 50 6 W VAN BUREN 152 114 113 ST COLLECTOR 10360 1 12 4 1700 50 6 W VAN BUREN 153 114 172 ST COLLECTOR 8367 1 12 4 1700 50 6 154 115 114 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 5185 1 12 12 1700 55 6 155 115 126 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 10523 1 12 4 1700 55 6 W SALOME 156 116 83 HWY COLLECTOR 2943 1 12 4 1700 65 12 157 116 183 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 6329 1 12 12 1700 55 12 W SALOME 158 116 184 HWY COLLýCTOR 5729 1 12 4 1750 60 12 159 117 136 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 665 1 12 4 1700 50 5 K-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

W INDIAN 160 117 190 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 13992 1 12 4 1700 60 5 W INDIAN 161 118 119 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 2696 1 12 4 1700 50 4 W INDIAN 162 119 120 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 1700 1 12 4 1700 45 4 W INDIAN 163 120 121 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 1707 1 12 4 1700 50 4 W INDIAN 164 121 39 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 8192 1 12 4 1700 50 4 W BETHANY 165 122 123 HOME RD COLLECTOR 5329 1 12 4 1700 50 5 166 123 192 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 2659 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W INDIAN 167 124 125 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 4884 1 12 1 1700 60 5 w I*D OIAIN 168 1 125 1 42 SCHOOL RD ICOLLECTOR 1 1199 1 12 1 4 1 1700 1 50 5 W INDIAN 169 126 87 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 10418 1 12 12 1700 60 6 170 126 127 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 5363 1 12 4 1700 50 6 171 127 126 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 5363 1 12 4 1700 50 6 172 127 129 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 13988 1 12 4 1700 50 6 W CAMPBELL 173 128 127 AVE COLLECTOR 7872 1 12 4 1700 50 6 174 129 127 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 13989 1 12 4 1700 50 6 175 129 199 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 5882 1 12 4 1700 50 6 176 130 45 W DOBBINS RD COLLECTOR 4431 1 12 4 1700 50 12 Palo Verde K-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

FREEWAY 177 131 16 1 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1242 1 12 4 1700 45 8 FREEWAY 178 132 60 1-10 RAMP RAMP 2276 1 12 4 1700 45 8 FREEWAY 179 133 12 1-10 RAMP RAMP 879 1 12 4 1700 45 7 N PALO VERDE 180 133 62 RD COLLECTOR 645 1 12 4 1700 60 7 FREEWAY 181 134 10 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1182 1 12 4 1700 45 6 182 134 67 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 599 1 12 4 1700 50 6 183 134 87 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 10952 1 12 4 1700 50 6 FREEWAY 184 135 9 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1401 1 12 4 1700 45 5 S

WINTERSBURG 185 135 41 RD COLLECTOR 1458 1 12 4 1750 50 5 FREEWAY 186 136 7 1-10 RAMP RAMP 1439 1 12 4 1700 45 5 187 136 42 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 1568 1 12 4 1700 50 5 188 137 22 1-10 FREEWAY 2119 2 12 8 2250 75 3 N

HARQUAHALA 189 138 110 RD COLLECTOR 378 1 12 4 1575 35 3 190 139 37 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 1545 1 12 2 1700 45 3 191 140 139 W SALOME RD COLLECTOR 258 1 12 2 1350 30 3 K-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Saturation Free Up- Down- Lane Shoulder Flow Flow Stream Stream Roadway Roadway Length No. of Width Width Rate Speed Grid Link Node Node Name Type (f t.) Lanes (f t.) (ft.) (pcphpl) (mph) Number N

