Text

Kld TR-617, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Final Report, Rev. 0. Cover Through Page 3-31
	ML14043A202
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/31/2014
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Exelon Generation Co, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	TR-617, Rev 0
	Download: ML14043A202 (93)
	v • d • e

ZbDKLD ENGINEERING, PC.

LIMERICK GENERATING STATION Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performedfor Exelon Generation,by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 mailto: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com January 31, 2014 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 617

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTIO N.................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 The Lim erick Generating Station Location ................................................................................. 1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities ................................................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 1-9 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.1 Special Facilities ................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Colleges and Universities ................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................. 3-11 3.3 Transient Population ................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.5 M edical Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population .............................................................. 3-24 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ............................................................................................................... 3-27 4 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highw ay ........................................................................ 4-4 4.3 Application to the LGS Study Area ............................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads ................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................ 4-7 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation .......................................................................................... 4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E.......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution .................................................................... 5-11 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................ 5-12 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................. 5-15 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas ................................................. 5-17 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS ..................................................................... 6-1 7 GENERAL PO PULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) .......................................................... 7-1 Limerick Generating Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 7-2 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 7-4 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 7-6 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 7-6 8 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 8-1 8.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................ 8-2 8.2 School Population - Transit Dem and ......................................................................................... 8-3 8.3 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................ 8-4 8.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 8-4 8.5 Special Needs Population ........................................................................................................... 8-9 8.6 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 8-10 9 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 9-1 10 EVACUATION ROUTES .................................................................................................................. 10-1 11 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 11-1 12 CONFIRM ATION TIM E .................................................................................................................. 12-1 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S .............................................................................. A-1 B. DYNAM IC TRAFFIC ASSIGNM ENT AND DISTRIBUTION M ODEL ................................................... B-1 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL .......................................................................................... C-1 C.1 M ethodology .............................................................................................................................. C-5 C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram ............................................................................................. C-5 C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ................................................................................................... C-5 C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent .............................................................................................................. C-13 C.2 Im plem entation ....................................................................................................................... C-13 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure .......................................................................................... C-13 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) .............................................. C-16 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .......................................................................... D-1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E-1 F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ........................................................................................................................... F-1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F-1 F.2 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F-1 F.2.1 Household Dem ographic Results ........................................................................................... F-2 F.2.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F-4 F.2.3 Tim e Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F-6 F.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ F-9 Limerick Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................... G-1 G .i T raffic Co ntro l Po ints ................................................................................................................ G-1 G.2 A ccess Co ntro l Po ints ................................................................................................................ G-1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .................................. J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETW ORK ............................................................................................... K-1 L. SUB-AREA BOUNDARIES .................................................................................................................... L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES .......................................................................................... M-1 M.i Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ......................................................................... M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region W ho Relocate ................. M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M-3 M.4 Pennsylvania Turnpike Sensitivity Study .................................................................................. M-4 M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time ...................................................................................... M-5 N. ET E C RITER IA CHEC KLIST ................................................................................................................... N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionallyskipped KLD Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station iii iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Fig u re 1-1 . LG S Lo catio n ............................................................................................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2. LG S Link-Node A nalysis Netw ork ............................................................................................ 1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 2-4 Fig u re 3 -1 . LG S EPZ .................................................................................................................................... 3 -4 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector .............................................................................................. 3-12 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 3-18 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................ 3-23 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental Diagram s ........................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ........................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation M obilization Activities ........................................................................................ 5-10 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 5-14 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions ....................................................................... 5-19 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile Re g io n ........................................................................................................................................... 5 -2 1 Figure 6-1. LG S EPZ Sub-areas ................................................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 7-21 Figure 7-2. LG S Shadow Regio n ............................................................................................................... 7-22 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 7-23 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 7-24 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 7-25 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 7-26 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours, 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ...................... 7-27 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 6 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 7-28 Figure 7-9. Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours and 30 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................ 7-29 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario I for Region R03 .................................................... 7-30 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-30 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-31 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-31 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-32 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-32 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-33 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-33 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 7-34 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-34 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-35 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-35 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-36 Figure 7-23. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 7-36 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 8-11 Figure 8-2. Berks County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ....................................................................... 8-12 Limerick Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 8-3. Chester County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ................................................................... 8-13 Figure 8-4. Montgomery County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes .......................................................... 8-14 Figure 10-1. Overview of General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools ............................. 10-2 Figure 10-2. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools - Berks County ......................... 10-3 Figure 10-3. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools - Chester County ..................... 10-4 Figure 10-4. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools - Montgomery County ............ 10-5 Figure 10-5. M ajor Evacuation Routes .................................................................................................... 10-6 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface .................................................................... B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Netw ork ........................................................................................... C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ........................................................................................................... C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration w ith t, > 0 .............................................................................. C-7 Figure C-4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3) .............................................. C-15 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities ................................................................................................. D-5 Figure E-1. Berks County Schools w ithin the EPZ .................................................................................... E-21 Figure E-2. Chester County Schools w ithin the EPZ ................................................................................ E-22 Figure E-3. Montgomery County Schools within the EPZ (Map 1 of 2) ................................................... E-23 Figure E-4. Montgomery County Schools within the EPZ (Map 2 of 2) ................................................... E-24 Figure E-S. Berks County Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ ........................................................ E-25 Figure E-6. Chester County Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ .................................................... E-26 Figure E-7. Montgomery County Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ (Map 1 of 3) ....................... E-27 Figure E-8. Montgomery County Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ (Map 2 of 3) ....................... E-28 Figure E-9. Montgomery County Preschools and Daycares within the EPZ (Map 3 of 3) ....................... E-29 Figure E-IO. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................ E-30 Figure E-11. Berks County Major Employers within the EPZ .................................................................. E-31 Figure E-12. Chester County Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................... E-32 Figure E-13. Montgomery County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map I of 3) ................................. E-33 Figure E-14. Montgomery County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 2 of 3) ................................. E-34 Figure E-15. Montgomery County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 3 of 3) ................................. E-35 Figure E-16. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ...................................................................................... E-36 Figure E-17. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ......................................................................................... E-37 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F-2 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F-2 Figure F-3. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F-3 Figure F-4. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................... F-4 Figure F-5. Com m uter Evacuation Response ........................................................................................ F-5 Figure F-6. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork ............................................................................... F-6 Figure F-7. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e ..................................................................................................... F-7 Figure F-8. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation .................................................................................... F-8 Figure F-9. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ............................................................................... F-9 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the Limerick Generating Station ................................ G-2 Figure G-2. Traffic and Access Control Points - Berks County .................................................................. G-3 Figure G-3. Traffic Control Points - Bucks County ..................................................................................... G-4 Figure G-4. Traffic Control Points - Chester County ............................................................................. G-5 Figure G-5. Traffic Control Points -Lehigh County ................................................................................... G-6 Figure G-6. Traffic and Access Control Points - Montgomery County ..................................................... G-7 Figure H-1. Region R0 1 ............................................................................................................................. H-8 Figure H-2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H-9 Limerick Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H-3. Region R03 ........................................................................................................................... H-10 Figure H-4. Region R04 ........................................................................................................................... H-11 Figure H-5. Region ROS ........................................................................................................................... H-12 Figure H-6. Region R06 ........................................................................................................................... H-13 Figure H-7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H-14 Figure H-8. Region ROB ........................................................................................................................... H-is Figure H-9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H-16 Figure H-10. Region RiO ......................................................................................................................... H-17 Figure H-l R. Region Rll ......................................................................................................................... H-18 Figure H-12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H-19 Figure H-13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H-20 Figure H-14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H-21 Figure H-iS. Region R1S ......................................................................................................................... H-22 Figure H-16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H-23 Figure H-17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H-24 Figure H-18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H-25 Figure H-19 g.Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H-26 Figure H-20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H-27 Figure H-21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H-28 Figure H-22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H-29 Figure H-23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H-30 Figure H-24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H-31 Figure H-25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H-32 Figure H-26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H-33 Figure H-27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H-34 Figure H-28. Region R28 ......................................................................................................................... H-35 Figure H-29. Region R29 ......................................................................................................................... H-36 Figure H-30. Region R30 ......................................................................................................................... H-37 Figure H-31. Region R31 ......................................................................................................................... H-38 Figure H-32. Region R32 ......................................................................................................................... H-39 Figure H-33. Region R33 ......................................................................................................................... H-40 Figure H-34. Region R34 ......................................................................................................................... H-41 Figure H-35. Region R35 ......................................................................................................................... H-42 Figure H-36. Region R36 ......................................................................................................................... H-43 Figure H-37. Region R37 ......................................................................................................................... H-44 Figure H-38. Region R38 ......................................................................................................................... H-45 Figure H-39. Region R39 ......................................................................................................................... H-46 Figure H-40. Region R40 ......................................................................................................................... H-47 Figure H-41. Region R41 ......................................................................................................................... H-48 Figure H-42. Region R42 ......................................................................................................................... H-49 Figure H-43. Region R43 ......................................................................................................................... H-SO Figure H-44. Region R44 ......................................................................................................................... H-S1 Figure H-45. Region R45 ......................................................................................................................... H-52 Figure H-46. Region R46 ......................................................................................................................... H-53 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ...... J-1l Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ........................ J-11 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ............ J-12 Limerick Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, W eekend, M idday, Rain (Scenario 4) ............................ J-12 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n a rio 5 ) .............................................................................................................................................. J-13 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) .............. J-13 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: W inter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J-14 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: W inter, Midweek, M idday, Snow (Scenario 8) ............................. J-14 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) .............. J-15 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: W inter, W eekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J-15 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: W inter, W eekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J-16 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Sce n ario 12 ) ............................................................................................................................................ J-16 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Sce n a rio 1 3 ) ............................................................................................................................................ J-17 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Sce n a rio 14 ) ............................................................................................................................................ J-17 Figure K-1. Limerick Link-Node Analysis Network .................................................................................... K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 1 ...................................................................................... K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 2 ...................................................................................... K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 3 ................................................................................ K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 4 ...................................................................................... K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 5 ...................................................................................... K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 6 ...................................................................................... K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 7 ...................................................................................... K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8 .............................................................................. K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9 ............................................................................ K-11 Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 10 ................................................................................ K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 11 ................................................................................ K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 12 ................................................................................ K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 13 ................................................................................ K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 14 ................................................................................ K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 15 ................................................................................ K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 16 ................................................................................ K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 17 ................................................................................ K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 18 ................................................................................ K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 19 ................................................................................ K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 20 ................................................................................ K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 21 ................................................................................ K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 22 ................................................................................ K-24 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 23 ................................................................................ K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 24 ................................................................................ K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 25 ................................................................................ K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 26 ................................................................................ K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 27 ................................................................................ K-29 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 28 ................................................................................ K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 29 ................................................................................ K-31 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 30 ................................................................................ K-32 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 31 ................................................................................ K-33 Limerick Generating Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K-33. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 32 ................................................................................ K-34 Figure K-34. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 33 ................................................................................ K-35 Figure K-35. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K-36 Figure K-36. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K-37 Figure K-37. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K-38 Figure K-38. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K-39 Figure K-39. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K-40 Figure K-40. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K-41 Figure K-41. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K-42 Figure K-42. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 41 ................................................................................ K-43 Figure K-43. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 42 ................................................................................ K-44 Figure K-44. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 43 ............................................................................... K-45 Figure K-45. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 44 ................................................................................ K-46 Figure K-46. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 45 ................................................................................ K-47 Figure K-47. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 46 ............................................................................... K-48 Figure K-48. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 47 ............................................................................... K-49 Figure K-49. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 48 .......................................................................... K-50 Figure K-SO. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 49 .......................................................................... K-51 Figure K-S1. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 50 ................................................................................ K-52 Figure K-52. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 51 ................................................................................ K-53 Figure K-53. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 52 ................................................................................ K-54 Figure K-54. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 53 .......................................................................... K-55 Figure K-55. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 54 ................................................................................ K-56 Figure K-56. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 55 ................................................................................ K-57 Figure K-57. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid.6 ................................................................................ K-58 Figure K-58. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 57 ................................................................................ K-59 Figure K-59. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 58 ................................................................................ K-60 Figure K-60. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 59 ................................................................................ K-61 Figure K-61. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 60 ................................................................................ K-62 Figure K-62. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 61 ................................................................................ K-63 Figure K-63. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 62 ................................................................................ K-64 Figure K-64. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 63 ................................................................................ K-65 Figure K-65. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 64 ................................................................................ K-66 Figure K-66. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 65 ................................................................................ K-67 Figure K-67. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 66 ................................................................................ K-68 Figure K-68. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 67 ................................................................................ K-69 Figure K-69. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 68 ................................................................................ K-70 Figure K-70. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 69 ................................................................................ K-71 Figure K-71. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 70 ................................................................................ K-72 Figure K-72. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 71 ................................................................................ K-73 Figure K-73. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 72 ................................................................................ K-74 Figure K-74. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 73 ................................................................................ K-75 Figure K-75. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 74 ................................................................................ K-76 Figure K-76. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 75 ................................................................................ K-77 Figure K-77. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 76 ................................................................................ K-78 Figure K-78. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 77 ................................................................................ K-79 Figure K-79. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 78 ................................................................................ K-80 Limerick Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K-80. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 79 ............................................................................ K-8i Figure K-81. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 80 ............................................................................ K-82 Figure K-82. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 81 ................................................................................ K-83 Figure K-83. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 82 .......................................................................... K-84 Figure K-84. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 83 .......................................................................... K-85 Figure K-85. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 84 .......................................................................... K-86 Figure K-86. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 85 .......................................................................... K-87 Figure K-87. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 86 .......................................................................... K-88 Figure K-88. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 87 ............................................................................ K-89 Figure K-89. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 88 .......................................................................... K-90 Figure K-90. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 89 ............................................................................ K-91 Figure K-9S. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 90 ............................................................................ K-92 Limerick Generating Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Highw ay Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................ 1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ....................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area ..................................................... 3-7 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ........................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ...................................... 3-20 Table 3-6. LG S EPZ External Traffic ......................................................................................................... 3-26 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ........................................................................................... 3-28 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and ................................................................................................. 3-30 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ................................................................................ 5-3 Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ....................................................... 5-8 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ........................................................ 5-9 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 5-11 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 5-12 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation .................... 5-18 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 5-20 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R16) ............................................................ 6-3 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R17-R32) ............................................................. 6-5 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R33-R46) ............................................................. 6-7 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................. 6-10 Table 6-5. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios .......................................... 6-11 Table 6-6. V ehicle Estim ates by Scenario ................................................................................................ 6-12 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 7-11 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 7-13 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 7-14 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R16) .......................................................... 7-15 Table 7-6. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R17-R32) ........................................................... 7-17 Table 7-7. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R33-R46) ........................................................... 7-19 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 8-15 Table 8-2. School Population Demand Estimates ................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8-3. School Reception Centers ...................................................................................................... 8-23 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................ 8-29 Table 8-5. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 8-31 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 8-32 Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather .............................................................. 8-45 Table 8-8. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................................... 8-53 Table 8-9. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ........................................................................ 8-61 Limerick Generating Station x KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 8-69 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ........................................ 8-70 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ......................................................... 8-72 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ....................................................... 8-74 Table 8-14. Special Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................... 8-76 Table 8-15. M edical Facility Evacuation Tim e Estim ates - Rain .............................................................. 8-79 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow ............................................................ 8-82 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ................................... 8-85 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation .............. 12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Term s .............................................................................. A-1 Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ........................................................................... C-3 Ta b le C-3 . Glo ssa ry .................................................................................................................................... C-8 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E-2 Table E-2. Preschools w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................................ E-7 Table E-3. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................ E-12 Table E-4. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................ E-14 Table E-5. Recreational A reas w ithin the EPZ ......................................................................................... E-18 Table E-6. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................ E-19 Table E-7. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..................................................................................... E-20 Table H-1. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions RO1-R16) .................. H-2 Table H-2. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R17-R32) .................. H-4 Table H-3. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R33-R46) .................. H-6 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections ........................................ J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input .......................................................................................... J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ....................... J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, S ce n a rio 1 ) ................................................................................................................................................. J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ..................... J-7 Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics ...................................................................... K-93 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled ......................................... K-256 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ................................... M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change ................................................................................. M -4 Table M -4. Turnpike Sensitivity Results .................................................................................................. M -5 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ............................................................................................ N-1 Limerick Generating Station xi 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 Limerick Generating Station (LGS) located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Exelon and state and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

