Text

Final Report, Kld TR-522, Rev. 1, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Cover Through Page 5-22
	ML13002A414
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	10/31/2012
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Wolf Creek
References
	RA 12-0126 KLD TR-522, Rev 1
	Download: ML13002A414 (106)
	v • d • e

,ZKL ENGINEERING, P.C Wolf Creek GeneratingStation Development of Evacuation Time Estimates I

Work performedfor Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation,by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

43 Corporate Drive Hauppauge, NY 11788 mailto:kweinischakldcompanies.com October 2012 Final Report, Rev. 1 KLD TR - 522

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 The W olf Creek Generating Station Location ............................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities ................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................ 3-15 3.5 M edical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population .............................................................. 3-19 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ............................................................................................................... 3-21 4 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 4-4 4.3 Application to the W CGS Study Area ......................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highway ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation .......................................................................................... 4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution .................................................................... 5-12 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 5-13 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 5-18 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) .......................................................... 7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 7-2 Wolf Creek Generating Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 7-3 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 7-4 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 7-5 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ............................. 8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................ 8-2 8.2 School Population - Transit Dem and ......................................................................................... 8-4 8.3 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................ 8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People ................................................... 8-5 8.5 Special Needs Population ......................................................................................................... 8-10 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 8-11 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY .............................................................................................. 9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 10-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ............................................................................... A-1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ..................................................... B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL .......................................................................................... C-1 C.1 M ethodology .............................................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram ................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ........................................................................................................ C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent .............................................................................................................. C-13 C.2 Im plem entation ....................................................................................................................... C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure ................................................................................................ C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) .............................................. C-16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .......................................................................... D-1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E-1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F-1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F-1 F.2 Survey Instrum ent and Sam pling Plan ....................................................................................... F-2 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F-3 F.3.1 Household Dem ographic Results ........................................................................................... F-3 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F-8 F.3.3 Tim e Distribution Results ................................................................................................ F-10 F.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. F-13 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G-1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G-1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G-1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H-1 Wolf Creek Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ................................. J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW ORK .............................................................................................. K-1 L. SU BZO NE BO U NDA RIES ..................................................................................................................... L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES .......................................................................................... M -1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ........................................................................ M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M-2 M .3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M -3 N . ETE CRITERIA CHEC KLIST ................................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Wolf Creek Generating Station iii KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

