GO2-22-085, Docket No. 50-397, Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

Docket No. 50-397, Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis

ML22242A210
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	08/30/2022
From:	David Brown Energy Northwest
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GO2-22-085
Download: ML22242A210 (362)

Text

ENERGY David P. Brown Columbia Generating Station NORTHWEST P.O. Box 968, PE23 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Ph . 509.377.83851 F. 509.377.4150 dpbrown@energy-northwest.com August 30, 2022 GO2-22-085 10 CFR 50.4 10 CFR 50 - Appendix E,Section IV.4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 205551

Subject:

COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION, DOCKET NO. 50-397 EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE ANALYSIS

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed is the revised Columbia Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis. The analysis was prepared using data from the 2020 census.

This submittal contains no new or revised regulatory commitments. Should you have any questions or desire additional information regarding these matters, please contact Jennifer Kuklinski at (509) 377-4133.

Executed on the 3 O+;.,

- day of Au G,usT , 2022.

Rn ctfully, c/Y~/J?l};~

David P. Brown Site Vice President

Enclosure:

Columbia Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates cc: NRC Region IV Administrator NRC NRR Project Manager NRC Sr. Resident Inspector Director - Division of Fuel Management, NMSS CD Sonoda, BPA

D ENGINEERING, P.C.

Columbia Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Energy Northwest, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com July 27, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1238

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................. ES1 ACRONYM LIST ......................................................................................................................................... AL1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Columbia Generating Station Location ............................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates Assumptions...................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 School Population - Transit Demand ......................................................................................... 35 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.7 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 37 3.8 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 38 3.9 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.10 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Summary of Demand ................................................................................................................. 39 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the CGS Study Area............................................................................................. 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 47 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 Columbia Generating Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 58 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................... 59 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate Results ............................................................................................. 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETE for Schools and Transit Dependent People ......................................................................... 82 8.2 ETE for the Access and/or Functional Needs Population........................................................... 86 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND ASSISTANCE CENTERS...................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Assistance Centers ................................................................................................................... 102 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B2 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 Columbia Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP Locations ........................................................................................... G1 H EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. SECTION BOUNDARIES ....................................................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 M.5 Migratory Worker Sensitivity Study ......................................................................................... M3 M.6 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Columbia Generating Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. CGS Location .......................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 12. CGS LinkNode Analysis Network........................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Sections Comprising of the CGS EPZ ...................................................................................... 315 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 316 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 317 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 318 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 319 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 320 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 321 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 322 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 323 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 516 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 517 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 518 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................... 520 Figure 61. Sections Comprising the CGS EPZ ........................................................................................... 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 717 Figure 72. CGS Shadow Region ............................................................................................................... 718 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 719 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 5 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................... 720 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 25 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 721 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 722 Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ...................................................... 724 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 729 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 729 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 813 Figure 101. Evacuation Route Map......................................................................................................... 104 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 105 Figure 103. General Population Assistance Centers ............................................................................... 106 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Columbia Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E4 Figure E2. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E5 Figure E3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E6 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F6 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 6 Person Households ...................................................................... F7 Figure F4. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Commuters per Households in the EPZ .................................................................................. F8 Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 Pandemic ....................................................................... F9 Figure F8. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs ......................................................... F10 Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................. F10 Figure F10. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating ..................... F11 Figure F11. Study Area Evacuation Destinations ................................................................................... F11 Figure F12. Households with Pets/Animals ........................................................................................... F12 Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals ......................................................................... F12 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F13 Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work/College...................................................................... F13 Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F14 Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway ............................................................................... F14 Figure G1. Access and Traffic Control Points for the Columbia Generating Station .............................. G4 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H12 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20. Region R20.......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21. Region R21.......................................................................................................................... H24 Columbia Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H22. Region R22.......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23. Region R23.......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24. Region R24.......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25. Region R25.......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H26. Region R26.......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H27. Region R27.......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H28. Region R28.......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H29. Region R29.......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H30. Region R30.......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H31. Region R31.......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ....................................................................................................................... J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ........................................................................................................................................ J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ....................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) ........................................................................................................................................ J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ......................................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ...................................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) .................................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ..................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) .................................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) .................................................................................................................................. J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ..................................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ...................................................................................... J13 Figure K1. CGS LinkNode Analysis Network ............................................................................................ K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Columbia Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ............................................................................... K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ............................................................................... K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ............................................................................... K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ............................................................................... K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ............................................................................... K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ............................................................................... K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ............................................................................... K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ............................................................................... K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ............................................................................... K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ............................................................................... K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ............................................................................... K44 Columbia Generating Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 310 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Section ...................................................... 310 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 311 Table 36. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 312 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 312 Table 38. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Demand Summary ........................................... 312 Table 39. CGS EPZ External Traffic ......................................................................................................... 312 Table 310. Summary of Population Demand ......................................................................................... 313 Table 311. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 314 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 510 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 510 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 511 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home ................................................ 512 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 512 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 513 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation ........................................................................................................................ 514 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation .............................................................................................................................. 515 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 711 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 713 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 714 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 715 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................... 88 Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ................................................................ 89 Table 83. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow............................................................. 89 Table 84. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................................. 810 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 810 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 811 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 811 Table 88. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ...................................... 812 Columbia Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 103 Table 103. School Assistance Centers .................................................................................................... 103 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ..................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E2 Table E3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E3 Table F1. Columbia Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ........................................................................ F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Section Population Evacuating for Each Region ................................................... H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J3 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................................................................................................................................ J4 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................. J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .............................................................................................................................. J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ....................................... M5 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M5 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M5 Table M4. ETE Results for the Change in Average Household Size ........................................................ M6 Table M5. Migratory Worker Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................. M6 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 Columbia Generating Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM LIST Table 1. Acronym List ACRONYM DEFINITION AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ACP Access Control Point ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CGS Columbia Generating Station CR County Road COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETA Estimated Time of Arrival ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household I Interstate ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MTC Manual Traffic Control NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin Columbia Generating Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM DEFINITION OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization PAR Protective Action Recommendation pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDF Queue Discharge Flow AC Assistance Center SB Southbound SR State Route SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TCP Traffic Control Point TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation US US Highway vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WDOT Washington Department of Transportation WB Westbound Columbia Generating Station AL2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) located in Benton County, Washington. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Energy Northwest and State and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 (10CFR50), Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, NRC, 2011.

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, February 2021.

Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG0654/ Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, FEMA P1028, December 2019.

Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.

Project Activities This project began in November, 2020 and extended over a period of 19 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Energy Northwest personnel and the state and county emergency management agencies.

Accessed the U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2020.

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) and commute to work within the EPZ from Energy Northwest and the county emergency management agencies within the EPZ.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the CGS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2012.

Updated the analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the EPZ, plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant.

Designed and conducted an online demographic survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the 1

All references to EPZ refer to the plume exposure pathway EPZ.

Columbia Generating Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Energy Northwest and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, and schools were obtained from Energy Northwest, the county emergency management agencies, county emergency plans, supplemented by internet searches where data was missing.

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

Following federal guidelines, the existing 7 Sections within the EPZ were grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 31 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R31).

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain/Light Snow, Heavy Snow). One special event scenario, a Motor Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park, was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on Interstate (I)182 eastbound from the interchange with I82 to the interchange with US 395 southbound for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein the 2Mile Region evacuates immediately, while population extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter in place.

As per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:

A rapidly escalating accident at the CGS that quickly assumes the status of general emergency wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the siren or tone alert.

While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the ATE until the stated percentage of the population exits the impacted Region, that represent upper bound estimates. This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events.

If the emergency occurs while schools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the school children will be evacuated by bus directly to assistance centers located outside the EPZ and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided by the counties in the EPZ.

Columbia Generating Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 transitdependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for schools children evacuees.

Conducted a final meeting with Energy Northwest personnel and the state and county OROs to present final results of the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 434 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 31 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (31 x 14 = 434). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate. That is, the ATE applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100% of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this ATE. 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 evacuate voluntarily. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2Mile Region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2Mile Region is evacuated, those people between 2Mile Region and 5 miles begin to evacuate.

As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond the 2Mile Region will evacuate (non compliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace, during a staged evacuation.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

Columbia Generating Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90% and 100%, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Traffic Management This study reviewed, modeled and analyzed the existing comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Benton and Franklin Counties. Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic and access control points (TCP and ACP) have been identified as a result of this study. Refer to Section 9 and in Appendix G.

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.

Table 31 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Section based on the 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 31 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sections.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 71 and Table 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90% and 100% 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. These tables also include ETE results for staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R04 through R11, and R02 are compared to Regions R15 through R22, and R23, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72.

Tables 73 and Table 74 present ETE for the 2Mile Region, when evacuating additional Sections downwind to 5 miles for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, respectively.

Table 82 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

Table 85 presents ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

Figure 61 displays a map of the CGS EPZ showing the layout of the 7 Sections that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Table M3 compares the results of the sensitivity study conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region).

Figure H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Columbia Generating Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 434 unique cases - a combination of 31 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. The 90th percentile ETE range from 1:10 (hr:min) to 3:25. The 100th percentile ETE range from 1:45 to 4:40 (1:45 to 5:40 for heavy snow scenarios) and are dictated by the trip mobilization of residents (i.e., the time it takes to prepare to evacuate plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary).

The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile ETE. This is the result of the long trip generation tail of the evacuation curve caused by those evacuees who take longer to mobilize and not congestion within the EPZ. See Section 7.4 and Figures 77 through 720.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of some beyond the 2Mile Region (compare Regions R04 through R11, and R02 are compared to Regions R15 through R22, and R23, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation based on this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for the CGS EPZ.

The comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday, with good weather) and 13 (winter, weekend, midday, with good weather, special event) in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the special event Motor Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park does not impact the 90th percentile ETE except for Regions that include Section 3C which increases at most 55 minutes. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETEs. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the roadway closure - a single lane closure on I182 eastbound - does not impact the 90th or 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Section 3C and the population center of Richland is the most congested area during evacuation and is the last of the traffic congestion within the study area. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE for Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather conditions). See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 76.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, transitdependent persons and the access and/or functional needs persons. The average (singlewave) ETE for schools are comparable (5 minutes less) to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. The average (singlewave) ETE for the transitdependent population and access and/or functional needs population are longer than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile and could be taken into consideration when making protective action decisions. See Section 8.

Columbia Generating Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient buses to evacuate the schools, transit dependent population and the access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ in a single wave. See Section 8.

A reduction in the base trip generation time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> has no impact to the 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> a significant change. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 55 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively - a significant change. See Appendix M.1 and Table M1.

The general population ETE is not impacted when reducing or increasing the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. The 90th and 100th percentile ETE remains the same when compared to the base case. See Appendix M.2 and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 114% or greater result in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes for the full EPZ (Region 03), which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Appendix M.3 and Table M3.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of people and evacuating vehicles) by 21% has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes at most) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. See Appendix M.4 and Table M4.

The presence of the migratory worker population reduces the 90th percentile ETE from 5 to 15 minutes. This is due to the increase in the number of employee vehicles (migratory workers) who mobilize more quickly than the general population. This population does not affect the 100th percentile ETE. See Appendix M.5 and Table M5.

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Section 2010 Population 2020 Population CGS 0 0 1 1,077 1,213 2 1,649 1,790 3A 2 0 3B 1,941 2,907 3C 19 5742 4 0 0 TOTAL 4,688 6,484 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 38.31%

2 According to Benton County, a new apartment complex is under construction in Section 3C. Phase I of the apartment complex has a total of 115 occupied units, which is not included in the 2020 Census. Applying the average household size (2.33 persons/household, see Section 3.1), there are an additional 268 (115 x 2.33) residents in Section 3C. The numbers in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 have been adjusted accordingly.

Columbia Generating Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R04 SSE, S, SSW X X X R05 SW, WSW X X R06 W, WNW X X X R07 NW X X R08 NNW, N, NNE X X X R09 NE X X R10 ENE, E, ESE X X X R11 SE X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region R05 N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N X X X X X R13 NNE, NE, ENE X X X X R14 E, ESE X X X X X N/A SE Refer to Region R11 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R15 SSE, S, SSW X X X R16 SW, WSW X X R17 W, WNW X X X R18 NW X X R19 NNW, N, NNE X X X R20 NE X X R21 ENE, E, ESE X X X R22 SE X X R23 5Mile Region X X X X X Section (s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace then Evacuate Columbia Generating Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation by CGS and Section3 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A CGS, 1 Refer to Region R05 N/A CGS, 2 Refer to Region R07 N/A CGS, 3 Refer to Region R13 N/A CGS, 4 Refer to Region R11 Evacuation by Section2 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R24 1 X R25 2 X R26 3 X X X R27 4 X Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations2 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R28 1, 2 X X R29 2, 3 X X X X R30 3, 4 X X X X R31 1, 4 X X Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace 3

Additional Regions created are site-specific and requested by Energy Northwest to capture additional evacuation possibilities that not occur using the federal guidance.

Columbia Generating Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season4 Weather Special Week Day 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Motor 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park Roadway Impact: Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I182 Eastbound 4

Winter means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

Columbia Generating Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R02 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:00 R03 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:55 2:00 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:10 1:50 R05 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:10 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:10 2:10 R06 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:25 R07 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:25 R08 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:05 R09 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R11 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:20 3:00 2:05 R13 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 3:00 1:55 R14 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:15 3:00 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R15 1:50 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:10 1:50 R16 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:15 2:10 R17 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:25 R18 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:25 Columbia Generating Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact R19 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:05 R20 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R21 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R22 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R23 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:45 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 2:15 2:00 Evacuation by Section R24 2:30 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:30 2:15 2:30 R25 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:35 R26 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 3:00 1:55 R27 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations R28 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:35 2:35 3:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:35 R29 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 3:00 2:05 R30 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:20 3:00 1:55 R31 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:25 2:10 2:00 Columbia Generating Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R05 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R06 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R07 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R08 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R09 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R10 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R11 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R13 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R14 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R15 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R16 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R17 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R18 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Columbia Generating Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R21 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R22 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R23 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Evacuation by Section R24 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R25 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R26 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R27 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations R28 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R29 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R30 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R31 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Columbia Generating Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R02 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R05 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R06 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R07 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R08 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R09 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R11 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R16 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R17 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R18 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R19 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R21 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R22 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R23 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Columbia Generating Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R05 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R06 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R08 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R09 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R10 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R11 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R15 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R16 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R17 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R18 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R19 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R20 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R21 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R22 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R23 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Columbia Generating Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to A. Bdry to A. A. C.

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) C. (mi.) C. (min) (hr:min)

FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA Country Christian Center 90 15 3.2 45.0 4 1:50 13.6 18 2:10 Edwin Markham Elementary School 90 15 7.2 44.3 10 1:55 8.6 11 2:10 Big River Country School 90 15 6.1 45.0 8 1:55 8.6 11 2:10 Maximum for EPZ: 1:55 Maximum: 2:10 Average for EPZ: 1:55 Average: 2:10 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Driver Dist. To Travel Time Pickup Dist. EPZ Travel Time from Route Number Mobilization EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry Time ETE Bdry to A. C. EPZ Bdry to A. C. ETA to A. C.

Number of Buses Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 120 24.7 45.0 33 30 3:05 8.7 12 3:20 2 1 120 6.5 44.7 9 30 2:40 18.5 25 3:05 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Maximum: 3:20 Average ETE: 2:55 Average: 3:15 Columbia Generating Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

TableM3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Permanent Resident Base 112% 113% 114%

Population 18,476 39,169 39,354 39,539 ETE (hrs:min) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 112% 113% 114%

2MILE 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 5MILE 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:10 FULL EPZ 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:25 ETE (hrs:min) for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 112% 113% 114%

2MILE 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 5MILE 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 FULL EPZ 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 Columbia Generating Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w

-¢-,

~ r::

- - - - - 110 -Miles _

-.._ / City

')-

~ Me.

"L Benton County I \ ~ I \,

./ --- ~......

Columbia, i

\

\ I Franklin County 4 /

Rive'f\ -.._ '\. \

/ ) \

I I

I

\ _(_

I

( I

'24o) I I

~

3A \ )

CGS j/

\ '----

'°:i,,,.

~

'240) I' '-

~ /( 2 I

I I

I I

/

I/

/

/

22 Legend 0

CGS Section

, -:::., 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

-*w~,(

Copyright:ESRI Dataand M aps2020 1KLDEngineering, ~n ergyNorthwest www.census.gov 2.5 Miles Figure 61. Sections Comprising the CGS EPZ Columbia Generating Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H8. Region R08 Columbia Generating Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS), located in Sunnyside. Benton County, Washington. This ETE study provides Energy Northwest, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

• Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 (10CFR50), Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, NRC, 2011.

• Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, February 2021.

• Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, FEMA P1028, December 2019.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

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 Energy Northwest.

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Energy Northwest, Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD), Franklin and Benton Counties emergency management agencies to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed existing state and county emergency plans.

e. Conducted an online demographic survey of EPZ residents (see Appendix F).

f. Obtained demographic data from the census (see Section 3.1) and Benton County (Vicinity Apartments).

Columbia Generating Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

g. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, transient attractions, major employers, access and/or functional needs populations, transportation resources available, the special event, 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 online demographic 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) and Access Control Points (ACP) located within and on the periphery of the EPZ. See Section 9 and Appendix G.

5. Used existing Sections to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 7 Sections along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Sections for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for schoolchildren, transitdependent persons at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.

7. Prepared the input streams for DYNEV II, which computes ETE (see Appendices B and C).

a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by county and state agencies, Energy Northwest and from the demographic survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 20161) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Updated the linknode representation of the evacuation network, using the field survey and aerial imagery, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

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

1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

Columbia Generating Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 plant.

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

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for schools, for the transit dependent population and for access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The Columbia Generating Station Location The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located along the Columbia River in Sunnyside, Benton County, Washington. The site is located approximately 60 miles eastsoutheast of Yakima, Washington and 12 miles north of Richland, Washington. The EPZ consists of portions of Benton and Franklin Counties in Washington. Figure 11 shows the location of the CGS site, relative to Richland and Yakima, as well as the major population centers and roadways in the area.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In December 2020, KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded.

These characteristics are shown in Table 12:

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM 2016 indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographic 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 Columbia Generating Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. Roadway types were assigned based on the following criteria:

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway Ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major Arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor Arterial: 2 lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local Roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2016 Exhibit 1545. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

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

If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pretimed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings were input to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance.

Figure 12 presents the linknode analysis network that was constructed to model the evacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the links and the node numbers have been removed from Figure 12 to clarify the figure. The detailed figures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown and node numbers provided. The observations made during the field survey and aerial imagery were used to calibrate the analysis network.

The 2012 linknode analysis network was updated to include the newly constructed Duportail Bridge based on data collected during the road survey, roadway design plants (to the extent available), aerial imagery and signal information provided by Energy Northwest.

Columbia Generating Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed to gather information needed for the ETE study.

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

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy, to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation, and to estimate elements of the mobilization process. This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transitdependent residents.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained from several sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted into vehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate source links of the analysis network using GIS mapping software. The DYNEV II model 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).

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics output by the DYNEV II System, such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated. 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.

Columbia Generating Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

NUREG/CR4873 - Benchmark Study of the IDYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

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

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

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

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 countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ for Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather) and Scenario 6 (winter, midweek, midday with good weather) increased by 10 minutes, when compared with the previous ETE study. All other scenarios and Regions R01 through R23 increased by at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes. The 100th percentile ETE (dictated by the trip generation time plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) for the full EPZ for all scenarios and Regions R01 through R22 except for heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 8 and 11) decreased by at most 30 minutes. For heavy snow scenarios, the ETEs decreased for Region R01 by 5 minutes and increased by at most 30 minutes for R02 through R23. No comparison is possible for Regions R28 through R31, as they were not performed in the previous study.

Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous ETE study performed in 2012 (KLD TR - 497, dated in October 2012, Rev. 1). The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study are:

The permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 38.3%. This population increase results in additional permanent resident evacuating vehicles, which can increase the ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region increased by 23.8%. This population increase results in significantly more vehicles evacuating within the Shadow Columbia Generating Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region, which reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees which can increase the ETE.

Household size within the study area decreased from 2010 to the current survey (3.13 vs 2.33 persons/household); resulting in additional resident evacuating vehicles. The number of resident vehicles increased by 98.4% compared to previous ETE study, due to the increase in resident population (discussed above) and overall reduction in household size, which can increase ETE.

Note that in the previous study, major employers were considered those with 50 or more total employees, while this study considered employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift as major employers, as per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance. As such, the number of fast mobilizing employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly (20.5%), which results in a decrease in vehicle demand, potentially decreasing the 100th percentile ETE during the good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, but increasing the 90th percentile ETE, as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of the general population.

The number of transient population significantly decreased by 57.9%, compared to the previous study, which results in a decrease in fast mobilizing transient vehicles. As discussed above for employees, this results in a decrease in vehicle demand potentially decreasing the 100th percentile ETE but increasing the 90th percentile ETE, as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of the general population.

Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), based on the data collected from the demographic survey, for the following population groups have changed:

o The permanent residents with commuters during good weather and rain/light snow scenarios decreased by 30 minutes and increased by 30 minutes for heavy snow scenarios.

o The permanent residents without commuters during good weather and rain/light snow scenarios decreased by 15 minutes and increased by 45 minutes.

o Employees and transients decreased by 5 minutes.

As discussed in Section 7.3, no congestion exists within the EPZ after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes, so the mobilization time dictates the ETE after that time. As such, these mobilization time decreases/increases affect the 100th percentile ETE directly.

Significant roadway improvements were completed since the 2012 study, which includes the completion of the Duportail Bridge, located in Richland. This is expected -

as population increases, infrastructure improves or is added, providing additional capacity and alternate routes to evacuees in the area, thereby can reduce ETE.

The majority of the factors, discussed above, that can increase ETE outweigh those that can decrease the ETE, thereby explaining why the 90th percentile ETEs increased. As the trip generation (mobilization plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates for trip generation time for low population sites, this directly correlates to the reduction to the 100th percentile ETE for all nonheavy snow scenarios and increases for heavy snow scenarios, relative to the previous study.

Columbia Generating Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies. Provided recent Energy Northwest employee data.

Energy Northwest Reviewed and approved all project assumptions and draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented..

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to Benton County Emergency Management define data needs. Provided emergency plans and traffic management plans. Provided/confirmed special facility data, transient data and special event data. Reviewed and approved all study assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and Franklin County Emergency Management was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to Washington State Emergency Management define data needs. Provided emergency plans.

Department Reviewed and approved project assumptions.

Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange geometrics Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

Geometrics: curves, grades (>4%) Traffic signal type Unusual characteristics: Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.

Columbia Generating Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US ArcGIS Software using 2020 US Census blocks; area ratio method Census blocks; area ratio method Resident Population used. used.

Basis Population = 4,688 Population = 6,484 Vehicles = 1,980 Vehicles = 3,928 3.13 persons/household, 1.32 2.33 persons/household, 1.47 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 2.37 persons/vehicle. yielding: 1.59 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided by Energy information provided about major Northwest and the county employers in EPZ. 1.19 employees emergency management agencies Employee Population per vehicle based on telephone within the EPZ. 1.12 employees per survey results. vehicle based on online demographic survey results.

Employees = 7,614 Employees = 6,050 Vehicles: 6,399 Vehicles: 5,227 Estimates based upon U.S. Census Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the data and the results of the telephone demographic survey. A total of 21 survey. A total of 210 people who do people who do not have access to a TransitDependent not have access to a vehicle, vehicle, requiring 2 buses to Population requiring 7 buses to evacuate. An evacuate. An additional 10 access additional 194 homebound special and/or functional needs persons needs persons needed special needed special transportation to transportation to evacuate.

evacuate.

Transient estimates based on the Transient estimates based upon data received from the counties information provided about transient within the EPZ and supplemented by Transient Population attractions in EPZ.

data from the previous ETE study.

Transients = 9,549 Transients = 4,023 vehicles: 3,498 Vehicles: 1,845 Special Facilities No medical or correctional facilities No medical or correctional facilities Population in EPZ. in EPZ.

School population based on School population based on information provided by Franklin information provided by Franklin County. County.

