Text

TR-623, Rev. 0, Three Mile Island Generating Station, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Final Report. Cover Through Page 3-34
	ML14101A182
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/24/2014
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Exelon Generation Co, NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	RA-14-033, TMI-14-048 TR-623, Rev 0
	Download: ML14101A182 (97)
	v • d • e

Attachment 2 Three Mile Island Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates I SeKLD ENGINEERING, P.C.THREE MILE ISLAND GENERATING STA TON Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Exelon Generation, by: KLD Engineering, P.C.1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 mailto: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com March 24,2014 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR -623 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION

..................................................................................................................................

1-1 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process ......................................................................................................

1-2 1.2 The Three M ile Island 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 PTIO NS .............................................................................................

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, Universities, and Boarding Schools .....................................................................

3-3 3.2 Shadow Population

..................................................................................................................

3-11 3.3 Transient Population

................................................................................................................

3-14 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................

3-20 3.5 M edical Facilities

......................................................................................................................

3-25 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population

..............................................................

3-25 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................

3-25 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-28 4 ESTIM ATION O F 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 TM I 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 GENERATIO N 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 FO R EVACUATION SCENARIOS

.....................................................................

6-1 7 GENERAL PO PULATION EVACUATION TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................

7-1 Three Mile Island 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 Three Mile Island ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .....................................................................................................

G-1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-1 G .2 R o v ing Patro ls ...........................................................................................................................

G -2 G.3 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................

G-2 H. EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

H-1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .................................

J-1 K. EVACUATION ROADW AY NETW ORK ............................................................................................

K-1 L. SUB-AREA BOUNDARIES

....................................................................................................................

L-1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ..........................................................................................

M-1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times .......................................................................

M-1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region W ho Relocate .................

M-2 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population

.........................................................................

M-3 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time ..........................................................................................

M-4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST

...................................................................................................................

N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Figures Fig u re 1-1. T M I Lo catio n ...........................................................................................................................

1-4 Figure 1-2. TM I Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ............................................................................................

1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

.......................................................................................

2-4 Fig u re 3 -1 .T MI I EPZ ...................................................................................................................................

3-4 Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ..................................

3-9 Figure 3-3. Perm anent 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 .............................................................................................

3-18 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................

3-19 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................

3-23 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-24 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental D iagram 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. Com parison of Trip Generation Distributions

.......................................................................

5-18 Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 M ile R eg io n ....................................................................................................................................

5-20 Figure 6-1. TM I EPZ Sub-areas

........................................................................................................

6-10 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

.....................................................................................

7-24 Figure 7-2. TM I Shadow Region ..............................................................................................................

7-25 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................

7-26 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-27 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-28 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-29 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-30 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 6 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................

7-31 Figure 7-9. Congestion Patterns at 8 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-32 Figure 7-10. Congestion Patterns at 9 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................................

7-33 Figure 7-11. Congestion Patterns at 9 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..............

7-34 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 1 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-35 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 2 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-35 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 3 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-36 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 4 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-36 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 5 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-37 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 6 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-37 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 7 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-38 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 8 for Region R03 ....................................................

7-38 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 9 for Region R03 .....................................................

7-39 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 10 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-39 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 11 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-40 Figure 7-23. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 12 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-40 Figure 7-24. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 13 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-41 Figure 7-25. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 14 for Region R03 ..................................................

7-41 Three Mile Island iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

......................................................................

8-11 Figure 8-2. Cumberland County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ............................................................

8-12 Figure 8-3. Dauphin County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ..................................................................

8-13 Figure 8-4. Lancaster County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ................................................................

8-14 Figure 8-5. York County Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-15 Figure 10-1. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools ...................................................

10-2 Figure 10-2. M ajor Evacuation Routes ....................................................................................................

10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-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-I. Flow D iagram of Activities

.....................................................................................................

D-5 Figure E-1. Overview of Schools w ithin the EPZ .....................................................................................

E-27 Figure E-2. Cum berland County Schools w ithin the EPZ .........................................................................

E-28 Figure E-3. Dauphin County Schools w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................

E-29 Figure E-4. Lancaster County Schools w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................

E-30 Figure E-5. York County Schools w ithin the EPZ .....................................................................................

E-31 Figure E-6. Overview of Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ................................................................

E-32 Figure E-7. Cumberland County Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ...................................................

E-33 Figure E-8. Dauphin County Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ..........................................................

E-34 Figure E-9. Lancaster County Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ........................................................

E-35 Figure E-10. York County Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ..............................................................