List of Figures Figure 1-1. WCGS Location ........................................................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2. WCGS Link-Node Analysis Network ........................................................................................ 1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 3-1. W CG S EPZ ................................................................................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-14 Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 3-17 Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 3-18 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 4-9 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip .............................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities ........................................................................................ 5-11 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions ....................................................................... 5-21 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Regio n .................................................................................................................................... 5-23 Figure 6-1. WCGS EPZ Subzones ............................................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-2. WCGS Shadow Region ........................................................................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 7-23 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 7-24 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 7-25 Figure 7-6. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-26 Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-26 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-27 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 ...................................................... 7-27 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-28 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-28 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-29 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-29 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-30 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-30 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-31 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-31 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-32 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-32 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 8-13 Figure 8-2. Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................. 8-14 Figure 10-1. WCGS Reception and Care Center ...................................................................................... 10-2 Figure 10-2. Evacuation Route Map ........................................................................................................ 10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface .................................................................. B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network ........................................................................................... C-4 Wolf Creek Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ........................................................................................................... C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t, > 0 .............................................................................. C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3) .............................................. C-1S Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D-5 Figure E-1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................ E-7 Figure E-2. M edical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E-8 Figure E-3. M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ ............................................................................................. E-9 Figure E-4. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ....................................................................................... E-I0 Figure E-S. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................. E-11 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F-4 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F-4 Figure F-3. Vehicle Availability - i to 4 Person Households ................................................................. F-S Figure F-4. Vehicle Availability - 5 to 7 Person Households ................................................................. F-S Figure F-S. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F-6 Figure F-6. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F-7 Figure F-7. M odes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-8. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F-9 Figure F-9. Households Evacuating with Pets ........................................................................................... F-9 Figure F-10. Time Required to Prepare to Leave W ork/School .......................................................... F-11 Figure F-11. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ........................................................................................... F-11 Figure F-12. Tim e to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F-12 Figure F-13. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ........................................................................... F-13 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the W CGS Site ............................................................ G-2 Figure H-1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H-S Figure H-2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H-6 Figure H-3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H-7 Figure H-4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H-8 Figure H-S. Region ROS ............................................................................................................................. H-9 Figure H-6. Region R06 ........................................................................................................................... H-10 Figure H-7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H-11 Figure H-8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H-12 Figure H-9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H-13 Figure H-10. Region RIO ......................................................................................................................... H-14 Figure H-11. Region Rib ......................................................................................................................... H-1S Figure H-12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H-16 Figure H-13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H-17 Figure H-14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H-18 Figure H-1S. Region RIS ......................................................................................................................... H-19 Figure H-16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H-20 Figure H-17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H-21 Figure H-18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H-22 Figure H-19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H-23 Figure H-20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H-24 Figure H-21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H-25 Figure H-22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H-26 Figure H-23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H-27 Figure H-24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H-28 Wolf Creek Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H-29 Figure H-26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H-30 Figure H-27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H-31 Figure H-28. Region R28 ......................................................................................................................... H-32 Figure H-29. Region R29 ......................................................................................................................... H-33 Figure H-30. Region R30 ......................................................................................................................... H-34 Figure H-31. Region R31 ......................................................................................................................... H-35 Figure H-32. Region R32 ......................................................................................................................... H-36 Figure H-33. Region R33 ......................................................................................................................... H-37 Figure H-34. Region R34 ......................................................................................................................... H-38 Figure H-35. Region R35 ......................................................................................................................... H-39 Figure H-36. Region R36 ......................................................................................................................... H-40 Figure H-37. Region R37 ......................................................................................................................... H-41 Figure H-38. Region R38 ......................................................................................................................... H-42 Figure H-39. Region R39 ......................................................................................................................... H-43 Figure H-40. Region R40 ......................................................................................................................... H-44 Figure H-41. Region R41 ......................................................................................................................... H-45 Figure H-42. Region R42 ......................................................................................................................... H-46 Figure H-43. Region R43 ......................................................................................................................... H-47 Figure H-44. Region R44 ......................................................................................................................... H-48 Figure H-45. Region R45 ......................................................................................................................... H-49 Figure H-46. Region R46 ......................................................................................................................... H-50 Figure H-47. Region R47 ......................................................................................................................... H-51 Figure H-48. Region R48 ......................................................................................................................... H-52 Figure H-49. Region R49 ......................................................................................................................... H-53 Figure H-50. Region R50 ......................................................................................................................... H-54 Figure H-51. Region R51 ......................................................................................................................... H-55 Figure H-52. Region R52 ......................................................................................................................... H-56 Figure H-53. Region R53 ......................................................................................................................... H-57 Figure H-54. Region R54 ......................................................................................................................... H-58 Figure H-55. Region R55 ......................................................................................................................... H-59 Figure H-56. Region R56 .......................................................................................................................... H-60 Figure H-57. Region R57 .......................................................................................................................... H-61 Figure H-58. Region R58 .......................................................................................................................... H-62 Figure H-59. Region R59 .......................................................................................................................... H-63 Figure H-60. Region R60 .......................................................................................................................... H-64 Figure H-61. Region R61 .......................................................................................................................... H-65 Figure H-62. Region R62 .......................................................................................................................... H-66 Figure H-63. Region R63 .......................................................................................................................... H-67 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J-6 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ........................... J-6 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ....... J-7 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .......................... J-7 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ................................................................................................................................................ J-8 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J-8 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................. J-9 Wolf Creek Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ........................... J-9 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ....... J-10 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ....................... J-10 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) .................... iJ-l Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n a rio 122 ) ............................................................................................................................................ J- i Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Wolf Creek Refueling O utage (Scenario 13) ......................................... ............................................... .................................... J-12 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Sce n a rio 14 ) ............................................................................................................................................ J-12 Figure K-1. Wolf Creek Generating Station Link-Node Analysis Network ................................................. K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - G rid 3 ..................................................................................... K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - G rid 6 ..................................................................................... K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8 .............................................................................. K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9 ............................................................................ K-11 Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 13 .......................................................................... K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 16 .............................................................................. K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork- Grid 21 ............................................................................... K-23 Wolf Creek Generating Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................ 1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2. M odel Adjustm ent for Adverse W eather ................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subzone ................................................ 3-5 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................. 3-8 Table 3-4. Sum m ary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ...................................... 3-16 Table 3-6. W CGS EPZ External Traffic ..................................................................................................... 3-20 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ........................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and ................................................................................................. 3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 5-3 Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Com muters to Travel Home .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 5-9 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ...................................................... 5-10 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 5-12 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 5-1 3 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ..................... 5-20 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 5-22 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 6-6 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 6-7 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 6-8 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 7-8 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 7-14 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 7-16 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 7-1 8 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates .............................................................................. 8-15 Table 8-2. School Population Dem and Estim ates ................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8-3. Reception and Care Center .................................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................ 8-17 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 8-18 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather .............................................................. 8-20 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Tim e Estim ates - Rain ............................................................................... 8-21 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Tim e Estim ates - Snow ............................................................................. 8-22 Table 8-10. Sum mary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 8-23 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ........................................ 8-24 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ......................................................... 8-24 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ....................................................... 8-25 Wolf Creek Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................. 8-26 Table 8-15. M edical Facility Evacuation Tim e Estim ates - Rain .............................................................. 8-27 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................ 8-28 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates .................................... 8-29 Table 8-18. Homebound Special Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates - Second Wave for W heelchair Bound People ....................................................................................................................... 8-29 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Term s ................................................................................. A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ........................................................................... C-3 T a b le C-3 . G lo ssa ry .................................................................................................................................... C-8 Table E-1. Schoo ls w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E-2 Table E-2. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-3 Table E-3. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-4 Table E-4. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................. E-5 Table E-5. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ ....................................................................................... E-6 Table F-1. W CGS Telephone Survey Sam pling Plan .................................................................................. F-2 Table H-1. Percent of Sub-Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ................................................. H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Two Signalized Intersections ................................................................. J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ............................................................................................... J-3 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ....................... J-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, S ce n a rio 1 ) ................................................................................................................................................. J-4 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ...................... J-5 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K-24 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled .......................................... K-44 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ................................... M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change ................................................................................. M -4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .............................................................................................. N-1 Wolf Creek Generating Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) located in Coffey County, Kansas. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) and State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.

10CFR50, Appendix E - "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities."

Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in April, 2012 and extended over a period of 5 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Attended "kick-off" meetings with WCNOC personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the WCGS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.

Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant.

Designed and sponsored a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

Data collection forms (provided to the OROs at the kickoff meeting) were returned with data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities. Telephone calls to Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

specific facilities supplemented the data provided.

The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 22 subzones. These subzones are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 63 Evacuation Regions.

The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario involving a Wolf Creek Refueling Outage was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a segment was closed on US-75 southbound just south of Burlington for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2 mile radius and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

" As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

" A rapidly escalating event at the WCGS that quickly assumes the status of General Emergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with the siren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

" While an unlikely event scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until a stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent "upper bound" estimates.

This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.

If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception and care centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

" Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 882 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 63 Evacuation Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (63 x 14 = 882). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory. The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.

The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place. Once 90% of the 2-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles are assumed to evacuate even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

A link-node representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures.

" The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.

" The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by Coffey County.

Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study.

Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.

Figure 6-1 displays a map of the WCGS EPZ showing the layout of the 22 subzones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each subzone based on the 2010 Census data.

Table 6-1 defines each of the 63 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of subzones.

" Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

" Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather.

Figure H-8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions

General population ETE were computed for 882 unique cases - a combination of 63 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:05 (hr:min) to 2:30 at the 90th percentile.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios are the same values as the mobilization times. This result implies that any congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization; see Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-5.

Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2 mile region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare the ETE for Regions R02 and R04 through R19 with those for Regions R47 through R63, respectively, in Tables 7-1 and 7-2). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Comparison of Scenarios 6 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event -

refueling outage at Wolf Creek - does not have a material impact on the ETE for the 9 0 th percentile. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - a southbound segment of US-75 between 10th Rd and 7th Ln south of Burlington - does not have a material impact on the 90th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Burlington is the only congested area during an evacuation. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-5.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities. The average single-wave ETE for schools are within a similar range as the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. The average single-wave ETE for medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities ETE exceed the 90th percentile ETE of the general population. See Section 8.

Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough wheelchair buses to evacuate the bedridden population in a single wave.

The second-wave ETE for wheelchair bound people do exceed the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. See Sections 8.4 and 8.5.

The general population ETE at the 100th percentile is sensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 15 minutes due to the lack of traffic congestion within the EPZ. The 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time due to the evacuation tail. See Table M-1.

" The general population ETE is insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage only increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 5 minutes). See Table M-2.

Population changes between +130% and -65% would result in ETE changes which meet the criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 6-1. WCGS EPZ Subzones Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Su n 200 Pouato 201 Poplaio CCL 13 0 CTR 127 132 E-i 46 62 E-2 57 54 JRR 22 0 N-1 36 27 N-2 131 163 NE-1 64 48 NE-2 703 682 NE-3 120 115 NW-i 116 112 NW-2 156 149 S-1 44 45 S-2 60 81 SE-1 46 57 SE-2 132 124 SE-3 675 662 SE-4 47 45 SW-i 2,970 2,854 SW-2 118 137 W-i 484 480 W-2 169 167 EPZ Population Growth: -2.21%

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Direction Wind (Degrees):

Ren Subzones Region From CCL N-i N-2 NE-i NE-2 NE-3 E-1 E-2 SE-2 SE-3 SE-4 S-I S-2 SW-i SW-2 W-1 W-2 NW-1I NW-2 R21 7-16 R22 17-27 R23 28-38 R24 39-67 R25 68-73 R26 74-83 R27 84-96 R28 97 - 106 R29 107-118 R30 119- 128 R31 129-162 R32 163-173 R33 174-186 R34 187 - 196 R35 197-207 R36 208-225 R37 226-248 R38 249-253 R39 254-275 R40 276 -281 R41 282-292 R42 293-298 R43 299-315 R44 316 -331 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Da. of Tieo Scnai Seaon Wee Day WeterSeca 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None 13 Winter Midweek Midday Good Wolf Creek Refueling Outage Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure of One Segment on US-75 Southbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek WeekedeMideekdMdwee Weekend MdekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday I Midday FEve-nin-g Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Rain Snow Weathe Snw Weathe God Secia Impadwa Weather Weather Weather Weather I S Rain Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:05 1:15 R02 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R03 1:50 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:55 2:40 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:50 1:55 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:25 1:30 2:15 1:25 1:20 1:30 ROS 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R06 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R07 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R08 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R09 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 RIO 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R11 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:25 1:30 2:15 1:25 1:20 1:30 R12 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:30 1:25 1:30 R13 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:25 1:15 1:25 R14 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:20 1:25 2:00 1:15 1:15 1:20 RIS 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:45 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:15 1:20 R16 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:40 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:15 1:20 R17 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:25 1:15 1:25 R18 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:45 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:15 1:20 R19 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:30 1:25 1:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R20 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:45 R21 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:45 1:55 R22 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:45 1:55 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend MidweekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R23 1:50 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:40 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:45 1:55 R24 1:50 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:45 1:55 R25 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:35 1:40 2:30 1:35 1:45 1:55 R26 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:35 1:40 2:30 1:35 1:45 1:55 R27 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:50 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:50 R28 1:50 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:35 1:35 1:35 2:30 1:35 1:45 1:55 R29 1:40 1:45 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:45 R30 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:45 R31 1:40 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:45 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:30 1:40 R32 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:45 R33 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:35 1:45 R34 1:40 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:35 1:40 R35 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:30 1:35 2:20 1:30 1:30 1:40 R36 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:35 1:40 R37 1:40 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:40 R38 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R39 1:3 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:10 1:30 1:25 1:35 R40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:30 1:35 R41 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:30 1:35 R42 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:30 1:40 R43 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:35 1:40 R44 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:45 R45 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:35 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:45 R46 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:40 1:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R47 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 150 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 R48 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:35 1:30 1:35 R49 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:OS Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact RSO 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 RS1 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 R52 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 R53 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 R54 1:50 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:05 R55 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:30 1:35 RS6 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:35 1:40 R57 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:25 1:30 RS8 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:25 1:30 R59 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:30 1:30 R60 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:25 1:30 R61 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:35 1:30 1:35 R62 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:10 1:30 1:25 1:30 R63 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter WiEter Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday

_______ Midday

_______ M____ nirwek Evening 2-ieReini-MldegoadePek_________

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good - Rain Snow Weathe w Wete God Secia Evi~ Impadwa Weather Weather Ran Weather Weather W hRai Sn W eahr Eet Ipc Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ ROL 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25j 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 ROS 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 RIO 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R13 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R14 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 RIS 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R16 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R17 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R18 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R19 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather ___Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R26 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R27 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R28 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R29 4:25 4:25 4:25, 4:25 4.25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R30 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R31 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25, 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R32 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R33 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R34 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R35 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R36 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R37 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R38 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R39 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R40 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R41. 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R42 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R43 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R44 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R4S 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R46 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 5:25 4:25 4:25 4:25

_____ ___________StagedEvacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles ___ ____

R47 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 J4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R48 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R49 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R50 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 j4:20 4:20 j5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-16 ES-16 Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend IWeekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R51 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R52 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R53 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R54 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R55 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R56 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R57 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R58 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R59 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R60 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R61 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R62 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R63 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 5:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Mileeg Weekend Midweek Ke eMidweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Region Midday Good Weather Ri Good RanWeather IRain Midday Good Evening Weather Weather Midday Goodl Rin So RIn Snow Good Weather Midday Rain Snow Evening Good Weather Midday Special Event Midday Roadway Impact Entire 2-Mile Region R01 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1 1:15 1 1:30 1 1:20 1:20 2:00 I1:15 1:05 1:15 5- Mile Region and 2-Mile Region with Keyhole to S Miles R02 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:10 1:25 1:20 1:30 R04 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:10 1:20 ROS 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:10 1:20 R06 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:35 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 R07 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:20 1:25 R08 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:15 1:25 R09 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:15 1:25 RIO 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:15 1:25 R11 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:15 1:25 R12 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:25 1:25 2:15 1:25 1:15 1:25 R13 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 R14 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 RIS 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 R16 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:05 1:15 R17 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 R18 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:20 1:20 2:00 1:15 1:10 1:15 R19 1:20 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:20 1:35 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:20 1:10 1:20 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R47 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:35 R48 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:20 1:30 R49 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:20 1:30 R50 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:25 1:20 1:25 R51 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R52 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 R53 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 R54 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 R55 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:30 R56 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:30 1:30 1:35 R57 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R58 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R59 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R60 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R61 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R62 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 R63 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:25 1:30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-19 ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 7-4. lime to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekMidweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midweek______ Enie2-ieRgindweek_____