HARQUAHALA 192 141 109 RD COLLECTOR 353 1 12 4 1125 25 3 N

HARQUAHALA 193 142 141 RD COLLECTOR 784 1 12 6 1700 40 3 S WINTERBURG 194 143 100 RD COLLECTOR 13912 1 12 10 1700 65 11 S WINTERBURG 195 143 146 RD COLLECTOR 323 1 12 10 1700 65 11 PLANT 196 144 143 ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 301 1 12 4 1700 45 11 PLANT 197 144 146 ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 444 1 12 4 1700 45 11 PLANT 198 145 144 ENTRANCE COLLECTOR 933 1 12 4 1700 45 11 S WINTERBURG 199 146 84 RD COLLECTOR 2354 1 12 10 1700 65 11 S WINTERBURG 200 146 143 RD COLLECTOR 323 1 12 10 1700 65 11 201 147 79 S 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 739 1 12 4 1125 25 12 202 148 113 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 5305 1 12 4 1700 50 6 203 149 114 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 5376 1 12 12 1700 60 6 204 149 148 BUCKEYE RD COLLECTOR 10511 1 12 4 1700 50 6 W VAN BUREN 205 149 173 ST COLLECTOR 10475 1 12 4 1700 50 6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-31 K-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Satu atio Fre up- own Lan Shulde F ovv Flo St e r St e m R a w yR a w y L n t No of Vi t Wi tRa e S ed G d Lin

  1. . Nod Nod Nam Typ (f. Lae (f. (f. p) I)( N m e 5

WINTERSBURG 206 150 112 RD COLLECTOR 5205 1 12 4 1700 50 5 207 150 173 BUCKEYE RD COLLECTOR 5347 1 12 4 1700 50 5 208 151 49 W OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 1313 1 12 10 1700 50 13 209 152 50 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 300 1 12 10 1700 60 13 210 152 65 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 5244 1 12 4 1700 60 13 W INDIAN 211 153 126 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 10580 1 12 12 1700 60 6 W INDIAN 212 154 124 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 10329 1 12 12 1700 60 5 213 155 66 S TURNER RD COLLECTOR 3477 1 12 4 1700 50 14 214 155 169 MC 85 COLLECTOR 5179 1 12 4 1700 50 14 W SALOME 215 157 45 HWY COLLECTOR 7626 1 12 4 1700 65 12 216 157 50 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 28858 1 12 4 1700 60 13 217 158 159 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 2907 1 12 4 1700 60 12 NARRAMORE 218 159 160 RD COLLECTOR 6461 1 12 4 1700 60 12 S ARLINGTON 219 160 161 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 2248 1 12 4 1700 50 12 S ARLINGTON 220 161 162 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 4145 1 12 4 1700 50 12 S ARLINGTON 221 162 163 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 1033 1 12 4 1700 50 12 S ARLINGTON 222 163 68 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 627 1 12 4 1700 50 12 Palo Verde K-32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

MINUK 223 165 166 1US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 67821 2 12 4 1900 70 14 MINOR 224 166 58 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 4002 2 12 4 1900 70 14 225 167 156 MC 85 COLLECTOR 5971 1 12 4 1700 45 14 MINOR 226 167 168 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 2573 2 12 4 1900 70 14 MINOR 227 168 165 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 5309 2 12 4 1900 70 14 228 168 198 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 5138 1 12 4 1700 60 14 229 169 56 MC 85 COLLECTOR 211 2 12 4 1750 50 14 W TONOPAH- LOCAL 230 170 171 SALOME HWY ROADWAY 9730 1 14 4 1575 35 7 W TONOPAH- LOCAL 231 171 89 SALOME HWY ROADWAY 13596 1 14 4 1700 50 7 W VAN BUREN 232 172 112 ST COLLECTOR 7474 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W VAN BUREN 233 172 114 ST COLLECTOR 8367 1 12 4 1700 50 6 234 173 149 BUCKEYE RD COLLECTOR 10475 1 12 4 1700 50 6 235 173 150 BUCKEYE RD COLLECTOR 5347 1 12 4 1700 50 5 236 174 81 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 11420 1 12 4 1700 60 12 237 175 177 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 6140 1 12 4 1700 50 11 238 176 179 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 5918 1 12 4 1700 50 11 239 177 176 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 5137 1 12 4 1700 50 11 240 178 175 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 2927 1 12 4 1700 50 11 241 179 101 W ELLIOT RD COLLECTOR 8607 1 12 4 1700 50 10 Palo Verde K-33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

242 180 47 I47S--81227 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 12237 1