E-36 Figure E-11. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-37 Figure E-12. Overview of M ajor Em ployers within the EPZ ....................................................................

E-38 Figure E-13. Cumberland County Major Employers within the EPZ .......................................................

E-39 Figure E-14. Dauphin County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 1 of 5) .........................................

E-40 Figure E-15. Dauphin County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 2 of 5) .........................................

E-41 Figure E-16. Dauphin County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 3 of 5) .........................................

E-42 Figure E-17. Dauphin County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 4 of 5) .........................................

E-43 Figure E-18. Dauphin County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 5 of 5) .........................................

E-44 Figure E-19. Lancaster County Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................

E-45 Figure E-20. York County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 1 of 2) ...............................................

E-46 Figure E-21. York County Major Employers within the EPZ (Map 2 of 2) ...............................................

E-47 Figure E-22. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ......................................................................................

E-48 Figure E-23. Overview of Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ....................................................................

E-49 Figure E-24. Dauphin County Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................

E-50 Figure E-25. Lancaster County and York County Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ...........................

E-51 Figure E-26. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ .................................................................................

E-52 Figure E-27. O ther Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................

E-53 Figure F-1. H ousehold Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................

F-2 Figure F-2. Household V ehicle 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 Three Mile Island v KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 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. Recom m ended Traffic Control Point .....................................................................................

G-3 Figure G-2. Traffic and Access Control Points and Roving Patrols for Three Mile Island ........................

G-4 Figure G-3. Traffic and Access Control Points and Roving Patrols -Dauphin County ..............................

G-5 Figure G-4. Traffic and Access Control Points and Roving Patrols -Lebanon County ..............................

G-6 Figure G-5. Traffic and Access Control Points and Roving Patrols -Lancaster County ............................

G-7 Figure G-6. Traffic and Access Control Points and Roving Patrols -York County ....................................

G-8 Figure G-7. Traffic and Access Control Points -Cum berland County ......................................................

G-9 Figure G-8. Traffic Control Points -Adam s County ................................................................................

G-1O Figure G-9. Traffic Control Points -Franklin County ..........................................................................

G-11 Figure G-1O. Traffic Control Points -Schuylkill County ..........................................................................

G-12 Figure H-1. Region R01 .............................................................................................................................

H-8 Figure H-2. Region R02 .............................................................................................................................

H-9 Figure H-3. Region R03 ...........................................................................................................................

H-10 Figure H-4. Region R04 ...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Figure H-5. Region R05 ...........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-6. Region R06 ...........................................................................................................................

H-13 Figure H-7. Region R07 ...........................................................................................................................

H-14 Figure H-8. Region R08 ...........................................................................................................................

H-15 Figure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H-16 Figure H-IO. Region RiO .........................................................................................................................

H-17 Figure H-11. Region R11 .........................................................................................................................

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-15. Region R15 .........................................................................................................................

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. 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 Three Mile Island vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure H -36 .Regio n R36 .........................................................................................................................

H -4 3 Figure H -37 .Regio n R37 .........................................................................................................................

H -44 Figure H -38 .Regio n R38 .........................................................................................................................

H -4 5 Figure H -39 .Regio n R39 .........................................................................................................................

H -4 6 Figure H -40 .Regio n R40 .........................................................................................................................

H -4 7 Figure H -4 1. Regio n R4 1 .........................................................................................................................

H -48 Fig ure H -4 2. Regio n R4 2 .........................................................................................................................

H -49 Fig ure H -4 3. Regio n R4 3 .........................................................................................................................

H -50 Figure H -44 .Regio n R44 .........................................................................................................................

H -5 1 Figure H -4 5 .Regio n R4 5 .........................................................................................................................

H -52 Figure H -4 6 .Regio n R4 6 .........................................................................................................................

H -53 Figure H -47 .Regio n R47 .........................................................................................................................

H -54 Figu re H -4 8 .Regio n R4 8 .........................................................................................................................

H -55 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ............

J-10 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

2) .............................

J-10 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

3) ........ J-11 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

4) .........................

-11 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eathe r (Sce nario 5) ...............................................................................................................................

J-12 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

6) ..............

J-12 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

7) ...............................

J-13 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

8) .............................

J-13 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

9) ..............

J-14 Figure J-1O. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

10) ...........................

J-14 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

11) .........................

J-15 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eathe r (Sce nario 12 ) .............................................................................................................................

J-15 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario

13) ......................................................................................................................

J-16 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Im pact (Sce na rio 14 ) ................................................................................................................................