Midday Midday Evening IMidday

__________ IMidday Region Good Ran Good Rain Good Goodl Rin So Good TZiISnw Good ISpecial IRoadway Weather RanWeatherI Weather Wether IaiSnw WahrRi nw Wahr Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 14:151 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 S- Mile Region and 2-Mile Region with Keyhole to 5 Miles R02 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R04 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R05 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R06 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R07 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R08 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R09 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 RIO 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R11 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R13 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R14 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R1S 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R16 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R17 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R18 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R19 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R47 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R48 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R49 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R50 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R51 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R52 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R53 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 RS4 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R55 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R56 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R57 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R58 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R59 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R60 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R61 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R62 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R63 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 5:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-21 ES-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation lime Estimates - Good Weather P.C.1 KLD Engineering,Rev.

Wolf Wolf Creek Generating Station Creek Generating Station ES-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure H-8. Region ROB Wolf Creek Generating Station ES-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas. ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies. Most important of these are:

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.

0 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.

Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkhle Naur of Stkeole Inercto Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Meetings to define data requirements and set up (WCNOC) contacts with local government agencies Obtain Coffey County Radiological Emergency Coffey County Emergency Management Office Preparedness Plan for WCGS, school, medical, (EMO) transportation resources and the number of non-institutionalized mobility impaired (NIMI).

Kansas Department of Emergency Management Obtain census data (Kansas DEM) 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

a. Defined the scope of work in discussions with representatives from WCNOC.

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Coffey EMO and Kansas DEM Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census, Kansas EMD and Coffey EMO.

e. Conducted a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents.

f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the random sample telephone survey.

3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios. These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day and weather conditions.

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCP) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing subzones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 22 subzones along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. "Regions" are groups of contiguous subzones for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at "Special Facilities" and for transit-dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, WCNOC and from the telephone survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1 )

to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each "origin" (location of each "source" where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the WCGS.

8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETE for all residents, transients and employees ("general population") with access to private vehicles. Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, medical facilities, etc.), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Wolf Creek Generating Station Location The WCGS is located along the eastern shore of Coffey County Lake 4 miles northeast of Burlington, Kansas. The site is approximately 55 miles south of Topeka, KS, and 80 miles southwest of Kansas City, Missouri. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is located entirely in Coffey County. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the WCGS. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

KLD Engineering, P.c.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-3 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-1. WCGS Location 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2:

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

" Number of lanes 0 Posted speed

Lane width 0 Actual free speed

" Shoulder type & width

Abutting land use

" Interchange geometries a Control devices

Lane channelization & queuing 0 Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) 0 Traffic signal type

Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for two-lane highways. Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV IISystem.

As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. These links may be Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Traffic signals are either pre-timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches), or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings.

These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV IIsystem.

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre-timed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

Figure 1-2 presents the link-node analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.

Telephone Survey A telephone survey was undertaken to gather information needed for the evacuation study.

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate "source" links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical Tools The DYNEV II System that was employed for this study is comprised of several integrated computer models. One of these is the DYNEV (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model, a new version of the IDYNEV model that was developed by KLD under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 1-2. WCGS Link-Node Analysis Network Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

DYNEV II consists of four sub-models:

" A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C).

" A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes for each "origin" (0) located within the analysis network, where evacuation trips are "generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.

A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel (routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described in Appendix B.

A Myopic Traffic Diversion model which diverts traffic to avoid intense, local congestion, if possible.

Another software product developed by KLD, named UNITES (UNIfied Transportation Engineering System) was used to expedite data entry and to automate the production of output tables.

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE is outlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.

For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, I-DYNEV, the following references are suggested:

NUREG/CR-4873 - Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code

NUREG/CR-4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

Route traffic along paths of travel that will expedite their travel from their respective points of origin to points outside the EPZ.

Restrict movement toward the plant to the extent practicable, and disperse traffic demand so as to avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways.

Move traffic in directions that are generally outbound, relative to the location of the WCGS.

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the WCGS Radiological Emergency Response Plan Study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

" Vehicle occupancy and Trip-generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered.

The highway representation is far more detailed.

" Dynamic evacuation modeling.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons Toi Prviu ET td*urn T Std ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Resident Population Based on 1980 census. Census blocks; area ratio method Basis Population = 9,000 used.

Population = 6,196 2.23 persons/household, 1.35 Resident Population N/A evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 1.65 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on information provided about Employee N/A major employers in EPZ. 1.06 Population employees per vehicle based on telephone survey results.

Employees = 455 Estimates based upon U.S.

Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 91 people who do not have Transit-Dependent access to a vehicle, requiring 4 Population N/A buses to evacuate. An additional 27 homebound special needs persons needed special transportation to evacuate (26 required a wheelchair bus and 1 requires an ambulance).

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

-I ToiIrvosEESud urn Ttd Transient estimates based upon Transient information provided about N/A Population transient attractions in EPZ.

Transients = 64 Special facility population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ.

Medical Facilities:

Current census = 130 Special Facilities Buses Required = 4 N/A Population Wheelchair Bus Required = 7 Ambulances Required = 2 Correctional Facilities:

Inmates = 27 Buses required = 1 School population based on information provided by each School Population N/A county within the EPZ.

School enrollment = 1,210 Buses required = 23 Voluntary 20 percent of the population evacuation from within the EPZ, but not within within EPZ in areas N/A the Evacuation Region (see outside region to be Figure 2-1) evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation N/A within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)

Network Size N/A 421 links; 282 nodes Field surveys conducted in April 2012. Roads and intersections Roadway Geometric N/A were video archived.

DataN/ Road capacities based on 2010 H.CM.

School Evacuation N/A Direct evacuation to designated Reception and Care Center.

50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing N/A persons will evacuate with a I_ neighbor or friend.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

I -ToicPeiuT StdCurn T StdI Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 255 minutes.

Trip Generation for N/A Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 15 and 165 minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 15 and 120 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and free flow speed of Weather N/A all links in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20% for snow.