School Population School enrollment = 324 School enrollment = 427 Buses required = 6 Buses required = 8 Vans required = 1 Vans required = 0 Columbia Generating Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Voluntary evacuation 20 percent of the population within 20 percent of the population within from within EPZ in the EPZ, but not within the the EPZ, but not within the areas outside region Evacuation Region (see Figure 21) Evacuation Region (see Figure 21) to be evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Region within the Shadow Region Shadow (see Figure 72) (see Figure 72)

Evacuation/Population 20% Population = 11,140 20% Population = 13,788 20% Vehicles = 4,695 20% Vehicles = 8,640 Network Size 559 links; 392 nodes 817 links; 609 nodes Field surveys conducted in Field surveys conducted in Roadway Geometric November 2011. Roads and December 2020. Roads and Data intersections were video archived. intersections were video archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM. Road capacities based on HCM 2016.

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Assistance Center. Assistance Center.

Approximately 83 percent of transit 50 percent of transitdependent dependent persons will evacuate Ridesharing persons will evacuate with a with a neighbor or friend based on neighbor or friend. the results of the demographic survey.

Based on residential telephone Based on residential demographic survey of specific pretrip survey of specific pretrip mobilization activities: mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 270 minutes for good weather, rain and snow with heavy snow 30 and 330 leave between 20 and 300 minutes.

minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters Residents without commuters Evacuation returning for good weather, rain and returning leave between 15 and 225 snow leave between 0 and 240 minutes with heavy snow 30 and 285 minutes. minutes.

Employees and transients leave Employees and transients leave between 0 and 110 minutes. between 0 and 105 minutes.

All times measured from the All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate. Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain/Light Snow, or Heavy Snow. The capacity and free flow Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity speed of all links in the network are and free flow speed of all links in the reduced by 10% in the event of rain Weather network are reduced by 10% in the and light snow. During heavy snow event of rain and 20% for snow. scenarios a speed and capacity reduced by 15% and 25%,

respectively.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.3.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Columbia Generating Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Motor Sports event at Horn Rapids Motor Sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park ORV Park Special Events Special Event Population = 5,000 Special Event Population = 5,750 additional transients additional transients Special Event Vehicles: 1,597 Special Event Vehicles: 2,899 22 Regions (central sector wind 31 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 308 unique cases. producing 434 unique cases.

Evacuation of 2Mile Region with Evacuation of 2Mile Region with sheltering of 25 Mile Region sheltering of 25 Mile Region followed by 25 mile evacuation followed by 2 to 5Mile evacuation Staged Evacuation when 2Mile Region evacuation is when 2Mile Region evacuation is 90% complete. 90% complete.

Region 15 through Region 22 were Region 15 through Region 23 were staged evacuation. staged evacuation.

Summer Midweek, Midday Summer Midweek, Midday Good weather = 1:50 Good weather = 2:00 Evacuation Time Rain = 2:05 Rain = 2:00 Estimates for the Winter Midweek Midday Winter Midweek Midday entire EPZ, 90th Good weather = 1:50 Good weather = 2:00 percentile Rain = 2:00 Rain/Light Snow = 2:00 Snow = 2:05 Heavy Snow = 2:40 Summer Weekday, Midday, Summer Weekday, Midday, Good Weather= 5:10 Good Weather= 4:40 Evacuation Time Rain = 5:10 Rain = 4:40 Estimates for the Winter, Weekday, Midday, Winter, Weekday, Midday, entire EPZ, 100th Good Weather= 5:10 Good Weather= 4:40 percentile Rain/Light Snow = 5:10 Rain/Light Snow = 4:40 Heavy Snow = 5:10 Heavy Snow = 5:55 Columbia Generating Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

-l Kittitas tindl § Kittitas County Yakima CountY "t

Adams County

'Franklin County co~nn'e ll Kahlotus J>'

,,;,,:_~ - - ~ 260 ~ 263

/ ~ ?.,,_...,; -. / ~(',tY.<-~

"\

/  ?,'!

l} akima  ;.:,

CP o

~\ I/,*~)'

~....... 0-(j

---

,_ _,---,- - o_,,c,->"b

. ~ Gap.. ________

Uni ~ I o,._<-,,

q

@]'-,,_ '---

~

I - "-" ~g

'\. 'Zillah \*~ \ * :f£ 4

'\. I ~ I > I TopP.emsh r

_ J'--r:;:;-) 241 \

\, *

\. '- /

Columbia I I Snake~River

.,ranger & -

22,)--'

-..Sunnyside ...... "-... R,~er West Richland \ ./

/

225 - Riclilanif 124.

Prescott.

ffiJ Mabton Prosser _f!IJ .

~E~~

8!

5! *

]~

,:: ell wa,la Walla s

@ ~ lace 11  :,~:!7t ~::~1o/*---------!

1

, . Walla Walla County Washington \ I Umati lla County Oregon rl'si-'

• 1 Legend =

8 0

I

C CGS j

[o Date: .1/28/2022 ~

'--- : , 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings Copyng~t: ES_ RI Data and Map~?10~0 KLDEngineering,EnergyNortliw_est 10 20M iles www.census.gov Figure 11. CGS Location Columbia Generating Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

. I

/

1, ,.., ~s]Y--c wy '

ti'

/

/

/ '-

r I4l*.*

/ '-

/

' \.

- )..~ * -/ ---.1- - **: '

/

T CJ i

24 I

/

l'

• • • + .__,,

,, / *'..*

t.,

')( :---r i,.

/ 1 &sm

~u I t -~ M'esa,l ~

,v ii

\

I

~ -, . {

/

I

/ ....... I l

I I I

\

II r

I I Ir!

"* 9 I8

\ ~ ~ ~ "I'

- 7

\~

1I_ . l -~

'~ **

• t t

., . j I, *

\ Benton *\

\

\\

Coun'ty~ .

~,**t.

~ .........-j--p---

• Tr;/

tt

____, ~ >. ~

\

• c,

,;' /~

.r .r , ',

3B\"-. ~I *

~-..--* -

\.

\,\~,

. .i .. t*

\.

• • ~.~

-~

Legend ..........,,.. '.\ West Richland*-."';

~

CGS

• Node

- - Link ........ ,;?-~- _ ..,

GJ Section r /- - --~ .t -**~ -o!!!~ ~-

1- 1 -

Shadow Region Date~ 22 ~ *i~,* - *"\~r!;~ r oy o..c-._.. -<

• ~

11 snake*

- R,

• '\ ""i

':l,..:*-

~pyng~ t: ES~I Data and Maps 2020 ~ , ~[ -

, ..,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLO Engineering, Energy Northwest www.census.gov

\ {:

Figure 12. CGS LinkNode Analysis Network Columbia Generating Station 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE).

2.1 Data Estimates Assumptions

1. Permanent resident population estimates are based on the 2020 U.S. Census population from the Census Bureau website1. A methodology, referred to as the area ratio method, is employed to estimate the population within portions of census blocks that are divided by Section boundaries. It is assumed that the population is evenly distributed across a census block in order to employ the area ratio method (see Section 3.1).

2. Data on the number of permanent resident population located within the partially completed apartment complex (located at the intersection of WA State Hwy 240 and Kingsgate Way) was provided by Benton County and Energy Northwest and was considered for this study.

3. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by Energy Northwest and the county emergency management agencies within the EPZ (see Section 3.4).

4. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, emergency plans, and previous ETE study (confirmed still accurate or updated by the counties), supplemented by internet searches where data was missing.

5. The relationship between the permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the demographic survey. Average values of 2.33 persons per household and 1.47 evacuating vehicles per household are used for the permanent resident population (see Appendix F).

6. On average, the relationship between persons and vehicles for transients (See Section 3.3) and the special event (See Section 3.8) are as follows:

a. Parks: 1.99 people per vehicle

b. Campgrounds: 1.07 people per vehicle

c. Golf Courses: 4.17 people per vehicle

d. Hunting and fishing: 3.13 people per vehicle

e. Ranch, shooting range, and a sports complex: 1.50 people per vehicle

f. Special event (Horn Rapids ORV Park Major Event): There is one (1) racer per vehicle (as per discussions with Benton County Emergency Management) and that transients attending the event travel as families/households in a single 1

www.census.gov Columbia Generating Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

vehicle. As such, the average household size of 2.33 transient per vehicle were used for those transients travelling as families/households.

g. Where data was not provided, the average household size is assumed to be the vehicle occupancy rate for transient facilities.

7. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. The value of 1.12 employees per vehicle is used in the study (See Figure F6). In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average except for those who utilize the van pool (15 people per vanpool).

8. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 45 mph based on Washington state laws for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

9. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in December 2020 (verified by aerial imagery), roadway construction (provided by public records, aerial imagery and Energy Northwest), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following2 (as per NRC guidance):

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

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

c. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at 46°28'16.1"N, 119°20'02.9"W.

3. The DYNEV II3 system is used to compute ETE in this study.

4. Evacuees will drive safely, travel radially away from the plant to the extent practicable given the highway network, and obey all control devices and traffic guides. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

5. The existing EPZ and Section boundaries are used. See Figure 31.

6. The Shadow Region extends to 15 miles radially from the plant or approximately 5 miles radially from the EPZ boundary, as per NRC guidance. See Figure 72.

2 It is emphasized 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 stages of an emergency. See Section 5.1 for more detail.

3 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; Urbanik). The models have continuously been refined and extended since those hearings and were independently validated by a consultant retained by the NRC. The DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.

Columbia Generating Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7. One hundred percent (100%) of the people within the impacted keyhole will evacuate.

Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within Sections of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per NRC guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

8. Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, and mobilization time) was assumed to be the same as that of the permanent resident population within the EPZ.

9. The ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles for each evacuation case, as well as in graphical and tabular format, as per NRC guidance. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the ATE issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.

10. The ETE also includes the consideration of through (ExternalExternal traffic that originates its trip outside of the study area and has its destination outside of the study area) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region (see Section 3.9).

11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the evacuation (first time period). Rather, there is a 30minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.10.

12. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area (roadway conditions outside the study area that are not specifically modeled due to the limited radius of the study area), this study assumed a 25% reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic (main street) volume is more significant than the competing traffic (side street) volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

1. Trip generation time (also known as mobilization time, or the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation) are based upon the results of the online demographic survey (see Section 5 and Appendix F). It is assumed that stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must be completed before the current event can occur.

Columbia Generating Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. One hundred percent (100%) of the EPZ population can be notified within 45 minutes, in accordance with the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual.

3. Commuter percentages (and the percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 56% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Section F.3.1); approximately 49% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Section F.3.2).

Therefore, 27% (56% x 49% = 27%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions

1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 83% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

2. Transit vehicles (Buses) are used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. Schools

i. If schools are in session, transport (buses or vans) will evacuate students directly to the designated assistance centers.

ii. It is assumed that parents will pick up children at day care centers prior to evacuation, if any exist in the EPZ. For the schools that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed no school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

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

b. Transitdependent permanent residents:

i. Transitdependent permanent resident population are evacuated to assistance centers.

ii. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, bus or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. The type of assistance was not provided, so it was assumed they were all ambulatory people, so bus assistance was considered. This is considered separately from the general population ETE, as per NRC guidance (see Section 8).

iii. Households with 3 or more vehicles were assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.

c. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented. As there are enough transportation resources, the need for a second wave was not considered.

d. Transport of transitdependent evacuees from assistance centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

Columbia Generating Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools

b. Transitdependent and ambulatory access and/or functional needs persons = 30 persons per bus

c. Vans and Minivans = 5 persons

d. Vanpool Vans = 15 persons per van

4. Transit vehicles mobilization times, which are considered in ETE calculations:

a. School buses will arrive at schools to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transitdependent people and the access and/or functional needs population are mobilized when approximately 84% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at about 120 minutes of the ATE. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. Concurrent loading on multiple buses/transit vehicles is assumed.

b. School buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

c. Transit Dependent buses will require 1 minute of loading time per passenger.

d. Vans/Minivans are loaded in 10 minutes.

e. Buses for the access and/or functional needs population are loaded in 5 minutes.

6. It is assumed that drivers for all transit vehicles, identified in Table 81, are available.

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

1. Traffic Control Points (TCP) and Access Control Points (ACP) as defined in the approved county and state emergency plans are considered in the ETE analysis, as per NRC guidance. See Table G1 and Appendix G

2. The TCP and ACP are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. Earlier activation of the Roadblock locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120minute time period.

3. All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and ACPs.

Columbia Generating Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

1. A total of 14 Scenarios representing different temporal variations (season, time of day, day of week) and weather conditions are considered. Scenarios to be considered are defined in Table 21:

a. A Motor Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park, located in Section 3C, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of a single lane on Interstate (I)182 eastbound from the interchange with I82 to the interchange with US 395 southbound for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

2. 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.

Thus, no weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is further assumed that snow removal equipment is available, the appropriate agencies are clearing/treating the roads as they would normally during snow, and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.

3. Adverse weather affects roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.

Transportation research indicates capacity and speed reductions of about 10% for rain and a range of 10% to 25% for snow. In accordance with Table 31 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1, this study assumes a 10% reduction in speed and capacity for rain/light snow. The heavy snow scenarios considered assume that there was a significant snowfall such that minor roadways and driveways have snow on them. Major roadways have been plowed but still have a coating of snow on them that will slow traffic down and reduce roadway capacity. During heavy snow scenarios a speed and capacity reduction of 15% and 25% was used, respectively. The factors are shown Table 21.

4. It is assumed for heavy snow scenarios that some evacuees will need additional time to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 135 minutes for residents. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat major roadways. There are additional activities that a person will have to do before they actually begin their evacuation trip, which will delay their departure time.

This allows additional time to plow the minor roads, as needed.

5. Employment is reduced slightly (4% reduction) in the summer for vacations.

Columbia Generating Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6. Mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather. It is assumed that mobilization times are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. It is assumed that loading times are 5 minutes and 10 minutes longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Refer to Table 22.

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Sections included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Additional Regions were site specific and requested by Energy Northwest. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Sections forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

8. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R15 through R23 in Table 61.

Columbia Generating Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season4 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Motor 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park Roadway Impact: Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I182 Eastbound Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Loading Loading Time Free Mobilization Time Mobilization Time for for Other Highway Flow for General Time for Transit School Transit Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles Buses Vehicles5 Rain/Light 10minute 5minute 10minute 90% 90% No Effect Snow increase increase increase Clear driveway Heavy 20minute 10minute 20minute 75% 85% before leaving home Snow increase increase increase (See Figure F17)

• Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions. Roads are assumed to be passable.

4 Winter means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

5 Does not apply to access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative.

Columbia Generating Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

) / ~/ /__J~/

\

~ ~1

/~""' /~""'

/ ; ------- \\J;

\\_

-\ \ '-~/ ) ) -\ \ 2.. ) ;--\

(I( * ) l (I ~

~

l) (

(

/ ~ / ~

"' ~ Mile~, / "' /

• ~ '-~_/ / / ~ ~OM ~ :DMil~~~

~ 15 Miles

\ / ~ _ /\ 15 Miles

/~

I2-Mile Region I I5-Mile Region I

\ / - ~/ \ /_r~I \ / - ~.

- ~-~ ""' / ., , .;,._-* ""'/ ~-~ ""'

I ( 111,f\

( ( I ~~ I

\ )

\ )

j I I \ \ \_j ( f11f\ \ \

( ( I I ) ) ( ( I ~r' I )

- \ ,,~~ // ) - \ ,,~~ ) ) -- \ \.~~:,,J )

\. '--_/ / \. '--_/ / " / \. '--_/ /" I

\ " ' ~ / \ " ' ~ / ) \ " ~ Mil~ /

"--. 10 ~ / "--. 1~~ "-. / "--. t10 Miles "-.

- *-__./'\15 Miles \

/ '--.-__./'\ / 15 Miles \

I '--- / 15 Miles I Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Dow nwi nd Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind I I Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Dow nwi nd

• Plant Location

• Region to be Evacuated : 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation - Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Columbia Generating Station 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2020 Census, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.

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

The potential for doublecounting people and vehicles must be addressed. For example:

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) 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 Section and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The CGS EPZ is subdivided into 7 Sections. The Sections comprising of the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Columbia Generating Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.33 persons/household -

See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.47 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) were adapted from the demographic survey results.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Section and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. 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 the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Section, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 38.31% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size (2.33 persons/household) and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.47 vehicles/household). Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from CGS. This population rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as group homes, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the CGS may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. This area is called the Shadow Region. Based upon NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in the Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as that for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 33, Figure 34, and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector. Similar to the EPZ resident vehicle estimates, resident vehicles at group quarters have been removed from the shadow population vehicle demand in Table 33 and Figure 35.

Columbia Generating Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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. Data for the transient facilities were provided by the counties within the EPZ and supplemented by data from the previous ETE study where the data was not provided (as discussed in detail below).

The CGS EPZ has a number of recreational areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

Campgrounds Golf Courses Hunting and Fishing areas Parks Other Recreational Areas There are two campgrounds within the Benton County portion of the EPZ. Data for campgrounds were provided by Benton County. It included the numbers of transients and vehicles at each campground. A total of 498 transients and 464 vehicles have been assigned to campgrounds within the EPZ - an average of 1.07 transients per vehicle.

There is one golf course within the Benton County portion of the EPZ. Data from the previous study was provided by Benton County, including the number of transients and vehicles during peak times at the golf course. The data was reviewed by Benton County and confirmed it was still accurate. There are 25 transients and 6 vehicles at this facility - an average of 4.17 transients per vehicle.

There are three hunting and fishing areas within the Franklin County portion of the EPZ. Data from the previous study included the number of people and vehicles at each site during peak times. This data was reviewed by Franklin County and confirmed it was still accurate. In total, 2,500 transients and 798 vehicles were assigned to hunting and fishing areas within the EPZ -

an average of 3.13 transients per vehicle.

Horn Rapids ORV Park is located in the Benton County portion of the EPZ. The ORV Park has various attractions for visitors including a boat race area, go carts, a motocross area, an overnight park, and a radio controlled (RC) airport. The number of transients and vehicles at each park attraction during peak times was provided by Benton County. As per the discussion with Benton County Emergency Management personnel, transients at the overnight park are also considered visitors of the other park attractions during the daytime. To avoid double counting, no transients were assigned to the Horn Rapids ORV Park Overnight. A total of 550 transients and 277 vehicles were assigned to the park attractions - an average of 1.99 transients per vehicle.

In addition, there are other recreational areas, such as a ranch, a shooting range and a sports complex within the Benton County portion of the EPZ. The data for Barker Ranch, Tri Cities Shotgun and Babe Ruth Sports Complex was provided by Benton County, including the number Columbia Generating Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

of transients and vehicles at each facility. In total, there are 450 transients and 300 vehicles at these three facilities - an average of 1.50 transients per vehicle.

Appendix E, Table E3 summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the recreational areas and facilities within the CGS EPZ. In total, there are 4,023 transients evacuating in 1,845 vehicles, an average of 2.18 transients per vehicle. Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Section. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present the data by sector and distance from the plant.

3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the data provided by Benton County and Energy Northwest. Data included the maximum shift employment and percentage of employees commuting into the EPZ for each facility.

As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as major employers. As such, the employers with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) are not considered in this study. In the CGS EPZ, six major employers were identified. The detailed information of each facility is included in Table E2 in Appendix E.

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. As discussed above, the percentage of employees living outside of the EPZ is included in the data provided.

There is a significant migratory worker population within the EPZ during harvest seasons (Spring and Fall peak during May and June). Based on the Franklin County emergency plans, the number of migrant workers vary based on crops being harvested. Due to the varying number of migratory workers or vehicles entering the area and the fact that these workers are only in the EPZ for a limited portion of the year, migratory workers were not included in the base ETE analysis. Rather, a sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect this population has on ETE and is presented in Appendix M (Section M.5).

To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.12 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employers. Table 35 presents employee and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by Section. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector. Note, the data provided by Benton County indicate Hanford Site 200 East/Vit Plant has 211 employees that commute to work via vanpool, provided by Ben Franklin Transit. Based on the data provided, a vanpool van has a capacity of 15 people per van, so a total of 15 vans are needed to transport the 211 employees. As such, the estimate of personal vehicles is not considered for these employees.

Columbia Generating Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The vehicles in Table 35 and Figure 39 have been adjusted accordingly.

3.5 School Population - Transit Demand Table 36 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year. This information was provided by the county emergency management agencies. The columns in Table 36 entitled Buses Required specify the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

• No students will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

• While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of these private vehicles.

• Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for elementary schools and 50 for middle and high schools.

• Those staff members who do not accompany the students will evacuate in their private vehicles.

• No allowance is made for student absenteeism, typically 3 percent daily.

• Bus transportation was only considered for Country Christian Center.

The counties in the EPZ could introduce procedures whereby the schools are contacted prior to the dispatch of buses from the depot to ascertain the current estimate of students to be evacuated, which may improve bus utilization. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools will reflect the actual number needed. The need for buses would be reduced by any high school students who have evacuated using private automobiles (if permitted by school authorities. Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents (although they are not advised to do so), can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

School buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.6 Transit Dependent Population The demographic survey (see Appendix F) results were used to estimate the portion of the population requiring transit service:

• Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.

• Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.

In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Columbia Generating Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

• Estimates of persons requiring transit vehicles include schoolchildren. For those evacuation scenarios where children are at school when an evacuation is ordered, separate transportation is provided for the schoolchildren. The actual need for transit vehicles by residents is thereby less than the given estimates. However, estimates of transit vehicles are not reduced when schools are in session.

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario1 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 83% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimated average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x 10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 37 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 37 indicates that transportation must be provided for 21 people. Therefore, a total of 1 bus run is required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population a total of 2 bus runs (1 bus for Sections 1 & 2, and 1 bus for Sections 3B & 3C) are required to transport this population to assistance centers, see Sections 8.1 and 10 for further discussion. These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons, P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the CGS EPZ:

1 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 77% (Page 5-10).

Columbia Generating Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 2,783 1.54 1 0.561 0.514 0.514 2.35 2 0.561 0.514 123 1 0.83 30 1 These calculations, based on the demographic survey results, are explained as follows:

• The total number of persons requiring public transit is the sum of such people in HH with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.

• The number of households is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (6,484/2.33) and is 2,783.

• No households indicated that they did not have access to a vehicle.

• The members of households with 1 vehicle away (18.7%), who are at home, equal (1.541). The number of households where the commuter will not return home is equal to (2,783 x 0.187 x 0.54 x 0.561 x 0.514), as 56.1% of EPZ households have a commuter, 51.4% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency.

The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.

• The members of households with 2 vehicles that are away (51.4%), who are at home, equal (2.35 - 2). The number of households where neither commuter will return home is equal to 2,783 x 0.514 x 0.35 x (0.561 x 0.514)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

• Households with 3 or more vehicles are assumed to have no need for transit vehicles.

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 37 is slightly larger when compared to the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 3.7). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.7 Access and/or Functional Needs Population The county emergency management agencies have a combined registration for transit dependent and access and/or functional needs population. Page 7 of the 2022 public information reads, Telephone your county emergency management office today if you are elderly, handicapped or without a car. Your county emergency management director will put you on a list that shows who may need special assistance during an evacuation. Based on data provided by the counties, there are an estimated 10 access and/or functional needs people within the Benton County portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate.

Columbia Generating Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

No access and/or functional needs population are registered within Franklin County, as per county emergency management agencies.

Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people was not available. It is assumed that with assistance, all access and/or functional needs people were ambulatory and can be evacuated on buses. Table 38 shows the total number access and/or functional needs population by type of need. The table also estimates the number of transportation resources deployed to evacuate these people in a timely manner. Only 1 bus is needed from a capacity perspective, but 4 buses are deployed. Buses needed to evacuate the access and functional needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.8 Special Event A special event can attract large numbers of transients to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The county and state emergency management agencies were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ. The only potential special event identified by the county and state agencies that attracts largest number of transients from outside the EPZ is - a motor sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park in Section 3C. Championship competitions at this facility are likely to draw the most people to the motocross facility. Championship competitions occur on weekends in March or October (considered winter scenario) during the day. Data were obtained from Benton County to determine the number of people who would be at these events.