J-16 Figure K-1. Three Mile Island 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-1O Figure K-IO. 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 Three Mile Island vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 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 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-50. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 49 ............................................................................

K-51 Figure K-51. 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 56 ................................................................................

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 Three Mile Island viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 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 Figure K-80. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 79 ................................................................................

K-81 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-91. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 90 ................................................................................

K-92 Figure K-92. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 91 ................................................................................

K-93 Figure K-93. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 92 ................................................................................

K-94 Figure K-94. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 93 ................................................................................

K-95 Figure K-95. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 94 ................................................................................

K-96 Figure K-96. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 95 ................................................................................

K-97 Figure K-97. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 96 ................................................................................

K-98 Figure K-98. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 97 ................................................................................

K-99 Figure K-99. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 98 ..........................................................................

K-1O0 Figure K-100. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 99 ............................................................................

K-101 Figure K-101. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 100 ..........................................................................

K-102 Figure K-102. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 101 ..........................................................................

K-103 Figure K-103. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 102 ..........................................................................

K-104 Figure K-104. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 103 .....................................................................

K-105 Figure K-105. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 104 ..........................................................................

K-106 Figure K-106. Link-NodeAnalysis Network -Grid 105 ..........................................................................

K-107 Figure K-107. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 106 ..........................................................................

K-108 Figure K-108. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 107 ..........................................................................

K-109 Figure K-109. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 108 .....................................................................

K-110 Figure K-110. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 109 .....................................................................

K-111 Three Mile Island ix KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure K-111. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 110 ..........................................................................

K-112 Figure K-112. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 111 ..........................................................................

K-113 Figure K-113. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 112 ..........................................................................

K-114 Figure K-114. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 113 .....................................................................

K-115 Figure K-115. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 114 ..........................................................................

K-116 Figure K-116. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 115 ..........................................................................

K-117 Figure K-117. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 116 ..........................................................................

K-118 Figure K-118. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 117 ..........................................................................

K-119 Figure K-119. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 118 ..........................................................................

K-120 Figure K-120. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 119 ..........................................................................

K-121 Figure K-121. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 120 ..........................................................................

K-122 Figure K-122. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 121 ..........................................................................

K-123 Figure K-123. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 122 ..........................................................................

K-124 Figure K-124. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 123 ..........................................................................

K-125 Figure K-125. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 124 ..........................................................................

K-126 Figure K-126. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 125 ..........................................................................

K-127 Figure K-127. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 126 ..........................................................................

K-128 Figure K-128. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 127 ..........................................................................

K-129 Figure K-129. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 128 ..........................................................................

K-130 Figure K-130. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 129 ..........................................................................

K-131 Figure K-131. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 130 ..........................................................................

K-132 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate x KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction

...........................................................................................................

1-1 Table 1-2. H ighw ay Characteristics

...........................................................................................................

1-5 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ............................................................................................................

1-9 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

...............................................................................................

2-3 Table 2-2. M odel Adjustm ent for Adverse W eather .................................................................................

2-7 Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population

.......................................................................................

3-5 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. Sum m ary of Transients and Transient Vehicles .....................................................................

3-16 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ......................................

3-21 Table 3-6. TM I EPZ External Traffic .........................................................................................................

3-27 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ...........................................................................................

3-29 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and .................................................................................................

3-32 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities

................................................................................

5-3 Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................

5-6 Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ...................................................

5-7 Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Com m uters 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

.....................

5-19 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation

.......................

5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R17) ............................................................

6-4 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R18-33) ...............................................................

6-6 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R34-R48) .............................................................

6-8 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

.............................................................................................

6-11 Table 6-5. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios

..........................................

6-12 Table 6-6. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario ................................................................................................

6-13 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

.........................

7-10 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

.......................

7-12 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................

7-14 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region ..........................

7-16 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R17) ..........................................................

7-18 Table 7-6. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R18-R33) ...........................................................

7-20 Table 7-7. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R34-R48) ...........................................................

7-22 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates ..............................................................................

8-16 Table 8-2. School and Daycare Population Demand Estimates

..............................................................

8-17 Table 8-3. School and Daycare Host Facilities

.........................................................................................

8-22 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................

8-27 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources

..................................................................................

8-28 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions

..........................................................................................................

8-31 Table 8-7. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather .........................................

8-41 Table 8-8. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain ..........................................................

8-47 Table 8-9. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow ...................................................