Modeling N/A DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.9.0 Refueling outage at Wolf Creek Special Events N/A Special Event Population = 595 additional employees 63 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent Evacuation Cases N/A sector technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 882 unique cases.

ETE reported for 1 0 0 th percentile for ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time evacuation of each subzone. Results percentile population. Results Estimates Reporting presented by subzone and weather presented by Region and condition. Scenario.

Evacuation Time Estimates for the Summer Midweek Midday entire EPZ, 1 00h Average weather and conditions: 2:30 Good Weather: 4:25 percentile I Wolf Creek Generating Station 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ were provided by the county.

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on available data from county emergency management office and from phone calls to specific facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.23 persons per household and 1.35 evacuating vehicles per household are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: 1.06 employees per vehicle (telephone survey results) for all major employers.

b. Parks: Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered from local transient facilities.

c. Special Event: Based on data provided by WCNOC, a typical refueling outage requires 850 additional workers, traveling in 750 vehicles - an average of 1.13 employees per vehicle.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and lo0th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of subzones that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a format compliant with NUREG/CR-7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant to the extent permitted by the highway network. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the subzones included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted "keyhole" evacuate. 20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impacted keyhole, will voluntarily evacuate. 20% of those people within the Shadow Region will voluntarily evacuate. See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. These Scenarios are outlined in Table 2-1.

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a southbound segment on US-75 from 10 th Rd to 7 th Ln, south of Burlington.

8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings. (Sources: Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hearings on Seabrook and Shoreham; Urbanikl). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.

1 Urbanik, T., et. al. Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code, NUREG/CR-4873, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June, 1988.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Da of Tmeo Scnai Se.n Wee Da Wete Seial 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend Eeig Go Wolf Creek Refueling Winter Midweek Midday Good o utage 13 Outage Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure of One Segment on US-75 Southbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating event that requires evacuation, and includes the following:

a. Advisory to Evacuate is announced coincident with the siren notification.

b. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after siren notification.

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of subzones forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

3. 51 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 44 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip, based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 22 percent (51% x 44% = 22%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation of ACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.

6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate. Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:

a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, based on direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plan, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated reception and care center.

b. It is assumed parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation.

c. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to the reception and care center.

e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips ("waves") of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

h. Transport of transit-dependent evacuees from the reception and care center to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception and care centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.

No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.

Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.

The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects of weather on roadway operations 4; the factors are shown in Table 2-2.

3 Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 76% (Page 5-10).

4 Agarwal, M. et. al. Impacts of Weather on Urban Freeway Traffic Flow Characteristics and Facility Capacity, Proceedings of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, August, 2005. The results of this paper are included as Exhibit 10-15 in the HCM 2010.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

10. The number of school buses needed for each school in the EPZ was provided by the Coffey County EMO. Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather F 0 -*O S Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home (See Figure F-13) 5 Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.

Station KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Wolf Creek Generating Station Creek Generating 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3 DEMAND ESTIMATION The estimates of demand, expressed in terms of people and vehicles, constitute a critical element in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:

1. An estimate of population within the EPZ, stratified into groups (resident, employee, transient).

2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle. This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.

3. An estimate of potential double-counting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:

A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee and once again as a shopper.

A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could be counted three times.

Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motel parking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, which are full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply adding up the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the WCGS EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents - people who are year round residents of the EPZ.

Transients - people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

Employees - people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ on a daily basis.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each subzone and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The WCGS EPZ is subdivided into 22 subzones. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.23 persons/household - See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.35 vehicles/household - See Figure F-8) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cutting the census block polygons by the subzone and EPZ boundaries. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by subzone based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order to estimate number of vehicles. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from WCGS. This "rose" was constructed using GIS software.

It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:

Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a period over the summer.

" Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10 percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summer and by a lesser amount in the off-season. Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected to apply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account for residents who may be out of the area.

Wolf Creek GeneratinR Station 3-2 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Figure 3-1. WCGS EPZ Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population CCL 13 0 CTR 127 132 E-I 46 62 E-2 57 54 JRR 22 0 N-1 36 27 N-2 131 163 NE-1 64 48 NE-2 703 682 NE-3 120 115 NW-i 116 112 NW-2 156 149 S-i 44 45 S-2 60 81 SE-1 46 57 SE-2 132 124 SE-3 675 662 SE-4 47 45 SW-1 2,970 2,854 SW-2 118 137 W-i 484 480 W-269 167 EPZ Population Growth: -2.21%

Generating Station KLD Engineering, P.C.

Creek Generating Wolf Creek Station 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Subzone CCL 0 0 CTR 132 82 E-1 62 37 E-2 54 32 JRR 0 0 N-i 27 16 N-2 163 96 NE-1 48 30 NE-2 682 414 NE-3 115 72 NW-i 112 66 NW-2 149 88 S-i 45 26 S-2 81 49 SE-1 57 34 SE-2 124 73 SE-3 662 393 SE-4 45 27 SW-i 2,854 1,718 SW-2 137 83 W-1 480 289 W-2 167 100 Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 170 F-6971 34 32A 7ý--. 631 -

WNW ENE F4-95 A

w E 153-- 49 76 wSW ESE F-139-I] F7-8 ]

S 15 Boundary SSW Is .3.-~~

SSE 1l4 s L-41 N F73 -T Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 8 8 2-3 133 141 3 -4 1,329 1,470 W 4 -5 1,883 3,353 5-6 313 3,666 6-7 258 3,924 7-8 229 4,153 8-9 257 4,410 9- 10 339 4,749 10-EPZ 1,447 6,196 Inset Total: 6,196 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station Creek Generating Station 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE

" -' 20 -_ 3

- 18 r- 382l WNW 299-j W

F 1 29 WSW 8-2 '