A maximum of 6,000 people is estimated to attend these events. Based on discussions with Benton County, it was assumed that 5% of the attendees are considered racers and would attend the event alone in a vehicle with a trailer or RV. As such, this study considered a total of 300 racers in 600 vehicles. The vehicles being used by racers are represented as two vehicles in the ETE Simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics considered more sluggish. The remaining 5,700 attendees at these events are considered spectators and it was assumed that they are mostly families that travel to the event together in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.33 was used for vehicle occupancy, resulting in a total of 2,446 vehicles. It is assumed all attendees are from outside the EPZ and to avoid double counting, any transients that already being considered at this facility (see Section 3.3) was subtracted out, which results in a total of 5,750 (6,000 persons - 250 persons) in 2,899 vehicles (3,046 vehicles - 147 vehicles) incorporated at the Horn Rapids Motocross facility for this special event.

There are no temporary road closures used for the event. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients. Vehicles are loadted at the facility. Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis.

Columbia Generating Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.9 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the study area - US 395, I82, and I182. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Washington Department of Transportation website to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 39, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (since access control points (ACPs) are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 8,634 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.10 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 59, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ. Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.

This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the evacuation (Time Period 1). Rather, there is a 30minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 1,236 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, with good weather) conditions.

3.11 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand for the study area is provided in Table 310 and Table 311, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section.

A total of 36,543 people and 31,193 vehicles are considered in this study.

Columbia Generating Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Section 2010 Population 2020 Population CGS 0 0 1 1,077 1,213 2 1,649 1,790 3A 2 0 3B 1,941 2,907 3C 19 5742 4 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 4,688 6,484 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 38.31%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Section 2020 Section 2020 Population Resident Vehicles CGS 0 0 1 1,213 653 2 1,790 1,079 3A 0 0 3B 2,907 1,833 3C 574 363 4 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 6,484 3,928 2

According to Benton County, a new apartment complex is under construction in Section 3C. Phase I of the apartment complex has a total of 115 occupied units, which is not included in the 2020 Census. Applying the average household size (2.33 persons/household, see Section 3.1), there are an additional 268 (115 x 2.33) residents in Section 3C. The numbers in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 have been adjusted accordingly.

Columbia Generating Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 45 25 NNE 472 247 NE 1,262 797 ENE 325 205 E 477 302 ESE 260 165 SE 636 370 SSE 30,165 18,866 S 31,919 20,091 SSW 2,962 1,869 SW 415 262 WSW 0 0 W 0 0 WNW 0 0 NW 0 0 NNW 0 0 TOTAL 68,938 43,199 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Section Transients Transient Vehicles CGS 0 0 1 1,500 479 2 1,000 319 3A 0 0 3B 378 255 3C 1,145 792 4 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 4,023 1,845 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Section Employees Employee Vehicles CGS 519 463 1 0 0 2 0 0 3A 959 856 3B 0 0 3C 2,535 2,263 4 2,037 1,645 EPZ TOTAL 6,050 5,227 Columbia Generating Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. School Population Demand Estimates Section School Name Enrollment Buses Required FRANKLIN COUNTY 2 Edwin Markham Elementary School 360 6 2 Big River Country School 15 1 2 Country Christian Center 38 13 TOTAL: 413 8 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent HH Survey Percent Size with Indicated with Indicated No. of Survey Percent HH Total People Population No. of Vehicles Estimated Vehicles Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ No. of with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public 0 1 2 0 1 2 Population Households Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 6,484 0.00 1.54 2.35 2,783 0.00% 18.7% 51.4% 56.1% 51.4% 123 83% 21 0.3%

Table 38. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Demand Summary Population Group Population Vehicles deployed Ambulatory 10 4 Buses Total: 10 1 Table 39. CGS EPZ External Traffic 3

Country Christian Center has a bus and a van available for evacuation. Based on the 25-student enrollment, this study assumed all students will evacuate in one bus.

Columbia Generating Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Upstream Downstream Road WSDOT Hourly External 5 5 Node Node Name Direction AADT4 KFactor D Factor Volume Traffic 8320 327 US 395 Northbound 16,000 0.116 0.5 928 1,856 8333 343 US 395 Southbound 16,000 0.116 0.5 928 1,856 8003 298 I82 Eastbound 23,000 0.107 0.5 1,231 2,462 8010 299 I82 Northbound 23,000 0.107 0.25 615 1,230 8316 329 I182 Westbound 23,000 0.107 0.25 615 1,230 TOTAL 8,634 Table 310. Summary of Population Demand6 Transit Special Shadow External Section Residents Dependent Transients Employees Schools Event7 Population8 Traffic Total CGS 0 0 0 519 0 0 0 0 519 1 1,213 10 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 2,723 2 1,790 with Section 1 1,000 0 413 0 0 0 3,203 3A 0 0 0 959 0 0 0 0 959 3B 2,907 11 378 0 0 0 0 0 3,296 with Section 2,535 0 5,750 0 0 3C 574 3B 1,145 10,004 4 0 0 0 2,037 0 0 0 0 2,037 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,788 0 13,788 Total 6,484 21 4,023 6,050 413 5,750 13,788 0 36,529 4

WSDOT Traffic GeoPortal 5

HCM 2016 6

Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, they are not included in this table.

7 Includes an event a Horn Rapids ORV Park, where 250 transients have been excluded to avoid double counting. (See Section 3.8) 8 Shadow population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Columbia Generating Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 311. Summary of Vehicle Demand9 Transit Special Shadow External Section Residents Dependent10 Transients Employees Schools10 Event11 Population12 Traffic Total CGS 0 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 463 1 653 2 479 0 0 0 0 0 1,134 2 1,079 with Section 1 319 0 16 0 0 0 1,414 3A 0 0 0 856 0 0 0 0 856 3B 1,833 2 255 0 0 0 0 0 2,090 with Section 3C 2,263 0 2,899 0 0 6,317 363 3B 792 4 0 0 0 1,645 0 0 0 0 1,645 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,640 8,634 17,274 Total 3,928 4 1,845 5,227 16 2,899 8,640 8,634 31,193 9

Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.

10 Buses (including transit-dependent buses and school buses) represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.5 and Section 8 for additional information.

11 Includes an event a Horn Rapids ORV Park, where 147 vehicles have been excluded to avoid double counting. (See Section 3.8) 12 Shadow vehicles has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Columbia Generating Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2020 w-¢",

Section CGS Population 0

II

• 10 Miles - ...._

~' /

1 1,213 ~

J ,l

'- Basin Cily 2 1,790 3A 0 I 3B 2,907 \

3( 574 \

4 0 \

EPZTOTAL 6,484 / 1 \

4 / \

/ I

\

I I

I I

240:

( \ Franklin County

- CG

\

I ~

\ I Benton 3A \ I

' !s:,i,_

County I/

~40)

/ I

//&s 2

,,,, /

' I I

r / . I//.

/

§1

~

Legend CGS Section

, -:::, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings 0ate:5/17/2022 Copyright:ESRI Dal

(

KLDEngineering E aandMaps2020 www.census.go: nergy NortMwest

~ \//

\LL Colum~ia Riverr

\ I 2.5 Miles

,-JI Figure 31. Sections Comprising of the CGS EPZ Columbia Generating Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

IT] [ill]

NW NE IT] ~

.> \

WNW ENE IT] [iliJ I ...,

w E IT]' 0 32 1 ~

I i WSW ESE IT] ~

SW ' '  ;

SE

[ill]

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW 1,072 SSE

[ill] s [ill] N 12,713 I 2020 Permanent Resident Population Mil es Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1- 2 0 0 2 -3 0 0 3- 4 0 0 w E 4-5 83 83 5 -6 22 3 306 6- 7 203 509 7-8 616 1,125 8-9 1,060 2, 185 9 - 10 2,648 4,833 10 - EPZ 1,651 6,484 Inset Total: 6,484 0 -2 Miles s Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

IT] ~

NW NE IT] [ill]

.> \

WNW ENE IT] [TizJ I ...,

w E IT]' 0 20 1 [JQIJ I i WSW ESE IT] ~

SW ' '  ;

SE

[ill]

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW 675 SSE

[ill] s [iliJ N IL2ill Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumu lative Tota l 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 w E 4-5 53 53 5-6 113 166 6-7 112 278 7-8 298 576 8-9 669 1,245 9-10 1,673 2,918 10 - EPZ 1,010 3,928 Inset Total: 3,928 0-2Miles s Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW 45 NNE 0 472 NW NE 0 1, 262 WNW ENE 0 325 w E EPZ Reside nt Pop ulatio n 0 0 See Figure 3-2 477 WSW ' ESE

'r 0 260 SW SE 415 636 6,320 SSW ' _,

EPZ Bounda ry to 11 Miles 2, 962 s 2020 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 3,400 3,4 00 11 - 12 11,403 14,803 12 - 13 17,658 32,461 13 - 14 15,159 47,620 14 - 15 21,3 18 68,938 Tota l: 68,938 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW 25 NNE 0 247 NW NE 0 797 WNW ENE 0 205 w E EPZ Res ide nt Ve hi cles 0 0 See Figure 3-3 302 WSW ' ESE

'r 0 165 SW SE 262 370 3,970 SSW ' _,

EPZ Bounda ry to 11 Miles 1, 869 s 120,0911 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 2, 144 2,144 11 - 12 7, 173 9,317 12 - 13 10,982 20,299 13 - 14 9,501 29,800 14 - 15 13,399 43, 199 Tota l: 43,199 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

[}QQ] IT]

NW NE IT] 11,0001

.> \

WNW ENE IT] IT]

I ...,

w E IT]' 0 0 I IT]

I i WSW ESE IT] IT]

SW ' '  ;

SE

[ill] IT]

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW 25 SSE IT] s 11,0001 N I1,238 I Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Tota l 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 w E 4-5 1,000 1,000 5-6 0 1,000 6-7 0 1,000 7-8 0 1,000 8-9 2,050 3,050 9-10 948 3,998 10 - EPZ 25 4,023 Inset Total: 4,023 0-2Miles s Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

ffiQ] IT]

NW NE IT] OTIJ

.> \

WNW ENE IT] IT]

I ...,

w E IT]' 0 0 I IT]

I i WSW ESE IT] IT]

SW ' '  ;

SE

[}ID IT]

I - '

10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE IT] OTIJ N Transient Vehicles Mi les Subtota l by Ring Cu mul ati ve Tot al 0-1 0 0 1-2 0 0 2-3 0 0 3-4 0 0 w E 4-5 319 319 5-6 0 319 6-7 0 319 7-8 0 319 8-9 75 6 1,075 9- 10 764 1,839 10 - EPZ 6 1,845 Inset Tot al: 1,845 0-2M iles s Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

IT] IT]

NW NE I2,037 I IT]

.> \

WNW ENE IT] IT]

I ...,

E 0 I IT]

I I i WSW ESE IT]\ IT]

SW ' '  ;

SE IT] IT]

- _, 10 Mil es to EPZ Bo und a ry SSW SSE IT] s 11, 937 I N 11, 557 I Employees Mi les Subtota l by Ring Cu mul ative Tota l 0-1 519 519 1-2 0 519 2-3 0 519 3-4 0 519 w E 4-5 0 519 5-6 0 519 6-7 0 519 7 -8 0 519 8-9 1,257 1,776 9-10 4,274 6,050 10 - EPZ 0 6,050 Inset Tota l: 6,050 0-2M iles s Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Columbia Generating Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE IT]

IT] IT]

NW NE I1,645 I IT]

.> \

WNW ENE IT] IT]

I ...,

w E

~*o 0 I IT]

I I i WSW ESE IT]\ IT]

SW ' '  ;

SE IT] IT]

- _, 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW SSE IT] s 11,729 I N 11,3901 Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 463 463 1-2 0 463 2-3 0 463 3-4 0 463 w E 4-5 0 463 5-6 0 463 6-7 0 463 7-8 0 463 8-9 1,122 1,585 9-10 3,642 5,227 10 - EPZ 0 5,227 Inset Total: 5,227 0 -2 Miles s Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Columbia Generating Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016). This section discusses how the capacity of the roadway network was estimated.

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

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is Service Volume. Service volume (SV) 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 SV at the upper bound of LOS E, only.

Thus, in simple terms, a SV is the maximum traffic that can travel on a road and still maintain a certain perceived level of quality to a driver based on the A, B, C, rating system (LOS). Any additional vehicles above the SV would drop the rating to a lower letter grade.

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. 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 (good, rain, snow, fog, wind speed)

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed 1

A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2016 Page 15-15).

Columbia Generating Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 15 mph to 75 mph within the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the HCM 2016. For example, HCM 2016 Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).

The amount of traffic that can flow on a roadway is effectively governed by vehicle speed and spacing. The faster that vehicles can travel when closely spaced, the higher the amount of flow.

As discussed in Section 2.6 it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and often, also increase vehicletovehicle separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow 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 25 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6 we employ, a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain/light snow. During heavy snow conditions, the free speed and highway capacity reductions are 15 percent and 25 percent, 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 Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change. See Appendix G for more information.

Columbia Generating Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3600 3600 where:

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

M = The movement executed by vehicles after they enter the intersection: through, leftturn, rightturn, and diagonal.

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

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, Columbia Generating Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

That is, the turnmovementspecific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles. These headways (or its inverse equivalent, saturation flow rate), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2016.

The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this evacuation time estimate (ETE) report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity. In fact, Chapters 19, 20 and 21 in the HCM 2016 address this topic. The factors, F1, F2, , influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (198) of the HCM 2016.

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

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections - as distinct from approaches to intersections - is a function of roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g., percent heavy trucks and buses in the traffic stream) and, of course, motorist behavior. There is a fundamental relationship which relates SV (i.e., the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a given time period) to traffic density. The top curve in Figure 41 illustrates this relationship.

As indicated, there are two flow regimes: (1) Free Flow (left side of curve); and (2) Forced Flow (right side). In the Free Flow regime, the traffic demand is fully serviced; the SV increases as demand volume and density increase, until the SV 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 SV) 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.

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.

Columbia Generating Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The value ofVF can be expressed as:

where:

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

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

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

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

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

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

Columbia Generating Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 HCM 2016. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the sectionspecific service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region). The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h.

The HCM 2016 procedures then estimate LOS and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand: capacity relations.

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

Most sections of twolane roads within the study area is classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

Class II highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.

Columbia Generating Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 70 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area, service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2016 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 12, 13 and 14, 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 12 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

PerLane Capacity (pc/h):

I 2,250 I 2,300 I 2,350 I 2,400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways.

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2016 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 13 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 1410 of the HCM Columbia Generating Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1412 and is a function of the ramp FFS. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016. 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 2016 does not address LOS F explicitly).

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

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

The model is also capable of modeling the presence of manned traffic control. At specific locations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic control to implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect the presence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left turns, contraflow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly. A list that includes the total number of intersections modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is noted in Appendix K.

4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM 2016 is entitled, HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools. The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks. Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider using simulation as an alternative analysis tool is:

The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes with mutual interactions involving several HCM chapters. Alternative tools are able to analyze these facilities as a single system.

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing a study area 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 2016 - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Columbia Generating Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2016 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) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier.

It is important to note that simulation is a mathematical representation of an assumed set of conditions using the best available knowledge and understanding of traffic flow and available inputs. Simulation should not be assumed to be a prediction of what will happen under any event because a real evacuation can be impacted by an infinite number of things - many of which will differ from these test cases - and many others cannot be taken into account with the tools available.

4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). The 25%

reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume (main street) will be more significant than the competing (side street) traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

Columbia Generating Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc --- - -:- --- --- -

I I

I I

I I

I Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Columbia Generating Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) recommends that the evacuation time estimate (ETE) study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Section C of Part IV of Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 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 the state and local offsite authorities. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, that a rapidly escalating accident at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:

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

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

3. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863.

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

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

For example, suppose one hour elapses from the notification to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the notification. 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 ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this Columbia Generating Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report are likely to be 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, Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts on radios, and loudspeakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 328 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/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

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

As indicated in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of EPZ permanent residents.

Such a demographic survey was conducted in support of this ETE study for this site. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained (including statistical confidence bounds), documents the survey instrument utilized, and provides the 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 ETE to extend well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Columbia Generating Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 publics 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 in Table 51:

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence I of Figure 51. A household 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 51(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/nighttime, will follow the applicable sequence in Figure 51(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences of Figure 51(b). Some transients away from their residence could elect to evacuate immediately without returning to the residence, as indicated in the second sequence.

It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e., the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next. Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time Columbia Generating Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 after preparing 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.

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, FEMA REP Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that arrangements will be made to assure 100 percent coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the assumed presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 52 and plotted in Figure 52.

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 3 shown in Table 53 reflects data obtained by the demographic survey for employees working inside or outside of the EPZ who returns home prior to evacuating. This distribution is also applicable for residents to leave stores, restaurants, parks and other locations within the EPZ. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52.

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.

Columbia Generating Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 plowing equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing 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. (Note - evacuation may not be a prudent protective action under such blizzard conditions.)

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 demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.

Note that those respondents (30%) 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.

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

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly 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 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost Columbia Generating Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 alternatives 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 access and/or functional needs;

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

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

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

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non parametric methods to avoid that assumption. The literature cites that limited work has been done directly on outliers in sample survey responses.

In establishing the overall mobilization time/trip generation distributions, the following principles 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 51, Table 57,Table 58);

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

access and/or functional 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 Columbia Generating Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

d) all values greater than 3 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. Values more than 3.4 and 3.2 standard deviations from the mean were removed for Distribution No. 4 (Prepare to Leave Home) and Distribution No. 5 (Snow Clearance Time Distribution), respectively.

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

5) As a practical matter, even with outliers eliminated by the above, the resultant histogram, viewed as a cumulative distribution, is not a normal distribution. A typical situation that results is shown below in Figure 53.

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

Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

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

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 16, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated for each population group considered. 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 - travel home from work follows preparation to leave work; 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 results are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

Columbia Generating Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The DYnamic Network Evacuation (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 59 (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.

5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sections comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Sections comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Region is cleared

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue to prepare for an evacuation

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

5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Sections beyond 5 miles will shelterinplace with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.

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

3. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of the limited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, fishing, or at other recreational areas. 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 2Mile Region will be as computed based upon the results of the demographic survey and analysis.

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

Columbia Generating Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the Sections comprising the 2 Mile Region. This value, TScen*, obtained from simulation results is scenario specific. 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 nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter noncompliance).

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

iii. Following time TScen*, the balance of trips are generated:

1. by stepping up and then following the nonshelter trip generation curve (if TScen* is < max trip generation time) or

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

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of TScen* is 1:00 for all 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 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters and employees/transients; the TScen* is approximately 60 minutes for all scenarios. At TScen*, 20% of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Table 510 and Figure 55 provide the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Chapter 3 of the Washington State Fixed Nuclear Facility Protection Plan (2018) indicates the United States Coast Guard 13th District is responsible for enforcing maritime laws, river access, Columbia Generating Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

river traffic control, river evacuation, and river evacuation verification during an emergency at the Columbia Generating Station .

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. Based on the public information calendar, if there is an emergency, people using the Columbia River will hear sirens with an audible message. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes.

It is assumed that this 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 N/A Snow Clearance 5 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Columbia Generating Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 35 87.5%

5 30.7% 40 90.3%

10 50.6% 45 91.8%

15 63.9% 50 93.6%

20 72.9% 55 94.1%

25 77.0% 60 99.0%

30 85.9% 75 100.0%

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

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0 35 87.1%

5 3.5% 40 91.1%

10 20.3% 45 93.7%

15 40.0% 50 96.2%

20 55.4% 55 97.0%

25 68.9% 60 98.7%

30 81.0% 75 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response.

Columbia Generating Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0% 105 84.8%

15 6.8% 120 89.5%

30 28.5% 135 96.3%

45 44.3% 150 97.0%

60 65.5% 165 97.5%

75 77.5% 180 98.5%

90 83.3% 195 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing (Minutes) Snow Removal 0 30.0%

15 40.4%

30 56.7%

45 68.9%

60 83.2%

75 92.1%

90 93.9%

105 95.4%

120 97.2%

135 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Columbia Generating Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies to A employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

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

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home C

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home E

to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to F

begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Columbia Generating Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents With Residents Residents with Without Commuters Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 30% 30% 0% 5% 0% 2%

3 30 52% 52% 4% 31% 1% 13%

4 30 12% 12% 22% 34% 10% 23%

5 15 1% 1% 15% 9% 8% 12%

6 15 0% 0% 15% 5% 11% 11%

7 15 0% 0% 12% 3% 11% 9%

8 30 0% 0% 15% 9% 21% 14%

9 60 0% 0% 14% 4% 26% 13%

10 30 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 2%

11 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0%

12 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

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

14 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

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

1 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.

Columbia Generating Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period2 Residents Residents Residents with Without Residents With Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%

3 30 1% 6% 0% 3%

4 30 25% 63% 11% 35%

5 15 15% 9% 8% 12%

6 15 15% 5% 11% 11%

7 15 12% 3% 11% 9%

8 30 15% 9% 21% 14%

9 60 14% 4% 26% 13%

10 30 2% 0% 6% 2%

11 15 1% 0% 2% 0%

12 15 0% 0% 2% 1%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

14 15 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Columbia Generating Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

for Commuters Households without Residents 1 2 5 Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round Residents, Transients 1 2 4 5 Return to residence, away from then evacuate Residence Residents, 1 2 5 Residents at home; Transients at transients evacuate directly Residence (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the evening2 1 2 3, 5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES EVENTS 1 2 Receive Notification 1. Notification tttt 2 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2. Aware of situation 2, 3 4 Travel Home 3. Depart work 2, 4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 0 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Columbia Generating Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities Notification Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home Prepare Home Time to Clear Snow 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Columbia Generating Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

\

\

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

112.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 67.5 82.5 97.5 Center of Interval (minutes)

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Columbia Generating Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters I I Residents with Commuters I I Residents no Commuters with Snow and Snow 100 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 80 60 40 20 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Columbia Generating Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters IIIII IIII Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters and Snow Residents no Commuters with Snow Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 80 60 40 20 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region Columbia Generating Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6 EVACUATION CASES An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.

The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Sections that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

Scenario A combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions. Scenarios define the number of people in each of the affected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.

A total of 31 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Sections considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Section configurations are identified in Figure 61.

Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002 guidance and as requested by Energy Northwest. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R11) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R12 through R14).

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R15 through R22 and Region 12 are identical to Regions R04 through R11 and Region R02, respectively; however, those Sections between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated. The following Regions are site specific and requested by Energy Northwest. Regions R24 through R27 represent evacuations of Sections. Regions R28 through R31 represent evacuation by site specific combinations.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 31 x 14 = 434 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population group and the vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the scenario and region being considered, using scenario and region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the region percentages are provided in Table H1. Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each Scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the scenario percentages in Table

63. The Scenario percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 27%, which is the product of 56% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F5) and 49% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Figure F10). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters during the week (27%) will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 3% (10% x 27% = 2.7%, rounded up to 3%) of households overall.

Columbia Generating Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

It can be argued that the 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% 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 twoweek interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

Employment is assumed to be at its peak (100%) during the winter, midweek, midday scenarios.

Employment is reduced slightly (96%) for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. This is based on the estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for a week during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those taking vacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% of employees vacationing each week. It is assumed that only 10% of the employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer weekend days and less (70%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, there are a few facilities offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be low during evening hours

- 35% for summer and 20% for winter. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 75% and less (60%) during the winter weekday.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 7 in Section 2.2).

One special event - a motor sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park - was considered as Scenario 13 (a winter, weekend, midday with good weather event). Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under those circumstances.

Transit buses for the transitdependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be 100% for all midday scenarios and is significantly less (40%)

during evening scenarios.