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

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

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

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

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

10CFR50, Appendix E - "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in November, 2013 and extended over a period of 3 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

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

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

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

Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county were provided by Exelon.

Limerick Generating Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Following federal guidelines, the EPZ is subdivided into 43 Sub-areas. These Sub-areas are then grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 46 Evacuation Regions.

" The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Snow). One special event scenario - the Firebird Festival in Phoenixville - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on US 422 eastbound for the duration of the evacuation.

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

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

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

" While an unlikely accident scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measured as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate 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 children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers or host schools located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

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

Computation of ETE A total of 644 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 46 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (46 x 14 = 644). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent Limerick Generating Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 1001h percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Limerick Generating Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and the EPZ Counties. Despite the pronounced traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study. The existing traffic management plan is comprehensive.

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

" Figure 6-1 displays a map of the LGS EPZ showing the layout of the 43 Sub-areas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

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

Tables 6-1 through 6-3 define each of the 46 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sub-areas.

" Table 6-2 lists the Evacuation Scenarios.

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

" Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles, respectively.

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

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

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

Conclusions

" General population ETE were computed for 644 unique cases - a combination of 46 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 901h and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 1:30 (hr:min) to 5:35 at the 9 0 th percentile.

" Inspection of Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 9 0 th percentile, ranging from 3:10 to 8:10. This is the result of the congestion within the EPZ. 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, relatively few Limerick Generating Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-10 through 7-23.

" Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation protective action strategy could benefit those people evacuating from within the 2-mile region (specifically Lower Pottsgrove) when wind is blowing over Pottstown, or when evacuating the full 5-mile region (R02), in that ETE are up to 40 minutes less. Although staged evacuation is disadvantageous to those beyond 2 miles (increases ETE up to 55 minutes), it does expedite the evacuation of those evacuees from within the 2-mile region under certain circumstances. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

" Comparison of Scenarios 12 (winter, midweek/weekend, evening) and 13 (winter, weekend, evening) in Table 7-2 indicates that the special event does not materially affect the ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on US 422, could significantly impact ETE (increases in ETE of up to 45 minutes). State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane or re-routing of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming US 422. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage on US 422, particularly within the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months of the evacuation. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

" The majority of the EPZ is congested throughout a full EPZ evacuation. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months and 25 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-9.

" Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, homebound special needs persons and correctional facilities. The average single-wave ETE for these facilities are comparable to the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile. See Section 8.

" Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough wheelchair buses/vans to evacuate the wheelchair bound population in a single wave. The second-wave ETE for wheelchair vans do exceed the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.5.

" The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 15 minutes due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1.

" The general population ETE is effected by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 30 minutes). An evacuation of 100 percent of the Shadow Region increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . See Table M-2.

" A population increase of 13% or more results in 901h percentile ETE changes which meet the federal criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

" Allowing evacuees to access the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Exits 312 and 320 does not significantly impact ETE. See Section M.4.

Limerick Generating Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 6-1. LGS EPZ Sub-areas Limerick Generating Station ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population B egCO

.. U T Y.

Amity 7,126 10,815 Boyertown 3,941 4,055 Colebrookdale 5,322 5,078 Douglass (Berks) 3,344 3,306 Earl 730 717 Union 1,123 1,215 Washington 610 715 East Coventry 4,608 6,636 East Nantmeal 1,472 1,500 East Pikeland 6,565 7,079 East Vincent 5,458 6,821 North Coventry 7,381 7,866 Phoenixville 14,757 16,440 Schuylkill 6,991 8,516 South Coventry 1,879 2,604 Spring City 3,298 3,323 Upper Uwchlan 3,674 8,089 Uwchlan 1,399 1,343 Warwick 2,219 2,192 West Pikeland 3,360 3,876 West Vincent 3,190 4,567 Chester County Total 69,790 84,993 Limerick Generating Station ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population (Continued)

Su-ra20 Populto 2010Popuatio MOTOMR COUNTY Collegeville 8,032 5,089 Douglass (Montgomery) 9,098 10,195 Green Lane 584 508 Limerick 13,572 18,074 Lower Frederick 4,793 4,840 Lower Pottsgrove 11,193 12,059 Lower Providence 22,388 25,436 Lower Salford 902 1,503 Marlborough 426 492 New Hanover 7,369 10,939 Perkiomen 7,126 9,139 Pottstown 21,879 22,377 Royersford 4,197 4,752 Schwenksville 1,693 1,385 Skippack 6,516 13,715 Trappe 3,210 3,509 Upper Frederick 3,143 3,523 Upper Pottsgrove 4,085 5,315 Upper Providence 15,376 21,219 Upper Salford 3,024 3,299 West Pottsgrove 3,815 3,874 Mo~ntgmr e Conyk 2,421, 18124 EPZ Population Growth: 19.53%

Limerick Generating Station ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions 2-Mile 5-Mile Full Region

Description:

Ring Ring EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 ROS N/A R06 I R07 R08 I R09 R10 I R11 R12 I R13 I R14 R15 I R16 Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N/A N NNE, NE ENE E ESE SE, SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I SUB-AREA Amity Boyertown Charlestown Colebrookdale Collegeville Douglass (Berks)

Douglass (Montgomery)

Earl East Coventry East Nantmeal East Pikeland East Vincent _

Green Lane Limerick Lower Frederick Lower Pottsgrove 0 Lower Providence Lower Salford Marlborough New Hanover North Coventry Perkiomen Phoenixville Pottstown Royersford Schuylkill _._

Schwenksville Skippack South Coventry Limerick Generating Station ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2-Mile 5-Mile Full Region

Description:

Ring Ring EPZ Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles ReRion Number: R01 I R02 I R04 R05 N/A R06 R07 R08 R09 RIO R1l R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N NNE. NE ENE E ESE SE. SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW SUB-AREA Spring City Trappe Union 1 1 1- 1 I t 1 1 Upper Frederick Upper Pottsgrove Upper Providence Upper Salford lKI1lll Upper Uwchlan _

1 -I- -I- 4 1

___ 4 4 + Uwchlan Warwick ___ 4 4 + + 4 + + + + 4 Washington I West Pikeland _

_ _ _ 4 4 4- 4- -I- -I- 4 4 West Pottsgrove

___ 4 4 + + I +/- 4 4 Limerick Generating Station ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 0-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R17-R32)

Region

Description:

Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 Wind Direction From: N NNE NE ENE E E SE SSE S SW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW SUB-AREA Amity Boyertown Charlestown Colebrookdale Collegeville Douglass (Berks)

Douglass (Montgomery) _ _

Earl East Coventry East Nantmeal East Pikeland East Vincent Green Lane Limerick Lower Frederick Lower Pottsgrove Lower Providence Lower Salford Marlborough New Hanover North Coventry Perkiomen Phoenixville Pottstown Royersford Schuylkill Schwenksville Skippack South Coventry Spring City Limerick Generating Station ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region

Description:

I Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R17I R18 I R19 I R20 I R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 IR29 R30 I R31 R32 Wind Direction From: N NE ENEENNE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW SUB-AREA Trappe Union Upper Frederick I I I III I~I_

Upper Pottsgrove Upper Providence Upper Salford Upper Uwchlan Uwchlan i 4 i 4 _______ I Warwick h1i I t I rn-rn-W2 hinatfnn I I I I I I West Pikeland_ __

West Pottsgrove x____ X West Vincent I__

Sub-area not within Plume, but Evacuates because it is surrounded by other Sub-areas %

Limerick Generating Station ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 0-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R33-R46)

Region

Description:

I Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R33 R34 R35 N/A R36 I R37 I R38 R39 R40 R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 R46 S-Mile Wind Direction From: Ring N NNE, NE ENE E ESE SE, SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW INWI NNW SUB-AREA Amity i i i i i i 4 i i 4 + +

Boyertown Charlestown Colebrookdale

.1 4 I-Collegeville Douglass (Berks) 4 -

Douglass (Montgomery) __ __ _ _ -. __ _ __ _ __

Earl East Coventry East Nantmeal M M I East Pikeland

______ 4- + 4 '4-East Vincent I Green Lane rD Limerick Lower Frederick Lower Pottsgrove 0 Lower Providence Lower Salford Marlborough New Hanover North Coventry Perkiomen Phoenixville Pottstown Royersford Schuylkill Schwenksville Skippack Sniith Cnv~ntrv Sout Covent- ____ ____£_____i ____ __

Limerick Generating Station ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Limerick Generating Station ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Da of Tmeo Scnai Sesn Wee Day Wete Speia 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Winter Midweek, Evening Good Phoenixville Firebird Weekend Festival 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure US 422 Eastbound 1 Winter means that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer means that school is not in session.