10 SSW ss-8-1 44--s--

s F4407 N Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 5 5 2-3 83 88 3-4 801 889 W E 4-5 1,132 2,021 5-6 188 2,209 6-7 150 2,359 7-8 138 2,497 8-9 157 2,654 9 - 10 202 2,856 10 - EPZ 869 3,725 Inset Total: 3,725 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the WCGS (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuation vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector Po~pulto vautnVhce N 125 75 NNE 166 99 NE 109 69 ENE 191 117 E 145 90 ESE 225 135 SE 42 25 SSE 49 30 S 24 14 SSW 23 13 SW 416 251 WSW 68 42 W 68 41 WNW 72 43 NW 358 215 NNW 33 21 Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW F125-- NNE WNW ENE 68 w E 68 22 36 14 WSW ESE SE EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSw --- __-- SSE s23 4 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 96 96 11-12 387 483 12 - 13 326 809 13 - 14 337 1,146 14-15 968 2,114 Total: 2,114 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE WNW ENE 117 42 31 W E 13 23 90 WSW s ESE F135 SE EPZBoundary to 11 Miles ssw SSE Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 57 57 11- 12 234 291 12 - 13 198 489 13 - 14 202 691 14- 15 589 1,280 Total: 1,280 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-10 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. The WCGS EPZ has two lodging facilities which attract transients. Telephone calls were made to these facilities to determine the number of rooms, percentage of occupied rooms at peak times, and the number of people and vehicles per room for each facility. These data were used to estimate the number of transients and evacuating vehicles at each of these facilities. A total of 64 transients in 20 vehicles are assigned to lodging facilities in the EPZ.

Based on discussions with the Coffey County EMO, all people visiting the Coffey County Lake and the John Redmond Reservoir are local residents who have already been counted in the permanent resident population discussed in Section 3.1.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E-4 presents the number of transients visiting lodging facilities within the EPZ.

Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Subzone. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles CCL 0 0 CTR 0 0 E-I 0 0 E-2 0 0 JRR 0 0 N-1 0 0 N-2 0 0 NE-1 0 0 NE-2 0 0 NE-3 0 0 NW-1 0 0 NW-2 0 0 S-1 0 0 S-2 0 0 SE-1 0 0 SE-2 0 0 SE-3 0 0 SE-4 0 0 SW-1 64 20 SW-2 0 0 W-1 0 0 W-2 0 0 Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE 0

- 0 r-_ 0 WNW ENE w---

I W E 0 0 1-1-11

-i WSW ESE ELI'

- SE 1-- 1 0

10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW F-0 I S

EL N Transients 00 0

Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 0 3-4 64 64 W 4-5 0 64 5-6 0 64 6-77 0 64 7-8 0 64 8-9 0 64 9-10 0 64 10-EPZ 0 64 Inset Total: 64 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

IN NNW NNE 0w-A 0 7 -

r--. 0 WNW ENE I EZZ w E 0

"L67 WSW 0 ESE sw T t 20 Z Boundary SSW - -

wZ S Li0i-- N siii Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 0 0) 3-4 20 20 W E 4-5 0 20 5-6 0 20 6-7 0 20 7-8 0 20 8-9 0 20 9-10 0 20 10 - EPZ 0 20 Inset Total: 20 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

" Those who live and work in the EPZ

Those who live outside of the EPZ and commute to jobs within the EPZ.

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

Data provided by Coffey County were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ for those employers who did not provide data.

In Table E-3, the Employees (Max Shift) are multiplied by the percent Non-EPZ factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. A vehicle occupancy of 1.06 employees per vehicle obtained from the telephone survey (See Figure F-7) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 3-5 presents non-EPZ Resident employee and vehicle estimates by subzone. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles 0bon Empoyee Emloe Veice CCL 350 331 CTR 0 0 E-i 0 0 E-2 0 0 JRR 0 0 N-i 0 0 N-2 0 0 NE-i 0 0 NE-2 0 0 NE-3 0 0 NW-i 0 0 NW-2 0 0 S-i 0 0 S-2 0 0 SE-1 0 0 SE-2 0 0 SE-3 0 0 SE-4 0 0 SW-i 105 100 SW-2 0 0 W-1 0 0 W-2 0 0 Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE F-0 -- 0-6 1 r-350 0 ~

WNW ENE I

w-0

-J I-I I

W I E I

LI-6i 0 I

I I - *1 WSW ' ESE L-TI'

- 0 Boundary SSW -0 w-6-- S 11611] N Employees w-Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 00-1 350 350 1-2 0 350 2-3 0 350 3-4 60 410 W 0 E 4-5 45 455 5-6 0 455 6-7 0 455 7-8 0 455 8-9 0 455 9-10 0 455 10 - EPZ 0 455 Inset -

Total: 455 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

N NNW NNE

-0 F-331

.7 WNW w--- #

W w-- 0 wsw V-d-1'

0 SSW 0 3 - SSE w--- w Ei-- N" Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 331 331 1-2 0 331 2-3 0 331 3-4 57 388 W E 4-5 43 431 5-6 0 431 6-7 0 431 7-8 0 431 8-9 0 431 9-10 0 431 10-EPZ 0 431 Inset Total: 431 0 - 2 Miles Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Coffey County EMO for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ.

Table E-2 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair buses up to 15 people; and ambulances up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (external-external trips) at the time of an event. After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major route traversing the study area -

Interstate 35. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the study area for the entire evacuation as there are no Access Control Points on this roadway within the study area.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6. As indicated, there are 6,782 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips for the entire evacuation. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - a refueling outage at WCGS.

The following data were provided by WCNOC regarding a refueling outage:

850 additional workers

750 vehicles (1.13 people per vehicle)

70% of the additional workers commute from outside the EPZ 0 525 (750 x 70%) additional vehicles at the WCGS site during an outage The only other special event in the WCGS EPZ is an annual fishing tournament at the John Redmond Reservoir. Coffey County EMO indicated that all attendees at this event are local residents.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-6. WCGS EPZ External Traffic I Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2012 2 HCM 2010 Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand for the study area is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section.

Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 8,597 people and 7,016 vehicles are considered in this study.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-21 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand Trnst Spca Shdw xera Subon Reiet Deedn Trniet Em loee Faiiis Scol Poua n Trfi 0oa CCL 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 350 CTR 132 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 E-i 62 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 E-2 54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 JRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N-1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 N-2 163 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 NE-1 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 NE-2 682 10 0 0 32 218 0 0 942 NE-3 115 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 NW-i 112 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 NW-2 149 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 S-i 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 S-2 81 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 SE-i 57 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 SE-2 124 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 SE-3 662 10 0 0 0 125 0 0 797 SE-4 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 SW-1 2,854 40 64 105 125 867 0 0 4,055 SW-2 137 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 W-1 480 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 487 W-2 167 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 0 423 3 Special Facilities include medical facilities and correctional facilities.