8-53 Three Mile Island xi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-59 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather ........................................

8-62 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain .........................................................

8-63 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow .......................................................

8-64 Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather .............................................

8-65 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain ..............................................................

8-67 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow ............................................................

8-69 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates

....................................

8-71 Table 8-18. Correctional Facility Evacuation Tim e Estim ates ..................................................................

8-71 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 T a b le C -3 .G lo ssa ry ....................................................................................................................................

C -8 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................................

E-2 Table E-2. Preschools/Daycares w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................

E-5 Table E-3. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-8 Table E-4. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-9 Table E-5. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ .........................................................................................

E-22 Table E-6. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................

E-23 Table E-7. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ .....................................................................................

E-26 Table E-8. O ther Facilities w ithin the EPZ ...............................................................................................

E-26 Table H-1. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions RO1-R17) ..................

H-2 Table H-2. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R18-R33) ..................

H-4 Table H-3. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R34-R48) ..................

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

J-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (R egio n R0 3, Sce nario 1) ............................................................................................................................

J-5 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-133 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

.........................................

K-382 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study .......................................

M-1 Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ....................................................

M-2 Table M -3. ETE Variation w ith Population Change .................................................................................

M -4 Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

...........................................................................................

N-1 Three Mile Island xii 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 Three Mile Island Generating Station (TMI) located in Dauphin 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 4 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 TMI, 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 conducting the survey.* Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county were provided by Exelon.Three Mile Island ES-1 KILD 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.

The EPZ is subdivided into 46 Sub-areas.

Following federal guidelines, these Sub-areas are grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors)that define a total of 48 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 -large event at Hershey Park Stadium -was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on 1-83 from the junction with SR-382 to the junction with SR-581, westbound on SR-581 from the junction with 1-83 to the junction with 1-81 southbound, and southbound on 1-81 from the junction with SR-581 to the end of the study area.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 TMI 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 and daycares are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to host schools or reception centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, wheelchair 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 672 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 48 Evacuation Three Mile Island ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (48 x 14 = 672). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R03, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the people within the EPZ would be advised to evacuate.

That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only to those people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of the people within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory.

The people occupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to take shelter.The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside the impacted region, will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate.

In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate.

These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2-mile region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelter-in-place.

Once 90% of the 2-mile region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate.

As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles 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 9 0 th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize.

This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Three Mile Island 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 counties within the EPZ.The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7 indicate that evacuation routes are oversaturated and experience pronounced traffic congestion during evacuation due to the limited capacity of the roadways and the large volume of evacuating traffic. As shown in Figure 7-9, congestion persists for several hours along SR-39, SR-743, SR-2015, US 422 and US 322 due to the large transient population at Hershey Park. It is recommended that the intersection of US 22 and SR-2015 be considered as an additional TCP to facilitate the evacuation of Hershey. See Section 9 and Appendix G.Selected Results A compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form of Figures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below.* Figure 6-1 displays a map of the TMI EPZ showing the layout of the 46 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 48 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sub-areas." Table 6-4 defines 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 672 unique cases -a combination of 48 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 document these ETE for the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentiles.

These ETE range from 1:45 (hr:min) to 7:45 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 90th percentile, ranging from 3:45 to 10:50. This is Three Mile Island ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 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 evacuation routes service the remaining demand. See Figures 7-12 through 7-25.* Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits to the 2-mile Region and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles from TMI. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion." Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event -an event at Hershey Park Stadium -has a significant impact on the 90th percentile (increases in ETE of up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months ) and 1 0 0 th percentile (increases in ETE of up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes) ETE for regions involving the evacuation of Derry (where Hershey Park is located).

See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which cause a roadway closure -i.e., one lane northbound on 1-83 from the junction with SR-382 to the junction with SR-581, one lane westbound on SR-581 from the junction with 1-83 to the junction with 1-81 southbound, and one lane southbound on 1-81 from the junction with SR-581 to the end of the study area -do have a material impact on 90th percentile ETE for keyhole regions with wind clockwise from the south through the northwest downwind to 5 miles (Regions RiO through R16), with up to 55 minute increases in ETE. The 1 0 0 th percentile ETE increases by as much as 35 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 any of the major evacuation routes. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage, 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, especially in densely populated areas (Harrisburg, Hershey, and York). All traffic congestion within the EPZ clears by 9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months and 40 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

Traffic congestion in the Shadow Region clears by 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months and 15 minutes. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-11.* 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 1 to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months shorter than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile.