Limerick Generating Station ES-iS ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Rein Go an Go an Good Good Rain Snow GodIRain Snow Weathe Eventa Impacta Weather Weather Weather IWinter IeWeather Weather Wint Imm Mi kEntire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZM R01 1:45, 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:45 2:25 1:30 1:40 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:50 R02 3:10 j3:30 j2:55 3:15 2:50 3:10 3:25 3:30 2:50 3:00 3:05 2:45 2:50 3:25 R03 5:10 5:30 j4:45 5:05 4:35 J5:05 5:30 5:35 4:35 J4:50 4:50 J4:35 J4:40 5:30 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles Rn wdiw R04 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:35 3:00 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 ROS 2:25 2:25 2:05 2:15 2:25 2:20 2:45 3:00 2:20 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:25 R06 2:30 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:45 2:45 3:00 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:00 2:05 3:00 R07 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:25 2:10 2:35 2:40 3:00 2:10 2:15 2:30 2:00 2:05 3:00 R08 2:55 3:00 2:20 2:35 2:20 2:50 3:15 3:20 2:20 2:30 2:30 2:15 2:20 3:20 R09 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:50 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:15 1:35 1:40 1:50 RIO 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:30 1:40 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:50 R11 1:50 2:00 1:45 1:55 1:40 1:45 2:00 2:30 1:40 1:50 2:20 1:40 1:40 1:55 R12 1:50 2:00 1:45 1:55 1:40 1:50 2:00 2:30 1:45 2:00 2:20 1:45 1:45 1:55 R13 2:20 2:40 2:15 2:40 2:10 2:20 2:35 2:40 2:10 2:30 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:25 R14 2:50 3:10 2:40 2:55 2:35 2:45 3:10 3:15 2:40 2:45 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:55 R15 2:25 2:45 2:15 2:35 2:20 2:30 2:40 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:25 R16 2:55 3:10 2:55 3:10 2:45 3:00 3:10 3:15 3:05 3:05 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R17 4:20 4:35 4:10 4:25 4:05 4:20 4:40 4:40 4:10 4:15 4:20 4:05 4:05 4:25 R18 3:40 3:50 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:50 3:50 3:25 3:35 3:35 3:25 3:25 3:50 R19 3:30 3:40 3:05 3:30 3:05 3:25 3:40 3:45 3:10 3:15 3:15 3:05 3:05 3:45 R20 3:30 3:45 3:15 3:25 3:05 3:30 3:45 3:50 3:10 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:10 3:50 R21 4:30 4:50 3:55 4:10 3:45 4:35 4:50 5:05 3:50 4:10 4:20 3:45 3:45 5:15 R22 4:25 4:45 4:00 4:15 4:00 4:35 4:50 5:00 4:00 4:15 4:20 3:50 4:00 5:10 R23 4:25 4:45 4:00 4:20 3:55 4:25 4:45 4:55 4:00 4:10 4:10 3:50 4:00 5:10 R24 4:15 4:35 3:55 4:10 3:50 4:20 4:30 4:45 3:50 4:00 4:00 3:50 3:55 4:50 R25 3:30 3:50 3:15 3:40 3:10 3:30 3:50 3:50 3:10 3:15 3:15 3:10 3:15 3:45 Limerick Generating Station ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday ____Midday ____Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Rain Snw Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway

______Weather Weather Ran Weather Weather Snw Weather ___Weather Event Impact R26 3:10 3:30 2:55 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:25 3:30 2:55 3:05 3:05 2:50 2:50 3:25 R27 3:10 3:30 2:S5 3:15 2:50 3:10 3:30 3:30 2:50 3:05 3:05 2:45 2:50 3:25 R28 3:15 3:30 3:00 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:25 3:30 2:55 3:05 3:05 2:50 2:55 3:25 R20 3:40 4:05 3:35 3:55 3:35 3:40 3:55 4:00 3:25 3:45 3:45 3:25 3:25 4:05 R30 3:40 4:00 3:35 3:55 3:30 3:45 4:00 4:05 3:25 3:40 3:40 3:25 3:25 4:00 R31 4:45 5:00 4:30 4:55 4:30 4:45 5:00 5:20 4:30 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:50 R32 4:35 5:00 4:30 4:50 4:30 4:45 4:55 4:55 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:25 4:30 4:50

________StagedEvacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R33 3:05 3:20 2:55 3:05 2:50 3:05 3:15 3:55 2:50 3:00 3:45 2:55 2:55 3:25 R34 2:40 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:25 2:40 2:45' 3:30 2:30 2:40 3:15 2:30 2:35 2:40 R35 2:40 2:50 2:30 2:50 2:25 2:45 2:45 3:35 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:30 2:35 2:40 R36 2:30 2:40 2:15 2:25 2:15 2:30 2:40 3:15 2:20 2:25 3:10 2:15 2:20 3:00 R37 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:40 2:50 3:15 2:20 2:30 3:15 2:20 2:20 3:05 R38 2:45 2:55 2:30 2:35 2:25 2:45 3:00 3:30 2:30 2:35 3:25 2:30 2:30 3:15 R39 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:05 R40 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:50 2:00 2.00 2:00 R41 2:10 2:15 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:15 3:00 2:05 2:10 3:00 2:05 2:05 2:10 R42 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:5 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:55 2:00 2:05 2:50 2:05 2:05 2:10 R43 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:30 3:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 R44 2:45 2:45 2:3S 2:45 2:45 2:40 2:45 3:30 2:35 2:50 3:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 114S 2:35 2:45 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:45 3:20 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:40 R46 2:55 3:05 2:55 3:1 2:55 3:05 3:10 3,45 3:00 3:10 3:45 3:00 3:00 2:55 Limerick Generating Station ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Sump Midweek Weekend idekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekendMiwe Weekend Wend Midday Midday nirwek Evening M_______ 2-ieRginidieweineadEZek___________

Midday Midday Evening Evening

____ Midday Region Good Good Ran Good Good Rain Weathe Goow Speciar Evn Rf l 3:2 Weather 3:35]

Rain 3:15 Weather 3:20 Ran 3:1 Wathe W 3:30]3:4 er hrn T Snow 4:45]3:15 WeterRin 3:20 Sowpact 4:45 3:15]Ji] 3:15] 4:1 Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R1 3:25 3:5 3:15 3:20 3:15 3: 30 3:4 4:45. 3:15 3:20 4:5 31315:0 R02 4:25 4:50 4:15 4:40 4:10 4:25 4:50 5:05 4:10 4:15 5:00 4:05 4:10 5:15 R03 7:25 7:40 6:40 7:05 6:35 .. 6:50 7:35 7:40 6:30 6:35 J6:45 6:30 6:35 8:10 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:45 3:50 3:35 4:00 3:40 3:45 3:50 4:55 3:40 3:40 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:20 RO5 3:50 3:50 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:40 4:00 4:55 3:25 3:40 4:45 3:25 3:25 4:20 R06 4:15 4:35 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:15 4:20 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:50 3:50 4:55 R07 4:20 4:20 3:55 4:00 3:50 4:10 4:25 4:55 3:50 3:55 4:50 3:0 3:50 4:35 ROB 4:25 4:35 3:55 4:00 3:50 4:10 4:50 5:00 3:50 4:00 4:50 3:50 3:55 4:40 R09 3:45 3:45 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:45 3:55 4:50 3:25 3:30 4:45 3:30 3:35 4:30 RiO 3:45 3:45 3:15 3:25 3:30 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:20 3:35 4:45 3:25 3:30 4:15 R11 3:45 3:45 3:25 3:35 3:35 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:35 4:45 3:30 3:40 4:15 R12 3:45 3:45 3:25 3:35 3:15 3:40 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:30 4:45 3:25 3:40 4:10 R1 3:50 4:00 3:35 4:00 3:40 3:45 3:55 4:50 3:35 3:50 4:45 3:25 3:40 4:25 R14 3:50 4:10 3:35 4:00 3:35 3:55 4:20 4:50 3:40 3:50 4:45 3:35 3:40 4:15 R15 3:50 4:10 3:35 4:00 3:35 3:55 3:55 4:50 3:40 3:50 4:45 3:35 3:40 4:15 R16 4:15 4:30 4:05 4:30 4:00 4:10 4:30 4:55 4:10 4:10 4:50 3:50 4:10 4:20 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R17 6:45 7:05 6:10 6:25 6:30 6:35 7:10 7:10 6:05 6:05 6:10 6:15 6:30 6:45 R18 5:50 6:15 5:50 5:50 5:55 6:00 6:15 6:15 5:55 6:00 6:00 5:45 5:55 5:55 R19 5:35 5:35 5:00 5:00 4:50 4:45 5:00 5:20 4:55 4:55 5:00 4:50 4:55 5:40 R20 5:35 5:35 5:00 5:00 4:50 5:15 5:20 5:20 5:00 5:00 5:00 4:55 5:00 6:20 RZ1 6:40 7:05 5:55 6:20 5:40 6:50 7:20 7:35 5:50 6:15 6:30 5:35 5:40 8:00 R22 6:40 7:00 6:05 6:25 5:45 6:50 7:25 7:30 5:55 6:15 6:30 5:55 5:55 8:05 R23 6:30 7:00 5:55 6:20 5:40 6:25 7:05 7:35 5:45 6:20 6:20 5:40 5:40 7:55 R24 6:00 6:30 5:25 5:55 5:20 6:10 6:25 7:00 5:20 6:00 6:05 5:20 5:35 7:35 R25 5:10 6:00 5:10 5:45 5:10 50 5:05 5:05 S:O 515 5:20 5:25 5:10 5:35 5:55 Limerick Generating Station ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R26 4:25 4:55 4:15 4:40 4:25 4:25 4:50 5:05 4:15 4:25 5:00 4:05 4:25 5:15 R27 4:25 4:50 4:15 4:40 4:10 4:25 5:05 5:05 4:10 4:20 5:00 4:05 4:15 5:15 R28 4:35 4:50 4:15 4:50 4:20 4:30 4:50 5:05 4:20 4:35 5:00 4:15 4:20 5:15 R29 5:35 5:55 5:25 5:50 5:20 5:30 5:55 6:25 5:10 5:50 6:00 5:10 5:20 6:00 R30 5:20 5:40 5:10 5:45 5:20 5:55 5:55 6:15 5:10 5:35 5:40 5:00 5:20 5:55 R31 6:55 7:05 6:40 6:55 6:35 6:50 7:20 7:30 6:30 6:30 6:35 6:30 6:35 6:55 R32 6:50 6:50 6:25 6:55 6:35 6:45 6:55 6:55 6:30 6:30 6:35 6:25 6:35 6:50 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R33 4:10 4:55 4:00 4:40 4:15 4:30 4:35 5:20 4:00 4:05 5:05 4:10 4:10 4:55 R34 3:50 4:00 3:35 3:55 3:40 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:30 3:55 4:45 3:30 3:45 3:50 R35 3:40 3:50 3:25 3:50 3:20 3:45 3:45 4:55 3:35 3:45 4:45 3:25 3:50 4:00 R36 3:55 4:00 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:45 3:50 4:25 R37 3:55 4:15 3:50 3:50 3:45 3:55 4:20 4:55 3:50 3:55 4:50 3:45 3:50 4:50 R38 4:10 4:30 3:50 3:55 3:50 4:05 4:25 5:10 3:50 3:55 4:55 3:50 3:50 5:10 R39 3:40 3:45 3:40 3:40 3:30 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:40 3:40 4:49 3:40 3:40 4:00 R40 3:40 3:50 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:40 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:40 4:45 3:15 3:25 3:55 R41 3:50 3:50 3:35 3:50 3:30 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:40 4:50 3:30 3:35 4:00 R42 3:40 3:50 3:35 3:40 3:10 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:20 3:40 4:50 3:30 3:30 3:55 R43 3:45 3:50 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:35 3:35 4:00 R44 3:S0 3:55 3:35 3:55 3:45 3:55 4:00 4:50 3:40 3:50 4:45 3:35 3:35 3:50 R45 3:50 4:05 3:35 4:05 3:45 3:55 4:05 4:50 3:40 3:50 4:45 3:35 3:35 3:55 R46 4:05 4:25 4:0 4:30 4:05 4:15 4:3 5:10 4:10 4:25 5:00 4:05 4:05 4:05 Limerick Generating Station ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenari.,,o: ( (2) (3) (4) (5 (6) (7) (8 (9 (10) (11 (12 (13 (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday MidweeU-taedEacaiok-2MieReiodwee__k_____ Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Ran Good Good Rain Snow Weathe Rain Snow Weahe d ESecilRoda Weather Wea~ther Ran Weather Weather I ete e~hr Eet Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region RO 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1 1:40 [ I1 2:25 J 1:30 1:40 2:10 135 1:30 1:50 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5-Miles R02 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:10 2:15 2:35 2:00 2:15 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:40 R04 1:45 1:50 1:40 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:55 2:20 1:35 1:50 2:10 1:40 1:40 1:50 ROS 1:45 1:50 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:40 1:50 2:20 1:30 1:45 2:10 1:30 1:35 1:50 R06 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:30 1:50 1:50 2:20 1:30 1:35 2:20 1:35 1:30 2:00 R07 1:45 1:50 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:35 1:35 2:15 1:35 1:35 2:10 ROB 1:50 1:50 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:45 2:15 2:25 1:30 1:40 2:20 1:40 1:35 2:05 R09 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:40 1:50 2:25 1:35 1:40 2:15 1:35 1:35 1:50 RIO 1:45 1:50 1:35 1:40 1:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:30 1:40 2:10 1:35 1:35 1:50 R11 1:40 1:50 1:30 1:45 1:30 1:40 1:50 2:25 1:30 1:40 2:10 1:30 1:35 1:50 R1Z 1:40 1:50 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:45 1:50 2:20 1:30 1:45 2:15 1:35 1:35 1:45 R13 1:55 2:10 1:45 2:05 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:05 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:00 R14 2:00 2:10 1:50 2:05 1:50 2:05 2:20 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:25 1:55 1:50 2:10 RIS 2:05 2:05 1:50 1:55 1:50 2:10 2:10 2:35 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:50 1:55 2:05 R16 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:10 2.:00 2:15 2:15 2:35 2:00 2:05 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:15 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R33 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:55 2:00 2:05 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:15 R34 1:50 1:55 1:35 1:45 1:35 1:45 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:45 2:20 1:35 1:35 1:55 R35 1:50 1:50 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:30 1:40 2:15 1:35 1:35 1:50 R36 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:45 1:40 1:55 2:00 2:35 1:40 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:40 2:05 R37 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:45 1:50 1:55 2:35 1:50 1:50 2:05 R38 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:05 2:45 1:50 1:55 2:40 1:55 1:50 2:15 R39 1:45 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:35 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:50 R40 1:45 1:55 1:40 1:45 1:35 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:30 1:40 2:25 1:35 1:35 1:50 R41 1:45 1:50 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:50 1:55 2:30 1:40 1:40 2:30 1:40 1:35 1:55 R42 1:50 1:50 1:30 1:35 1:30 1:45 1:50 2:30 1:30 1:40 2:20 1:35 1:40 1:55 R43 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:45 1:55 2:00 2:00 R44 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:00 2.05 2:45 1:55 2:00 2:45 1:55 1:55 2:05 R4S 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:00 2:00 2:45 2:00 2:00 2:05 R46 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:0S 2:45 1:55 2:00 2:45 1:55 1:55 200 Limerick Generating Station ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Region Summer Summer Summer WinWeatrter Winter Winter Winter Summer Midweek Weekend Weekend eva Midweek Keyhole Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Midday Midday Evening Midweek__