4 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand CCL 0 0 0 331 0 0 0 0 331 CTR 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 E-1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 E-2 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 JRR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N-1 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 N-2 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 NE-i 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 NE-2 414 0 0 0 6 12 0 0 432 NE-3 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 NW-1 66 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 NW-2 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 S-1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 S-2 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 SE-1 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 SE-2 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 SE-3 393 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 401 SE-4 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 SW-1 1,718 2 20 100 20 26 0 0 1,884 SW-2 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 W-1 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 W-2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 Shdow 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 256 16,782 7,038 Transit dependent buses traverse several subzones each. The buses are shown in the subzone where the route begins.

6 Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010).

In discussing capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics. These designations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotes free-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition. LOS E describes traffic operating at or near capacity.

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume is defined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specific assumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service." This definition is similar to that for capacity. The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, while capacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

Other factors also influence capacity. These include, but are not limited to:

Lane width

Shoulder width

Pavement condition

Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

Percent truck traffic

" Control device (and timing, if it is a signal)

Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS') according to Exhibit 15-7 of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of 1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)

Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. I

the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).

As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Table 2-2, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacity must be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the major factors that influence highway capacity is presented in this section.

Rural highways generally consist of: (1) one or more uniform sections with limited access (driveways, parking areas) characterized by "uninterrupted" flow; and (2) approaches to at-grade intersections where flow can be "interrupted" by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.

The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:

Qcap,m = (M6 ) X ( I m)X Pm where:

Qcap,m = Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph) hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L = Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C = Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm = Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.

The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way upon many factors: roadway geometrics, turn percentages, the extent of conflicting traffic streams, the control treatment, and others. A primary factor is the value of "saturation queue discharge headway", hsat, which applies to through vehicles that are not impeded by other conflicting traffic streams. This value, itself, depends upon many factors including motorist behavior.

Formally, we can write, hm = fm(hsat, F1, F2,...)

where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F, F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fM() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1 , F2 , _

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1 , F2 , ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model 2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm Ž! hsat 2

Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. &

Lieberman, E., "Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., "Macroscopic Traffic Modeling For Large-Scale Evacuation Planning", presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012 Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5) of the HCM 2010.

The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasing plans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection. Traffic responsive signal installations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to each intersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach during evacuation circumstances. The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum and minimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signal phase and 1 second of all-red time is assigned between signal phases, typically. If a signal is pre-timed, the yellow and all-red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L)of 2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections -- as distinct from approaches to intersections -- is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates service volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 4-1 illustrates this relationship.

As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the service volume increases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximum value, which is the capacity of the highway section. As traffic demand and the resulting highway density increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. the service volume) can actually decline below capacity ("capacity drop"). Therefore, in order to realistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demand exceeds capacity), it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.

The value of VF can be expressed as:

VF = R x Capacity where:

R = Reduction factor which is less than unity Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor (R=0.90) is justified. This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by the simulation model.

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as "interrupted flow" facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.

Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by the intersection-specific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

3 Lei Zhang and David Levinson, "Some Properties of Flows at Freeway Bottlenecks," Transportation Research Record 1883, 2004.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3 Application to the WCGS Study Area As part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate of roadway capacity is required. The source material for the capacity estimates presented herein is contained in:

2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C.

The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, of course, intersections:

Two-Lane roads: Local, State

Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.

Based on the field survey and on expected traffic operations associated with evacuation scenarios:

Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "level terrain"; some are "rolling terrain".

"Class 11" highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.

4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 18 (signalized intersections), Chapters 19, 20 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter 21 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

The simulation model explicitly models intersections: Stop/yield controlled intersections (both 2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying demands of evacuation traffic to adjust the relative capacities of the competing intersection approaches.

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. Where applicable, the location and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in Appendix K. The characteristics of the two signalized intersections are detailed in Appendix J.

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks. Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:

"The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactionsinvoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative tools are able to analyze thesefacilities as a single system."

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K,for each network link.

Volume, vph

---... QS Density, vpm

"'" Free: Forced:

I I I Vf R vc -

I I I I I !

I I I i I ~ ~~~ I 1m ip cir* v k'f kopt Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Wolf Creek Generating Station 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal Government guidelines (see NUREG/CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of the telephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background In general, an event at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix I of NUREG 0654 for details):

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the Licensee, and by State and Local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating event will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:

1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren notification.

2. Mobilization of the general population will commence within 15 minutes after the siren notification.

3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these events will occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in order to:

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863.

2. Identify temporal points of reference that uniquely define "Clear Time" and ETE.

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency.

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this one-hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less than Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-1 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are higher than the actual evacuation time, if this hypothetical situation were to take place.

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).

2. Receiving and correctly interpreting the information that is transmitted.

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 356 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an event.

The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

For example, people at home or at work within the EPZ will be notified by siren, and/or tone alert and/or radio (if available). Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio, TV and word-of-mouth, with potentially longer time lags. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the EPZ population will differ with time of day - families will be united in the evenings, but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, survey instrument, and raw survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the evacuation time estimate to extend in time well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of a sequence of events and activities. Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in time and is the outcome of an activity.

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or more activities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series are functionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel are functionally independent of one another. The relevant events associated with the public's preparation for evacuation are:

Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below:

Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Ee Sequn Ac Dirb Receive Notification 1 2 -4 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 --)4 Travel Home 3 2,4 -- 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.

0 An Event is a 'state' that exists at a point in time (e.g., depart work, arrive home)

S An Activity is a 'process' that takes place over some elapsed time (e.g., prepare to leave work, travel home)

As such, a completed Activity changes the 'state' of an individual (e.g. the activity, 'travel home' changes the state from 'depart work' to 'arrive home'). Therefore, an Activity can be described as an 'Event Sequence'; the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to the next and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-1(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 5-1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 5-1(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 5-1(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.

It is seen from Figure 5-1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-4 KLD Engineering. P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

1 2 3 4 5 Residents -*6 Households wait for Commuters!

Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not 0@4 04 wait for Commuters Residents, 1 2 4 5 Transients away from * .. .. ..

Return to residence, then evacuate Residence Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at Residence @ 404 transients evacuate directly 1 2 3,5 ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 -- 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification 2 -- 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 b 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 1 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip 1d Activities Consume Time 0

1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all prior contributing activities. (This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since it is performed on distributions - not scalar numbers).