See Section 8." Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave.* The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to changes 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 45 minutes due to the traffic congestion within the EPZ. See Table M-1." The general population ETE is significantly affected by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region (tripling the shadow evacuation percentage increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 20 minutes).

An evacuation of 100 percent of the Three Mile Island ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Shadow Region increases 901h percentile ETE by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 15 minutes. See Table M-2.A population increase of 17% or more results in 90th percentile ETE changes which meet the federal criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses.

See Section M.3.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. TMI EPZ Sub-areas Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Sub-aea 00 PopImkIulaionhp 2010 Pop~s.ulation CUBRLN CONT Lower Allen 2,146 2,312 HrNew Cumberland 7,349 1 7,2771 Highspire 2,735 2,399 Hummelstown 4,360 4,538 Londonderry (North) 3,372 3,439 Londonderry (South) 1,842 1,796 Lower Paxton 4,932 5,957 Lower Swatara (North) 2,853 2,750 Lower Swatara (South) 5,227 5,518 Middletown 9,296 8,901 Paxtang 1,554 1,561 Royalton 963 907 South Hanover 4,793 6,248 Steelton 5,844 5,990 Swatara 22,641 23,362 Conoy (North) 800 812 Conoy (South) 2,262 2,382 East Donegal 3,895 5,291 Elizabethtown 11,916 11,545 Mount Joy 6,442 8,114 West Donegal (North) 3,136 4,065 West Donegal (South) 3,408 A,195 South Londonderry 906 825 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population (Continued)

Conewago East (York) 2,9/9 4,665 Conewago West (York) 2,299 2,845 Dover 1,489 1,467 East Manchester (East) 2,707 3,827 East Manchester (West) 2,394 3,437 Fairview (East) 4,924 5,918 Fairview (West) 9,410 10,750 Goldsboro 939 952 Hellam 942 978 Lewisberry 385 362 Manchester Borough 2,327 2,763 Manchester Township (East) 3,369 4,182 Manchester Township (West) 7,418 11,714 Mount Wolf 1,373 1,393 Newberry (Northeast) 5,768 6,070 Newberry (Southeast) 4,983 5,681 Newberry (West) 3,568 3,533 Springettsbury 369 340 Warrington 1,098 1,052 York Haven 809 709 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R17)Region

Description:

2-Mile 5-Mile Full Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles Ring Ring EPZ Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 ROS IR06 R07 IR08I R09I RIO R11 IR12 R13I R14 I R15 R16 I R17 Wind Direction Toward: N/A N/A N/A N NNE NE ENE, E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W NNW I I I INW Sub-area Conewago (Dauphin)Conewago East (York)Conewago West (York)Conoy (North)Conoy (South)Derry Dover East Donegal East Manchester (East)East Manchester (West)Elizabethtown i Fairview (East)Fairview (West)Goldsboro Harrisburg Hellam Highspire Hummelstown 4 4 I Lewisberry Londonderry (South)Londonderry (North)Lower Allen Lower Paxton Lower Swatara (North)+Lower Swatara (South)+Manchester Borough.4.Manchester Township (East)Manchester Township (West)Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Region

Description:

2-Mile 5-Mile Full Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles RegionDescription:

Ring Ring EPZ Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 RO5 R06I R07 R08 R09 RIO R1T R12 R13 R14 R15I R16 R17 Wind Direction Toward: N/A N/A N/A N NNE NE ENE, E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW, NNW NW Sub-area Middletown I I I I I A Mount Joy I I I I I Mount Wolf New Cumberland Newberry (Northeast)

Newberry (Southeast)

Newberry (West)Paxtang Royalton m South Hanover South Londonderry Springettsbury Steelton Swatara_____ x Warrington West Donegal (North)West Donegal (South)V-r6t W'." x Ix[I I I_Sub-area(s)

Shelter-In-Place Sub-area(s) not within Plume, but Evacuates because it is surrounded by other Sub-areas which are Evacuating Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R18-33)Region

Description:

Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R18 I R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26: hIM _J ILI Fume Il ECI C ce cc ece C SubArea vvin p r on~LE ova~u : I Sub-area Conewago (Dauphin)Conewago East (York)Conewago West (York)Conoy (North)Conoy (South)Derry Dover I I I I I I I I East Donegal East Manchester (East)F -F East Manchester (West)F 4 I Elizabethtown Fairview (East)Fairview (West)Goldsboro Harrisburg Hellam Highspire Humnmeistown Lewisberry Londonderry (South)Londonderry (North)Lower Allen Lower Paxton Lower Swatara (North)Lower Swatara (South)Manchester Borough Manchester Township (East)Manchester Township (West)Middletown Mount Joy Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Region