_____U-saedEacaioMi2MldRgonwee________ Midday Midday Evening] Midday Midday Region Good Rain Good Rin Good GoodlIRin So Good -Rm nw Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Ri Weather WeatherI IaiSno Rain Snow Weather Event Ipc Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region 3.5 3S IOM 3:20 3:5 33 :0144 :5 132 :5 31 :5 41 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to S-Miles R02 3:55 4:00 3:50 4:05 3:50 3:50 3:55 5:05 3:45 4:00 5:00 3:50 3:50 4:10 R04 3:45 3:50 3:35 3:35 3:40 3:45 3:45 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:49 3:25 3:25 4:20 R05 3:50 3:50 3:30 3:30 3:10 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:30 3:40 4:45 3:25 3:25 4:20 R06 4:00 4:00 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:00 4:00 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:50 3:50 4:05 R07 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:00 3:55 4:00 4:00 4:55 3:50 3:55 5:00 3:50 3:50 4:00 RO8 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:40 3:55 5:00 5:00 3:50 4:00 4:50 3:50 3:55 4:05 R09 3:45 3:45 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:45 3:55 4:50 3:25 3:30 4:45 3:30 3:35 4:30 R10 3:45 3:50 3:15 3:25 3:30 3:40 3:50 4:50 3:20 3:45 4:45 3:30 3:30 4:15 R11 3:50 3:50 3:25 3:25 3:35 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:10 3:30 4:35 3:30 3:30 4:15 R12 3:50 3:50 3:20 3:25 3:10 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:40 3:40 4:45 3:30 3:40 4:20 R13 3:50 3:50 3:20 3:30 3:50 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:45 3:15 3:40 4:20 R14 3:50 3:50 3:15 3:30 3:25 3:45 4:00 4:50 3:35 3:35 4:50 3:20 3:25 4:05 R15 3:45 3:55 3:25 3:45 3:25 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:35 4:45 3:25 3:30 4:20 R16 3:45 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:40 4:00 4:50 3:35 4:00 4:45 3:35 3:35 4:00 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R33 3:55 3:55 3:45 3:55 3:50 3:50 4:05 5:05 3:50 3:55 4:55 3:50 3:50 4:05 R34 3:50 3.50 3:30 3:30 3:40 3:40 3:45 4:50 3:20 3:30 4:0 3:30 3:30 3:50 R35 3:45 3:50 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:40 3:40 4:50 3:25 3:35 4:40 3:20 3:50 4:00 R36 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:45 3:50 4:20 R37 3:55 4:00 3:50 3:50 3:45 3:55 4:00 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:50 3:45 3:50 4:10 R38 3:50 4:00 3:50 3:55 3:50 3:55 4:05 5:10 3:50 3:50 4:55 3:50 3:50 3:50 R39 3:35 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:30 3:40 3:50 4:50 3:40 3:40 4:49 3:30 3:30 4:00 R40 3:40 3:50 3:35 3:40 3:30 3:40 3:45 4:50 3:25 3:45 4:45 3:15 3:25 3:55 R41 3:45 3:45 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:25 3:35 4:49 3:20 3:25 4:00 R42 3:45 3:50 3:20 3:25 3:10 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:40 3:45 4:40 3:20 3:30 3:55 R43 3:45 3:50 3:25 3:25 3:25 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:55 R44 3:40 3:50 3:25 3:35 3:35 3:45 3:50 4:50 3:20 3:35 4:50 3:20 3:30 4:00 R45 3:50 3:50 3:20 3:45 3:25 3:50 3:55 4:50 3:20 3:40 4:45 3:25 3:25 3:55 R46 3;45 3:55 3:30 3:35 3:20 3:45 3:45 4:50 3:30 3:45 4:40 3:30 3:30 3:55 Limerick Generating Station ES-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 8-7. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather mity tiementary tenter Wu I 4.' I .z I,41 I/.i 16 Boyertown Area High School 90 15 3.4 2.6 79 14.9 16 Boyertown Area Junior High School West 90 15 3.8 3.0 77 14.9 16 Boyertown Elementary School 90 15 3.8 3.0 77 14.9 Brookeside Montessori 90 15 2.2 4.5 29 20.9 23 Colebrookdale Elementary School 90 15 4.0 2.7 88 14.9 16 Daniel Boone Middle School 90 15 7.0 30.2 14 7.0 8 Jessie R. Wagner Adventist Elementary School 90 15 6.1 2.0 179 33.1 36 Monocacy Elementary Center 90 15 0.8 40.0 1 2.2 2 Pine Forge Elementary School 90 15 3.3 1.5 128 17.3 19 Barkley Elementary School 90 15 4.7 5.6 50 4.2 5 Center for Arts and Technology-Pickering Campus 90 15 4.9 12.0 25 7.1 8 Charlestown Elementary School 90 15 0.4 3.6 7 2.1 2 Collegeville Montessori Academy 90 15 15.4 4.7 195 6.3 7 East Coventry Elementary School 90 15 13.4 16.1 50 3.4 4 East Pikeland Elementary School 90 15 6.3 8.4 45 4.2 5 East Vincent Elementary School 90 15 10.4 13.3 47 3.4 4 French Creek Elementary School 90 15 6.0 9.9 37 3.4 4 Holy Family School 90 15 4.5 7.3 37 5.6 6 Kimberton-Waldorf School 90 15 7.4 13.4 33 16.9 18 Kindergarten Center 90 15 4.6 7.1 39 6.5 7 Montgomery School 90 15 2.2 40.5 3 7.2 8 North Coventry Elementary School 90 15 10.3 10.9 57 3.4 4 Owen J. Roberts High School 90 15 7.5 10.6 42 4.4 5 Owen J. Roberts Middle School 90 15 7.3 10.6 41 4.4 5 Phoenixville Area High School 90 15 3.5 7.6 28 4.2 5 Limerick Generating Station ES-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Phoenixville Area Middle School 90 15 3.6 7.6 28 4.2 5 Pickering Valley Elementary School 90 15 1.0 2.1 28 7.2 8 Renaissance Academy 90 15 5.3 11.8 27 12.2 13 Schuylkill Elementary School 90 15 2.5 8.4 18 4.2 5 Spring City Elementary School 90 15 12.1 6.4 113 12.7 14 St. Basil the Great School 90 15 7.3 9.9 44 7.8 9 Upattinas Open Community School 90 15 1.3 3.3 23 16.9 18 Valley Forge Christian College 90 15 5.0 12.0 25 12.2 13 lVest Vincent Elementary School 90 15 7.7 42.4 11 3.4 4 WVest-Mont Christian Academy 90 15 11.3 3.2 213 in I1 11 Arcola Intermediate School 90 1s 2.8 2.0 85 20.3 1 22 Arrowhead Elementary School 90 15 4.7 2.0 144 2.4 3 Audubon Elementary 90 15 1.2 8.1 9 3.0 3 Blessed Theresa of Calcutta 90 15 11.6 8.9 78 6.2 7 Boyertown Area Junior High School East 90 15 6.7 3.3 122 14.9 16 Bright Spot Kindergarten 90 15 3.7 1.4 154 7.8 9 Brooke Elementary School 90 15 11.4 3.3 209 6.2 7 Chapel Christian Academy 90 15 10.2 2.9 209 8.8 10 Coventry Christian Schools 90 15 11.2 10.4 64 2.2 2 Eagleville Elementary School 90 15 0.6 2.7 13 3.1 3 Edgewood Elementary School 90 15 9.7 3.0 192 13.2 14 Elizabeth B. Barth Elementary School 90 15 10.7 3.1 207 13.2 14 Evans Elementary School 90 15 9.4 2.9 196 6.2 7 Evergreen Elementary School 90 15 6.1 10.6 34 4.8 5 Franklin Elementary School 90 15 10.1 3.0 202 13.2 14 Gilbertsville Elementary School 90 15 4.8 2.5 117 14.9 16 Limerick Elementary School 90 15 8.8 2.8 188 9.5 10 Lincoln Elementary School 90 15 8.8 2.7 193 14.0 15 Lower Pottsgrove Elementary School 90 15 9.3 4.5 125 16.6 18 New Hanover-Upper Frederick Elementary School 90 15 5.9 2.4 146 18.5 20 New Life Youth & Family Services 90 15 1.2 29.0 2 20.8 23 Limerick Generating Station ES-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Oaks Elementary School 90 11J 4.6 5.0 4-12.7 14