1 12 4 1700 60 13

--7 243 181 182 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 3619 1 12 4 1700 50 12 244 182 148 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 8737 1 12 4 1700 50 12 245 183 149 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 7428 1 12 12 1700 55 6 W SALOME 246 184 116 HWY COLLECTOR 5730 1 12 4 .1700 60 12 W SALOME 247 184 185 HWY COLLECTOR 4650 1 12 4 1750 60 12 W SALOME 248 185 184 HWY COLLECTOR 4650 1 12 4 1700 60 12 W SALOME 249 185 186 HWY COLLECTOR 4476 1 12 4 1750 60 12 W SALOME 250 186 25 HWY COLLECTOR 3782 1 12 4 1750 60 11 W SALOME 251 186 185 HWY COLLECTOR 4476 1 12 4 1700 60 12 252 187 151 W OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 5155 1 12 10 1700 55 13 253 188 181 S 339TH AVE COLLECTOR 2717 1 12 4 1700 50 12 W SALOME 254 189 193 HWY COLLECTOR 2822 1 12 4 1700 65 5 W INDIAN 255 190 118 SCHOOL RD COLLECTOR 10161 1 12 4 1700 60 4 S PALO VERDE 256 191 197 RD COLLECTOR 5626 1 12 4 1700 60 7 257 192 42 N 411TH AVE COLLECTOR 5729 1 12 4 1700 50 5 W SALOME 258 193 27 HWY COLLECTOR 4305 1 12 4 1700 65 5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-34 K-34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

259 194 154 387TH AVE COLLECTOR 18383 1 12 4 1700 45 5 260 195 196 W YUMA RD COLLECTOR 10560 1 12 4 1700 45 7 261 196 197 W YUMA RD COLLECTOR 10592 1 12 4 1700 45 7 S PALO VERDE 262 197 62 RD COLLECTOR 1294 1 12 4 1700 60 7 263 199 200 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 14721 1 12 4 1700 50 1 264 8021 20 1-10 FREEWAY 3596 2 12 8 2250 75 8 Exit Link 20 8021 1-10 FREEWAY 3596 2 12 8 2250 75 8 Exit MINOR Link 52 8062 US HWY 85 ARTERIAL 5535 2 12 4 1900 70 17 Exit Link 76 8077 OLD US-80 COLLECTOR 3976 1 12 8 1700 60 16 Exit W SUN VALLEY Link 99 8100 PKWY COLLECTOR 5786 2 12 6 1900 65 2 Exit Link 198 8198 W BASELINE RD COLLECTOR 5201 1 12 4 1700 50 14 Exit Link 200 8200 N 355TH AVE COLLECTOR 7257 1 12 4 1700 50 1 Exit Link 137 8023 1-10 FREEWAY 897 2 12 8 2250 75 3 Exit Link 156 8156 MC 85 COLLECTOR 4119 1 12 4 1700 45 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-35 K-35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table K-2. Nodes in the Unk-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled 25 409832 883321 TCP - Actuated 5 26 399394 890592 TCP - No Control 5 28 382310 897813 TCP - No Control 5 32 362091 899540 TCP - No (ntrol 4 35 336218 914536 Stop 3 38 389232 895092 TCP - No Control 5 39 352070 909107 TCP - Stop 4 41 410061 904926 TCP - Actuated 5 42 389036 910857 TCP - Stop 5 44 436122 867982 TCP - No Control 12 45 445434 862112 TCP - Stop 12 47 453011 855084 TCP - Stop 13 49 467898 855133 TCP - No Control 13 50 467778 865891 TCP - No Control 13 56 483956 863120 Actuated 14 57 483750 870985 Stop 14 66 478575 865765 Stop 14 67 436254 896683 TCP - No Control 6 68 436018 843582 TCP - Stop 12 70 430835 822855 TCP - No Control 15 71 437906 811131 TCP - No Control 15 77 467834 871084 TCP - Stop 13 78 483828 865680 Stop 14 81 425341 855601 TCP - Stop 12 82 427963 860846 TCP - No Control 12 83 428187 871975 TCP - Stop 12 87 436376 908233 TCP - Stop 6 90 468008 897468 TCP - Stop 7 100 407006 855727 TCP - Stop 11 101 374742 856006 TCP - No Control 10 105 345337 861622 TCP - No Control 9 108 320256 898841 Stop 3 110 322731 924529 Stop 3 112 409948 892623 TCP - Stop 5 113 436148 892439 TCP - Stop 6 114 425789 892587 TCP - Stop 6 116 425642 873455 TCP - No Control 12 Palo Verde K-36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