Description:

Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 Wind Direction Toward: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSEWNW Sub-area Mount Wolf New Cumberland Newberry (Northeast)

Newberry (Southeast)

Newberry (West)Paxtang Royalton South Hanover South Londonderry Springettsbury Steelton x X Swatara Warrington West Donegal (North)West Donegal (South)York Haven Sub-area(s)

Shelter-In-Place Sub-area(s) not within Plume, but Evacuates because it is surrounded by other Sub-areas which are Evacuating Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R34-R48)Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 R39 R40 R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 R46 R47 R48 5-Mile WW Wind Direction Toward: N NNE NE ENE, E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW, NNW Ring NW Sub-area Conewago (Dauphin)Conewago East (York) __/ /Conewago West (York)Conoy (North)Conoy (South)___________

____________

Derry Dover East Donegal East Manchester (East)East Manchester (West)Elizabethtown Fairview (East)Fairview (West)Goldsboro Harrisburg Hellam Highspire Hummelstown Lewisberry Londonderry (South)Londonderry (North)Lower Allen Lower Paxton Lower Swatara (North)Lower Swatara (South)Manchester Borough Manchester Township (East)Manchester Township (West)Middletown Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 R39 R40 R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 R46 R47 R48 5-Mile WW Wind Direction Toward: N NNE NE ENE, E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW, NNW Ring NW Sub-area Mount Joy Mount Wolf New Cumberland Newberry (Northeast)

Newberry (Southeast)

/_/_/Newberry (West)Paxtang Royalton South Hanover South Londonderry Springettsbury Steelton Swatara Warrington West Donegal (North) ___l l West Donegal (South)York Haven ii Sub-area(s)

Shelter-In-Place Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday bood None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Summer Midweek, Evening Good None 5 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 Summer Midweek, Evening Good Hershey Park 13 Weekend Stadium Event Single Lane Closure 1-83 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Northbound to SR-581 Westbound to 1-81 Southbound I Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 God Rain Snow Weathe Eventa IRpacta Weather Weather Weather Weather IIWeather Weather_ Event__ Impact_________ _______ ______ _______ _______ Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ _____ ___________________