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity I -> 2 It is assumed (based on the presence of sirens within the EPZ) that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the event within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is given below:

Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapse Tim Pecnto (Mnues Ppuato Notfie 0 0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

KID Engineering, P.c.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-6 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 ---> 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 -- 3 shown in Table 5-31 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work 1* . .. u

U *'fU J* I U 5 48% 45 95%

10 66% 50 95%

15 77% 55 95%

20 80% 60 98%

25 81% 75 99%

30 93% 90 100%

35 93%

1 The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the "Don't know" responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 -+ 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-41.

Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ElTiePret apsed~ ~

Cumulative lpe im ecn Cumulative 0 0% 45 89%

5 19% 50 89%

10 37% 55 89%

15 49% 60 94%

20 63% 75 95%

25 71% 90 97%

30 84% 105 97%

35 87% 120 100%

40 88%

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2,4 -> 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-51.

Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate E

I ~ ~ ~ ~ E EE L f uh r E. Cu m ~uai v e~I L' ~u 0 0%

15 25%

30 71%

45 76%

60 91%

75 95%

90 95%

105 95%

120 97%

135 100%

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-61.

Note that those respondents (59%) 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.

Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6V-8" of Snow 0 59%

15 68%

30 81%

45 84%

60 91%

75 93%

90 94%

105 95%

120 97%

135 98%

150 98%

165 98%

180 100%

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Mobilization Activities 100%

80%

o 4-0 CL 60%

E ho 2 -Notification 0

4-

-Prepare to Leave Work M

- Travel Home C,

E 40%

Z -Prepare Home

0. - Time to Clear Snow 0.

0 M.

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must be combined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions. As discussed above, this study assumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the return of a commuter, the work-to-home trip (Activity 3 -- 4) must precede Activity 4 -). 5.

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 5-7 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events Appl "Smig £lorth To Disrbto Obaie Evn Defined~

Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Disrbto Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

B Time distribution of commuters arriving home (Event 4).

home, leaving home Time distribution of residents with commuters who return to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

home D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

home E Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say "four hours" and 4 say "six or more hours".

These "outliers" must be considered: are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should be dropped from the sample?

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that the respondent really needs to be classified in a different population subgroup, based upon special needs;

2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.

The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered "outliers" for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles are used:

1) It is recognized that the overall trip generation distributions are conservative estimates, because they assume a household will do the mobilization activities sequentially, with no overlap of activities;

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);

3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.

special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

When flagged values are classified as outliers and dropped, steps "a" to "d" are repeated.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 5-3.

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

j 70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

S30.0%

u 20.0%

10.0%

n AoL LA Lu LA LA LA L UA LA LA LA i i Ai i i LA r-4 Center of Interval (minutes)

- Cumulative Data - - Cumulative Normal Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times:

Most of the real data is to the left of the "normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off' slower than the comparable "normal" curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the Wolf Creek Generating Station S-1S KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 5-9 (Distribution B,Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysis network to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note that there are no trips generated during this final time period.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Subzones comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Subzones comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in-place while the two mile region is cleared

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2 mile region boundary

5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in subzones beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.

4. Employees will also be assumed to evacuate without first sheltering.

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile region will be as computed based upon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated as follows:

a. Identify the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for the subzones comprising the two mile region. This value, Tscen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:

i. The non-shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance).

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen iii. Following time Tscen*, the balance of trips are generated:

1. by stepping up and then following the non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen* is < max trip generation time) or

2. by stepping up to 100% (if Tscen* is > max trip generation time)

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement "approximately 9 0 th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen* is 1:15 for non-snow scenarios and 1:45 for snow scenarios.

3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 9 0 th percentile two-mile evacuation time is 75 minutes for good weather and 105 minutes for snow scenarios. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution. Following time Tscen , the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After Tscen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution. Table 5-10 provides the trip generation for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Section 1,4.2 of the Coffey County Emergency Plan (January 2011) indicates that:

...a portion of the effective 10 mile EPZ around John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) is administered by two Federal agencies and one State agency. A portion of the EPZ around Coffey County Lake (CCL) is administered by one State agency and WCGS. The Coffey County Emergency Response Organization interfaces with these agencies so that transient populations receive emergency planning information, warning and initial notification.

As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 5-9 and Figure 5-4 indicate that all transients will have mobilized within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . It is assumed that this 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation 1 15 8% 8% 0% 2% 0% 1%

2 15 36% 36% 1% 13% 0% 8%

3 15 34% 34% 5% 30% 3% 20%

4 15 14% 14% 14% 25% 10% 21%

5 15 4% 4% 19% 13% 14% 14%

6 15 2% 2% 18% 9% 14% 11%

7 15 1% 1% 14% 3% 14% 7%

8 15 1% 1% 9% 0% 10% 4%

9 15 0% 0% 6% 1% 8% 3%

10 30 0% 0% 7% 4% 11% 6%

11 30 0% 0% 5% 0% 8% 2%

12 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 2%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 1%

14 60 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively. Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Trip Generation Distributions

-mEmplosees/Transien ts - Residents with Commuters - Residents with no Commuters

-Res with Comm and Snow - Res no Comm with Snow 100

~80 0

.w S60 00000 ý"00ý CC 0".g C

0

.2 40 0L 0

0.

4-C S20 0

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

Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions KLD Engineering, P.C.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-20 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation 1 U7o U'7o 2 15 0% 3% 0% 2%

3 15 1% 6% 1% 4%

4 15 3% 5% 2% 4%

5 15 4% 3% 2% 3%

6 15 49% 75% 3% 2%

7 15 14% 3% 3% 1%

8 15 9% 0% 54% 70%

9 15 6% 1% 8% 3%

10 30 7% 4% 11% 6%

11 30 5% 0% 8% 2%

12 30 1% 0% 3% 2%

13 30 1% 0% 3% 1%

14 60 0% 0% 2% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Unstaged and Staged Evacuation.

Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation

-Employees / Transients - Residents with Commuters

- Residents with no Commuters - Res with Comm and Snow

- Res no Comm with Snow -Staged Residents with Commuters

- Staged Residents with no Commuters - Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

... Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80 LU 60 C

..w 0 40 0.

1-0 20 0

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

Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Wolf Creek Generating Station 5-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 1

ML13002A414

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search