123 389119 919245 Stop 5 126 425958 908294 TCP - Stop 6 127 425982 913657 Stop 6 130 441399 860720 TCP - No Control 12 134 436270 897282 TCP - No Control 6 135 410051 903468 TCP - Stop 5 136 389038 909289 TCP - No Control 5 143 407087 869639 Stop 11 146 407095 869962 Yield 11 148 436232 887133 TCP - Stop 6 149 425721 887212 TCP - Stop 6 150 409901 887419 TCP - Stop 5 152 468077 865871 Stop 13 154 404853 908601 TCP - Stop 5 157 438921 866078 TCP - No Control 12 158 425404 852917 TCP - No Control 12 159 426529 850236 TCP - Stop 12 160 432989 850129 TCP - No Control 12 163 436073 844206 TCP - No Control 12 165 483872 870989 Stop 14 167 484093 863110 Actuated 14 168 483930 865678 Stop 14 173 415248 887411 TCP - No Control 6 190 375021 908928 TCP - No Control 4 196 457402 886963 TCP - No Control 7 197 467989 886636 TCP-Stop 7 lCoordinates are in the North American Datum of 1983 Arizona Central State Plane Zone KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde K-37 K-37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX L Sector Boundaries

L. SECTOR BOUNDARIES Emergency Plans for the PVNGS indicate the use of a sector approach instead of emergency response planning areas. The sectors are broken up by compass direction and radial distance from the plant. The one mile region consists of primarily the plant site. There are a total of 145 sectors as shown in Figure L-1.

Figure L-1. PVNGS Sectors According to the public information brochure, residents are instructed to find which sector they live in and to keep a record for their reference.

Palo Verde LI-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate, could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M-1 presents the results of this study.

Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Tri EV0LainTm ~ir ieftE tr P Geeato The results confirm the importance of accurately estimating the trip generation (mobilization) times. The ETE for the 1001h percentile closely mirror the values for the time the last evacuation trip is generated. In contrast, the 90th percentile ETE is very insensitive to truncating the tail of the mobilization time distribution. As indicated in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the EPZ clears at about 1:40 after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. The results indicate that programs to educate the public and encourage them toward faster responses for a radiological emergency, translates into shorter ETE at the 1 0 0 th percentile. The results also justify the guidance to employ the [stable] 9 0 th percentile ETE for protective action decision making.

Palo Verde M-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the shadow region.

Table M-2 presents the evacuation time estimates for each of the cases considered. The results show that the ETE is insensitive to shadow evacuation. Reducing the percent of shadow evacuation to 0 has no effect on ETE. Tripling the shadow percentage increases the ETE by 5 minutes at the 90th percentile and has no effect on the 1 0 0 th percentile. Note, the telephone survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 18% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter. Thus, the base assumption of 20% non-compliance suggested in NUREG/CR-7002 is valid.

Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study

-WII L416011 Vehicles 90 'ailt-e[ I P ctile, 0 0 2:10 5:10 15 912 2:10 5:10 20 (Base) 1,216 2:10 5:10 60 3,648 2:15 5:10 Palo Verde M-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the EPZ. As population in the EPZ changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the EPZ, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change. The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The change in population within the EPZ was varied from 100% to 170% increases and from 10% to 50% decreases. Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and the Shadow Region.
2. The transportation infrastructure remained fixed; the presence of new roads or highway capacity improvements were not considered.
3. The study was performed for the 2-Mile Region (R01), the 5-Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).
4. The Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather scenario (Scenario 6) was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study.

Table M-3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR-7002, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes ETE values (for the 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25 percent or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that all of the base ETE values except the 2-Mile region are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25 percent of the base ETE is greater than 30 minutes for these Regions. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating for these Regions. Twenty-five percent of the 9 0 th percentile ETE for the 2-mile region (1:20) is 20 minutes. Therefore, 20 minutes is the less than 30 minutes and is the criterion for updating for the 2-Mile Region.