R01 12:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:4512:0512:051 2:45 1:45 1:4512:3011:45 1:45 2:05 R02 3:05 3:15 2:55 3:10 2:15 3:10 3:20 3:50 2:50 3:15 3:35 j 2:20 2:15 3:30 R03 5:45 6:35 5:10 5:35 6:00 4:55 j 5:25 J 6:20 3:50 ]4:25 4:55 j 3:45 6:50 5:55 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles ____R04 2:55 3:00 2:30 2:40 2:00 2:45 3:10 3:30 2:25 2:40 3:15 2:05 2:05 3:00 ROS 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:05 R06 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:00 2:00 R07 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:05 ROB 2:05 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:50 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:45 2:05 R09 2:05 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:45 2:05 2:10 2:50 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:45 2:05 R10 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:35 R11 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:55 1:55 2:30 R12 2:05 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:35 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:35 R13 2:35 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:05 2:30 2:45 3:10 2:25 2:35 3:00 2:00 2:05 3:30 R14 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:10 2:35 2:45 3:10 2:20 2:30 2:55 2:10 2:10 3:30 R15 3:20 3:40 3:10 3:40 2:25 3:15 3:40 3:55 3:10 3:35 4:00 2:25 2:25 3:55 R16 3:35 3:50 3:25 3:50 2:20 3:30 3:45 4:15 3:20 3:45 4:10 2:20 2:20 4:00 R17 3:20 3:35 3:20 3:30 2:05 3:25 .3:45 .4:05 .3:20 3:20 3:45 2:05 2:05 3:25________ ________ 5S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ____ ________R18 6:25 7:05 5:20 6:10 6:40 5:15 5:50 6:50 3:50 4:20 5:05 4:00 7:30 6:25 R19 6:15 7:20 5:30 6:25 6:45 5:20 6:15 6:50 3:55 4:20 5:05 4:15 7:45 6:15 R20 6:05 6:55 5:30 6:00 6:50 5:15 5:45 6:25 3:55 4:10 4:50 4:05 7:40 6:15 R21 5:30 6:10 4:40 5:15 5:50 4:35 5:10 5:50 3:25 3:45 4:20 3:15 6:40 5:30 R22 3:10 3:30 2:45 3:05 2:25 3:00 3:25 3:55 2:45 3:15 3:35 2:25 2:25 3:10 R23 3:15 3:30 3:05 3:20 2:30 3:20 3:35 4:05 2:50 3:20 3:55 2:30 2:30 3:30 R24 3:00 3:15 2:50 3:00 2:15 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:45 3:05 3:30 2:15 2:15 3:15 R25 2:55 3:10 2:50 2:55 2:20 3:00 3:10 3:40 2:40 2:55 3:25 2:20 2:20 3:05 R26 3:10 3:30 2:55 3:05 2:25 3:10 3:25 3:55 2:50 3:10 3:35 2:25 2:25 3:15 R27 3:20 3:30 3:05 3:20 2:30 3:20 3:35 .4:00 3:00 3:15 3:40 2:35 2:30 3:25 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer MdekWeed MdekMdekWeedMidweek Midweek Midweek MiwekWekn Ween idekWeekend Weekend Weekend Miwe 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 R28 3:10 3:25 3:00 3:15 2:30 3:10 3:25 3:55 2:55 3:15 3:40 2:30 2:30 3:20 R29 3:30 3:45 3:05 3:20 2:25 3:30 3:50 4:15 3:05 3:30 3:50 2:25 2:25 3:35 R30 4:00 4:20 3:35 4:00 2:45 4:00 4:20 4:50 3:30 4:00 4:30 2:50 2:50 4:00 R31 3:45 3:55 3:20 3:35 2:45 3:50 4:00 4:40 3:15 3:40 4:10 2:45 2:50 4:00 R32 3:45 4:00 3:10 3:25 2:45 3:45 4:00 4:30 3:15 3:40 4:05 2:40 2:45 3:45 R33 6:05 7:00 5:15 5:45 6:35 5:10 ,5:45 16:25 13:55 14:30 5:05 4:05 7:25 6:05________Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R34 3:25 3:35 3:20 3:35 2:55 3:20 3:40 4:05 3:15 3:30 4:00 3:00 2:55 3:35 R35 3:10 3:30 3:10 3:20 2:50 3:20 3:35 3:45 3:10 3:20 3:45 2:55 2:50 3:15 R36 2:35 2:40 2:30 2:35 2:40 2:35 2:35 3:00 2:35 2:35 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:35 R37 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:10 R38 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:25 2:20 2:15 R39 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:45 2:45 3:15 2:40 2:45 3:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 R40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 3:15 2:40 2:45 3:10 2:35 2:40 2:40 R41 2:35 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:30 2:30 3:00 2:35 2:35 2:50 R42 2:40 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:10 2:35 2:40 3:10 2:40 2:40 2:50 R43 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:10 2:40 2:40 3:10 2:45 2:45 2:50 R44 2:55 2:55 2:50 3:00 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:25 2:55 3:05 3:25 2:55 2:55 3:30 R45 3:00 3:10 2:55 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:05 3:35 2:55 3:00 3:25 2:55 2:55 3:30 R46 3:25 3:45 3:15 3:40 2:50 3:25 3:50 4:10 3:15 3:40 4:00 2:55 2:50 3:55 R47 3:45 3:55 3:35 3:55 3:00 3:35 4:00 4:35 3:35 3:50 4:15 3:00 3:00 4:10 R48 3:40 4:05 3:30 3:30 2:55 3:45 4:20 4:30 3:20 3:50 3:55 2:55 2:55 3:50 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 KID Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend weekend dweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening IEvening IMidday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special I Roadway Weather Weather Weather I Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2-Mile Refion. 5-Mile Reeion. and EPZ R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 5:35 5:40 5:10 5:25 3:50 5:35 5:35 6:15 5:05 5:35 5:45 3:50 3:50 5:55 R03 9:40 10:35 8:05 8:45 J 9:40 8:40 9:45 10:50 6:30 7:10 7:30 6:35 10:35 9:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:45 5:45 5:15 5:35 3:50 5:35 5:50 6:10 5:15 5:30 5:55 3:50 3:50 5:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 RO8 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 RIO 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R11 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R12 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R13 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 R14 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 4:20 RIS 4:40 5:15 4:25 4:55 3:50 4:25 5:10 5:35 4:25 4:55 5:25 3:50 3:50 5:15 R16 5:35 5:45 5:15 5:35 3:50 5:35 5:50 6:10 5:15 5:30 5:55 3:50 3:50 5:45 R17 5:35 5:45 5:15 5:30 3:50 5:35 5:50 6:10 5:15 5:30 5:55 3:50 3:50 5:45 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R18 9:05 10:10 7:30 8:30 9:40 8:00 9:25 10:05 6:20 6:45 7:15 5:55 10:10 9:05 R19 9:00 10:25 7:30 8:40 9:30 8:20 9:45 10:40 6:20 6:55 7:30 6:05 10:20 9:05 R20 8:30 9:40 7:20 8:20 9:30 8:05 8:50 9:40 6:10 6:30 6:50 6:00 10:05 8:40 R21 8:20 9:15 6:40 7:20 8:15 7:35 8:05 9:15 6:10 6:15 6:35 5:40 9:30 8:20 R22 5:25 5:40 5:10 5:30 3:55 5:35 5:45 6:00 4:55 5:45 6:05 3:55 4:05 5:25 R23 5:35 5:55 5:35 5:35 3:55 5:45 5:45 5:50 5:05 5:30 5:45 3:55 4:00 5:35 R24 5:30 5:40 5:20 5:25 3:55 5:30 5:40 6:10 5:15 5:35 5:50 3:55 3:55 5:30 RZS 5:30 5:40 5:40 5:40 3:55 5:40 5:40 6:10 5:15 5:35 5:50 3:55 3:55 5:30 R26 5:35 5:45 5:20 5:20 3:55 5:40 5:40 6:00 5:15 5:35 5:50 3:55 3:55 5:35 R27 5:55 5:55 5:25 5:30 4:25 6:05 6:05 6:10 5:15 5:30 5:50 3:55 4:25 5:55 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer MdekWeed MdekMdekWeedMidweek Midweek Midweek MiwekWekn Ween idekWeekend Weekend Weekend Miwe 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 R28 5:35 5:35 5:20 5:25 3:55 5:55 5:55 6:05 5:10 5:30 5:50 4:00 3:55 5:40 R29 5:55 5:55 5:35 5:35 3:55 5:35 5:50 6:25 5:25 5:45 6:00 3:55 3:55 5:55 R30 6:20 7:00 5:40 6:30 5:05 6:20 7:00 8:00 5:50 6:30 7:25 5:05 5:10 6:20 R31 6:10 6:55 5:45 6:25 5:15 6:20 7:00 8:00 5:40 6:25 7:25 5:05 5:20 6:40 R32 6:10 6:55 5:45 6:25 5:15 6:25 7:00 8:00 5:40 6:25 7:30 5:05 5:20 6:40 R33 9:05 10:15 7:30 8:30 9:40 8:00 9:25 10:05 16:20 '6:45 7:15 5:55 10:10 9:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles_____