+ + 4 Perkiomen Valley Academy 90 15 4.5 39.2 f 36.1 39 Perkiomen Valley High School 90 15 6.0 10.0 36 4.8 5 Perkiomen Valley Middle School - East 90 15 6.2 10.6 35 4.8 5 Perkiomen Valley Middle School -West 90 15 8.8 11.3 47 4.8 5 Perkiomen Valley South Elementary School 90 15 3.7 8.2 27 8.3 9 Pope John Paul II High School 90 15 9.4 13.8 41 17.0 19 Pottsgrove High School 90 15 8.7 4.1 126 16.6 18 Pottsgrove Middle School 90 15 9.7 4.5 130 16.6 18 Pottstown High School 90 15 9.9 2.9 203 13.2 14 Pottstown Middle School 90 15 10.4 3.1 205 13.2 14 Ringing Rocks Elementary 90 15 8.7 4.1 126 16.6 18 Royersford Elementary School 90 15 11.8 6.2 115 6.2 7 Rupert Elementary School 90 15 12.4 3.6 205 13.2 14 Sacred Heart School 90 15 10.1 6.2 98 12.4 14 Salford Hills Elementary 90 15 1.9 17.1 7 2.3 3 Schwenksville Elementary School 90 15 6.1 8.2 45 4.8 5 Skippack Elementary School 90 15 3.1 10.0 19 4.8 5 Skyview Upper Elementary School 90 15 0.0 0.0 0 2.1 2 Spring-Ford 5th-6th Grade Center 90 15 9.9 6.2 96 6.2 7 Spring-Ford 7th Grade Center 90 15 10.5 6.2 101 6.2 7 Spring-Ford 8th Grade Center 90 15 10.6 6.2 102 6.2 7 Spring-Ford Senior High School 10-12 Grade Center 90 15 10.1 6.2 98 6.2 7 Spring-Ford Senior High School 9th Grade Center 90 15 10.9 6.2 105 6.2 7 St. Aloysius 90 15 9.7 3.5 167 16.1 18 St. Eleanor School 90 15 8.9 3.8 142 2.9 3 St. Gabriel's Hall 90 15 2.5 2.2 69 20.3 22 St. Mary's School 90 15 2.7 28.1 6 7.4 8 St. Peter's Lutheran Church - School 90 15 10.9 3.1 212 13.5 15 The Hill School 90 15 11.2 4.6 147 32.8 36 Upper Providence Elementary School 90 15 9.7 6.1 95 6.2 7 Ursinus College 90 15 3.1 1.4 133 22.3 24 Limerick Generating Station ES-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Valley Forge Baptist Temple Academy 9_ _ b b.1 1.9 5).3 b Wayside Christian School 90 15 5.5 2.7 123 7.0 8 West Pottsgrove Elementary School 90 15 14.0 5.3 158 16.6 18 Western Center for Technical Studies 90 15 10.5 31.6 20 6.2 7 Woodland Elementary 90 15 1.1 4.3 15 2.4 3 Wyndcroft School 90 15 10.3 3.1 198 V7 0 10 Mxmmfor EPZ:

Almost Home Children's Center 90 is 3.8 2.4 94 7.0 8 Boyertown Area YMCA 90 15 3.4 2.8 72 3.4 4 Douglassville Children's Center 90 15 2.1 7.3 17 2.1 2 Douglassville KinderCare 90 15 2.8 6.0 28 7.0 8 Gail Swartz Family Daycare 90 15i 0.2 29.1 0 6.7 7 Saint Columbkill Preschool 90 15 2.8 2.5 67 7.0 8 St. Gabriel's Good Shepherd Learning Center 90 15 2.8 3.8 44 2.8 3 St. John's Lutheran Church 90 15 3.0 2.8 65 7.0 8 Pt. Paul's Day Care 90 15 4.1 7.1 34 4.1 4 eresa Walter Family Daycare 90 15 1.0 5.3 11 6.6 7 Bright Light Early Learning Center 90 15 0.5 8.0 4 7.2 8 Children's House of Northern Chester County 90 15 5.1 9.6 32 10.9 12 East Coventry Elementary School 90 15 13.4 16.1 50 5.4 6 Grace Assembly Day Care Center 90 15 12.6 4.4 173 3.3 4 International Montessori 90 15 4.8 6.5 45 12.2 13 Kiddie Academy 90 15 5.4 9.8 33 12.2 13 Kids Kare Korner 90 15 12.2 4.8 153 3.3 4 Kindercare Learning Center No. 1405 90 15 9.6 6.3 92 3.3 4 Little Angels Day Care 90 15 5.0 6.5 46 12.2 13 Magic Memories 90 15 4.9 8.8 33 12.2 13 Our House Early Learning Center 90 15 12.8 10.1 76 5.4 6 Limerick Generating Station ES-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Phoenixville Area Children Learning Center I

90 1

I 15 I 4.6 6.4 I 43 12.2 13 Phoenixville Area Children's Learning Center 2 90 15 5.0 4.3 70 12.2 13 Phoenixville Area YMCA Child Care Center 90 1s 4.6 8.0 35 12.2 13 Pottstown YMCA French Creek Elementary 90 15 6.0 9.9 37 4.2 5 Stepping Stone Education Center 90 15 5.0 4.3 70 12.2 13 Teach & Learn Day School 90 15 8.3 5.8 85 3.3 4 he Goddard School - Chester Springs 90 15 0.8 7.6 6 7.2 8 alley Forge Kinder House Montessori School 90 15 3.9 12.4 19 12.2 13 arwick Child Care - North Coventry Center 90 15 6.9 8.8 47 5.4 6 arwick Child Care - South Coventry Center 90 15 6.5 9.8 40 A I Boyertown Children's Center 90 15 17.9 13.8 78 6.2 7 Bright Beginnings Child Care Center 90 15 10.2 8.3 74 6.2 7 Bright Spot Child Care 90 15 3.7 1.5 149 7.8 9 Chesterbrook Academy - Collegeville 90 15 1.4 1.9 45 8.1 9 Chesterbrook Academy - Limerick 90 15 13.5 5.5 148 6.6 7 Chesterbrook Academy - Norristown 90 15 2.9 5.9 29 7.4 8 Chesterbrook Academy - Phoenixville 90 15 6.9 4.6 90 6.6 7 Chesterbrook Academy - Royersford 90 15 11.4 5.2 131 6.6 7 Children of America Trappe 90 15 7.7 4.4 106 6.2 7 Country Tyme Day Care 90 15 11.5 5.4 129 5.4 6 Coventry Christian Pre-School 90 15 11.2 7.2 93 2.2 2 Creative Beginnings Preschool 90 15 1.2 1.9 39 8.1 9 Creative Child Care Too 90 15 3.4 1.7 117 8.1 9 Creative Minds Montessori 90 1S 19.3 11.4 102 6.2 7 Dotlen Academy 90 15 20.7 8.0 155 6.2 7 Flanagan's Pre-School 90 15 5.9 9.0 39 6.2 7 RV YMCA - Audubon Elementary 90 15 1.2 5.6 13 3.0 3 FV YMCA - Brooke Elementary School 90 15 11.4 5.2 131 6.2 7 FV YMCA - Evans Elementary School 90 15 9.4 8.3 68 6.2 7 FV YMCA - Limerick Elementary School 90 15 8.8 7.6 69 9.5 10 FV YMCA - Perkiomen Valley Middle School 90 15 6.2 6.8 S5 4.8 5 Limerick Generating Station ES-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

FV YMCA - Pottstown Day Care 90 15 20.0 S.0 149 b.2 FV YMCA - Royersford Elementary School 90 15 11.8 9.2 77 6.2 7 FV YMCA - Spring Valley 90 15 9.3 8.3 68 6.2 7 FV YMCA - Woodland Elementary 90 15 1.1 5.6 12 2.4 3 Hendricks Family Growing Dreams 90 15 14.6 8.8 100 6.2 7 Jerusalem Lutheran Day Care Center 90 15 6.2 8.6 43 6.2 7 Kiddie Academy Collegeville 90 15 7.7 7.5 62 6.2 7 Kiddie Academy Royersford 90 15 13.1 5.5 144 6.6 7 Kids Kare Korner III 90 15 11.6 9.2 76 6.2 7 Kinder Works 90 15 10.2 8.3 74 6.2 7 Kindercare 3056 90 15 22.0 9.6 137 6.2 7 Kindercare 3060 90 15 9.0 4.7 115 6.6 7 Little Faces Learning Center 90 15 16.2 13.1 74 6.2 7 Little Footprints 90 15 23.9 7.2 198 6.2 7 Little Mary Daycare 90 15 20.7 8.0 155 6.2 7 Montgomery Early Learning Center 90 15 20.6 8.0 154 6.2 7 New Hanover Child Care 90 15 15.7 8.9 106 6.2 7 North Penn YMCA - Salford Hills Elementary 90 15 1.9 18.7 6 2.3 3 North Penn YMCA - Schwenksville Elementary 90 15 6.1 8.2 45 4.8 5 Oaks Early Learning 90 15 5.3 4.5 70 6.6 7 Phoenixville Area YMCA - Eagleville Elementary 90 15 0.6 1.5 24 3.1 3 Phoenixville Area YMCA-Arrowhead Elementary 90 15 4.7 1.9 147 2.4 3 Phoenixville Area YMCA-Oaks Elementary School 90 15 4.6 4.4 63 12.7 14 Play and Learn - Collegeville 90 15 1.6 1.9 51 15.8 17 Play and Learn - Green Lane 90 15 3.2 25.4 8 23.9 26 Play and Learn - Royersford 90 15 10.0 4.7 127 6.6 7 Providence Christian Preschool 90 15 9.6 4.7 123 6.6 7 SEI Family Center 90 15 5.0 4.5 67 6.6 7 Short Stuff & Co 90 15 0.9 5.5 10 7.0 8 Spring Valley YMCA Child Care Facility 90 15 11.3 8.5 80 6.2 7 Sunny Dayz Child Care 90 15 20.7 8.0 155 6.2 7 The Goddard School - Gilbertsville 90 15 16.8 13.1 77 6.2 7 Limerick Generating Station ES-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The Goddard School - Royersford 90 15 I1.0 8.5 li b.2 7 90 15 20.7 9.4 133 6.2 7 The Goddard School - Sanatoga The Goddard School - Schwenksville 90 15 6.2 6.8 55 6.2 7 The Goddard School - Skippack 90 15 2.3 6.6 21 6.2 7 The Learning Experience 90 15 20.7 9.4 133 6.2 7 The Malvern School - Collegeville 90 15 3.4 1.7 117 8.1 9 The Malvern School - Royersford 90 15 13.0 5.5 143 6.6 7 The Malvern School of Oaks 90 15 6.0 4.5 79 6.6 7 Tot Spot Learning Center 90 15 4.3 1.8 144 8.1 9 Twin Acres Country Day School 90 15 7.8 5.1 92 4.4 5 Tykes and Tots Day Care 90 15 3.1 7.2 26 6.2 7 Valley Forge Children's Academy 90 15 1.8 5.6 19 8.2 9 Victory Early Learning Academy 90 15 1.5 5.6 16 8.7 9 Wee Care Child Dev Center 90 15 20.7 9.4 133 6.2 7 YMCA Growing Dreams Child Care Center 90 15 17.4 13.1 80 6.2 7 YWCA Hill School Preschool 90 15 21.2 8.0 158 6.2 7 YWCA Ready Set Grow 90 15 20.6 8.0 154 6.L2 7 YWCA Tricounty Daycare 90 15 20.9 8.0 156 6.2I 7 Limerick Generating Station ES-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Schedule 1 1-2 90 3.6 2.5 85 30 7.0 8 5 10 77 30 Schedule 2 1-2 90 4.0 2.2 107 30 7.0 8 5 10 74 30 Schedule 3 1-2 90 3.5 2.7 77 30 7.0 8 5 10 65 30 Schedule 4 1-2 90 2.9 2.9 59 30 7.0 8 5 10 40 30 Schedule 5 1-2 90 3.4 2.6 78 30 7.0 8 5 10 61 30 Downtown 1-7 90 5.6 5.3 63 30 13.2 14 5 10 45 30 Area Downtown 8-14 110 5.6 5.7 59 30 13.2 14 5 10 40 31 Area East Side 1-7 90 13.4 7.2 112 30 13.2 14 5 10 55 30 East Side 8-14 110 13.4 7.6 106 30 13.2 14 5 10 53 31 North Side 1-7 90 10.1 5.1 119 30 13.2 14 5 10 43 30 North Side 8-14 110 10.1 5.5 110 30 13.2 14 5 10 43 31 West Side 1-4 90 17.9 5.5 197 30 13.2 14 5 10 60 30 West Side 5-9 110 17.9 5.8 184 30 13.2 14 5 10 60 31 Central Ce 1-7 90 12.1 3.3 220 30 12.5 14 5 10 44 30 Zone Central 8-14 110 12.1 3.4 214 30 12.5 14 5 10 41 31 Zone 12.5 14 5 10 48 30 East Zone 1-7 90 13.4 3.7 217 30 12.5 14 5 10 45 31 East Zone 8-15 110 13.4 3.7 215 30 North 1-7 90 10.5 3.5 182 30 12.5 14 5 10 49 30 Zone North 8-14 110 10.5 3.5 180 30 12.5 14 5 10 45 31 Zone Limerick Generating Station ES-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Limerick Generating Station ES-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H-8. Region R08 Limerick Generating Station ES-31 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 Limerick Generating Station (LGS), located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. ETE provide state and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