Those percent population changes which result in ETE changes greater than 30 minutes (or 20 minutes for the 2-Mile Region) are highlighted in red below - a 50% decrease or 170% increase in the EPZ population. APS will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population decreases by 50% or more or increases by 170% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Palo Verde M-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

P I Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change Population Change Base Region Base 100% 150% 170% -10% -30% -50%

2-MILE 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 5-MILE 2:10 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:00 1:55 FULL EPZ 2:10 2:25 2:35 2:40 2:10 " 2:00 1:50

-T -o 10' -ecntl Population Change Base Population Change Region Base 100% 150% 170% -10% -30% -50%

2-MILE 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5-MILE 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 FULL EPZ 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Palo Verde M-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1 should be described.
b. A map should be included that identifies primary features Yes Figure 1-1 of the site, including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.
c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE should be Yes Table 1-3 provided and includes similar information as identified in Table 1-1, "ETE Comparison," of NUREG/CR-7002.

1.1 Approach

a. A discussion of the approach and level of detail obtained Yes Section 1.3 during the field survey of the roadway network should be provided.
b. Sources of demographic data for schools, special facilities, Yes Section 2.1 large employers, and special events should be identified. Section 3
c. Discussion should be presented on use of traffic control Yes Section 1.3, Section 2.2, Section 9, plans in the analysis. Appendix G
d. Traffic simulation models used for the analyses should be Yes Section 1.3, Table 1-3, Appendix B, identified by name and version. Appendix C Palo Verde N-i N-1 KLD Engineering, p.c.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Reie Crtei Crtro dresdCm et

e. Methods used to address data uncertainties should be Yes Section 3 - avoid double counting described.

I Section 5, Appendix F - 4.5% sampling error at 95% confidence interval for telephone survey 1.2 Assumptions

a. The planning basis for the ETE includes the assumption Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 1 that the evacuation should be ordered promptly and no Section 5.1 early protective actions have been implemented.
b. Assumptions consistent with Table 1-2, "General Yes Sections 2.2, 2.3 Assumptions," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and include the basis to support their use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The ten scenarios in Table 1-3, Evacuation Scenarios, Yes Tables 2-1, 6-2 should be developed for the ETE analysis, or a reason should be provided for use of other scenarios.

1.3.1 Staged Evacuation

a. A discussion should be provided on the approach used in Yes Sections 5.4.2, 7.2 development of a staged evacuation.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 6-1 (ERPAs) should be included.
b. A table should be provided identifying the ERPAs Yes Table 6-1 considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction in each sector.

Palo Verde N-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

. R C C C in E nayi

c. A table similar to Table 1-4, "Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 7-5 Evacuation Keyhole," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided and includes the complete evacuation of the 2, 5, and 10 mile areas and for the 2 mile area/S mile keyhole evacuations.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation should be developed for the four Yes Permanent residents, employees, population groups, including permanent residents of the transients - Section 3, Appendix E EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools. Schools - Section 8, Appendix E No special facilities within the EPZ.

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The US Census should be the source of the population Yes Section 3.1, page 3 MCDEM 2011 values, or another credible source should be provided. population data used in the study.
b. Population values should be adjusted as necessary for Yes Section 3.2 growth to reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE.
c. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1, Yes Figure 3-2 "Population by Sector," of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value should be between 1 and 2 Yes 1.99 persons per vehicle -Table 1-3 or justification should be provided for other values.
b. Major employers should be listed. Yes Appendix E -Table E-2 KLD Engineering, P.c.

Palo Verde N-3 N-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities which attract transient populations Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4, Appendix E should be included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities should be listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values should be provided.
b. The average population during the season should be used, Yes Tables 3-5, 3-6 and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 6-3 to estimate transient population by scenario.
c. The percent of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 facilities should be estimated.
d. The number of people per vehicle should be provided. Yes Sections 3.3, 3.4 Numbers may vary by scenario, and if so, discussion on why values vary should be provided.
e. A sector diagram should be included, similar to Figure 2-1 Yes Figure 3 transients of NUREG/CR-7002, showing the population distribution Figure 3 employees for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology used to determine the number of transit Yes Section 8.1, Table 8-1 dependent residents should be discussed.
b. Transportation resources needed to evacuate this group Yes Section 8.1, Tables 8-4, 8-8 should be quantified.
c. The.county/local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Sections 8.1, 8.3 residents should be used in the analysis.