Columbia Generating Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R04 SSE, S, SSW X X X R05 SW, WSW X X R06 W, WNW X X X R07 NW X X R08 NNW, N, NNE X X X R09 NE X X R10 ENE, E, ESE X X X R11 SE X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region R05 N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N X X X X X R13 NNE, NE, ENE X X X X R14 E, ESE X X X X X N/A SE Refer to Region R11 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R15 SSE, S, SSW X X X R16 SW, WSW X X R17 W, WNW X X X R18 NW X X R19 NNW, N, NNE X X X R20 NE X X R21 ENE, E, ESE X X X R22 SE X X R23 5Mile Region X X X X X Section (s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace then Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation by CGS and Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A CGS, 1 Refer to Region R05 N/A CGS, 2 Refer to Region R07 N/A CGS, 3 Refer to Region R13 N/A CGS, 4 Refer to Region R11 Evacuation by Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R24 1 X R25 2 X R26 3 X X X R27 4 X Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R28 1, 2 X X R29 2, 3 X X X X R30 3, 4 X X X X R31 1, 4 X X Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace 1

Additional Regions created are site-specific and requested by Energy Northwest to capture additional evacuation possibilities that not occur using the federal guidance.

Columbia Generating Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season2 Weather Special Week Day 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Motor 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Sports Event at Horn Rapids ORV Park Roadway Impact: Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I182 Eastbound 2

Winter means that school is in session at normal enrollment levels (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

Columbia Generating Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Traffic 1 27% 73% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%

2 27% 73% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%

3 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

4 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

5 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 27% 73% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%

7 27% 73% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%

8 27% 73% 100% 60% 20% 0% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 3% 97% 10% 20% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%

13 3% 97% 10% 75% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%

14 27% 73% 96% 70% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100%

Resident Households with Commuters ...... Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Resident Households with No Commuters . Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.

Employees................................................. EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ................................................. People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.

Shadow ..................................................... Residents and employees in the Shadow Region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Special Events ........................................... Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.

School and Transit Buses ........................... Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic ............................ Traffic passing through the EPZ on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the evacuation begins.

Columbia Generating Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario3 Households Households With Without Total Returning Returning Special School Transit External Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Events Buses Buses Through Traffic Vehicles 1 1,070 2,858 5,018 1,292 8,640 0 2 4 8,634 27,518 2 1,070 2,858 5,018 1,292 8,640 0 2 4 8,634 27,518 3 107 3,821 523 1,845 8,640 0 0 4 8,634 23,574 4 107 3,821 523 1,845 8,640 0 0 4 8,634 23,574 5 107 3,821 523 646 8,640 0 0 4 3,454 17,195 6 1,070 2,858 5,227 1,107 8,640 0 16 4 8,634 27,556 7 1,070 2,858 5,227 1,107 8,640 0 16 4 8,634 27,556 8 1,070 2,858 5,227 1,107 8,640 0 16 4 8,634 27,556 9 107 3,821 523 1,384 8,640 0 0 4 8,634 23,113 10 107 3,821 523 1,384 8,640 0 0 4 8,634 23,113 11 107 3,821 523 1,384 8,640 0 0 4 8,634 23,113 12 107 3,821 523 369 8,640 0 0 4 3,454 16,918 13 107 3,821 523 1,384 8,640 2,899 0 4 8,634 26,012 14 1,070 2,858 5,018 1,292 8,640 0 2 4 8,634 27,518 3

Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03).

Columbia Generating Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w

-¢-,

_ - - ]10.Miles _ - ~ -

- *, T----/~ Basin City

')-

Me.

Benton County

\

Franklin

./ --- ---

COiumbia , 1 \ County 4 / RiV~ , ' \

/

\

I I

I I I I I

'246 I

"' ~~"'- CGS

\. '/0 S,

I

\ I 3A I

• 246 2 I I

I

- -;r

/

/

II/

/

/

/

Legend § CGS 0 Section Oat"6/14/2021 ( . . ___ _

Copyright:ESRI DataandMaps2020

, -:::., 2, 5, 10 M ile Rings 2.5 1KLDEngineering, ~nergyNorthwest www.census.gov M iles Figure 61. Sections Comprising the CGS EPZ Columbia Generating Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 31 Evacuation Regions within the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE for the 2Mile Region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II model outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Sections for which an Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some permanent residents from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.

The ETE for the CGS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 72. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of permanent residents located in Sections outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.

Similarly, it is assumed that 20% of the permanent residents in the Shadow Region will also choose to leave the area.

Figure 72 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles. The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1).

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 68,938 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within the Shadow Region including externalexternal traffic, traveling away from the plant location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

Columbia Generating Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.2 Staged Evacuation As defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sections comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

2. Sections comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Region is cleared.

3. As vehicles evacuate the 2Mile Region, people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation while they shelter.

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5Mile Region is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Region evacuate crosses the 2 Mile Region boundary.

5. Noncompliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadow evacuation percentage of 20%.

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 76 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion (or absence of congestion) that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2016, page 55):

The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have reached a point that most users would consider unsatisfactory, as described by a specified service measure value (or combination of service measure values). However, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared. Several measures are available for describing individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:

• Demandtocapacity ratios describe the extent to which demand exceeds capacity during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%).

• Duration of LOS F describes how long the condition persists (e.g., 15 min, 1 h, 3 h).

• Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions.

These include measures such as the back of queue and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated.

Columbia Generating Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73 shows significant congestion (LOS F) on State Highway (SH) 240 from Kingsgate Way to Saint Street in Richland (within the Shadow Region), 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). Significant congestion (LOS F) is also exhibited on Kingsgate Way on the border between Section 3C and the Shadow Region caused by spillback from the significant congestion on SH 240. Significant congestion is also exhibited on Innovation Boulevard from Horn Rapids Road to Battelle Boulevard within the EPZ (Section 3C) due to the fastmobilizing employees evacuating Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL). Insignificant delays (LOS B) are exhibited on the Plant Access Road as CGS plant employees begin evacuating. Congestion (LOS C and LOS D) exist on Route 4S and Canton Avenue as employees at the Hanford Site located in Section 4 gain access to Glade North Road. Glade North Road displays minor congestion (LOS C) as vehicles approach a stopcontrolled intersection with SH 240. There is no congestion or delays visible in Sections 1, 2 and 3A within the EPZ.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 displays the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and Section 4 is now clear of congestion. Significant congestion now exists on Glade North Road as vehicles are approaching a stop sign with SH 240. Significant congestion (LOS F) on SH 240 southbound and Kingsgate Way southbound in Richland has elongated beginning near Horn Rapids Golf Course and Horn Rapids Road. Congestion persists on Innovation Boulevard.

Significant (LOS F) to minor (LOS C) congestion has developed along George Washington Way southbound near Lee Boulevard within the population center of Richland, as vehicles try to access I182 in the Shadow Region. At this time, approximately 87% of employees/transients and 26% of permanent residents have mobilized and 58% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes after the ATE, Figure 75 shows pronounced congestion on southbound routes out of Richland traveling toward I182, including Jadwin Avenue, Stevens Road, Thayer Drive, and Lee Boulevard within the Shadow Region. Congestion continues to persist on Innovation Boulevard, Kingsgate Way and SH 240. Minor delays (LOS C) continue along George Washington Way southbound. There is minor to significant traffic on Duportail Street southwest of SH 240, as evacuees try to access I182 eastbound within the Shadow Region. Significant congestion occurs at the roundabout at Bombing Range Road and Keene Road, as the reduced capacity and speeds slow down evacuees that are trying to access I182.

At this time, approximately 81% of evacuees have mobilized and approximately 74% have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ETE, the congestion on roadways within the EPZ clears and is now operating at a LOS A, as shown in Figure 76. This indicates that the trip generation plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes) is dictating the 100th percentile ETE not congestion. At this point approximately 92% have mobilized and 91% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ. Significant congestion (LOS F) continues at the roundabout of Bombing Range Road and Keene Road within the Shadow Region which clears 20 minutes later at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes. Any significant congestion (LOS F) is located on I182 ramps at interchanges with I82 and with US 385 just outside of the study area, which clears 45 minutes later at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes.

Columbia Generating Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 77 through Figure 720. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 77 through Figure 720, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to the mobilization and not congestion (low population demand). Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.

This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end of mobilization time - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 31 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles.

The tables are organized as follows:

Table Contents The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within a Region, to 71 evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within a Region, to 72 evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within the 2Mile Region, 73 to evacuate from the 2Mile Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional Sections downwind in the keyhole Region.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within the 2Mile 74 Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of additional Sections downwind in the keyhole Region.

The animation snapshots described in Section 7.3 above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 76. There is no congestion (LOS B or better) within the EPZ except for areas in Columbia Generating Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section 3C and the Shadow Region near the population center of Richland, which is well beyond the 2Mile and 5Mile Region; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for 2Mile Region (Region R01) is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 10 minutes for all scenarios and is at most 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes shorter than the 5Mile Region (Region R02). The 2Mile Region makes up of only CGS employees, who mobilize significantly quicker than the permanent residents within the EPZ (see Figure 54).

The 90th percentile ETE for R02 and the full EPZ (Region R03) are comparable and ranges between 2:00 and 2:55. Little to no congestion exists within the EPZ, as such the additional evacuating vehicles in Region R03 when compared to Region R02, will reach the 90th percentile ETE quicker.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios parallel mobilization time, as the minimal congestion within the EPZ dissipates (no speed and capacity reductions exist) after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes, as displayed in Figure 76 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 4:35 to 4:40 (5:35 to 5:40 for heavy snow scenarios). This represents the mobilization time plus the travel time to EPZ boundary, except for Region R01 which ranges from 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes. As Region R01 is CGS employees, the combination of the mobilization time of employees plus travel time to boundary dictates the ETE.

Comparison of Scenarios 9 and 13 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicates that the Special Event

- Motor Sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park - does not impact the 90th percentile ETE for all Regions except for regions that include Section 3C (Regions R03, R12, R13, R14, R26, R29 and R30) which increases at most by 55 minutes. The additional 2,899 vehicles present for the special event increases congestion along SH 240, which is the last roadway in the EPZ to clear of congestion. The event is located beyond the 5Mile Region, which is why the ETE for Regions extending to 5 miles or less are unaffected. The 100th percentile ETE remains unaffected by the special event, as congestion within the EPZ clears before the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EP boundary).

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicates that the roadway impact - a single lane closure on eastbound on I182 from I82 (Exit 93) to the interchange with US 395 southbound - does not impact the 90th percentile ETE. The I182 never experiences sustained traffic congestion (LOS F), which means it has excess capacity to service the evacuating traffic demand. In addition, the ramps to I182 are bottlenecks such that the main throughfare of I182 is underutilized and any congestion that does exist does not spill back into the EPZ. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on I182, would not significantly impact ETE.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un Columbia Generating Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R15 through R22 and R03 are geographically identical as Regions R04 through R11 and R02, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation strategy is to ensure the ETE for the 2Mile Region is not significantly increased (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) when evacuating areas beyond the 2Mile Region. Additionally staged evacuation should not significantly increase the ETE for people evacuating beyond the 2Mile Region. In all cases, as shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region remains the same when a staged evacuation is implemented. All congestion visible is concentrated in Richland, well beyond the 5Mile Region, as discussed in Section 7.3 and never extends within the 2Mile or 5Mile Region. As such, there is no impedance to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region. The 100th percentile ETE remains the same, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for R15 through R22 and R23 are compared to Regions R04 through R11 and R02, respectively. This comparison reveals that staging increases the 90th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 5 minutes (see Table 71) for some Regions and Scenarios in the 90th percentile and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. This slight increase in 90th percentile ETE is due to the delay of a large number of evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (trip generation rate) of evacuating vehicles. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and adversely impacts some evacuees located beyond 2 miles from the CGS. Based on the guidance in NUREG0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.

7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables The user first determines the percentile of population for which the ETE is sought (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen table may then be identified using the following procedure:

Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening Columbia Generating Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Snow

• Special Event Motor Sports event at Horn Rapids ORV Park Special Event Road Closure (A single lane on Interstate (I)182 eastbound from the interchange with I82 to the interchange with US 395 southbound closed.)

• Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

• The conditions of a summer evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not explicitly identified in the tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (2) and (4) apply.

• The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain/light snow are not explicitly identified in the tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (10) for rain apply.

• The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and heavy snow are not explicitly identified in the tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (8) and (11) for heavy snow apply.

• The seasons are defined as follows:

Summer assumes public schools are in session at summer school enrollment levels (lower than normal enrollment).

Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session at normal enrollment levels.

• Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling to/from work.

With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region (Step 2):

• Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from N, NNE, NE, etc.)

• Determine the distance that the Evacuation Region will extend from the nuclear power plant. The applicable distances and their associated candidate Regions are given below:

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 through R11)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R12 through R14)

Columbia Generating Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the plant. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the table.

Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Evacuation Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:

• The columns of Table 71 are labeled with the Scenario numbers. Identify the proper column in the selected table using the Scenario number determined in Step 1.

• Identify the row in this table that provides ETE values for the Region identified in Step 2.

• The unique data cell defined by the column and row so determined contains the desired value of ETE expressed in Hours:Minutes.

Example It is desired to identify the ETE for the following conditions:

• Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).

• Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 2Mile Region and downwind to the EPZ boundary.

• The desired ETE is that value needed to evacuate 90 percent of the population from within the impacted Region.

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 71, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors. However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the NE and read Region R13 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R13. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R13; it contains the ETE value of 2:00.

Columbia Generating Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R02 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:00 R03 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:55 2:00 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:10 1:50 R05 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:10 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:10 2:10 R06 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:25 R07 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:25 R08 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:05 R09 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R11 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:20 3:00 2:05 R13 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 3:00 1:55 R14 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:15 3:00 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R15 1:50 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:20 1:50 1:50 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:10 1:50 R16 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:15 2:10 R17 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:25 R18 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:25 Columbia Generating Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact R19 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:25 2:20 2:05 R20 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R21 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R22 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R23 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:45 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 2:15 2:00 Evacuation by Section R24 2:30 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:30 2:15 2:30 R25 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:20 2:25 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:30 2:25 2:35 R26 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:15 1:55 2:00 2:35 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 3:00 1:55 R27 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations R28 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:35 2:35 3:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:30 2:20 2:35 R29 2:05 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 3:00 2:05 R30 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:50 1:55 2:30 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:20 3:00 1:55 R31 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:25 2:10 2:00 Columbia Generating Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R05 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R06 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R07 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R08 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R09 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R10 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R11 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R13 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R14 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R15 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R16 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R17 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R18 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Columbia Generating Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R21 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R22 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 R23 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 5:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Evacuation by Section R24 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R25 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R26 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R27 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations R28 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R29 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R30 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 R31 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 5:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Columbia Generating Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R02 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R05 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R06 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R07 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R08 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R09 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R11 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R15 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R16 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R17 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R18 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R19 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R20 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R21 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R22 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 R23 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 Columbia Generating Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R02 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R05 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R06 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R07 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R08 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R09 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R10 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R11 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R15 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R16 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R17 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R18 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R19 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R20 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R21 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R22 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 R23 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:50 Columbia Generating Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R04 SSE, S, SSW X X X R05 SW, WSW X X R06 W, WNW X X X R07 NW X X R08 NNW, N, NNE X X X R09 NE X X R10 ENE, E, ESE X X X R11 SE X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region R05 N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N X X X X X R13 NNE, NE, ENE X X X X R14 E, ESE X X X X X N/A SE Refer to Region R11 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R15 SSE, S, SSW X X X R16 SW, WSW X X R17 W, WNW X X X R18 NW X X R19 NNW, N, NNE X X X R20 NE X X R21 ENE, E, ESE X X X R22 SE X X R23 5Mile Region X X X X X Section (s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace then Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation by CGS and Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A CGS, 1 Refer to Region R05 N/A CGS, 2 Refer to Region R07 N/A CGS, 3 Refer to Region R13 N/A CGS, 4 Refer to Region R11 Evacuation by Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R24 1 X R25 2 X R26 3 X X X R27 4 X Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R28 1, 2 X X R29 2, 3 X X X X R30 3, 4 X X X X R31 1, 4 X X Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace 1

Additional Regions created are site-specific and requested by Energy Northwest to capture additional evacuation possibilities that not occur using the federal guidance.

Columbia Generating Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

~ / \ ~- -~ ~1

~~v /~~ ~ /

,,---"'\\_/; \\ \_

( (.

--\ \ ,,~~// / ;- \ \ 2.. )) l ( I ~

/ -\ ,..._"'"I~ * ;L

)

/ ~ ______

"' %JM1les1 / "' i5,\Mil~ /

/ ~ -----~_/ ~ _/ .

~ 10~ / ~

I~~~\  !'!~~\  !'!~~\

I2-Mile Region I I5-Mile Region I I Entire EPZ I

/ - ~; \ / - ~/ \ / - ~/

"-/ ~-----"'~\/ I/ .<lllllliia_... / /-~ y

- (;/~Ir\ \) )-  ;/ \\  ;/~I~i~r\\\_

) "'______~

(

\.

I ~1~ I

\ ,,~~// /

_/ / /

( \\

(

\.

(

"'______~

1

,,~ ~ //

_/

I

/

/

/

)

/ \ \ ',::. ~;.// / ;-

\.

(

"' ~ /

I

______ _/

I )

)

./\

~

"' 10 "' ~10 Mile s "' 10 Mile s 15 Miles \ /

/'--. ,- 15

/ Miles

,_ _./\

\ /

/'--....._7- 15 Miles

/

Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwi nd I I Staged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind

• Plant Location

• Region to be Evacuated: 100% Evacuation D 20% Shadow Evacuation - Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Columbia Generating Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Grant .....

Gounty

/

/

/

/

/ ~

~~-

~ ** '

/

Co!Umbia 17 RKl'er

- -* * ~

/ - -l°Mites --....,

'\

/

I I

I I

'\

I

\

I /

1 4 / \

~40') / /

I I Franklin I County '\

0-.. '

~<I\ ~ , -~ / I I I

Benton I I County I/

X 1 2 I I

\

\

\

\ /

' '\ ~

/

Legend 0

CG S Section

~~ ,

'- / / \

Shadow Region Oate:6/14/2021 ~

__.c6pyr~: ESR1Ema-a~.;t>S,10l.0

~

, -::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings

~~-::~n5 ::~g';;~ Energy,North~

10 M iles Figure 72. CGS Shadow Region Columbia Generating Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

rns atO

,""~"~~~

-~

24 Legend CGS

~ Section

,~, ~ Shadow Region 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings s .. I "Benton City

~~

H \.--:,

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

~

~ .* . * ,

.'--<'-~: "'\;:~~'

• \_ ' ....

L

!¥'-, - _""'~~~

1 I LOS

-- A Legend

-- B CGS -- c 1_ Date:4/28/~0

~ Section Copyrig~ t: EISR ,,- ~ D KLD Eng1~ ngr Energv} ~ortHwest

] ~ Shadow Region www.census.gov

- E

\. _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings 2.5 s .. I "Ben ton City

~~ ,;

- F Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 5 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

rns atO

,""~"~~~-~

24 Legend CGS

~ Section

,~, ~ Shadow Region _. =

2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings 5 *. I Benton City

~~

H \.--:,

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 25 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

rns at 02:05

"\~~'

~'"

0 Section

~ Shadow Region

\.-=:, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings s .. I 7Jenton c,1y M~~

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Columbia Generating Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

10 9

8 Vehicles Evacuating 7

6 5

(Thousands) 4 3

2 1

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ

• 90%

• 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Columbia Generating Station 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimate (ETE) for transit vehicles. The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available; schoolchildren; and access and/or functional needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each bus in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs.

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc.

Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.

Specifically:

• Bus drivers must be alerted

• They must travel to the bus depot

• They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. The location of bus depots impacts the time to travel from the bus depots to the facilities being evacuated. Locations of bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, it was assumed the location of the depots and the distance to the EPZ is included in the estimate of mobilization time. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that the school bus mobilization time will average approximately 90 minutes extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when school buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated. It is assumed transit dependent buses and access and/or functional needs vehicles are mobilized when about 84% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization activities at 120 minutes.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information disseminated to residents of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) indicates that schoolchildren attending Franklin County schools will be transported by school officials to a safe location at emergency action levels of Site Area Emergency or higher, and that parents should listen to KONA (610 AM/105.3 FM, Kord 102.7 FM, or KZHR 92.5 FM (Spanish language)) to find out where to pick up their schoolchildren. For ETE calculations, this study assumes children are evacuated to assistance centers. (See Section 10 for further details).

Columbia Generating Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. It is assumed that children at daycare centers, if any exist in the EPZ, are picked up by parents or guardians and that the time to perform this activity is included in the trip generation times discussed in Section 5.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the assistance centers The ETE for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions.

8.1 ETE for Schools and Transit Dependent People The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the assistance center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transportation service to evacuees.

Transportation resources available were provided by the EPZ county emergency management agencies and are summarized in Table 81. Also included in the table are the number of buses needed to evacuate schools, the transitdependent population, and the access and/or functional needs population (discussed below in Section 8.2). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone (schoolchildren, transitdependent population and access and/or functional needs population) in the EPZ in a single wave.

Furthermore, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent population should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive along the transit routes.

Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

Columbia Generating Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation of Schools Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school to be evacuated. As previously stated, it is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools being evacuated.

Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes in rain/light snow, 110 minutes in heavy snow conditions.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4 and 2.6, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the ATE - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the assumed assistance center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5 minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Section 10 in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

. . 60 .

. 1 .

60 .

1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school evacuation. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the assistance center was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

Columbia Generating Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 to 45 mph (40 mph for rain/light snow -

10% decrease - and 35 mph for heavy snow - 20% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 45 mph, as Washington State law states no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable.

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following ETE (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools in the EPZ:

1) The elapsed time from the ATE until the bus exits the EPZ; and

2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the assistance center.

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 minutes + 15 + 4 = 1:50 (rounded to the nearest 5 minutes for Country Christian Center, with good weather).

The average ETE for school children is 5 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population (2hours as shown in Table 71) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) during Scenario 6 conditions (winter, midday, midweek, with good weather), which will not affect the protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the assistance center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.

Activity: Travel to Assistance Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the assistance centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the assistance center. The assistance centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, are applied for this activity for the buses servicing the schools in the EPZ.

Evacuation of TransitDependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

A detailed computation of the transit dependent people is discussed in Section 3.6. The total number of transit dependent people per Section was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. The Sections that were determined to have very few transitdependent person were grouped and a bus route was assigned. The two (2) bus routes utilized in this study were designed by KLD to service a single or group of Sections.

These routes are described in Table 101 and mapped in Figure 102. Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along major evacuation routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. It is assumed that residents will walk to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 120minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Columbia Generating Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), 84%

of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses begin their routes, at approximately 120 minutes after the ATE. The residents taking longer to mobilize are assumed to rideshare with a friend or neighbor. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather 130 minutes in rain/light snow and 140 minutes in heavy snow).

The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Each route has one bus that departs at 120 minutes after the ATE. Table 85 (good weather), Table 86 (rain/light snow) and Table 87 (heavy snow) show the ETE breakdown for each step in the transitdependent evacuation process.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

For multiple stops along a pickup route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e., pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

Assigning reasonable estimates:

• B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain/light snow resulting in 40 minutes of pickup time per bus and 50 minutes in heavy snow.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation, whereas Columbia Generating Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

per Washington State law (no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable), were restricted to 45 mph, 40 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETE for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE Bus Route 1 (servicing Sections 1 and 2) is computed as 120 + 33 + 30 =

3:05 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for good weather. Here, 33 minutes is the time to travel 24.7 miles at 45 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 120 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes) for transit dependent population exceeds the general population ETE by 55 minutes at the 90th percentile (see Table 71) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 6 conditions. The 55minute difference is significant and could potentially impact the protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the assistance center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.

Activity: Travel to Assistance Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the assistance centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the assistance center. The assistance centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population. The relocation of transit dependent evacuees from the assistance centers to congregate care centers is not considered in this study.

8.2 ETE for the Access and/or Functional Needs Population Table 88 summarizes the ETE for the access and/or functional needs population. The table is broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it is assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart. The bus speeds approximately 20 mph between households in good weather (10% slower in rain/light snow, 20% slower in heavy snow). Similar to the transit dependent evacuees, mobilization times of 120 minutes were used (130 minutes for rain/light snow, and 140 minutes for heavy snow). Loading time is conservatively assumed to be 5 minutes per household (HH) due to the limited mobility of some access and/or functional needs persons. The last HH is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 45 mph (40 mph for rain/light snow and 35 mph for heavy snow) is used to compute travel time after the last pickup out of Columbia Generating Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the EPZ. The ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel time to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

Assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per HH and they require no special equipment implies that 10 ambulatory households need to be serviced. Only 1 bus is needed from a capacity perspective, but if 4 buses are deployed to service the access and/or functional needs HH, (transportation resources are available), then each would require about 3 stops maximum. For example, the ETE for the access and/or functional needs ambulatory HH in good weather is computed as follows:

1. Assume 4 buses are deployed, each with about 3 stops, to service a total of 10 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 120 minutes

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 2 (31) @ 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20mph) =

18 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 2(31) @ 5 minutes = 10 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 7 minutes (5 miles at 45 mph).