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

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

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

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

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

a 10CFR50, Appendix E - "Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities" The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by Exelon who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required. Table 1-1 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkhle Naur of Stkeole Inercto Provided data (telephone survey, employees, transients, special facilities, transit resources)

Exelon needed for the study. Coordinated information exchange with offsite response organizations.

Reviewed draft report and provided comments.

Berks County Provided existing emergency plan, including traffic Chester County and access control points and other information Montgomery County critical to the ETE study. Engaged in the ETE Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency development and informed of the study results.

Limerick Generating Station 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Exelon.

b. Conducted bi-weekly conference calls with Exelon to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 census and from Exelon.

e. Obtained results of a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents from Exelon.

f. Obtained data from Exelon to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.

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

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

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

5. Divided the EPZ into 43 Sub-areas along township and borough boundaries. Used these Sub-areas to define Evacuation Regions. "Regions" are groups of contiguous sub-areas for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at special facilities and for transit-dependent persons at home.

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

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

Limerick Generating Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 The Limerick Generating Station Location The LGS is located along the Schuylkill River in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The site is approximately 30 miles northwest of Philadelphia, PA. The EPZ consists of parts of Berks, Chester and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the LGS. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

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

KID Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station 1-3 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

0 10 20 (i Mile.Wglo nOM aseie Gril. - e, c.sMsw" Lan Is Newbop.

BwdsbLao. o Ottw Morganis9 \

~6 d pot, d~

1-.LSLcto Figure

~

Limerick ~~ ~ ~ ~n

~GeeaigStto - KDEgnernPC EvacutionTimeEstiate ev.0

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

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

Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

Number of lanes

Posted speed

Lane width

Actual free speed

Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use

Interchange geometries a Control devices

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Telephone Survey The results of a telephone survey conducted in 2012 were obtained to gather information needed for the evacuation study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

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

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

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

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

Limerick Generating Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 1-2. LGS Link-Node Analysis Network Limerick Generating Station 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

DYNEV II consists of four sub-models:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Limerick Generating Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2008 study. Despite the significant population increase in the EPZ since the last ETE study, the ETE for winter scenarios are comparable and for summer scenarios ETE are less in this study. The follow factors contribute to these changes in ETE:

2010 HCM used - baseline capacity estimates have continuously increased from one version to the next of the HCM. The previous study used the 1985 HCM. Higher capacity estimates result in lower ETE.

The highway representation is far more detailed providing more routing choices for evacuees, which could reduce ETE.

0 Dynamic evacuation modeling used which adjusts routing to avoid traffic congestion to the extent feasible (similar to a modern GPS) and could reduce in ETE.

Roadway improvements to accommodate the significant increase in population.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-icPeiu S T tuyCrrn.T Stud ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Resident Population 2000 US Census Data; Census blocks; area ratio method Basis Population = 244,306 used.

Population = 292,136 Vehicle occupancy based on Census 2000 average household occupancy rates and 2.54 persons/household, 1.21 Residlen POcpuatn Census 2000 data on vehicles available evacuating vehicles/household per household. Vehicle occupancy ranges yielding: 2.10 persons/vehicle.

from 2 to 3 persons per vehicle.

Employee estimates based on lists Employee estimates based on obtained from the Harris InfoSource information provided about major Employee Directory, local Chambers of Commerce, employers in EPZ, US Census Populoye and the facility list from the 1992 study. Longitudinal Employer-Household Population 1.0 employee per vehicle was used for all Dynamics major employers.

_Employees = 18,200 Employees = 13,930 KID Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station 1-9 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

TopicPeiu S T tdCurn Study6 T Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 3,533 Recognized there will be some transport people who do not have access to a dependent population and pick up points vehicle, requiring 118 buses to Transit-Dependent have been established for this evacuate. An additional 264 Population population. No number provided and no homebound special needs persons explicit assignment of vehicles was made needed special transportation to to reflect this population.

evacuate (61 wheelchair vans and 11 ambulances are required to evacuate this population).

Transient estimates based on information from the 2002 AAA Tour Book listings and Transient estimates based upon local tourism websites and the 2002 AAA information provided about Transient Tour Book listings, phone calls to local transient attractions in EPZ.

Population facilities, and data obtained from state and county agencies. Transients = 14,486 Transients = 10,048 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by Exelon within the EPZ. Considered the Special Facilities evacuation of Graterford Prison. Current census = 2,765 Population Special Facility Population = 3,552 Buses Required 78 Wheelchair Vans Required = 149 Vehicles originating at special facilities

=

1,384 Ambulances Required = 77 School population based on information provided by regional school districts, School population based on private schools, colleges, and the information provided by Exelon School Population Department of Public Welfare. School enrollment = 49,321 School enrollment = 41,231 Preschool enrollment = 12,110 Daycare enrollment = 7,770 The impact of "voluntary evacuation" has Voluntary been addressed in this study by evacuation from identifying locations where voluntary 20 percent of the population within within EPZ in areas evacuation could interfere with traffic the EPZ, but not within the outside region to be evacuating from the EPZ. No traffic Evacuation Region (see Figure 2-1) evacuated demand associated with "voluntary evacuees" was considered.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station 1-10 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To-ic PrviusE Std Curn

StdI The impact of "voluntary evacuation" has been addressed in this study by identifying locations where voluntary 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation evacuation could interfere with traffic within the Shadow Region evacuating from the EPZ. No traffic (see Figure 7-2) demand associated with "voluntary evacuees" was considered.

Network Size 315 links; 262 nodes 5,156 links; 3,020 nodes Field surveys conducted in 2002 and Field surveys conducted in Roadway Geometric 2008. November 2013. Roads and Data intersections were video archived.

Road capacities based on 1985 HCM Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.

School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Host ScolSho. Direct evacuation to designated Host School. School.

50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing Not considered persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip Preparation and mobilization times were mobilization activities:

developed in consultation with state Residents with commuters returning emergency preparedness officials. leave between 15 and 195 minutes.

Trip Generation for Permanent Residents leave between 15 Residents without commuters Evacuation and 135 minutes. returning leave between 15 and 120 Employees and transients leave between minutes.

15 and 45 minutes. Employees and transients leave between 15 and 75 minutes.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity Weather free flow speed of all links in the network and free flow speed of all links in the are reduced by 20% in the event of rain network are reduced by 10% in the and 30% for snow. event of rain and 20% for snow.

Modeling NetVac2 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.17.0 Phoenixville Firebird Festival Special Events None considered Special Event Population = 6,000 additional transients 46 Regions (central sector wind Evacuation Cases 12 Scenarios for full EPZ producing 12 direction and each adjacent sector unique cases. technique used) and 14 Scenarios I_ I producing 644 unique cases.

Limerick Generating Station 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic rvou S td Curn0T td ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuation Time for a full EPZ evacuation. Results percentile population. Results Estimates Reporting presented by Scenario. presented by Region and Scenario.

Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Winter Day, Fair Weather: 4:58 Good Weather: 5:05 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 9 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Fair Weather: 6:38 Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 4:45 Limerick Generating Station 1-12 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.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics tools (see Section 3.4).

3. Population estimates at special facilities are based on data provided by Exelon.

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

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

6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.54 persons per household (See Appendix F, Figure F-i) and 1.21 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F-4) are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients and employees is as follows:

a. Employees: vehicle occupancy data (provided by Exelon) varies by facility for schools and medical facilities and is approximately one employee per vehicle on average; one employee per vehicle assumed for all other major employers.

b. Transients: varies from 1.79 to 2.85 persons per vehicle depending on the type of facility.

c. Special Events: Transients attending the Phoenixville Firebird Festival have an estimated occupancy of 2 persons per vehicle.

Limerick Generating Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario. The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees. A Region is defined as a group of Sub-areas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate. A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane eastbound on US 422 from the interchange with Evergreen Rd to the interchange with US 202.

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

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

Limerick Generating Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Winter Midweek, Evening Good Phoenixville Firebird Weekend Festival 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure US 422 Eastbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Limerick Generating Station 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Regio /

2-Mle Region ~reEPZ II /¸ i>iiiiliilii \iI I Keyhole: 2-Mile Region & 5 Miles Downwind I Keyhole: 5-Mile Region & 10 Miles Downwind IStaged Evacuation: 2-Mile Region &5 Miles Downwind I,

Plant Location N Region to be Evacuated: 100% Evacuation ] 20% Shadow Evacuation E Shelter, then Evacuate Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Limerick Generating Station 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.3 Study Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

3. 60 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F-3); 43 percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F-5), based on the telephone survey results. Therefore 26 percent (60% x 43% = 26%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

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

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

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

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

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

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

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

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

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

Special consideration was given to the Pennsylvania Turnpike ACPs and TCPs in accordance with the Pennsylvania State Plan Annex E, Attachment B, Appendix 20, pages E-20-10 and E-20-11.

Limerick Generating Station 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated host schools.

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

c. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.

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

e. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

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

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies 3, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002.

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

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

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

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

10. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per bus for elementary schools and 50 students per bus for middle and high schools. Transit buses used to transport the transit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus. Buses evacuating patients from medical facilities can transport 30 ambulatory people per bus; 4 wheelchair bound persons per wheelchair van; and bedridden patients per ambulance.

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

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

Limerick Generating Station 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Rain 90% 90% No Effect Clear driveway before leaving home (See Figure F-9)

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

Limerick Generating Station 2-7 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 double-counting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the LGS 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 businesses 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 Sub-area and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The LGS EPZ is subdivided into 43 Sub-areas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

Limerick Generating Station 3-1 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. The average household size (2.54 persons/household - See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.21 vehicles/household - See Figure F-4) were adapted from the telephone survey results.

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

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

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

" Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer.

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

" Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

3.1.1 Special Facilities Montgomery County Correctional Facility, the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, and several large medical facilities are located within the EPZ (see Table E-3 and Table E-7). These facilities have permanent residents that are included in the Census; however, the correctional facilities will shelter-in-place (based on discussions with Exelon), and the medical facilities are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are addressed in Section 8. As such, these residents are included in the EPZ resident population, but no evacuating vehicles are considered for these residents. The vehicles in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3 have been adjusted accordingly.

Limerick Generating Station 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1.2 Colleges and Universities There are two higher education facilities with the EPZ. For students evacuating in private vehicles, the same trip generation distribution (see Section 5) as permanent residents was used.