Palo Verde N-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Reie CrtraCiein0deýdC 0R m et

d. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 8.4 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and -do not reside in special facilities should be provided. Data from local/county registration programs should be used in the estimate, but should not be the only set of data.
e. Capacities should be provided for all types of Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 10 transportation resources. Bus seating capacity of 50% Sections 8.1 through 8.3 should be used or justification should be provided for higher values.
f. An estimate of this population should be provided and Yes Table 8 transit dependents information should be provided that the existing Section 8.4 registration programs were used in developing the estimate.
g. A summary table of the total number of buses, Yes Section 8.3 ambulances, or other transport needed to support Section 8.4 - page 8-6 evacuation should be provided and the quantification of resources should be detailed enough to assure double Table 8-4 counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. A list of special facilities, including the type of facility, Yes Appendix E, Tables E list schools, type, location, and average population should be provided. location, and population Special facility staff should be included in the total special facility population.
b. A discussion should be provided on how special facility Yes Section 8.2 data was obtained.

Palo Verde N-S N-5 KLD Engineering, p.c.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR ReiwCiei.rtro Adrse Com ent in EAnayi

c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bound individuals Yes No medical facilities within the EPZ.

should be provided.

d. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 8.2 needed to support the evacuation of the facility should be Tables 8-2, 8-4 provided.
e. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff,(e.g., Yes No medical facilities or correctional medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and facilities exist within the EPZ.

other correctional facilities) should be discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 8-2 population, and transportation resources required to Section 8.2 support the evacuation, should be provided. The source of this information should be provided.
b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Table 8-2 schools should be based on 100% of the school capacity.
c. The estimate of high school students who will use their Yes Section 8.2 personal vehicle to evacuate should be provided and a basis for the values used should be discussed.
d. The need for return trips should be identified if necessary. Yes There are sufficient resources to evacuate schools in a single wave. However, Section 8.3 and 8.4, Tables 8-9, 8-10, 8-12, and Figure 8-1 discuss the potential for a multiple wave evacuation N-6 KLD Engineering, p.c.

Palo Verde N-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Cornments I in ETE Analysis 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events should be provided and Yes Section 3.6 includes information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.
b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.6 population should be analyzed in the ETE.
c. The percent of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.6 should be estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent should be included for Yes Section 2.2 - Assumption 5 areas outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles Figure 2-1 from the NPP.

Section 3.2

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the 10 Yes Section 3.2 to 15 mile area beyond the EPZ are provided by sector. Figure 3-4 Table 3-4
c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 5-9 network should be consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and pass through traffic Yes Section 3.7, 6 is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be Tables 3-6, 6-3 reduced for nighttime scenarios.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde N-7 N-7 KLD EngineeringR P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NR Review Crieria CriterionAddesdC m et I.~~i -T - Analysis. I

b. Pass through traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 5 the EPZ about two hours after the initial notification.

Section 3.5 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table should be provided that identifies the total populations and total vehicles used in analysis for Yes Tables 3-8, 3-9 permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass-through demand used in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity should be Yes Section 4 discussed. ________________j_____________________________

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. A field survey of key routes within the EPZ has been Yes Section 1.3 conducted.
b. Information should be provided describing the extent of Yes Section 1.3 the survey, and types of information gathered and used in the analysis.
c. A table similar to that in Appendix A, "Roadway Yes Appendix K,Table K-1 Characteristics," of NUREG/CR-7002 should be provided.
d. Calculations for a representative roadway segment should Yes Section 4 be provided.

Palo Verde N-8 N-8 KLD Engineering, p.c.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Crieria CriterionAd rs C m et I~i -- -T - --- An, dy

e. A legible map of the roadway system that identifies node Yes Appendix K,Figures K-1 through K-18 numbers and segments used to develop the ETE should be present the entire link-node analysis provided and should be similar to Figure 3-1, "Roadway network at a scale suitable to identify all Network Identifying Nodes and Segments," of NUREG/CR- links and nodes 7002.

3.2 Capacity Analysis

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network should be described in detail and identifies factors that should be expressly used in the modeling.
b. The capacity analysis identifies where field information Yes Section 1.3, Section 4 should be used in the ETE calculation.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list of intersections should be provided that includes the Yes Appendix K,Table K-2 total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel.
b. Characteristics for the 10 highest volume intersections Yes Table J There are only 4 signalized within the EPZ are provided including the location, signal intersections in the study area.

cycle length, and turn lane queue capacity.

c. Discussion should be provided on how signal cycle time is Yes Section 4.1, Appendix C.

used in the calculations.