ETE: 120 + 5 + 18 + 10+ 7 = 2:40 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes)

The average ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes) for a single wave evacuation of the access and/or functional needs population exceeds the general population ETE by 55 minutes at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 6 conditions. The 55 minute difference could potentially impact the protective action decision making.

Columbia Generating Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Para Transit Resource Buses Vans/Minivans (DialARide)

Resources Available Ben Franklin Transit 71 267 112 Richland School District 84 0 0 Pasco School District 187 9 0 Country Christian Center 1 1 0 Big River Country School 0 2 0 TOTAL: 343 279 112 Resources Needed Schools (Table 36): 8 01 0 TransitDependent Population (Table 101): 2 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs Population 4 0 0 (Table 38):

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 14 0 0 1

Country Christian Center has a bus and a van available for evacuation. Based on the 25 student enrollment, this study assumed all students will evacuate in one bus.

Columbia Generating Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Dist. To Travel Travel Time Driver Loading EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to A. C. Bdry to A. C. A. C.

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA Country Christian Center 90 15 3.2 45.0 4 1:50 13.6 18 2:10 Edwin Markham Elementary School 90 15 7.2 44.3 10 1:55 8.6 11 2:10 Big River Country School 90 15 6.1 45.0 8 1:55 8.6 11 2:10 Maximum for EPZ: 1:55 Maximum: 2:10 Average for EPZ: 1:55 Average: 2:10 Table 83. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Driver Dist. To Travel Travel Time Mobilization Loading EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Time Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to A. C. Bdry to A. C. A. C.

School (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA Country Christian Center 100 20 3.2 40.0 5 2:05 13.6 20 2:25 Edwin Markham Elementary School 100 20 7.2 40.0 11 2:15 8.6 13 2:30 Big River Country School 100 20 6.1 40.0 9 2:10 8.6 13 2:25 Maximum for EPZ: 2:15 Maximum: 2:30 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 2:30 Columbia Generating Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Driver Dist. To Travel Travel Time Mobilization Loading EPZ Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Time Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to A. C. Bdry to A. C. A. C.

School (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA Country Christian Center 110 25 3.2 35.0 6 2:25 13.6 23 2:50 Edwin Markham Elementary School 110 25 7.2 35.0 12 2:30 8.6 15 2:45 Big River Country School 110 25 6.1 35.0 10 2:25 8.6 15 2:40 Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 Maximum: 2:50 Average for EPZ: 2:30 Average: 2:45 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Dist. To Driver EPZ Travel Time Pickup Dist. EPZ Travel Time Route Number Mobilization Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry Time ETE Bdry to A. C. from EPZ Bdry ETA to A. C.

Number of Buses Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to A. C. (min) (hr:min) 1 1 120 24.7 45.0 33 30 3:05 8.7 12 3:20 2 1 120 6.5 44.7 9 30 2:40 18.5 25 3:05 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Maximum: 3:20 Average ETE: 2:55 Average: 3:15 Columbia Generating Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Dist. To Driver EPZ Travel Time Pickup Dist. EPZ Travel Time Route Number Mobilization Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry Time ETE Bdry to A. C. from EPZ Bdry ETA to A. C.

Number of Buses Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to A. C. (min) (hr:min) 1 1 130 24.7 40.0 37 40 3:30 8.7 13 3:45 2 1 130 6.5 40.0 10 40 3:00 18.5 28 3:30 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum: 3:45 Average ETE: 3:15 Average: 3:40 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Dist. To Driver EPZ Travel Time Pickup Dist. EPZ Travel Time Route Number Mobilization Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry Time ETE Bdry to A. C. from EPZ Bdry ETA to A. C.

Number of Buses Time (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to A. C. (min) (hr:min) 1 1 140 24.7 35.0 42 50 3:55 8.7 15 4:10 2 1 140 6.5 35.0 11 50 3:25 18.5 32 4:00 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Maximum: 4:10 Average ETE: 3:40 Average: 4:05 Columbia Generating Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Mobiliza Loading Travel to Loading Time to People tion Time at Subsequent Time at EPZ Vehicle Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Stops Subsequent Boundary ETE Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 120 18 7 2:40 Buses 10 4 3 Rain 130 5 20 10 8 2:55 Snow 140 22 9 3:10 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:55 Columbia Generating Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D

• E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Assistance Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Assistance Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service, if required Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Assistance Center Outside the EPZ Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Columbia Generating Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this TMP include:

• Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

• The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. provides guidance for Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.

• A written plan that defines all Traffic Control Point (TCP) and Access Control Point (ACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.

For example:

• A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

• The driver may be an emergency worker entering the area being evacuated to perform an important emergency service.

The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The TMP is the outcome of the following process:

1. The detailed TCP and ACP tactics identified by the offsite agencies in their existing county emergency plans serve as the basis of the TMP, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

2. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP or ACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix K, Table K1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TCPs and ACPs.

Columbia Generating Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Figures 73 through 76).

4. These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite agency plans are examined. No additional TCPs and ACPs were identified which would benefit the evacuation time estimate (ETE), as part of this study. See Appendix G for more detail.

5. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.

a. Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located farther away from the power plant. Key locations for manual traffic control (MTC) were analyzed and their impact to ETE was quantified, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. See Appendix G for more detail.

Appendix G documents the existing TMP and list of priority TCPs and/or ACPs using the process enumerated above.

9.1 Assumptions The following are TMP assumptions made for this study:

The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), by ACPs along the major highways traversing the EPZ.

All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning ACPs and TCPs.

Study Assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 discuss ACP and TCP operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies (if available) can reduce manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can also be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and assistance center information. DMS can also be placed outside of the EPZ to warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems.

Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the Columbia Generating Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuee begins their trip, while the on board navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process.

Consideration should be given that ITS technologies can be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

Columbia Generating Station 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND ASSISTANCE CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from a Section being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, employees, transients, or permanent residents who do not own or have access to private vehicles) from the EPZ boundary to assistance centers.

Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model, routing the traffic away from the location of the plant, to the extent practicable. The Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles, and by the transitdependent population evacuating in buses. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed to assistance centers. General population may evacuate to either a general assistance center or some alternate destination (i.e., lodging facility, relatives home, campground) outside the EPZ.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to assistance centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The 2 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD, as no preestablished transitdependent bus routes exist within the EPZ or identified within the county emergency plans, in order to compute ETE. These routes were designed to service the transitdependent population within each Section along major evacuation routes and then proceed to the assistance centers, as assigned in the public information calendar. This does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk along to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus within the 120minute bus mobilization time (in good weather).

Schools were routed along the most likely path from the school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the assistance center, in order to compute ETE. (Note the public information calendar provided to residents within the EPZ state that schools will be driven to a safe location by school officials.)

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from assistance centers to congregate care centers, if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

Columbia Generating Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10.2 Assistance Centers Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest assistance center for each county.

According to the current public information calendar for EPZ residents, evacuees from Sections 1 and 2 will be directed to the Columbia Basin College assistance center, while evacuees from Sections 3A, 3B and 3C will be directed to the Southridge High School assistance center. It should be noted that there are no permanent residents in Section CGS and Section 4. The Hanford and CGS site workers will be notified, if any protective actions are necessary. Figure 103 presents a map displaying the general population assistance centers for evacuees.

It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the Columbia Basin College (public information states a safe location and that parents should listen to KONA 610 AM/105.3 FM, KORD 102.7 FM, or KZHR 92.5 FM to find out their location) for ETE calculations and subsequently picked up by parents or guardians. No school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. Table 103 presents a list of the schools in the EPZ and the assumed assistance center.

Columbia Generating Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes Bus Route No. of Length Number Buses Route Description (mi.)

Servicing Sections 1 & 2: Starting at the northern boundary of Section 1 Southbound on Road 170 left onto W Klamath Road Eastbound right onto 1 1 Glade North Road Southbound left onto Ringold Road Westbound left onto 24.7 Taylor Flats Road Southbound to the EPZ boundary. Travels to the assistance center located at Columbia Basin College.

Servicing Sections 3B & 3C: Starting at the northern boundary of Section 3B Picks up evacuees along State Highway (SH) 240 from the intersection of Hanford Rte 2 1 6.5 10/US Reservation Road travels Southeast along SH 240 to the EPZ boundary.

Travels to the assistance center located at Southridge High School.

Total: 2 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Number Description Boundary 1 TD Bus Route Section 1 & 2 297, 352, 212, 353, 477, 296, 476 2 TD Bus Route Section 3B & 3C 74, 75, 559, 276, 563, 567, 278 3 Country Christian Center 212, 140, 142 4 Edwin Markham Elementary School 352, 212, 353, 477, 296, 476 5 Big River Country School 141, 212, 353, 477, 296, 476 Table 103. School Assistance Centers1 School Assistance Center Country Christian Center Edwin Markham Elementary School Columbia Basin College Big River Country School 1

The assistance Center was assumed, as no specific assistance center was listed within the latest public information calendar for schools. As such, the assistance center was designated based on the Section it is located in.

Columbia Generating Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

24 l

/

/

/

I I

I I

I I

1 \ y

\

I I

\

\

\

\

\

Legend CGS Evacuation Route G Section Shadow Region 0ate: 9/21/2021

- Copyright:-ESRI Oata-an~d Maps 2020

- '- __,, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, Energy Northwest www.census.gov Figure 101. Evacuation Route Map Columbia Generating Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

[J Transit Dependent ').

Bus Route ...... '\

- Sections 1 and 2 \

- Sections 3B and 3C

' 1 ,-J~+r { f ~ / \ \ 1

\

1 1

-},

1

/

/

1 4 / ,_f

/

I I

I I

F_,rahklin County

y.-_ I Benton \

County \ y

\

I

}', I

\

J~ ~/

3A '-

,2\

t ~

I Lrb

\

\

... /

Legend ~ 1**, :i --

/

3B l, '

CGS

, 3 Gl Section westRichtand Shadow Region 0ate:4/28/,2022 Copyrig~t: ~S~l £1ataand Maps 2020

, _, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings KLD Engineering, Energy Northwest--X, _

www.censJsigr "') "'x:1 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Columbia Generating Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Grant w

-¢-,

Coanty ---- ~60). Connell

/

/

/

/

/

/

---::::-, ' \

/ 7\1 I

I ""

~

I I

I 4 /

240:

' ~

I 1 I

\

\

~ ,.'.

I 5 "o I $ t~ F'ra,nklin Benton County I I *I Coi,tnty I I I

2 I

/,f

\

\ / I I  ; */

\ §

\

'\

'\

' / \ olumbia Basi'n Jge CGS Assistance Center Section Shadow Region 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure 103. General Population Assistance Centers Columbia Generating Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS This appendix provides a glossary of traffic engineering terms that are used throughout this report.

Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vph.

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Columbia Generating Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian, and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Columbia Generating Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Columbia Generating Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

Columbia Generating Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

DTRAD executes the traffic assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where is the generalized cost for link and , , and are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 = Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 12 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

Columbia Generating Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Columbia Generating Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

0 Start of next DTRAD Session A ~

I Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 I

Define latest Link Turn Percentages I

Execute Simulation Model from B ~

~

time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

I Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 I

Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages I

Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents I

DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes I Next iteration I Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration) 6 Set Clock to T2 r

B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Columbia Generating Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVacuation Animator (EVAN).

Calculates Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) statistics.

All traffic simulation models are dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

Columbia Generating Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g., a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q  ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Columbia Generating Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Columbia Generating Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

End if Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

Columbia Generating Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .

E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Q

Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could not v discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Q Mb M E . This queue length, Q Q M v L3 E Cap can be extended to Q by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at I:** .

t1 I t3 I speed, v, and reaching the rear of the queue within T the TI. A portion of the entering vehicles, E E ,

will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

Columbia Generating Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Columbia Generating Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e., the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Columbia Generating Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Columbia Generating Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g., lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Columbia Generating Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Columbia Generating Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of Q

link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Columbia Generating Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 0------+0 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 08001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Columbia Generating Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc - ---- ---------------

Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams l

Distance OQ OM OE 0 Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Columbia Generating Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Columbia Generating Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a geographic information system (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and Section boundaries.

Step 2 The 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. . Employee, transient and school data were obtained from county emergency management agencies, emergency plans, and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available during an emergency were also provided by the counties within the EPZ.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials, onsite and offsite Energy Northwest personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to state and county emergency officials and Energy Northwest utility managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

Columbia Generating Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery and Energy Northwest. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other link specific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 7 Sections. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Sections) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II System, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD), with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II System was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the Columbia Generating Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software - see Section 1.3) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

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

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

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Columbia Generating Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases were executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes were used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents and schools.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable. Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to change in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions. The results were then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) was completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

Columbia Generating Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Update and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Network Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Columbia Generating Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of March 2022, for facilities that are located within the CGS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools. Transient population data is included in the table for recreational areas (campgrounds, golf courses, hunting/fishing areas, parks, and other recreational areas). Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straight line distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, major employer, and recreational area (campground, golf course, hunting/fishing area, park, and other recreational area) are also provided.

Columbia Generating Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Section (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA 2 7.1 ESE Edwin Markham Elementary School 4031 Elm Rd Pasco 360 2 7.4 SE Big River Country School 620 Cottonwood Dr Pasco 15 2 9.2 SE Country Christian Center 5500 West Sagemoor Rd Pasco 38 Franklin County Subtotal: 413 EPZ TOTAL: 413 Table E2. Major Employers within the EPZ1

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Section (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ BENTON COUNTY, WA CGS Columbia Generating Station 76 N Power Plant Lp Richland 535 97% 519 463 3A 8.2 S HAMMER Mission Support Alliance 2890 Horn Rapids Rd Richland 1,009 95% 959 856 3C 8.5 S Framatome 2101 Horn Rapids Rd Richland 425 70% 298 266 3C 9.1 SSE PNNL 902 Battelle Blvd Richland 2,039 95% 1,937 1,729 3C 9.5 S Preferred Freezer Services 2800 Polar Way Richland 300 100% 300 268 4 9.7 NW Hanford Site 200 East (Vit Plant) Route 4 & Canton Ave Richland 2,100 97% 2,037 1,645 Benton County Subtotal: 6,408 6,050 5,227 EPZ TOTAL: 6,408 6,050 5,227 1

A sensitivity study was conducted to see the effect of the migratory worker population on ETE; see Section M.5. As such, they were not included in this table.

Columbia Generating Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire Section (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles BENTON COUNTY, WA 3B 8.0 SW Horn Rapids County Park Day Use 115803 SR 225 Richland Park 35 15 3B 9.5 S Barker Ranch Ltd 85305 Snively Rd West Richland Other, Not Listed 40 20 3B 9.6 S Olive Tree RV Park 83206 N Weidle Rd West Richland Campground 28 14 3B 9.8 SW Tri Cities Shotgun 98204 N SR 225 Benton City Other, Not Listed 250 200 3B 10.2 S Horn Rapids Golf Course 2800 Clubhouse Ln Richland Golf Course 25 6 3C 8.1 S Horn Rapids ORV Park MotoCross 3323 Twin Bridges Rd Richland Park 250 147 3C 8.3 S Horn Rapids ORV Park Overnight 3323 Twin Bridges Rd Richland Park Included Above 3C 8.5 S Horn Rapids ORV Park Go Carts 3323 Twin Bridges Rd Richland Park 250 100 3C 8.5 S Horn Rapids ORV Park RC Airport 3323 Twin Bridges Rd Richland Park 15 15 3C 9.7 S Babe Ruth Sports Complex 2705 Kingsgate Way Richland Other, Not Listed 160 80 3C 10.0 S Horn Rapids RV Resort 2640 Kingsgate Way Richland Campground 470 450 Benton County Subtotal: 1,523 1,047 FRANKLIN COUNTY, WA 1 4.5 NE Ringold Fishing Area Mesa Hunting/Fishing 1,000 319 1 8.1 NNW Wahluke Hunting Area Mesa Hunting/Fishing 500 160 2 8.6 SSE Columbia and Yakima River Areas Pasco Hunting/Fishing 1,000 319 Franklin County Subtotal: 2,500 798 EPZ TOTAL: 4,023 1,845 Columbia Generating Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w

-¢",

,r I "

r Map No, Facility Name 1 1Big River Co u ntry Schoo l *10 Miles

\.

1 2 I Country Christia n Cente r 3 I Edwin Markham Elementary Schoo l

'\

'- "/ f Basi:,Cio/ , {

70' ' ..,L..-' \

~

.'!? \

I \

"L

' ~ Me.

I I \.

I \ ______ I 7

\

\

\l

/

1 4 /

I

/ " \.

1

\

I

\

~

I \

I \

I I

~40:

1"\

/*I I

Benton County Franklin/ 'i

--rr-county I.

\/

\

~ l'*j /

3A J I

~ ,(

I

240)  !' '- 2 I

-- - I I I I fl- r I

lO

\ '\ "'- I '-. I I

\ /

/

~

_ij' Legend

/

CGS l School

~ Section /

/

Shadow Region Date: 2/18/2022 Copyright: E'sR1Dataa-ri dMaps2020

, -:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs 0 2.5 KlDEngineJring, Energy Northwest Miles www.cen sut gov Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ Columbia Generating Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w-¢",

,r M ap No, I Faci lity Name r "

. . .: : -~ - ~ ' '\

1 I Col umbia Genera t ing St at ion *10 Miles 2 I Frama t ome 1__ -

3 IHAMMER -Mi ssion Su pport Al lia nce 4 1Hanfo rd Si t e 200 East (Vil Plant) ' Basin Cit/ > r, .,L...-\ ,- - ~ - -

s I PNNL \

6 IPreferred Freeze r Se rvice s ~ I \

\ Me.

I '!,.

L...

I \

I ' ------- I 7

\

\l

/ ' '- ~

\

4

/

\

1 l

/ \

I \ I I \

I \

I I Benton County

~40:

0~

E ___.,...,

c!,

I I . Franklin

"/",--County

\

\

~1, I I

I I I /

I 3A ' i' I 2 I I

240:

-- I I

I I I

\ T

\ /

/

~

Legend /

/

I I ilf' T /

CG S

§l

_l_j

~ Majo r Employer

~ Section Shadow Region

, -:::, 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rin gs 0 2.5 M iles Figure E2. Major Employers within the EPZ Columbia Generating Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Map No. Facility Name 1 Babe Ruth Sports Compl ex - - 1 10 Miles

'\.

w -¢", "

'\

2 1Barker Ranch Ltd 1 ......

3 I Columbia and Yaki ma River Areas 4 Horn Rapids County Pa rk Day Use S Horn Rapids Go lf Course

' '-. / r t>aSin City 6 I Horn Rapids ORV Park Go Ca rt s ',:

7 I Horn Rapids ORV Par k Motocross 8 I Horn Rapids ORV Park Overn ight 9 I Horn Rapids ORV Par k RC Airport 10 I Horn Ra_e_ids RV Reso rt 11 I Oli ve Tree RV Park 12 I Ri ngold Fishing Area 13 ITr i Cities Shotgun 14 I Wah l uke Hunting Area / 1 \

4 / \

I /

I I

~

I I

240: I I.,,,,

I~

Benton i County Fra,nkt.n T

~ County/

I

\ I 3A \

'\

40)

I' I 2

' ' I Legend I CGS I I tt,; ;

Cam pground

/

,I I

~ Golf Course I/

,Q I § }--',-'-:-,L

~ il)*

[a /

Hunting/Fishing . I

/

Othe r, Not Li st ed 3B 3C / I

\

225 Park 1/4-GJ Sect ion Shadow Reg ion ~ * ~ ~

~

fJ*.

-= - -Q>~ ,,

@ _O~ -*~

/

I Date: ~/11/ 2022 ~

\... _, 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rin gs , copyng~t: ES~IDataand~aps2020 KLD Eng11~een ng, Energy Northwest 2.5 Miles www.~n_sus.gov Figure E3. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Columbia Generating Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in 2021 and the 2020 Census data had not been released, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of 377 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying the 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The results of the survey exceeded the sampling plan. A total of 424 completed houshole survey forms was obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-4.18% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census data. The number of samples obtained within each zip code, is also shown in Table F1.

Columbia Generating Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a Decline to State entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a Decline to State response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional Decline to State responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the Decline to State responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses received, the average household contains 2.33 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.95 people.

The difference between the Census data and survey data is approximately 21%, which exceeds the sampling error of 4.5%. This issue was discussed with Energy Northwest, and it was decided that the demographic survey of 2.33 people per household should be used for this study, as it will result in a more conservative number of evacuating vehicles (see Section 3.1 - the number of evacuating vehicles is determined by dividing population by average household size and then multiplying by the number of vehicles per household.) Using a smaller average household size will result in a larger number of evacuating vehicles.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.23. It should be noted that all households within the EPZ have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey results. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 present the automobile availability by household size. Majority of households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Ridesharing Approximately 83% of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F4.

Columbia Generating Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Figure F5 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to a job, to college or to high school on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 0.98 commuters per household in the EPZ, and 56.1% of households have at least one commuter. The survey data shows an average of 0.11 High School students commuters per household in the EPZ.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F6 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority (81%) of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work or college. The data shows an average of 1.12 commuters per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F7 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows an average of 0.62 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 62% of households indicated that no commuter in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; 20% indicated one commuter was impacted; 13% indicated two commuters were impacted; 3% indicated three commuters were impacted and 2% indicated four or more commuters were impacted.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The survey results show that approximately 11% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 31%

require a bus, 19% require a medical bus/van, 19% require a wheelchair accessible van, 14%

require an ambulance, and 17% indicated that they would require other accommodations.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F9. On average, evacuating households would use 1.47 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, approximately 48.6% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 51.4% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members, as shown in Figure F10.

If emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk, would you: This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place.

Columbia Generating Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The results indicate that approximately 93% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 7% would choose to evacuate the area.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the data obtained above is considerably higher than the federal guidance recommendation. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance to a shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.

If emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now, would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time.

Results indicate that 74.5% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 25.5% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation.

A total of 49.2% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 6.7% to a reception center, 13.7% to a hotel, motel or campground, 3.9% to a second or seasonal home, 0.2% would not evacuate and the remaining 26.3% answered other/dont know to this question, as shown in Figure F11.

If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses from the survey, approximately 56% of households have a family pet, as shown in Figure F12. Of the households with pets, 30.3% indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 66.2% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else, and 3.5% would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F13. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, approximately 96% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s) and 4% needs a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, approximately 90% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, or fish), 7% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, pig, etc.), 2% have other small pets/animals and 1% have other large pets/animals.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

Columbia Generating Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As discussed in Section F.3.1 and shown in Figure F7, the more than half (62.2%) of respondents indicated no commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; therefore the results for the time distribution of commuters (time to prepare to leave work/college and time to travel home from work/college) were used as is in this study.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

Approximately how much time would it take Commuter to complete preparation for leaving work, college or high school prior to starting the trip home? Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by 75 minutes. Approximately 90% can leave within 40 minutes.

How much time on average, would it take commuter to travel home from work, college or high school ? Figure F15 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ.

About 91% of commuters can arrive home within about 40 minutes of leaving work; nearly all within 75 minutes.

If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? Figure F16 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

Approximately 95% of households can be ready to leave home within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes; the remaining households (5%) require up to an additional 90 minutes.

If there are 68 inches of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 68 inches of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable. During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street.

Figure F17 presents the time required to clear 68 inches of snow from a driveway and begin the evacuation trip. Approximately 82% of households can have their car cleared and the driveway passable within 60 minutes; the remaining households (18%) would require up to an additional 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to begin their evacuation trip.