Based on discussions with college officials students will evacuate using personal vehicles. Thus, no buses were considered for these facilities.

Ursinus College (located in Collegeville, 7.3 miles east-southeast of LGS) has 1,750 enrolled students according to enrollment data provided by Exelon. Emergency plans posted on the Ursinus College website' indicate students will evacuate in private vehicles. The college emergency plans assume ridesharing amongst students will occur such that all students will have a ride out of the EPZ. Using aerial imagery, student parking lots were located and parking spaces were counted on campus to estimate the upper bound of student vehicles on campus.

A total of 908 evacuating student vehicles have been incorporated for this facility and have been counted as resident vehicles in both Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.

Valley Forge Christian College (located in Schuylkill, 7.6 miles south-southeast of LGS) has a total of 800 enrolled students according to enrollment data provided by Exelon. College officials confirmed that students will evacuate using private vehicles. This college also assumes that ridesharing will occur amongst students such that all students will have a ride out of the EPZ.

Again, aerial imagery was used to locate student parking lots and count parking spaces. A total of 337 evacuating student vehicles have been incorporated for this campus and have been counted as resident vehicles in both Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.

1 htto://www.ursinus.edu/netcommunitv/document.doc?id=1747 m II B II Limerick Generating Station 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 3-1. LGS EPZ Limerick Generating Station 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Sub-rea2000Poplatin 210 Ppultio Amity 7,126 10,815 Boyertown 3,941 4,055 Colebrookdale 5,322 5,078 Douglass (Berks) 3,344 3,306 Earl 730 717 Union 1,123 1,215 Washington 610 715 Charlestown 3,539 4,141 East Coventry 4,608 6,636 East Nantmeal 1,472 1,500 East Pikeland 6,565 7,079 East Vincent 5,458 6,821 North Coventry 7,381 7,866 Phoenixville 14,757 16,440 Schuylkill 6,991 8,516 South Coventry 1,879 2,604 Spring City 3,298 3,323 Upper Uwchlan 3,674 8,089 Uwchlan 1,399 1,343 Warwick 2,219 2,192 West Pikeland 3,360 3,876 West Vincent 3,190 4,567 Chester County Tta 69,790 84,993 Limerick Generating Station 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population (Continued)

Su-re000 Poplaio 201 Poulaio MOTOMR COUNTY Collegeville 8,032 5,089 Douglass (Montgomery) 9,098 10,195 Green Lane 584 508 Limerick 13,572 18,074 Lower Frederick 4,793 4,840 Lower Pottsgrove 11,193 12,059 Lower Providence 22,388 25,436 Lower Salford 902 1,503 Marlborough 426 492 New Hanover 7,369 10,939 Perkiomen 7,126 9,139 Pottstown 21,879 22,377 Royersford 4,197 4,752 Schwenksville 1,693 1,385 Skippack 6,516 13,715 Trappe 3,210 3,509 Upper Frederick 3,143 3,523 Upper Pottsgrove 4,085 5,315 Upper Providence 15,376 21,219 Upper Salford 3,024 3,299 West Pottsgrove 3,815 3,874 152,421 181,242 0Montgornery County Total:

EPZ Population Growth: 19.5%

Limerick Generating Station 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area Amity 10,815 5,146 Boyertown 4,055 1,931 Colebrookdale 5,078 2,412 Douglass (Berks) 3,306 1,569 Earl 717 342 Union 1,215 579 Washington715 3 Charlestown 4,141 2,037 East Coventry 6,636 3,156 East Nantmeal 1,500 713 East Pikeland 7,079 3,366 East Vincent 6,821 3,249 North Coventry 7,866 3,746 Phoenixville 16,440 7,826 Schuylkill 8,516 4,259 South Coventry 2,604 1,238 Spring City 3,323 1,584 Upper Uwchlan 8,089 3,851 Uwchlan 1,343 640 Warwick 2,192 1,042 West Pikeland 3,876 1,843 West Vincent 4,567 2,171 Chester County Total: 84993 40,721 Limerick Generating Station 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area (Continued)

Collegeville 5,089 2,597 Douglass (Montgomery) 10,195 4,852 Green Lane 508 243 Limerick 18,074 8,598 Lower Frederick 4,840 2,305 Lower Pottsgrove 12,059 5,739 Lower Providence 25,436 11,246 Lower Salford 1,503 716 Marlborough 492 236 New Hanover 10,939 5,208 Perkiomen 9,139 4,352 Pottstown 22,377 10,582 Royersford 4,752 2,267 Schwenksville 1,385 660 Skippack 13,715 6,530 Trappe 3,509 1,673 Upper Frederick 3,523 1,679 Upper Pottsgrove 5,315 2,530 Upper Providence 21,219 9,883 Upper Salford 3,299 1,572 Limerick Generating Station 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE

- - "\" 1,131 -/

- 441 36 ,

WNW ENE I-W E

'I 12 IWW4 WS i4 ESE 9,818 SE 33,27

- 7,683 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW 1.175 *3* - -

S 32,05 17,978 Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 3/6)s 0-1 846 846 12 0 1-2 9,287 10,133 2-3 21,664 31,797 3 -4 36,411 68,208 W 1%A

)439 E 4- 5 26,868 95,076 5-6 24,022 119,098 6-7 30,716 149,814 0

7-8 42,77 192,584 8-9 36,957 229,541 9-10 27,529 257,070 10 - EPZ 35,066 292,136 Inset Total: 292,136 0 -2Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW 7,312NNE

- -~ - S38 -

17 WNW I ENE 6,1 S34 so SI %

E 368 0 89 1 2Z9091,908 682:1,8 191 1 161 WSW ~230 812ES S,029, S "SE SeV F4,3C sE PB

. 3,659 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW 559 3- - -

7,03 S 15,530 r3,7ý95 Resident Vehicles 284 Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 17 0-1 403 403 1 -2 4,420 4,823 6 17 2-3 10,305 15,128 0 3 -4 17,262 32,390 W 74 2018 E 4-5 12,800 45,190 5-6 11,205 56,395 6-7 14,622 71,017 7-8 20,802 91,819 8-9 17,603 109,422 9- 10 12,243 121,665 10 - EPZ 16,689 138,354 Inset -- ,A-Total: 138,354 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector S Pouato *ai E . Vhce N 5,312 2,522 NNE 16,204 7,717 NE 5,147 2,450 ENE 29,540 14,074 E 27,462 13,070 ESE 48,031 22,881 SE 32,392 15,434 SSE 25,299 12,051 S 29,418 14,009 SSW 22,352 10,640 SW 4,377 2,083 WSW 3,812 1,815 W 6,364 3,025 WNW 14,757 7,024 NW 3,910 1,850 NNW 4,639 2,205 Limerick Generating Station 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW 5,312 NNE WNW ENE 114,757]

11.789 739 w E 7.340 11,789 2,6 7"4 wSW 24,468 ESE 3,812 SE

.32,392 S EPZ Boundary tol11 Miles SSW SSE S

Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 13,681 13,681 11-12 30,316 43,997 12 - 13 59,645 103,642 13 - 14 73,045 176,687 14-15 102,329 279,016 Total: 279,016 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW 2 NNE 2,2057,717 WNW ENE 7,024 5,614 106 w E 3,49S S.611 1,7 wsw 172 11,659 ESE 1,815 F22,881ý SE 1 P5,434 SSW ~-j,2-- SSE S EPZBoundary to 11 Miles 106,640 51,5 F14,009 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 6,509 6,509 11-12 14,419 20,928 12-13 28,403 49,331 13-14 34,796 84,127 14-15 48,723 132,850 Total: 132,850 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector KLD Engineering, P.C.

Limerick Generating Station 3-13 3-13 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, hotels and motels. Data for these facilities were provided by Exelon. The LGS EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

0 Lodging Facilities - 2,079 transients; 1,164 vehicles; 1.79 people per vehicle 0 Campgrounds - 1,023 transients; 359 vehicles; 2.85 people per vehicle S Parks - 3,794 transients; 1,563 vehicles; 2.43 people per vehicle (NOTE: Local parks are not included; visitors to these facilities are local residents and have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1.)

0 Expo Center - 1,800 transients; 900 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle 0 Retailers - 5,250 transients; 2,625 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle 0 Phoenixville YMCA Program Center - 540 transients; 203 vehicles; 2.66 people per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E-5 presents the number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas (campgrounds, parks, YMCA, Expo Center and Retailers), while Table E-6 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total there are 14,486 transients evacuating in 6,814 vehicles, an average of 2.13 transients per vehicle. Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Sub-area. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

3-14 KLD Engineering, p.c.

Limerick Generating Station KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Amity 0 0 Boyertown 0 0 Colebrookdale 289 104 Douglass (Berks) 65 36 Earl 0 0 Union 0 0 Washington 0 0 Charlestown 0 0 East Coventry 0 0 East Nantmeal 0 0 East Pikeland 40 22 East Vincent 0 0 North Coventry 3,000 1,500 Phoenixville 47 26 Schuylkill 540 203 South Coventry 0 0 Spring City 0 0 Upper Uwchlan 0 0 Uwchlan 0 0 Warwick 930 321 West Pikeland 0 0 West Vincent 0 0 Chester County Total; 4,557 1 2,072 Limerick Generating Station 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles (Continued)

Sub-area Trniet Trnin Veice Collegeville 0 0 Douglass (Montgomery) 0 0 Green Lane 0 0 Limerick 2,667 1,366 Lower Frederick 0 0 Lower Pottsgrove 326 161 Lower Providence 971 498 Lower Salford 0 0 Marlborough 0 0 New Hanover 108 54 Perkiomen 0 0 Pottstown 581 323 Royersford 0 0 Schwenksville 0 0 Skippack 458 222 Trappe 0 0 Upper Frederick 1,547 581 Upper Pottsgrove 0 0 Upper Providence 2,917 1,397 Upper Salford 0 0 Limerick Generating Station 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE

-289-1 0 7-

-- 0 WNW ENE I

E860- E68--

w E 3,00 0 0 F4901 wsw ESE Tn660en 0

-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW . -

E-- S F6271 N EII Transients 025 Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 2,462 2,462 0 0 2-3 342 2,804 0 3-4 295 3,099 W i0 '0' E 4-S 3,475 6,574 S-6 421 6,995 6-7 108 7,103 7-8 893 7,996 8-9 304 8,300 9-10 5,215 13,515 10 - EPZ 971 14,486 Inset

Total: 14,486 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE 96---j 1 0 '1 - 0 0 -

WNW ENE

-478-1 0

W E

~60 ' 261 WSW 0 498,

' ESE E220- , , 674--

-s0 Boundary 0 -

SSW S

EL0I- s-- 251--1 N Transient Vehicles Miles 0-1 1 -2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 1,232 190 164 1,764 0 0 1,232 1,422 1,586 3,350 W

0 6s E 5 -6 177 31527 6-7 54 3,581 7-8 387 3,968 8-9 120 4,088 9- 10 2,228 6,316 10 - EPZ 498 6,814 Inset Total: 6,814 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

" Those who live and work in the EPZ

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

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

Maximum shift employment data were provided by Exelon for the major employers (generally speaking 50 or more employees in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002) in the EPZ.

Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ to avoid double counting. This tool allows the user to draw a cordon around any area in the US and a report of the number of employees commuting into and out of the cordoned area is produced. The tool was used to draw a cordon around the EPZ. The inflow/outflow report for the EPZ was then used to calculate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 58.3%, was applied to the maximum shift employment to compute the number of people commuting into the EPZ to work at peak times.

In Table E-4, the Employees (Max Shift) column is multiplied by the percent of employees commuting into the EPZ (58.3%) factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. Vehicle occupancy data were provided by Exelon for staff at schools and medical facilities; these occupancies varied but were approximately 1 employee per vehicle. It is conservatively assumed for all other major employers that there is 1 employee per vehicle as carpooling in the US is minimal.

Based on information provided by the facility, Montgomery County Correctional Facility has 100 employees during the average day shift. During an evacuation, half of these employees would remain at the facility to maintain security at the prison while the other half would evacuate.