Palo Verde N-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

SReie Crtei Crtro Addrsse Comment in EAnayi 3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather condition should be identified and Yes Table 2-1, Section 2.3 - Assumption 9 the effects of adverse weather on mobilization time Mobilization time - Table 2-2 should be considered.
b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 2 based on HCM 2010. The Table 3-1, "Weather Capacity Factors," of NUREG/CR-7002 factors provided in Table 3-1 of should be used or a basis should be provided for other NUREG/CR-7002 are from HCM 2000.

values.

c. The study identifies assumptions for snow removal on Yes Not Applicable streets and driveways, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times should Yes Section 5 be identified.
b. When telephone surveys are used, the scope of the Yes Appendix F survey, area of survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance should be provided.
c. Data obtained from telephone surveys should be Yes Appendix F summarized.
d. The trip generation time for each population group should Yes Section 5, Appendix F be developed from site specific information.

Rev. 1 Palo Verde N-Pn KILD Engineering, P.C.

Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Andlysis 4.1.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters. Table 6-3 presents the percentage of residents will need to return home prior to percentage of households with returning evacuating. commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent of households who will await the return of commuters.

b. Discussion should be provided on the time and method Yes Section 5.4.3 used to notify transients. The trip generation time discusses any difficulties notifying persons in hard to reach areas such as on lakes or in campgrounds.
c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 5-1 potentially returning to hotels prior to evacuating.
d. Effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.6 special events where a large number of transients should be expected should be considered.
e. The trip generation time for the transient population Yes Section 5, Table 5-9 should be integrated and loaded onto the transportation network with the general public.

KID Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde N-li N-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

NRC eviw Crtera Citeron ddrssedCom ent 14.1.2 Transit Dependent Residents

a. If available, existing plans and bus routes should be used Yes Section 8.3. Pre-established bus routes do in the ETE analysis. If new plans should be developed with not exist. Basic bus routes were developed the ETE, they have been agreed upon by the responsible for the ETE analysis - see Figure 8-2, Table authorities. 8-8.
b. Discussion should be included on the means of evacuating Yes Section 8.4 ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents.
c. The number, location, and availability of buses, and other Yes Section 8.3 resources needed to support the demand estimation should be provided.
d. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.3, Figure 8-1 drivers, and initiate the bus route should be provided.
e. Discussion should identify the time estimated for transit Yes Section 8.3 dependent residents to prepare and travel to a bus pickup point, and describes the expected means of travel to the pickup point.
f. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.3 passengers should be discussed.
g. A map of bus routes should be included. Yes Figure 8-2
h. The trip generation time for non-ambulatory persons Yes Sections 8.3 and 8.4 includes the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, loading time, and time to drive out of the EPZ should be provided.

Rev. 1 Palo Verde N-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N eve Crtei Crtro Adde ssdC m et inEEAnayi

i. Intormation should be provided to supports analysis ot Yes Sections 8.3, 8.4 return trips, if necessary.

Figure 8-1 Tables 8-9, 8-10, 8-12 4.1.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times Yes should be provided.
b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes outbound speeds.
c. The number of wheelchair and bed-bounds individuals Yes should be provided, and the logistics of evacuating these residents should be discussed.
d. Time for loading of residents should be provided Yes
e. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes No special facilities (other than schools, the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if which are discussed below) exist within additional trips should be needed. the EPZ.
f. If return trips should be needed, the destination of Yes vehicles should be provided.
g. Discussion should be provided on whether special facility Yes residents are expected to pass through the reception center prior to being evacuated to their final destination.
h. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes time elements for the return trips.

Palo Verde N-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria CriterioAdrse rn nt 4.1.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization time Yes Section 8.2 should be provided.
b. Discussion should be provided on the inbound and Yes School bus routes are presented in Table outbound speeds. 8-5.

School bus speeds are presented in Tables 8-6 (good weather), and 8-7 (rain).

Outbound speeds are defined as the minimum of the evacuation route speed and the State school bus speed limit.