Columbia Generating Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. Columbia Demographic Survey Sampling Plan EPZ Households EPZ Population Desired Samples Zip Code within Zip Code (2010) Samples Obtained (2010) 98944 3 2 1 0 99301 1,767 539 126 34 99330 278 85 20 2 99343 681 192 45 8 99353 637 255 60 22 99354 1,322 532 125 358 Total 4,688 1,605 377 424 Average Household Size: 2.92 Household Size 70%

59.8%

60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

12.6% 15.0%

8.3%

10%

3.3%

1.0%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Columbia Generating Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Vehicle Availability 60%

51.5%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

21.9%

18.8%

20%

10%

5.2%

2.6%

0.0%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 16 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 6 Person Households Columbia Generating Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F4. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F5. Commuters per Households in the EPZ Columbia Generating Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Mode to Work 100%

80.7%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

11.2%

6.3%

1.0% 0.8%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ COVID19 Impact to Commuters 70%

62.2%

60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20.3%

20%

12.4%

10%

3.4% 1.7%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F7. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 Pandemic Columbia Generating Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional or Transportation Needs 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F8. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

Percent of Households 59%

60%

40% 37%

20%

3% 1%

0%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Columbia Generating Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F10. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating Evacuation Destinations 60%

49.2%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

26.3%

30%

20%

13.7%

6.7%

10%

3.9%

0.2%

0%

Friend/ Reception Hotel, A Second/ Would not Other/Don't Relative's Home Center Motel, Seasonal Home Evacuate Know or Campground Figure F11. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Columbia Generating Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Households with Pets/Animals 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F12. Households with Pets/Animals Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Columbia Generating Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Time to Commute Home from Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Columbia Generating Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway Columbia Generating Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Columbia Generating Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

gh99ij" 9 k9 8i 9

lÿRmnopqmr 0123456 789 98 9 99 998 89 9999997898998 9998 9  89  9

9 9789  9 99 99999998!9"89 9989999 9 9 

978999998  9# 9 99  999 9 99

$%&'(&)*%+,)-.%&/&)*&(012&+.&13)0(&3)%4$%&'(&3'2&/3&3&'4)5/3&3)0(&3)%4678+&'1()1)%4&19,)-.%&/&/3&(012&+

9  999 ; 99 9 9  9  9 9 9789 99 < 9 99

=> st8 89u 9vw

?> xy:;8 ; 89 9899 9898 98v

@ABCÿEFGHÿEFIÿEJAGK 0 LMN 0 OPL 0 OQRNN 0 SLTR 0 SUVN 0 WUX 0 WNVNM 0 NUYQO 0 MUMNÿLRÿ[LRN 0 \NRLÿ]MLMN^

0 _N`aUMNÿOLÿWObON c> xz:999;  9 9 899898  9v

@ABCÿEFGHÿEFIÿEJAGK 0 dNW 0 ML 0 _N`aUMNÿOLÿWObON e> {l989  8 98 9 9 v

@ABCÿEFGHÿEFIÿEJAGK 0 LMN 0 OPL 0 OQRNN 0 SLTR 0 SUVN 0 WUX 0 WNVNM 0 NUYQO 0 MUMNÿLRÿ[LRN 0 \NRLÿ]MLMN^

0 UÿPLTa_ÿNVb`TbONÿfdÿfUd`aN 0 UÿPLTa_ÿNVb`TbONÿfdÿfTW 0 _N`aUMNÿOLÿWObON

01 CDEF5GE6HIJEK95KL9E7;7HLLJELMN9EMIE8OM;EO57;9O5LPQ 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 ÿÿ

0  ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ)

• +,-./01 21 RDEF5GE6HIJEK95KL9EMIEJ57:EO57;9O5LPEOHN9EHEG5:SEHIPT5:E;UO55LEU566789E8OH8EOH;EV99IE896K5:H:MLJEM6KHU89PEP79E85E8O9E*+,-./01EKHIP96MUQ 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0 3

0 

0 

0 

0 ÿÿ

0  ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ4

• 566789:;

<1 WXDEF5GE6HIJEK95KL9EMIE8O9EO57;9O5LPEI5:6HLLJEYP7:MIZEI5I/*+,-.EU5IPM8M5I;[EU566789E85EHE\5V]E85EU5LL9Z9]E5:E85EOMZOE;UO55LE5IEHEPHMLJEVH;M;QE^

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0 3 "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ=>

0  "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ?

0  "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ@A 0  "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ@@

0 ÿÿ "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ@B 0  ÿÿ! "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ=>

01 DEF$&GHI@HIC$(J!KL$#(MG$M!==KL#'N$G!O$=(IP$('#$GHCG$QMG!!*$QLK"#ILQR 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 ÿÿ

0 ÿÿ

!"#$!%$&'()#*

+1 SF$&GHI@HIC$(J!KL$#(MG$M!==KL#'N$G!O$"!#Q$#(MG$T#'Q!I$KQK(**P$L'()#*$L!$O!'@N$M!**#C#N$!'$GHCG$QMG!!*R 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ, 4ÿ47-

UVW XYZ UW[\XV]^]W_ `Va_ÿWbc_ U`dbbWe:ÿb`ÿfb`_ÿd_bdW_ bcghÿ[cbi

bffYh_`ÿ6 0 0 0 0 0 0

.5/,ÿ07ÿ12 30/78ÿ45

!"#$!%$&'()#*

671 SF$&GHI@HIC$(J!KL$#(MG$M!==KL#'N$G!O$"!#Q$#(MG$T#'Q!I$KQK(**P$L'()#*$L!$O!'@N$M!**#C#$!'$GHCG$QMG!!*R 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ, 4ÿ47-

UVW XYZ UW[\XV]^]W_ `Va_ÿWbc_ U`dbbWe:ÿb`ÿfb`_ÿd_bdW_ bcghÿ[cbi

bffYh_`ÿ6 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿ: 0 0 0 0 0 0

.5/,ÿ07ÿ12 30/78ÿ48

!"#$!%$&'()#*

661 SF$&GHI@HIC$(J!KL$#(MG$M!==KL#'N$G!O$"!#Q$#(MG$T#'Q!I$KQK(**P$L'()#*$L!$O!'@N$M!**#C#$!'$GHCG$QMG!!*R 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ, 4ÿ47-

UVW XYZ UW[\XV]^]W_ `Va_ÿWbc_ U`dbbWe:ÿb`ÿfb`_ÿd_bdW_ bcghÿ[cbi

bffYh_`ÿ6 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿ: 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿj 0 0 0 0 0 0

.5/,ÿ07ÿ12 30/78ÿ49

!"#$!%$&'()#*

6:1 SF$&GHI@HIC$(J!KL$#(MG$M!==KL#'N$G!O$"!#Q$#(MG$T#'Q!I$KQK(**P$L'()#*$L!$O!'@N$M!**#C#$!'$GHCG$QMG!!*R 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ, 4ÿ47-

UVW XYZ UW[\XV]^]W_ `Va_ÿWbc_ U`dbbWe:ÿb`ÿfb`_ÿd_bdW_ bcghÿ[cbi

bffYh_`ÿ6 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿ: 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿj 0 0 0 0 0 0

bffYh_`ÿk 0 0 0 0 0 0

.5/,ÿ07ÿ12 30/78ÿ;8

&'()#*$<!=#$>'!=$?!'@AB!**#C#

012 @ABC678D69EFG6HI9468J623412?4K6D8E5L6IH6H2<46>899EH416MB6H86H123456G8946N1896D81<K6F8554?46816GI?G6OFG885P 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 0ÿ

D 000ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 101ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿ10ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 QN6R3416S678E1O6N816TE4OHI8J6@ABK6UV4FINW67414 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿÿkbcde2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ//

012345678946:1896;81<=>8554?4 02 @ABC678D69EFG6HI9468J623412?4K6D8E5L6IH6H2<46>899EH416MB6H86H123456G8946N1896D81<K6F8554?46816GI?G6OFG885P 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 0ÿ

D 000ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 101ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿ10ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 QN6R3416S678E1O6N816TE4OHI8J6@ABK6UV4FINW67414 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿÿkbcde2

012 DEFG9:;H9<IJK9LM<79;N956745B7O9H;I8P9ML9L5?79A;<<IL749QF9L;9L456789K;<79R4;<9H;4?O9J;887B79;49KMBK9SJK;;8T 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 0ÿ

D 000ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿÿ0ÿ!

D "ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

0)2 UR9V6749F9:;I4S9R;49WI7SLM;N9DEFO9XY7JMRZ9:747

[\]^\ÿ_[]`aÿbcÿdefgÿ]`hi\gÿcegÿjf\hkbe`ÿ)#ÿbhÿf`l\gÿÿmefgh2

• 6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 3456789:;<79=4;<9>;4?@A;887B7 0C2 DEnG9:;H9<IJK9LM<79;N956745B7O9H;I8P9ML9L5?79A;<<IL749Qn9L;9L456789K;<79R4;<9H;4?O9J;887B79;49KMBK9SJK;;8T 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 0ÿ

D 000ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿÿ0ÿ!

D "ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

2 UR9V6749F9:;I4S9R;49WI7SLM;N9DEnO9XY7JMRZ9:747

[\]^\ÿ_[]`aÿbcÿdefgÿ]`hi\gÿcegÿjf\hkbe`ÿ)0#ÿbhÿf`l\gÿÿmefgh2

012 ABCD789E7:FGH7IJ:579K734523@5L7E9F6M7JI7I3=57?9::FI527NC7I97I234567H9:57O29:7E92=L7G9665@57927HJ@H7PGH996Q 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 10ÿ

D 010ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿÿ1ÿ

D !ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

002 RO7S4527C789F2P7O927TF5PIJ9K7ABCL7UV5GJOW78525 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿ0ÿkbcde2 02 ABlD789E7:FGH7IJ:579K734523@5L7E9F6M7JI7I3=57?9::FI527Nl7I97I234567H9:57O29:7E92=L7G9665@57927HJ@H7PGH996Q 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 10ÿ

D 010ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿÿ1ÿ

D !ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 RO7S4527C789F2P7O927TF5PIJ9K7ABlL7UV5GJOW78525 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿ0ÿkbcde2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 123456789:57;29:7<92=>?9665@5

012 *+,-./01.2345.6728.09.:;8<:=8>.103?@.76.6:A8.B022368<.C,.60.6<:;8?.5028.D<02.10<A>.40??8=8.0<.57=5.E4500?F 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D 1ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 001ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 GD.H;8<.I./03<E.D0<.J38E6709.*+,>.KL847DM./8<8 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ)"ÿU[ÿYS_OZÿ0ÿXYZ[2 0(2 *+I-./01.2345.6728.09.:;8<:=8>.103?@.76.6:A8.B022368<.CI.60.6<:;8?.5028.D<02.10<A>.40??8=8.0<.57=5.E4500?F 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D 1ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 001ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

D !ÿ0ÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

0)2 GD.H;8<.I./03<E.D0<.J38E6709.*+I>.KL847DM./8<8 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ)0"ÿU[ÿYS_OZÿ0ÿXYZ[2

012 CDEF;G9H;IJKL;78I4;9:;6=436B4M;H9J<N;87;76?4;A9IIJ743;OE;79;736=4<;L9I4;P39I;H93?M;K9<<4B4;93;L8BL;QKL99<R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

D "ÿ0ÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

2 SP;T=43;U;G9J3Q;P93;VJ4Q789:;CDEM;W54K8PX;G434 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿj#ÿfÿd^kZeÿ0ÿlcdef2

2 CDmF;G9H;IJKL;78I4;9:;6=436B4M;H9J<N;87;76?4;A9IIJ743;Om;79;736=4<;L9I4;P39I;H93?M;K9<<4B4;93;L8BL;QKL99<R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

D "ÿ0ÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

02 SP;T=43;U;G9J3Q;P93;VJ4Q789:;CDmM;W54K8PX;G434 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿj#ÿfÿd^kZeÿ0ÿlcdef2

)6*+ÿ,8ÿ-. /,*89ÿ01 2345636789:;79;<46=4;>93?@A9<<4B4

001 BCDE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:OD:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>Q:M8;;3A3:82:J7AJ:RMJ88;:42782:68:R652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3S 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

01 TP:U<32:V:W8L2R:P82:XL3R6789:BCDQ:Y43M7PI:W323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿk"ÿagÿe_l[fÿÿmdefg1 (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ/0 12345256789:68:;35<3:=82>?@8;;3A3 01 BCDE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:OD:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>Q:M8;;3A3:82:J7AJ:RMJ88;:42782:68:R652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3S 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739 D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

01 TP:U<32:V:W8L2R:P82:XL3R6789:BCDQ:Y43M7PI:W323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿk"ÿagÿe_l[fÿÿmdefg1

012 EFGH<I664:J9K785=L<M:N<KOPM<89K5<N:O=Q<98<87@5<B:KKO854<RG<8:<P:K6=585<645674789:;<S:4<=57>9;C<N:4@T<P:==5C5<:4<M9CM<UPM::=<649:4<8:<U87489;C<8M5<8496<M:K5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

0)2 WS<X>54<G<Y:O4U<S:4<ZO5U89:;<EFGT<[65P9SL<Y545

\]^_]ÿ\^abÿcdÿefghÿ^aij]hÿdfhÿkg]ilcfaÿD#ÿciÿgam]hÿÿnfghi2

• 6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 345674789:;<8:<=57>5<?:4@AB:==5C5 0D2 EFoH<I664:J9K785=L<M:N<KOPM<89K5<N:O=Q<98<87@5<B:KKO854<Ro<8:<P:K6=585<645674789:;<S:4<=57>9;C<N:4@T<P:==5C5<:4<M9CM<UPM::=<649:4<8:<U87489;C<8M5<8496<M:K5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

2 WS<X>54<G<Y:O4U<S:4<ZO5U89:;<EFoT<[65P9SL<Y545

\]^_]ÿ\^abÿcdÿefghÿ^aij]hÿdfhÿkg]ilcfaÿD#ÿciÿgam]hÿÿnfghi2

012 BCDE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:OD:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>Q:M8;;3A3:82:J7AJ:RMJ88;:42782:68:R652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 010ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿÿ1ÿ

D !ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 TP:U<32:D:V8L2R:P82:WL3R6789:BCDQ:X43M7PI:V323 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿj"ÿfÿd^kZeÿÿlcdef2 02 BCmE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:Om:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>Q:M8;;3A3:82:J7AJ:RMJ88;:42782:68:R652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D 1ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 010ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿÿ1ÿ

D !ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

D #%ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

002 TP:U<32:D:V8L2R:P82:WL3R6789:BCmQ:X43M7PI:V323 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿj"ÿfÿd^kZeÿÿlcdef2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 12345256789:68:;35<3:=82>?@8;;3A3

012 *+,-./00123456789:.;2<.5=>;.7458.<2=9?.47.76@8.A255=781.B,.72.>2509878.0180616742C.D21.986E4CF.<21@G.>2998F8.21.;4F;.H>;229.01421.72.H76174CF.7;8.7140.;258I 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D 1ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 001ÿ

D 01ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ01ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

02 JD.KE81.L.M2=1H.D21.N=8H742C.*+,G.O08>4D:.M818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿa"ÿW]ÿ[UbQ\ÿÿcZ[\]2 0(2 *+L-./00123456789:.;2<.5=>;.7458.<2=9?.47.76@8.A255=781.BL.72.>2509878.0180616742C.D21.986E4CF.<21@G.>2998F8.21.;4F;.H>;229.01421.72.H76174CF.7;8.7140.;258I 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D 1ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D ÿ

D 1ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 001ÿ

D 01ÿ

D 111ÿ

D 1ÿÿÿ

D !ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

D #%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ01ÿ

D #%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

D !ÿÿ

D &'ÿÿ$

0)2 JD.KE81.L.M2=1H.D21.N=8H742C.*+LG.O08>4D:.M818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿa"ÿW]ÿ[UbQ\ÿÿcZ[\]2

012 ?@AB:2CCD6E4F85=9G:H6I:F<JH:54F=:I6<93:45:58K=:L6FF<5=D:MA:56:J6FC9=5=:CD=C8D85467:N6D:9=8O47P:I6DKQ:J699=P=:6D:H4PH:>JH669:CD46D:56:>58D547P:5H=:5D4C:H6F=R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

2 SN:TO=D:U:V6<D>:N6D:;<=>5467:?@AQ:WC=J4NG:V=D=

XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿ1#ÿ_eÿc]iYdÿÿjbcde2

2 ?@kB:2CCD6E4F85=9G:H6I:F<JH:54F=:I6<93:45:58K=:L6FF<5=D:Mk:56:J6FC9=5=:CD=C8D85467:N6D:9=8O47P:I6DKQ:J699=P=:6D:H4PH:>JH669:CD46D:56:>58D547P:5H=:5D4C:H6F=R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿ

D 0ÿ

D 00ÿ

D 0ÿ

D ÿ

D ÿÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

D $&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

D "ÿÿ!

D '(ÿÿ%

2 SN:TO=D:U:V6<D>:N6D:;<=>5467:?@kQ:WC=J4NG:V=D=

XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿ10#ÿ_eÿc]iYdÿÿjbcde2

)6*+ÿ,8ÿ-. /,*89ÿ01 2334546789:;<=>5467>

012 ()*+,-+./0+1232+4567825+9.+:/;4:+40<=/37<728+</+264;04<2>+=/1+?0;=+<7?2+1/0:5+7<+<4@2+<=2+=/082=/:5+</+A4;@+;:/<=7BC>+?257;4<7/B8>+82;032+<=2+=/082>+:/45+<=2

43>+4B5+;/?A

2<2+A32A434<7/B8+A37/3+</+264;04<7BC+<=2+4324D 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿ0ÿ

D 01ÿ

D 10ÿ

D ÿÿÿÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

D ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ 

D  !ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ1ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ 

D 1ÿ ÿÿ1ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D 1ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ ÿ1ÿ

D 1ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D 1ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ 

D ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

D ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿ0ÿ 

D 0ÿ ÿÿ0ÿ ÿ1ÿ

D 0ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ 

D " ÿÿ 

D #ÿÿ"$

D  %$ÿÿ

02 ,-+E623+F+G/038+-/3+H028<7/B+()>+IA2;7-.+G232 JKLMKÿNJLOPÿQRÿSTUVÿLOWXKVÿRTVÿYUKWZQTOÿ&ÿQWÿUO[KVÿÿ\TUVW2 002 ((*+,-+<=232+432+F]^+7B;=28+/-+8B/1+/B+./03+5376214.+/3+;039>+1/0:5+./0+B225+</+8=/62:+/0<+</+264;04<2D+,-+.28>+=/1+?0;=+<7?2>+/B+46234C2>+1/0:5+7<+<4@2+./0+</

243+<=2+F]^+7B;=28+/-+8B/1+</+?/62+<=2+;43+-3/?+<=2+5376214.+/3+;039+</+92C7B+<=2+264;04<7/B+<37AD+_880?2+<=2+3/458+432+A48849

2*

3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D &ÿ#ÿÿ"ÿ

D ÿÿ0ÿ

D 01ÿ

D 10ÿ

D ÿÿ'ÿÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

D ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

D ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ 

D  !ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ1ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

D  !ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ 

D " ÿ1ÿ 

D  %$ÿÿ

02 ,-+E623++G/038+-/3+H028<7/B+((>+IA2;7-.+G232 JKLMKÿNJLOPÿQRÿSTUVÿLOWXKVÿRTVÿYUKWZQTOÿ&ÿQWÿUO[KVÿ1ÿ\TUVW2

012 TUVMJWKXPKMPYKZQ[\ML]KMSO^_K`MR[MYKRYWKMQSM\RO`M]ROPK]RWaMb]RMKcOQKMdOSZLQRSXWMR`Me`XSPYR`LXLQRSMSKKaPMQSMXSMKfXZOXLQRSg 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

-  ; < I h  ?ÿ ÿh G" 000000

?&ÿG"B8 000000 C&ÿ6&&""$ÿ8& 000000 6#$ & 000000

 000000 02 iYKZQ[\MjkL]K`jMe`XSPYR`LXLQRSMlKKaMmKWRb 02 TnVMJWKXPKMZ]RRPKMRSKMR[ML]KM[RWWRbQSog 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ##$"ÿÿ%&ÿ'2 D ÿÿ%&ÿ(  )ÿ ÿ#ÿÿ"ÿ##$"ÿ2 D *&ÿÿ+

,-2 TpqVMr[MK^K`oKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXafQPKM\ROMLRMP]KWLK`sQSsYWXZKMQSMXSMK^K`oKSZ\M_KZXOPKM\ROMX`KMSRLMQSML]KMX`KXMR[MQPtuMbROWaM\ROg 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D +./01/23435067/

D /867961/

D */704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,;2 TpmVMr[MK^K`oKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXafQPKM\ROMLRMP]KWLK`sQSsYWXZKMSRbMQSMXSMK^K`oKSZ\MXSaMYRPPQ_W\MKfXZOXLKMWXLK`Mb]QWKMYKRYWKMQSMRL]K`MX`KXPMX`KMXafQPKaMLRMKfXZOXLK SRbuMbROWaM\ROg 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D +./01/23435067/

D /867961/

D */704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,<2 TpvVMr[MK^K`oKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXafQPKM\ROMLRMKfXZOXLKMaOKMLRMXSMK^K`oKSZ\uMb]K`KMbROWaM\ROMKfXZOXLKMLRw 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

D 6ÿ2/0618/=+ÿ:2ÿ>2/4*=+ÿ.:?/

D 6ÿ2/7/51:4ÿ7/41/2 D 6ÿ.:1/0@ÿ?:1/0ÿ:2ÿ76?5A2:94*

D 6ÿ+/7:4*B+/6+:460ÿ.:?/

D C:90*ÿ4:1ÿ/867961/

D *:4D1ÿE4:C D :1./2ÿF+(&!)ÿGH D */704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,I2 dQWWMQSMkexyzMXSPbK`PM[R`McOKPLQRSMTpv JKLMNOKPLQRSP

012 HIJKL#M# NOPO$MQR!SO$TU#VO$"WOXR!SY 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0 

0 

0 ÿÿ

 !"#$!

0%2 HIZK[NOMQ#\QR!SO$TU#VO$"WOXR!ST#M# NOPY

+, -6ÿ4ÿ.,4.ÿ4// 

0



12

23

42

5 4

4 6

0

30

42ÿ7ÿ387ÿ9:(;<=>ÿ1(?@AB

'(4

& )*

2ÿ20ÿ387ÿ9:(;<=>ÿ1(?@AB 002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0 ÿÿ

 !"#$!

0C2 HI]K[NO^# XTM# T#^"NM# VQR!SO$TU#VO$"WOXR!S"\M# NOT#PO_ OY 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0 6ÿ3ÿD4ÿ7ÿÿÿ42 0 6ÿ3ÿD4ÿ7ÿ7D42ÿ

0 Eÿ3ÿÿ47

0 ÿÿ

 !"#$!

0F2 HILKL#M# NOP!\\"_"$V##W"$M# VPN"_XR!S#PO_ O^"NM# VQR!SO$TU#VO$"WOXR!SY 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0 

0 

0 DÿGÿÿ22 0 ÿÿ

0 &'()*

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Google Forms

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by each county.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs and ACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TCP and ACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) simulations with existing TCPs and ACPs that were provided in the approved county plans, with no additional TCPs or ACPs.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TCPs and ACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point (or ACP), the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the number for those nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP or ACP, the control type is indicated as TCP/ACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the county emergency plans, are mapped as aqua colored dots in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ. As discussed in Section 3.9, external traffic was considered on three routes which traverse the study area - US 395, I82, and I182 - in this analysis. The generation of the external trips on these routes ceased at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE in the simulation due to the ACPs.

G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMP) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMP.