Applying the 58.3% non-EPZ resident employee factor and a vehicle occupancy factor of 1, the number of non-EPZ resident employee vehicles evacuating from this facility is 30 (100 x 50% =

50 x 58.3% = 30 x 1 = 30), rounding up. The employee and employee vehicle totals for Lower Providence in Table 3-5 reflect this information.

Based on information provided by the facility, the State Correctional Institute at Graterford has 350 employees during the average day shift. During an evacuation, 250 of these employees would remain at the facility to maintain security at the prison. Applying the 58.3% non-EPZ resident employee factor and a vehicle occupancy factor of 1, the number of non-EPZ resident employee vehicles evacuating from this facility is 59 (350 - 250 = 100 x 58.3% = 59 x 1 = 59),

rounding up. The employee and employee vehicle totals for Skippack in Table 3-5 reflect this information.

2 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Limerick Generating Station 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-5 presents employees commuting into the EPZ and their vehicles by Sub-area. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Su-ae Emlye Emloe Veice 0EK CUT Amity 338 322 Boyertown 461 461 Colebrookdale 301 301 Douglass (Berks) 33 33 Earl 0 0 Union 0 0 Washington 0 0 Charlestown 126 126 East Coventry 107 107 East Nantmeal 0 0 East Pikeland 263 263 East Vincent 193 170 North Coventry 46 46 Phoenixville 167 137 Schuylkill 578 578 South Coventry 236 236 Spring City 148 148 Upper Uwchlan 50 50 Uwchlan 0 0 Warwick 0 0 West Pikeland 0 0 West Vincent 38 38 Chester Counlty Total: 1,952 1,899 Limerick Generating Station 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles (Continued)

Collegeville 282 282 Douglass (Montgomery) 296 296 Green Lane 83 83 Limerick 1,364 1,364 Lower Frederick 0 0 Lower Pottsgrove 366 355 Lower Providence 663 649 Lower Salford 0 0 Marlborough 0 0 New Hanover 150 150 Perkiomen 271 271 Pottstown 1,656 1,570 Royersford 143 143 Schwenksville 40 40 Skippack 436 436 Trappe 161 161 Upper Frederick 45 45 Upper Pottsgrove 56 56 Upper Providence 4,670 4,670 Upper Salford 0 0 West Pottserove 163 163 Limerick Generating Station 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE F1,1381

- 0 0 WNW ENE 1,71 305 173

'A W E 0 0 I-WSW ESE 3,070

.* 50 sow 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW F-8-g-- S 1,059 N F331 Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 492 492 1-2 1,062 1,554 2-3 836 2,390 3 -4 1,076 3,466 W E 4-S 892 4,358 5-6 661 51019 6-7 823 5,842 7-8 4,757 10,599 8-9 1,250 11,849 9- 10 1,509 13,358 10 - EPZ 572 13,930 Inset Total: 13,930 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

N NNW NNE

~

E2o41-0' - - - - -

w -- 0 WNW ENE I

305 W E 0

3,5 ESE WSW 0 SW so 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary SSW a - -

E88-- S 1,006 N E331--

Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 481 481 1-2 976 1,457 2-3 813 2,270 3 -4 1,076 3,346 W E 4-5 1 892 4,238 5-6 661 4,899 6-7 823 5,722 7-8 4,730 10,452 8-9 1,231 11,683 9- 10 1,509 13,192 10 - EPZ 558 13,750 Inset -

Total: 13,750 0 - 2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Limerick Generating Station 3-23 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Exelon for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-3 in Appendix E summarizes the data provided. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.

3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (external-external trips) at the time of an accident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ 476, Route 309, 1-76, 1-276, US 202, US 30 and US 422. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months (access control points - ACP - are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the advisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 41,386 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external 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, 12 and 13) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - the Phoenixville Firebird Festival, which occurs annually in December (winter) on a weekend in the evening. The festival is located in downtown Phoenixville and the exact location of the event varies from year to year.

The Phoenixville Director of Emergency Management estimated that there are 15,000 attendees for this event; 40% of attendees are transients, and the estimated vehicle occupancy is 2 people per vehicle. This results in 3,000 additional transient vehicles which are added to the simulation throughout the town of Phoenixville. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as transients.

Limerick Generating Station 3-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shuttle buses are used to transport attendees from parking lots to the festival site; however, these shuttle buses would not be used to evacuate attendees. It is assumed that the time to shuttle attendees to parking lots or for attendees to walk to their vehicles is within the 75 minute mobilization time for transients discussed in Section 5.

Temporary road closures are used for the parade portion of the festival, but all roadways could be quickly re-opened in the event of an emergency.

Limerick Generating Station 3-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-6. LGS EPZ External Traffic 8265 265 1-476 SB 50,960 0.091 0.5 2,319 4,638 8237 237 1-476 NB 50,960 0.091 0.5 2,319 4,638 8868 1868 Route 309 SB 31,735 0.107 0.5 1,698 3,396 8884 1884 Route 309 NB 31,735 0.107 0.5 1,698 3,396 8,185 185 1-76 WB 79,603 0.091 0.5 3,622 7,244 8112 112 1-76 EB 35,174 0.107 0.5 1,882 3,764 8167 228 1-276 WB 63,476 0.091 0.5 2,888 5,776 8375 4119 US 202 WB 9,381 0.118 0.5 553 1,106 8227 3989 US 202 EB 9,381 0.118 0.5 553 1,106 8279 279 US 30 EB 41,847 0.107 0.5 2,239 4,478 8090 90 US 422 SB 15,899 0.116 0.5 922 1,844 IHighway 2

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2011 HCM 2010 Limerick Generating Station 3-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups - transit-dependent, special facility and school population - are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 450,121 people and 229,754 vehicles are considered in this study.

Limerick Generating Station 3-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand Amity 10,815 0 0 338 214 2,892 0 0 14,259 Boyertown 4,055 300 0 461 100 1,755 0 0 6,671 Colebrookdale 5,078 0 289 301 0 2,295 0 0 7,963 Douglass (Berks) 3,306 0 65 33 0 299 0 0 3,703 Earl 717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 717 Union 1,215 0 0 0 24 12 0 0 1,251 Washington 715 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 765 Berks County Total: 930 354 1,33. 338 7,303 05 Charlestown 4,141 0 0 126 0 313 0 0 4,580 East Coventry 6,636 0 0 107 120 693 0 0 7,556 East Nantmeal 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 East Pikeland 7,079 0 40 263 142 726 0 0 8,250 East Vincent 6,821 0 0 193 185 1,054 0 0 8,253 North Coventry 7,866 0 3,000 46 0 1,174 0 0 12,086 Phoenixville 16,440 1,260 47 167 325 1,391 0 0 19,630 Schuylkill 8,516 0 540 578 0 4,237 0 0 13,871 South Coventry 2,604 0 0 236 41 2,904 0 0 5,785 Spring City 3,323 263 0 148 0 29 0 0 3,763 Upper Uwchlan 8,089 0 0 50 0 968 0 0 9,107 Uwchlan 1,343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,343 Warwick 2,192 0 930 0 0 35 0 0 3,157 West Pikeland 3,876 0 0 0 0 271 0 0 4,147 West Vincent 4,567 0 0 38 0 506 0 0 5,111 Chester County Total: 84,993 1,523 4,557 1,3952 81,3 14,301 0 0 108,139 Limerick Generating Station 3-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Collegeville 5,089 0 0 282 0 1,403 0 0 6,774 Douglass (Montgomery) 10,195 0 0 296 0 1,267 0 0 11,758 Green Lane 508 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 591 Limerick 18,074 0 2,667 1,364 0 6,108 0 0 28,213 Lower Frederick 4,840 0 0 0 0 345 0 0 5,185 Lower Pottsgrove 12,059 0 326 366 204 3,152 0 0 16,107 Lower Providence 25,436 0 971 663 2,412 4,439 0 0 33,921 Lower Salford 1,503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,503 Marlborough 492 0 0 0 0 189 0 0 681 New Hanover 10,939 0 108 150 0 1,991 0 0 13,188 Perkiomen 9,139 0 0 271 0 3,870 0 0 13,280 Pottstown 22,377 1,710 581 1,656 501 5,140 0 0 31,965 Royersford 4,752 0 0 143 0 1,663 0 0 6,558 Schwenksville 1,385 0 0 40 0 818 0 0 2,243 Skippack 13,715 0 458 436 3,957 985 0 0 19,551 Trappe 3,509 0 0 161 0 198 0 0 3,868 Upper Frederick 3,523 0 1,547 45 126 605 0 0 5,846 Upper Pottsgrove 5,315 0 0 56 0 866 0 0 6,237 Upper Providence 21,219 0 2,917 4,670 451 5,746 0 0 35,003 Upper Salford 3,299 0 0 0 0 490 0 0 3,789 West Pottsgrove 3,874 0 0 163 0 552 0 0 4,589 Montgomery County Total: 181,242 1,710 9,575 10,845 7,651 39,827 0 0 250,8 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,803 0 55,803 NOTE: Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

NOTE: Special Facilities include both medical facilities and correctional facilities.

Limerick Generating Station 3-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand Amity 5,146 0 0 322 22 104 0 0 5,594 Boyertown 1,931 20 0 461 9 72 0 0 2,493 Colebrookdale 2,412 0 104 301 0 80 0 0 2,897 Douglass (Berks) 1,569 0 36 33 0 10 0 0 1,648 Earl 342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 342 Union 579 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 585 Washington 341 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 343 Berks Count Total. 12,320 20 140 1,117 05 0 2390 Charlestown 2,037 0 0 126 0 10 0 0 2,173 East Coventry 3,156 0 0 107 28 24 0 0 3,315 East Nantmeal 713 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 713 East Pikeland 3,366 0 22 263 14 24 0 0 3,689 East Vincent 3,249 0 0 170 18 38 0 0 3,475 North Coventry 3,746 0 1,500 46 0 40 0 0 5,332 Phoenixville 7,826 84 26 137 53 54 0 0 8,180 Schuylkill 4,259 0 203 578 0 160 0 0 5,200 South Coventry 1,238 0 0 236 7 114 0 0 1,595 Spring City 1,584 18 0 148 0 2 0 0 1,752 Upper Uwchlan 3,851 0 0 50 0 30 0 0 3,931 Uwchlan 640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 640 Warwick 1,042 0 321 0 0 2 0 0 1,365 West Pikeland 1,843 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1,851 West Vincent 2,171 0 0 38 0 16 0 0 2,225 Chester County Total: 40,721 102 12.,072 1,899 120 220 0 4,3 Limerick Generating Station 3-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Trasit Specia Shdo

- External.

Collegeville 2,597 0 0 282 0 48 0 0 2,927 Douglass (Montgomery) 4,852 0 0 296 0 42 0 0 5,190 Green Lane 243 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 326 Limerick 8,598 0 1,366 1,364 0 220 0 0 11,548 Lower Frederick 2,305 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 2,319 Lower Pottsgrove 5,739 0 161 355 25 118 0 0 6,398 Lower Providence 11,246 0 498 649 38 156 0 0 12,587 Lower Salford 716 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 716 Marlborough 236 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 242 New Hanover 5,208 0 54 150 0 72 0 0 5,484 Perkiomen 4,352 0 0 271 0 148 0 0 4,771 Pottstown 10,582 114 323 1,570 102 200 0 0 12,891 Royersford 2,267 0 0 143 0 66 0 0 2,476 Schwenksville 660 0 0 40 0 26 0 0 726 Skippack 6,530 0 222 436 0 32 0 0 7,220 Trappe 1,673 0 0 161 0 6 0 0 1,840 Upper Frederick 1,679 0 581 45 17 26 0 0 2,348 Upper Pottsgrove 2,530 0 0 56 0 36 0 0 2,622 Upper Providence 9,883 0 1,397 4,670 45 218 0 0 16,213 Upper Salford 1,572 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1,590 West Pottsgrove 1,845 0 0 163 0 18 0 0 2,026 Montgomery County Total: 85,313 1,14 4,602 10,734 227 1,470 '0 0 102,460 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,570 41,386 67,956 NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Limerick Generating Station 3-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ML14043A202

Text

SUMMARY

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Navigation menu

Search