Inbound speeds are limited to the State school bus speed limit.

c. Time for loading of students should be provided. Yes Tables 8-6 and 8-7, Discussion in Section 8.2
d. Information should be provided that indicates whether Yes Section 8.3, Table 8-4 the evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.
e. If return trips are needed, the destination of school buses Yes Return trips are not needed should be provided.
f. If used, reception centers should be identified. Discussion Yes Table 8-3. Students are evacuated to should be provided on whether students are expected to reception and care centers where they will pass through the reception center prior to being be picked up by parents or guardians.

evacuated to their final destination.

Palo Verde N-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC evi w Crtera Citeron ddr ssedCom ent

g. Supporting information should be provided to quantify the Yes Return trips are not needed. Tables 8-6 time elements for the return trips. and 8-7 provide time needed to arrive at reception and care center, which could be used to compute a second wave evacuation if necessary 4.2 ETE Modeling
a. General information about the model should be provided Yes DYNEV II (Ver. 4.0.8.0). Section 1.3, Table and demonstrates its use in ETE studies. 1-3, Appendix B, Appendix C.
b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to conduct the ETE No Not applicable as a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail should be provided to validate model was used.

the analytical approach used. All criteria elements should have been met, as appropriate.

4.2.1 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Appendices B and C describe the set of model inputs should be provided. simulation model assumptions and algorithms Table J model inputs
b. A glossary of terms should be provided for the key Yes Appendix A performance measures and parameters used in the Tables C-1, C-2 analysis.

N-15 KID Engineering, p.c.

Palo Verde N-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

NRC Review Criteria Criterion Addressed Comments in ETE Analysis 4.2.2 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion regarding whether the traffic simulation Yes Appendix B model used must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE should be provided.
b. The minimum following model outputs should be provided Yes 1. Table J-5.

to support review: 2. Table J-3.

1. Total volume and percent by hour at each EPZ exit 3. Table J-1.

node. 4. Table J-3.

2. Network wide average travel time. 5. Figures J-1 through J-12 (one plot
3. Longest queue length for the 10 intersections with the for each scenario considered).

highest traffic volume. 6. Table J-4. Network wide average

4. Total vehicles exiting the network. speed also provided in Table J-3.
5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.
6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.
c. Color coded roadway maps should be provided for various Yes Figures 7-3 through 7-6 times (i.e., at 2, 4, 6 hrs., etc.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where long queues exist including level of service (LOS) "E" and LOS "F" conditions, if they occur.

4.3 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE should include the time to evacuate 90% and Yes Tables 7-1, 7-2 100% of the total permanent resident and transient population Palo Verde N-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crtro dC Sr,m et inEEAn l i,

b. The ETE for 100% of the general public should include all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data should be explained. Table 7 th percentile ETE for general 1 00 public
c. Tables should be provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Tables 7-3, 7-4 similar to Table 4-3, "ETEs for Staged Evacuation Keyhole,"

of NUREG/CR-7002.

d. ETEs should be provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8.3 special facilities, transit dependent, and school Tables 8-6 and 8 school ETE populations.

Tables 8-9 and 8 transit-dependent ETE Tables 8-11 and 8 access and functional needs ETE 5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis should be provided.
b. A discussion of adjustments or additions to the traffic Yes Section 9, Appendix G control plan that affect the ETE should be provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for improvement of evacuation Yes IAppendix M time should be provided. J I KLD Engineering, P.C.

Palo Verde N-17 N-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

.R Reie Crtei Crtro Addese Com ent inEEA ays

b. A statement or discussion regarding presentation of Yes Results of the ETE study were formally enhancements to local authorities should be provided. presented to local authorities at the final project meeting. Recommended enhancements were discussed.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted and the extent of interaction Yes Table 1-1 with these agencies should be discussed.
b. Information should be provided on any unresolved issues Yes No unresolved issues remain.

that may affect the ETE.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. A discussion of when an updated ETE analysis is required [ Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC. _

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 10-1 should be provided.
b. If return trips are required, assumptions used to estimate Yes Section 8.3 discusses a multi-wave return times for buses should be provided. evacuation procedure. Figure 8-1
c. It should be clearly stated if it is assumed that passengers Yes Section 2.3 - Assumption 7f are left at the reception center and are taken by separate Sections 8, 10 buses to the congregate care center.

Technical Reviewer Date Supervisory Review Date Palo Verde N-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12355A750&oldid=2089559"