Columbia Generating Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The majority of the TCPs/ACPs identified in the TMP were located at intersections with stop control. Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region and the entire EPZ (Region R01, R02, R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7. As shown in Table G2, the ETE did not change at both the 90th and 100th percentile when the MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TCPs and ACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, there is no congestion (LOS B or better) within the 2 Mile Region and 5Mile Region. There is congestion (LOS C or worse) beyond the 5Mile Region, located in Northern Richland (Section 3C). The congestion within the EPZ (in Richland) clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE. As a result, the TCPs and ACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the 90th percentile ETE. In addition, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary, dictates the 100th percentile ETE); as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TCPs or ACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

Columbia Generating Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations Previous Control TCP/ACP Name Node Number (Prior to being a TCP/ACP)

Sagemoor Rd & Glade North Rd 140 Stop Sign Eltopia West Rd & Glade North Rd 124 Stop Sign Road 170 & Glade North Rd 134 Stop Sign Road 170 & Sagehill Rd 135 Stop Sign Alder Rd & Glade North Rd 356 Stop Sign Birch Rd & Glade North Rd 536 Stop Sign Cedar Rd & Glade North Rd 539 Stop Sign Dogwood Rd & Glade North Rd 355 Stop Sign Elm Rd & Glade North Rd 540 Stop Sign Ringold Rd & Glade North Rd 144 Stop Sign Klamath Rd & Glade North Rd 133 Stop Sign Wahluke SB @ Hollingsworth/Chestnut 361 Stop Sign Buffalo Rd & Hollingsworth Rd 363 Stop Sign Highway 395 @ Eltopia West 45 Stop Sign Harrington Road @ Twin Bridges 278 Stop Sign SR 240 @ SR 24 260 Stop Sign 10 South @ SR240 519 Stop Sign Sagemoor Rd & Glade North Rd 74 Stop Sign Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 th Region 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 1:10 1:10 0:00 1:50 1:50 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 2:00 2:00 0:00 4:35 4:35 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 2:00 2:00 0:00 4:40 4:40 0:00 Columbia Generating Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

G r a.nt County 24'\------------~R~1* =:-

Wah~uk~ Wildlife_ _ _-()_ _ _

.::::::.._..:::,-c-,_L------...::,-,--------------------;.,

1

+

w,

/ / ~ ---- *, /

/ Co/4.,mJ?la '-

/

/

/

/

I

\t . )

I \

I  ?'"' \

~r~. *y

\ .,-cFranklin r \

/

• ' 1 ;County Y \

4 /

\'

I

/ . , , ..  : I

5 I ' *~

I

'~

,....,--.,...,,- I I Coi,,nty }~

0

• -~;:,7~ ..*

\r I I

l' " \ ~.., \

T I

3A' I

\ \

' '- 2 I

\

\

\

\

CGS 0 Access and Traffic Contro l Point 0

I Sectio n

/

/ I Shadow Region Da te: 5/2/2022

[o /

Pasco cofvright:E5RIDa taandM~ps2020 KLDEngineering,EnergyNJrthwest www.cen~us.gov

\ -

2 S 10 15 Mile Rings Figure G1. Access and Traffic Control Points for the Columbia Generating Station Columbia Generating Station G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H31). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Columbia Generating Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Section Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Section Region Description CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R04 SSE, S, SSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R05 SW, WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R06 W, WNW 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R07 NW 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R08 NNW, N, NNE 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R09 NE 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R10 ENE, E, ESE 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R11 SE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A SSE, S, SSW Refer to Region R04 N/A SW, WSW Refer to Region R05 N/A W, WNW Refer to Region R06 N/A NW Refer to Region R07 R12 NNW, N 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R13 NNE, NE, ENE 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R14 E, ESE 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

N/A SE Refer to Region R11 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Section Region Wind Direction From: CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R15 SSE, S, SSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R16 SW, WSW 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R17 W, WNW 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R18 NW 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R19 NNW, N, NNE 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R20 NE 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R21 ENE, E, ESE 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R22 SE 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R23 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

Section (s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace R01, then Evacuate Columbia Generating Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation by CGS and Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 N/A CGS, 1 Refer to Region R05 N/A CGS, 2 Refer to Region R07 N/A CGS, 3 Refer to Region R13 N/A CGS, 4 Refer to Region R11 Evacuation by Section1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R24 1 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R25 2 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R26 3 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R27 4 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Evacuation by Site Specific Combinations1 Section Region EPZ Sections Included CGS 1 2 3A 3B 3C 4 R28 1, 2 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R29 2, 3 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R30 3, 4 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R31 1, 4 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Section(s) Evacuate Section(s) ShelterinPlace 1

Additional Regions created are site-specific and requested by Energy Northwest to capture additional evacuation possibilities that not occur using the federal guidance.

Columbia Generating Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mes,

\

\

.l i? Fra.nklin County Benton County 1

(l Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'--:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings Date:1/lf!022 Copyright:fiRI Data and Maps 2020

- - Wind Sector Boundary KLDEngileering,EnergyNorthwest 2.5 www.ct'ns1us.gov Figure H1. Region R01 Columbia Generating Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mes, F r a.nklin County Benton County Legend

(/

CGS 0 Section

~ Evacuate

'--:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings Date: l/lf]022 Copyrig~~ ESRI DataandMaps2020

- - W ind Sector Boundary KLDEngmeering,EnergyNorthwest 2.5 www.c t'ns1us.gov Figure H2. Region R02 Columbia Generating Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mes, F r a.nklin County Benton County Legend

(/

CGS 0 Section

~ Evacuate West Richland

'--:, 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings Date: l/lf]022 Copyrig~~ ESRI DataandMaps2020

- - W ind Sector Boundary KLDEngmeering,EnergyNorthwest 2.5 www.c t'ns1us.gov Figure H3. Region R03 Columbia Generating Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin

240: County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - /

Legend

~

~

• CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H4. Region R04 Columbia Generating Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - /

Legend

~

~

• CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H5. Region R05 Columbia Generating Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H6. Region R06 Columbia Generating Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H7. Region R07 Columbia Generating Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H8. Region R08 Columbia Generating Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

/J\

I Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - ----------- -- - - /

Legend

~

Gl CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~KI u:ta ana -~aP,s lUlU I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H9. Region R09 Columbia Generating Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

IRegion RlO I w~ ,

Me.

'\

>\ '

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H10. Region R10 Columbia Generating Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

IRegion Rlll -- -

Me.

>/

'\

\

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H11. Region R11 Columbia Generating Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H12. Region R12 Columbia Generating Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

/J\

I Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - - - -* - _, - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

Legend

~

Gl CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~KI u:ta ana -~aP,s lUlU I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H13. Region R13 Columbia Generating Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~ ,

Me.

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

240:

/J\

I Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - - - -* - _, - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

Legend

~

Gl CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t ~KI u:ta ana -~ aP,s lUlU I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H14. Region R14 Columbia Generating Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

I '/ \

/

\

• _J '\

Legend '\

'\. I ~ /

CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H15. Region R15 Columbia Generating Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

I '/ \

/

\

• _J '\

Legend '\

'\. I ~ /

CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H16. Region R16 Columbia Generating Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H17. Region R17 Columbia Generating Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

IRegion R18 I -- -

Me.

\

\

\

Frunklin County IL- - --t~ -\

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary Figure H18. Region R18 Columbia Generating Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~

Me.

\

\

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary Figure H19. Region R19 Columbia Generating Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~

Me.

\

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary Figure H20. Region R20 Columbia Generating Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~ ,

Me.

\

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary Figure H21. Region R21 Columbia Generating Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

IRegion R22 I -- -

Me.

>/

'\

\

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H22. Region R22 Columbia Generating Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~ ,

Me.

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

~ Shelter, then Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mile Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary Figure H23. Region R23 Columbia Generating Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - /

Legend

~

~

• CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H24. Region R24 Columbia Generating Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H25. Region R25 Columbia Generating Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

/J\

I Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - - - -* - _, - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

Legend

~

Gl CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~KI u:ta ana -~aP,s lUlU I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H26. Region R26 Columbia Generating Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

IRegion R27 I -- -

Me.

>/

'\

\

\

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H27. Region R27 Columbia Generating Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H28. Region R28 Columbia Generating Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

\

\

Frunklin County Benton County Legend CGS

~ Section

~ Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary 2.5 Figure H29. Region R29 Columbia Generating Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

w~ ,

Me.

\

\

.l i? Frunklin

~: County 1

240:

/J\

I Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - - - -* - _, - - - - - - - *- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

Legend

~

Gl CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t ~KI u:ta ana -~ aP,s lUlU I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H30. Region R30 Columbia Generating Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Me.

Frunklin

240: County I

YV f-~ J\

Benton County 2

~ I

/

/

- - /

Legend

~

~

• CGS Section Evacuate

'-~ 2, 5, 10 Mi le Rings

- - Wind Sector Boundary I ~~~v_r1g~~ t~K1u:taana_~aP.s1uiu I - \) I '\ 10 2.5 Figure H31. Region R31 Columbia Generating Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are 191 source links (origins) in the model.

The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straight line distance of 3.18 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)

(Region R03) for each scenario. Rain scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7, and 10) and snow scenarios (Scenarios 7 and 11), exhibit slower average speeds, slightly higher average delays, and longer average travel times compared to good weather scenarios. As expected, when comparing Scenario 13 (special event) and Scenario 9, the additional vehicles introduced by the special event lowers the average speeds, slightly increases delay and increases the average travel time. When comparing Scenario 14 (roadway closure) and Scenario 1, the lane closure along I182 increases the networkwide average travel time and decreases the average travel speed.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -US 395, I82, Rte 4S/Stevens Drive/State Highway (SH) 240 southbound and George Washington Way southbound - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions.

The study area has ample roadway capacity to service all evacuating vehicles within the EPZ. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, there is minimal to no congestion (LOS C or better) on the aforementioned evacuation routes, except for on George Washington Way and Rte 4S/Stevens Drive/SH 240, which clears at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE.

Therefore, the speeds are relatively close to the free flow speeds for the entirety of the evacuation.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time.

Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow condition.

Columbia Generating Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are very close together as a result of the limited traffic congestion in the EPZ, as discussed in Section 7.3, for all scenarios except during an event at Horns Rapids Motocross Park (Scenario 13 - winter, weekend, midday, with good weather, special event), there is a large increase in the number of transient vehicles within the EPZ due to the special event. As seen in Figure J14, the curves are spatially separated for about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and then become close together as a result of the minimal traffic congestion in the EPZ after this time.

Columbia Generating Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 312 217 218 73 NE 8222 1,700 8320 4,500 403 297 352 102 E 8098 6,750 8333 4,500 8003 4,500 366 264 466 44 S 8098 6,750 8320 4,500 8003 4,500 204 123 287 107 S 8010 4,500 8194 2,850 8003 4,500 201 122 123 27 S 8010 4,500 8194 2,850 8003 4,500 150 89 90 15 S 8010 4,500 8194 2,850 8003 4,500 539 392 446 59 SW 8098 6,750 8320 4,500 8098 6,750 720 544 542 59 SE 8003 4,500 8010 4,500 8003 4,500 333 236 97 41 S 8010 4,500 8320 4,500 8003 4,500 394 288 289 46 S 8010 4,500 8194 2,850 Columbia Generating Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average Travel Time (Min/VehMi) 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 NetworkWide Average Delay Time (Min/VehMi) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 NetworkWide Average Speed (mph) 52.7 46.3 57.7 51.6 57.0 52.0 45.7 Total Vehicles Exiting Network 29,548 29,689 25,288 25,386 18,095 29,587 29,718 Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average Travel Time (Min/VehMi) 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 NetworkWide Average Delay Time (Min/VehMi) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 NetworkWide Average Speed (mph) 41.9 58.6 52.3 50.3 56.9 44.4 48.5 Total Vehicles Exiting Network 29,784 24,798 24,866 24,943 17,795 27,918 29,593 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours:minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:40 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Major Evacuation Route Name (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time US 395 Southbound (SB) 23.6 67.3 21.1 67.1 21.1 65.2 21.7 64.3 22.0 68.6 20.7 US 395 Northbound (NB) 24.4 65.4 22.4 62.3 23.5 65.2 22.4 63.2 23.1 62.3 23.4 I82 Eastbound (EB)/SB 10.3 69.8 8.9 69.9 8.9 67.3 9.2 65.0 9.5 70.0 8.9 I82/I182/US12 EB 22.7 69.0 19.7 68.9 19.8 67.8 20.1 66.5 20.5 69.3 19.6 Rte 4S/Stevens Drive/SH 240 SB 11.5 51.8 13.3 45.0 15.4 53.3 13.0 54.1 12.8 57.2 12.1 George Washington Way SB 5.5 33.9 9.7 31.6 10.4 32.3 10.2 32.9 10.0 43.0 7.7 Columbia Generating Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:40 Upstream Downstream Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Road Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 1,345 3,120 3,991 4,332 4,384 I82 9 299 15% 14% 14% 15% 15%

1,229 2,990 4,426 4,795 4,860 I83 402 298 14% 14% 16% 16% 16%

296 1,182 1,588 1,710 1,277 Keene Street 420 302 3% 5% 6% 6% 6%

1,393 3,866 4,716 4,923 4,964 George Washington Way 421 300 15% 17% 17% 17% 17%

93 584 1,021 1,192 1,225 US395 429 343 1% 3% 4% 4% 4%

225 471 561 591 593 SH17 430 344 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

113 315 408 437 439 Saghill Road 431 222 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1,024 2,707 3,305 3,431 3,456 US395 432 327 11% 12% 12% 12% 12%

2,346 5,183 6,016 6,148 6,168 US12 433 329 26% 23% 22% 21% 21%

525 879 881 881 881 SH240 519 159 6% 4% 3% 3% 3%

494 850 852 852 852 SH24 519 520 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Columbia Generating Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

~s]Y--c wy '

,~,

Legend CGS

• Source Link Centroid Section Shadow Region

'"4/28/2022 ght:ESRI DataandMaps20 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings 1gineering, Energy Northwest

.census.gov Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Columbia Generating Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

80%

Percent of Total Vehicles 60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Columbia Generating Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Columbia Generating Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Columbia Generating Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8)

Columbia Generating Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Columbia Generating Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

80%

Percent of Total Vehicles 60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Columbia Generating Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Columbia Generating Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 42 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K43) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in December 2020.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point [TCP] and access control point [ACP],

uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 453 Pretimed 1 Actuated 62 Stop 50 TCP/ACP 29 Yield 14 Total: 609 Columbia Generating Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

wA' ,

Gr,int 26o~~ e/,,

t-1--

Co,iniy

- - -\,..

l r , I 7 10 4\

""* ~ "T~-=_ro I~".J,l!~~I\ ./l,

• I 4

I A .

• . I i ~)

I ~ / 11.- ~t ,~\

I

,7 ,-

~:,i i i i i i i ~-

J!!

\ I 7-:"" 1:1 l ~

3A '1 \ , T /

.\ /I'

,n r-rl ,~~***

~

~*

~'-::;

• ii ~

'0-'\ /

~

Legend CGS

• Node

- - Link Index Grid Section Shadow Region 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K1. CGS LinkNode Analysis Network Columbia Generating Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• • -**-**-**-**-**-* *- **-**-**-**-* *- **-**-**-**-**-**-**-**- **-**-**-**-**- **-**-**-**-------.----- **-**-**-**-**-**- **-~"'ot,c~

7 -1 CGS Evacuation Time Estimate r *-*,.-r1/2 .:;-:-=

-:-1-..,.-,

i tiW'L ~--~-~~~-__j __L_in_k_-_N_o_d_e_A_n_a_i_vs_i_s_N_e_t_,w,...o_rk_F_ig_u_r_e_s__...

- Ji -- -

CGS GJ Secti on

• Node Link

~ Shadow Regio n Water i----,~~

,*~~i~~ i1:!~-:JJ~jt w ". Grid 1

.!~0~ tsr~~c:1 JI

-+- Rail roa d M Park r-----~~t lj:*2:[cr-'

'r ,-,..,i.:;ii,~ [ I /;)

O Copyright:ESRIDataandMaps2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering tJ Ind ex Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rin gs L_""'_~L_..,~r=r=.t:IJ_~LJ_J Mi le Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Columbia Generating Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

- s,-**-**

________ _l _______ i,__ ____ ---- ---- -------------- --- --F o/  !

! ii

!ii " '1/4 i'i i' '

!! ----~ / '

i ,~

(1,0<

~

i d:Pt i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i i

i Legend I e GJ Section L"nk-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS Shadow Region 1 w-¢-,

• Node ~ N Water Grid 2

- Link M

C~~:::v

. . SRI Data and Maps ~020 Park Copyright.E . ht* KLDEngineenng

-+- Railroad 10 15 Mile Rings Data Northwest, Mile www.census.gov Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Columbia Generating Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Scooteney Reservoir Horseshoe(f state Rte 26o Camp Lakes Grid 3

Franklin County

• A 8342 Merion Rd

. 344 A

---

--- NBaartR~d- ---------------------- wLmco/nHd--**~-=-=*=1**=-=*=----------------r;ncoln'Rde A30---:---

Legend

• • CGS Node

- Link GI Section

~ Shadow Region Water M

-+- Railroad Park

[J Index Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Columbia Generating Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

---

----------------------------------~

i

~1o*er_---'--

ColdFreEM-I w~ *~

~rNW 1,¥ " 520 520 516 i

-~-"'

i Gricl 4

B_enton County i

i i

i i

i i

i

--- i i.______ _ ----------- --------------------------- -----------

Legend CGS Node 0

~

Section Shadow Region

- Link Water Grid 4

-+- Railroad M Park Copyrigh t *ESRI

[J Index Grid 2, 5, 10, 15 M"I1 e Rings

- Miles Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Columbia Generating Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: 4 /

/

/

/

/

I I

I I

I lsss Section: 3A !i I  !~

fT CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GI Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water M

-+- Railroad Park Copyright : ESRI Data and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Columbia Generating Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Frunklin County Section: 1 Section: 4 Benton County

---

i

---

i

.,,. e 46 1 i

,--------------------- -- ~----------------- ------------------------------------ -------- - ------------------------ --------------! --

i i Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GI Sect io n Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Lin k Wat er M

-+- Rai lroad Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Columbia Generating Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Basin Hill Rd Franklin County Bellflower Rd Grid 7

Section: 1 i~

co,i mbia ......_

,!%& ' - Davis Ln B ;e n t o n,.__ '- ,

C !7 u n t y ------------- --------,:::--------- - ----------------------------------~ ---------------------

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CG S GI Sectio n Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Link Wat er M

-+- Rai lroad Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Columbia Generating Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

~

"'..!1 f---_ "

_:S:'.'he

..'.:::,fi:;::ie:::_

fd :_::

Rd: : _ _

~

~

"' ,.._2

~ ~ 16 Legend CGS GJ Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Columbia Generating Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

i 34

~~=,===-

> *330-

• ~

y l/{~

lo

~

v~

Mesa~Cl) PiPioJ. Rd 533 *** *53~

530 y

• 529A_

Russel/Rd_ _ _ O ~

i Ii

!9 i!

_J_~------------1

• CGS GJ Section . L. k-Node Analysis Netw

-=~-==

Shadow Region w-¢-, Grid 9

• Node ~ N in

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park . . RI Data and Maps ~020 Copyright. E~i ht: KLD Engineering Data C~~:r:y Northwest, L_J Index Grid ,,.. - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings OJ

- Mile www.census.gov Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Columbia Generating Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

G_cid 10 Franklin County Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate CG S GJ Sect io n Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Lin k Wat er Grid 10

-+- Rai lroad M Park Copyright : ESRI Data and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Ind ex Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Mile Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Columbia Generating Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: 1

~i~

~ _J___l_---,f--------(::---r--(ir

! sss a:f

~

Section: 3A

~

---:-~-= ------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ___________ l_ __

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate CGS GJ Section Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Columbia Generating Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

__ _i **-**-**-**-**-**-* *- ' *' **-**"\.= --*-**-**-**-**-**-**-* *-**-**-**

' CasperLn

' "\

• 213

. '\ J, River 22J*/

1-.

\(

SecUon:~\

\

G~l*d \

Fr<tnklin County

\

Benton County 12 \

\ 230

\

\

I I

7IGGS- _______,, ,. -

Section:

Section: 2 L.------------,----~- /

t°' 71

• 1,.6_7 _ _ _.,..._

E/topia j est Rd Eltopia Rd

• • -:*- -------------------------------*l r **---------------------------------- ='---- --------,-----------------------------------7***

Legend CG S GJ Sectio n

• Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Link Wat er

-+- Rai lroad M Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Columbia Generating Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7~

---:~ 1 ________________________________ / ____________________________ _

/

.*I -o a:

.II "O

o

• 0

~

i i o\,O \

Ironwood Rd \

\

~

~---}*

a:

Sectio l: 1 Grid .,

"""""""""=""""""""""......j,"""""'"""""""""....:.

E~fto:i::

ei:a, a R:,:i;ngQi.l~l:d::,Rd,: ~R~ing,.;o:;fd:.:R,:,d-;ll3---i

, 45 ~ "'

~ - 144 Franklin ~-i County 5  !

.5 fil E ,;

~ 0 CJ (.)

a:

~

~

c5

~~!~

.r:~* - - - - - - - - - ,:::,~- --- - - -

297 ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J.----~~~~-4----*----,a1111111111;-11111===a ,,.-f124

]~

-if1/2,

~

jSS~

~

.ti __ .,------ -

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate CGS GJ Sect io n Link-Node Analysis Network Figures

• Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Lin k Wate r

-+- Rai lroad M Park

[J In dex Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Columbia Generating Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Legend CGS GJ Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,,- : 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Columbia Generating Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

\

\

Section: 3A Copyright:ESRI Oat Data Copyright: K:;~d ~aps 2020 Energy Northw:!teering M iles www.census.gov' Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Columbia Generating Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: CGS Benton County Grid Section: 3A 16 Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GI Sect io n Node ~ Shadow Regio n

- Lin k Wat er M

-+- Rai lroad Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 M ile Rings Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Columbia Generating Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

---l__ ----------------------------=--=-=-----------------------------------------;ri ii /

.~0':j

'r~

i 11

~----'-----'---~ r,----_

WFirRd /

_1__ _ __

I I

I I

I I

I I

I ef

,l

-~0

/ 1 Section: 2 5

/Grid Fr<1nklin

~

~

~

°w0ogv,oodRd 17 r----,-~c.:...::===-c..:.::...- - -

C o u n ty Cottonwood Dr L - f3~t _ _itJL.__ -------!

'----~.,__----,L--------' ~

-~===::::==========

141

--:---------------~~:~ -3~-

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GI Section Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water M

-+- Railroad Park

[J Index Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Columbia Generating Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: 3A

"' ;~:

I EShannon Ln 7 :Shannon Ln Section: 3C

..., rt s

~

I!' ll, 0

• E

~

~

l" Caref Ln z E Carel Ln i 3

~

~

ll t

S;' UJ

?

~ UJ it

"'it

l" .;

0, e 467

~ "'

Yakima River I

-- 7 Legend CGS GJ Sectio n

• Nod e ~ Shadow Regio n

- Lin k Wat er

-+- Rai lroad M Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,.. :: 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Columbia Generating Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• -**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-** ~ j_ __

Section: 3A Benton County Grid 19 285 Richland >,

Section: 3C ~

t 1}.,~

~ Battle Bl"° ..- :

~ i-- - I Section: 3B ~ ,216 1 i

--~---------------------l ~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------J __________________________ .l. __

\ i Legend CGS GJ Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.. :: 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Columbia Generating Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

~ Birch St Section: 2 i!'

~ Ash St Fr <tn k / 1in Count~

Gri,d 20 64,, 436 Section: 3C Ii!

Legend

• • CGS Node Lin k GJ Sectio n

~ Shadow Regio n Wat er

-+- Rai lroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Columbia Generating Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

____________ J_________ -----------*-**-**-**-**-** _______l **-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**- **-**-**J "Aquarius Dr Sunset Loop Aries Dr Birch Rd Sierra Gold Dr Frltnklin Section: 2 County Grid 21 Helm Dr Rivershore Helm Dr

<Zolu bia Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Sectio n Nod e ~ Shadow Regio n Lin k Wat er

-+- Rai lroa d M Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Columbia Generating Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: 3B i\

~ 468 1

272 - Twin Bridge_Wd anch Rd ~ ,.,

if) y~

? *i:;7'.c /

~~ ~;

!/10,

, .§ i

Legend CGS Node ~

GJ Section Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Columbia Generating Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

/

St West Riclilarid I~

i~

• !~

-**-**-**-**-**-*- *--*-**-*--*--* ---* , ~c~~/ * ~

1/"/// / -01/2 1/2 1/2'.%:1/2

,,;:??,:~~J~~,~ ---1 Legend Kev Map CGS Evacuation Time Estimate O r**-** 'lW'~:'!~ [ r**1 Link-Node Analysis Network Figures l- --~w1-J:1d J ~i-**

CGS Section J:c[t~

1 w-¢-,

• Node ~ Shadow Region 1 - - - - - -"- - - - - -.....- - - - - - -

- Link Water Grid 23

-+- Railroad Ill Park 'rl~~--...:;rzTJ'~

~ i~ iJ.'7f[~-:*r*--'

• 1 Copyrigh t : ESRI Da ta and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering L....C.15~ttj:[Jj' Q O.S

[J Index Grid ,.. :: 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings M iles Energy Nort hwest, www.census.gov Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Columbia Generating Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section: 3C CGS GI Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water M

-+- Rai lroad Park

[J Ind ex Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Columbia Generating Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

/ .

!Be

!Gv/.'.

i~

i i

I~

CGS Node ~

GJ Section Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid ,,- -- 2, 5 , 10, lS M"il e R.1ngs M iles Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Columbia Generating Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• • -i--**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-**-r c:5 i,----- ----{

i 8

- j!f---l- - - - -.'...'.J'.__::_;..:::...,--__J.'...F.'irT

... R=-d7W I

0 I

Dogwood Rd I 4 ~ogwoodRd I

~

~SS'frd Section: 2 E Sagemoor Rd il -2 i i":f

"- Haworth Rd' 1,r -**2T2 i

wi l jl--1----/_L__/__::==-i<hLH'-rr:rh'7' '--------------1 }-

~f [i~ eRd

/

i 11353-*y' / . . '. . . ._ _ _ _ _47'-777':77'7':;;,y'77

~ 1i,'l) i} I

/i ~  :

i i

51 i - - ~P..chc:.ec:

nd:..:R

-1d

=  ; --~

___ ,i 14

-,, I Falls Rd I ll'. :

\!

C

.J E Vineyard Dr it

~ ~ "e i

C lU Locust Grove Rd "OlJJ~

1, C W1fl1ams Rd t j ~ l !Qt.Bd Feed Lot Rd .,,i:,: :i t!

m Voss i

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GI Section Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water Grid 26 M

-+- Railroad Park Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Columbia Generating Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

i ---------------------=*=*=*====

- **=-=-*--------1---------- f ----------------

WKellyRd iJ!

1<'.

.!J!'

L~

il!

o:!l--'Wc.::;

M.,;.or_g,c..a_

W Highland Rd Exd W Highland Exte I

11 I

W4~4PrNW

,~*"*yr s: __;_~ :;_.,;...-----,

I i

l*

3  :

Williams Rd !r-Badlands ~ W Wil/iat11S Rq-<it--

Lakes -* 0usl1/2Ln -

~ 'Z--

..,., gt'-)

/,j., ..,!

--?a/,7..kLn lj ,:,

i~O:

tJ ~[~ .

. -j, ~

W*L

~~r ~t

-~

!fr co 101

~

il!

ill Ill

~

il!

i" l__ _____ ___ ________ ___ _________ _____ _______ __ __________ __ __________ __ ___________ ___ ___:'_ ____ _________ ___ ________ _____ _______ _____ _L __

\I Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region Link Water Grid 27

-+- Rai lroad M Park Copyrigh t : ESRI Da ta and Maps 2020 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Energy Nort hwest, M ile www.cens us.gov Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Columbia Generating Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

224 i,,111<'

Sta

___ i__ ______ _

. Time Estimate Legend CGS Evacuat10~ t ark Figures GJ Section . Link-Node Analysis Ne w CGS

• Node ~ Shadow Region Water Grid 28

- Link M

C~~:::v

. . RI Data and Maps 2020

-+- Railroad Park Copyright .ES_ ht* KLDEngineering Data Northwest, L_J Index Grid /" - 2, 5I 10I 15 Mile Rings Miles www.census.gov Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Columbia Generating Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

0~

0 ,0 u1-b</~

\9°l/ "\

Ls

/

Dr,

/

• C

'0 i/2/

~ .{h

• ~

/'>'r.rz:-r-;rz7 ;r

~ ~s, Legend CGS GJ Section

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park 0.5 Copyright: ESRI Data and ~aps ~020 Data Copyright: KLD Engmeenng

[J Index Grid ,- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Mi les Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Columbia Generating Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• '/2//2'

-**-**-**-**-**:1///////2/

-**-**-**-**-**-**-*///2'

• -**-** -1/i--!~ 1/2

!~

mi~

~~~!~

,f. o,,~,0 0 "r,- /4 950~v 1'"'1/fi v.ere 0,

~!Gra

~

d

/

/

/

//:

~  %~~

%!~~

~ ---1/2--1/2*--**1/4-**-** 7p Legend

• • CGS Node Lin k GJ Sectio n

~ Shadow Region Wat er

-+- Rai lroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,..- 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Columbia Generating Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

,,;i1/2, c'.AL,LH,,'-,1'. 1/ //1/

~!~

~

/

~ -----

Legend Kev Map ,,;:??,:~~J~~,~ ---1 CGS Evacuation Time Estimate r**---,lW'~n ~ [ r**1 Link-Node Analysis Network Figures GJ w1-J:1dJ~i-**

CGS Section 1

l----w.~;-*,;!*1r1~~--_l __ j WA Node ~ Shadow Region 1

Grid 31 Y

E Link Water

- \~ ~r::;.[ijj) W  :

f W I

-+- Railroad M Park i~ z ,;-i,-l

-,;;;;;.,;;(

-~*7 -:*r*--'

Copyright :ESRIDataand Maps2020 L....c .i~~-~-lJ:tJj' r ---...:;rz7}'7}r Q O.S Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles Energy Nort hwest, www.census.gov Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Columbia Generating Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

,,.. Durham

/

5'

..:..J er Dr -

• 0 -

,;c,q;;;;ae:D:;.r1a._

tE~

7 Angus Dr

~

"'.,, j~3J I "tJ

,~ - ~c:Rercher,~nDr. s~ j~=~

eis;,

Shetland Orm (0

.5 Q,) Jersey Dr

~:;p <:11~

Dr Shlfe Dr a\  :,, ~ :'!;i"'c:

---i 1~r ~

.t-,11\eS

'\ 5 ~ 0'-- Corol7a r ,s,1.1' ":)

~ q, Dr r 1

(?.>

~,o

_,, O 0

b q.. c: Balf/o

('i; <..,, ,...,~ o ~ ~ Dr .5  :

I"o'\l

/ 1/4 ~o ~

o' ~ u o '>---+ ~ I f"';,

--i'..o-'l :.:' lh"o

- ----~ I~ I ::,~ *i.cf1fJ1nthrop

°Ch.5 c\:i - ---~~w7--~'"'°.-_,,~--l!~, ---

?  !;<o l Dr-0,  ;; 0a

---

2 ~--{,c:,~~~

~

0 <?,. ,(,~

7 ':- ~ -- J:~:i::r -------+::esunse\-Trl--~

L r**--]~~ijKi--,

egend Key M a p I ,,, :

O CGS Evacuation Time Estimate W/L}-+--h i~~-__J r__

CGS Sectio n

• Node ~ Shadow Regio n  ! u_n_k_-_N_o_d-:e:;-A_n_a_,_v_si_s_N_e_tw,o_r_k_F..:i:::g.:u:..re::s_ _J

- Lin k Wat er l-.--- -m,i1/2 --,;:I-

'x~ -: :,--,!aj~

, : E J__1 , A" Grid 32

-+- Rai lroad M Park /  : wy ' Copyright: ESRI Data and Maps 2020 p\~ ri----

0 0.5 L:d Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J 1

Index Grid ,.. _- 2, 5, 10, 15 M il e Rings l_ __L__ : Energy Northwest, Mi les www.census.gov Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Columbia Generating Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Columbia Generating Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Grid,,,---

34 Fr an k.1 in Coun/ty Pasco Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Columbia Generating Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Grid 35 Fran~lin Co uln ty I

\

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Columbia Generating Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

0 't

~

305PrNE  !!~~

~ .L..L'.LL..,~~~~~ ) ~

i 7  !

iL

- i2~ mm i

' 0,

~

i !m

-~t Benton il-----l------~..L-----+--------,C_o_u nty*+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " '

q-

,.,is'

'f-------1-- <v:~,, ' - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - -

'---------------------!r-i

'----,--- W-B~a-~

___ __________________ _______ 3/4teral~ --------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- *__ _

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate GJ Section Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS

• Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.. :: 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Columbia Generating Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

/

a .  :~

59{ ~

!~

i937 i7}

'>steq, E,-715P,,,

E,,713.Pr 'N 37 E 210Pr NE Benton County 99

~'e.

~,' ~- lly,

---

~------- ,IL

~cii-,__ro,Corz;.

):,. i~~ }<.- *St .. ----------------

---

---------------------1---

~ 8010 I 8 ~ s~ s1 Legend

• • CGS Node Link 0 Section

~ Shadow Region Water

-+- Railroad Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Columbia Generating Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(/,/ /L, ¥A,'~ht,";,f;,"v":ry_ ,

1/4{?- )<,~Ch'-:7777 .

1/2t594

,-,\'-7",>'b'?"+

i i

Colum/J i ~ Benton i, :g., JerichoRd County s  !~,.,________

Bo/i,;;

I~

---

194

_,,,,<j

!iI m

~.

420 ii ~

/~~~

1'-;

0,,0"?0,-

~,,a!Ln Shockley Rd

!- \f.Jhitetail'Dr

~ 8

<ll (

i c~ ~ o l'?,~

~ j ov~

46_.,~ 0 /J/ail Ln

~~J-~ §-~{ ~ ~

.m 0~

i <l). ~

i i ... 192

/ sos *

!I "'~ \'4 504 /

§ so3 ~  :-,....~

• so1 0 ~

• A --.

~so/

.,,-,----Richland  %( so9

---

<a..

51\ ~ ~ -

Legend Kev Map ~~~---1 CGS Evacuation Time Estimate r**--**iw ,~n ~ [ r**1 Link-Node Analysis Network Figures 0

w1-J:1dJ~i-**

CGS Section 1

w--¢-,

~ Shadow Region l----~ -~~J:~-~-~

Node 1 Link Water Grid 38

-+- Railroad Park 'j~ ~ ! I~  !

~ *l**i-;--

Copyright :ESRIData and Maps2020 L....l~?J J:LJ::t r ~--..:;rz:7/i O O.S Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Miles Energy Northwest, www.census.gov Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Columbia Generating Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Columbia River Richland Grid 39 Benton County Legend Kev Map ,,;:??,:~~J~~-~ ---1 CGS Evacuation Time Estimate r-----~-11/~--~ n ~ [ r--1 Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CGS GJ Section

!' J+--+-+-~~~---l 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l Node Link

~ Shadow Region Water l ,_ -~\~~/ '!sr- c'-l~Jai 1/, ' ' '___!"1/,1/,1' wA ,

Y N

Grid 39

-+- Railroad M Park 1' < 0 1/,-!

r ~--...:;rz?/i

!~

I w  :

! Q o.s Copyright: ESRI Da ta and Maps 2020 LJ::t

• l*-i-;--

L_j~ _i-:, _

1/.:7 Data Copyright: KLD Engineering

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings _L M iles Energy Nort hwest, www.census.gov Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Columbia Generating Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Ster~ \

Bel/St j

WBellSt WAr~ntSt Livingston Rd Franklin Rd

- -~ "'" West Pasco WFr~;;,;;;;1Rd Fr(ln'klin

!. "'-I-- :a: Blasdel Ln W Richardson Rd Richardson Rd ,,._

"' I Cou~ty "'

I "ct "'"

WMelvi/JeRd IMelville ~d ct I Court St ~ Wernett Rd i:

• - - + - -

W:CourtSt I ~

_j Jacobs Ln

!VVhipple ~ve :a: B[uttemut Cir 1

I- ~-1 ~

Robrts 01 . I S1/ve~Crst o...(!j / W Roberts Drl I 11!

~

I <o

~ u Maverick Ct

! .~

c, j c5 ,q Clara St

/4-4,, da~Dr cs:,-?,s,o,... Adatns ~

I~

• Colomb*

~£ W,q

'>D"'1e8d ,q

~ ~ Kennewick W Ye/lo :e~n-f.O.n u>

W Wilfamettff"Ave ictoria Ave -----

NBeffairSt

.w.canal.D - - - - ~ +/-c,,-:.:....::==c:.:.:.::..i._ _.------i j~~-----------,--------- **--  ! _j_l~--;;;;;~.. ------,*.:c:::::_:~~--'- --

Legend CGS Evacuation Time Estimate Link-Node Analysis Network Figures CG S GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Grid ,.-- 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Columbia Generating Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Legend CGS GJ Section Node ~ Shadow Region

- Link Water

-+- Railroad M Park

[J Index Gri.d ,.- - 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Columbia Generating Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• * -* -* -*~*-- * - . ~

-~ \

\\\ , !1-*-~l~ ~~:~------"

0 ~- E~ ,

( -1,, <%.,,

'%"\, 0 -z.

\ ' ~323 "-

/

48~ ~ . '~*

39: 31 .;;;;;;..- -:

<$1~ :a,""9h ~-:t: 1l - * "--

$-? 0 ~ \~ St ~

""9~ ~~ 1ntHe1ens ~

~ ~

<(

~

E~

JamesSt _J Legend

• • CGS Node

- Link GI Section

~ Shadow Region Water M

-+- Railroad Park

[J Index Grid ,,. 2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Columbia Generating Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Section Boundaries

L. SECTION BOUNDARIES CGS County: Benton Includes the following areas: The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) site.

(Includes a two mile radius around the plant.)

Section 1 County: Franklin Includes the following areas: (1) north of Eltopia West Road., west of Glade North Road, south of West Klamath Road and east of the Columbia River; (2) north of West Klamath Road, west of Fair Way Road, south of Basin Hill Road and east of the Columbia River; (3) north of Basin Hill Road, west of Wahluke Road, south of Hollingsworth Road and east of the Columbia River. A portion of Section 1 is on the Hanford Site and has no permanent resident population.

Section 2 County: Franklin Includes the following areas: (1) north of West Sagemoor Road, west of Glade North Road, south of Eltopia West Road and east of the Columbia River; (2) north of Alder Road, west of Dayton Road, south of West Sagemoor Road and east of the Columbia River; (3) north of Selph Landing Road, west of Taylor Flats Road, south of Alder Road and east of the Columbia River. A portion of Section 2 is on the Hanford Site and has no permanent resident population.

Section 3A County: Benton Includes the following areas: This area is entirely on the Hanford Site, southwest of the CGS, and is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Energy. There are no permanent residents in this area.

Section 3B County: Benton Includes the following areas: south of SR 240, west of Kingsgate Way and north of West Richland and east of SR 225. It includes the Horn Rapids Master Planned Community and those homes and businesses that are accessed from Harrington Road, Yakima River Drive, Snively Road, Twin Bridges Road and Weidle Road. It also includes the Rattlesnake Mountain Shooting Facility and the Horn Rapids Park.

Columbia Generating Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Section 3C County: Benton Includes the following areas: south of the Hanford Site and north of Battelle Boulevard between Stevens Drive and the Columbia River. It also includes the area west of Stevens Drive between SR 240 and the Hanford Site. It includes the Horn Rapids Offroad Vehicle Park and the Richland Landfill. It does not include businesses or parks accessed from Hwy 240 via Logston Boulevard or Robertson Drive, or businesses on the west side of Stevens Drive south of Curie Street.

Section 4 County: Benton Includes the following areas: This section is entirely on the Hanford Site, northwest of the CGS, and is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Energy. There are no permanent residents in this area.

Columbia Generating Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

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

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, there is no impact to the 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. a significant change. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 55 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively -

a significant change.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the full EPZ clears (i.e., all highways within EPZ operates at a Level of Service A) at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE, before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 100th percentile ETE until 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE. See Table M1.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%), tripling (60%), quadrupling (80%), and a full evacuation (100%) of the Shadow Region, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE remains the same when compared to the base case.

Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 7% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which is considerably less than the base assumption of 20% noncompliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 7% shadow evacuation and the 90th and 100th percentile ETE remains the same.

Columbia Generating Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The Shadow Region is sparsely populated except near population centers like Richland. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figure 73 through 77 congestion in the Shadow Region does not propagate into the EPZ after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes such that EPZ evacuees would be delayed. Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate are easily accommodated by the excess capacity available in the study area such that the ETE are not impacted.

M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of changes in the resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the EPZ changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the EPZ, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in the permanent resident population was increased by as much as 114%. Changes in population were applied to the permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ and the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure (as presented in Appendix K) remained fixed; the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 11 - Winter, Weekend, Midday, with Heavy Snow).

Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. Note that the base ETE values for the 2Mile Region (R01) is less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; R01 criterion for updating is 18 minutes (70 minutes multiplied by 25%). Base ETE values for 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25% of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, the criterion for updating R02 and R03 is 30 minutes.

Columbia Generating Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than the respective criterion for each Region is highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 114%

or greater increase in the full EPZ permanent resident population. Energy Northwest will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 114% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size As discussed in Appendix F, the average household size obtained from the survey results was 2.33 people per household. The difference between the Census data (2.95 people per household) and survey data is approximately 21%, which exceeds the sampling error of 4.5%.

Upon discussions with Energy Northwest, it was decided that the estimated household size from the demographic survey data would be used in the study. A sensitivity study was performed to determine how sensitive the ETE is to changes in the average household size. It should be noted that only resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study.

The case considered was Scenario 1, a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and entire EPZ. Table M4 presents the results of this study.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles) by 21% has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes at most) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. As discussed in Section 7.3, there is minimal to no traffic congestion within the EPZ for the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes and after this time, the ETE is dictated by the trip generation time (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary).

M.5 Migratory Worker Sensitivity Study A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of the seasonal migratory worker population. As per the Franklin County emergency plans, the number of migrant workers vary based on crops being harvested. The peak harvest times are in May and June.

Even though May/June are considered Spring months, school is in session during this time, and winter is defined as school is in session in this study. As such, a winter, midweek midday scenario with good weather was chosen for this sensitivity study (Scenario 6). The migratory workers primarily work in Franklin County, so the additional employee vehicles were added to Section 1 and Section 2. Since the majority of these Sections are beyond 5 miles, the full EPZ (Region R03) was used for this sensitivity study.

The Franklin County emergency plans stated there is a maximum of 5,000 migratory workers.

This sensitivity study, therefore, considers a varying population of migratory workers from 1,000 to 5,000. A vehicle occupancy of 1.12 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Figure F6) was used to determine the number of evacuating migratory worker vehicles.

Table M5 summarizes the ETE for the base case (current conditions) and the various migratory worker cases. The 90th percentile ETE for the sensitivity cases is reduced from 5 to 15 minutes Columbia Generating Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

shorter than the base case as the migrant workers increase. This is due to the increase in the number of employee vehicles (migratory workers) who mobilize more quickly than the general population (see Section 5.4). As there is no congestion in Sections 1 and 2 (see Section 7) to inhibit the egress of evacuating vehicles and the migrant worker mobilizing quicker than the permanent resident population, the 90th percentile ETE can be reached more quickly when increasing the number of migratory workers within the EPZ. The 100th percentile ETE for all cases remains unchanged. This is due to the fact that trip generation (mobilization plus travel time to EPZ boundary) dictates the 100th percentile ETE as discussed in Section 7.5.

M.6 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.

Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Prolonging the trip generation time by an hour increases the 90th percentile ETE by 55 minutes. The 100th percentile ETE increased by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Appendix M.1). Thus, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner will decrease ETE.

Increasing or decreasing the percent shadow evacuation has no impact on ETE (Appendix M.2). Nonetheless, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles, which could increase ETE (Appendix M.3). As this is a large percentage (114%), an increase in permanent resident population like this, would be unusual unless there was a large increase in development. Nonetheless, public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles), has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by at most 10 minutes) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Appendix M.4). Thus, public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce the 90th percentile ETE.

Columbia Generating Station M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 3 Hours 30 Minutes 2:00 3:40 4 Hours 30 Minutes (Base) 2:00 4:40 5 Hours 30 Minutes 2:55 5:40 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:00 4:40 7 (Demographic Survey) 3,024 2:00 4:40 20 (Base) 8,640 2:00 4:40 40 17,280 2:00 4:40 60 25,920 2:00 4:40 80 34,560 2:00 4:40 100 43,200 2:00 4:40 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 112% 113% 114%

Population 18,476 39,169 39,354 39,539 th ETE (hrs:min) for the 90 Percentile Population Change Region Base 112% 113% 114%

2MILE 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:10 5MILE 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:10 FULL EPZ 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:25 th ETE (hrs:min) for the 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 112% 113% 114%

2MILE 1:45 1:45 1:45 1:45 5MILE 5:35 5:35 5:35 5:35 FULL EPZ 5:40 5:40 5:40 5:40 Columbia Generating Station M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M4. ETE Results for the Change in Average Household Size Base Case Sensitivity Case EPZ and 20%

Average Household Size Average Household Size Shadow (2.33 people per (2.95 people per Permanent household) household)

Resident Population 18,476 people 14,593 people ETE for the 90th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 1:10 1:10 5MILE 2:00 1:50 FULL EPZ 2:00 1:50 ETE for the 100th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 1:50 1:50 5MILE 4:35 4:35 FULL EPZ 4:40 4:40 Table M5. Migratory Worker Sensitivity Analysis 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Region Base Workers Workers Workers Workers Workers 90th Percentile ETE Full EPZ (R03) 2:00 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:45 1:45 100th Percentile ETE Full EPZ (R03) 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 Columbia Generating Station M6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1.2 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined in Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

Columbia Generating Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1, Table 73, Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying Table 74 the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1 Columbia Generating Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to NA 2020 Census used as the base year of the reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis

d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1, Appendix F justification is provided for other values.

2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is included, Yes Section 3.3, Table E3 and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed.

The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E2

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35, and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employee by scenario - see Table 64.

d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.

Columbia Generating Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Population Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 by Sector, is included showing the population distribution for (employees) the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.6 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.7 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table 310 Columbia Generating Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and NA average population, are listed. Special facility staff is included in the total special facility population.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. NA There are no medical or correctional

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed NA facilities exist within the EPZ.

available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., medical NA support or security support for prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student population, Yes Table 36, Table E1, Section 3.5 and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.5 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.5 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

Columbia Generating Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 no return trips are needed.

2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.8 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.8 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event is Yes Section 3.8 estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and Figure with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.9 and Section 3.10, Section 6 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Columbia Generating Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Item 10 and 11 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.9 and Section 3.10 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.9 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 310, Table 311, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass through demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of the Yes Appendix K modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

Columbia Generating Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Item 2 and 3 of Section 2.6

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table 3 Yes Table 22 1, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

Columbia Generating Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. weather conditions.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Item 6 of Section 2.6, Table 22; and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative set Yes Section 2, Appendix J of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

Columbia Generating Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing N/A Section 5, Appendix F There was no trip generation times are discussed, if applicable. uncertainty when developing the trip generation times.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage of commuters.

residents will need to return home before evacuating. Table 63 presents the percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

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

Item 3 of Section 2.3

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method to Yes Section 5 notify transients at various locations.

Columbia Generating Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.8 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided for expected is considered. the special event and was therefore not considered.

4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist. Basic used in the ETE analysis. bus routes were developed for the ETE analysis.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent People (Residents without expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described. access to a vehicle)

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load passengers Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 are discussed.

Columbia Generating Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 no return trips are necessary. needed.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is NA provided.

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound NA residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. NA

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the evacuation NA can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are No medical or correctional facilities exist needed.

within the EPZ.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents NA are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time NA elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

Columbia Generating Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through provided. Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the evacuation Yes Section 8.1 can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion is Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical Columbia Generating Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses dynamic percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random seeds traffic assignment model to obtain the for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, Midweek, "average" (stable) network work flow Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is monte carlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that may Yes Section 4.5 influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

Columbia Generating Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last vehicle

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not exits the evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one plot

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and for each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of 6. Table J3 evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 76 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation last vehicle exits the evacuation zone.

zone.

Columbia Generating Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar to Yes Table 73 and Table 74 Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that affect Yes Section 9, Appendix G the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

Columbia Generating Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in NRC Review Criteria ETE Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes Results of the ETE study were formally affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. Comments on the draft report were provided and were addressed in the final report. There are no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ conditions N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of the not adequately reflected in the scenario variations. availability of US Census Bureau decennial census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.

Columbia Generating Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0