R34 6:05 6:15 5:35 5:50 4:00 5:50 6:40 6:40 5:25 5:40 6:05 4:00 4:00 6:05 R35 6:00 6:25 5:35 5:50 3:50 6:00 6:20 6:20 5:25 5:50 6:05 3:50 3:50 6:05 R36 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R37 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R38 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R39 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R40 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R41 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R42 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R43 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 5:20 3:50 3:50 3:50 R44 3:50 3:50 4:05 4:15 4:00 3:50 3:55 5:20 4:10 4:10 5:20 4:00 4:00 4:20 114S 3:50 3:50 4:05 4:10 4:00 3:50 3:50 5:20 4:10 4:10 5:20 4:00 4:00 4:20 R46 4:50 5:20 4:25 4:55 3:50 4:45 5:15 5:50 4:30 4:55 5:30 3:50 3:50 5:20 R47 6:10 6:10 5:30 5:40 3:50 6:00 6:25 6:35 5:40 5:45 5:55 3:55 3:50 6:10 R48 6:00 6:10 5:30 5:35 3:50 6:00 6:20 6:20 5:25 5:45 5:55 3:50 3:50 6:05 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend MiUned a Midweek Weekend Midweek Region Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Scnrio: (12:05 2)051 345 (451) 45 2:5) 2:052:4518):45110452:31 (12)45 13)4512:0 R0 :5 J20 1:45[ j 1:45 J[1:4 [] 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 [ 1:4 23 JlD 1:45] 1:45] J2:0 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midda y Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good 7 Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather IWeather Weather Event Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and K-Mile Region R01 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R05 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R06 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R07 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 ROB 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R09 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R10 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R1l 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R12 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R13 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R14 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R15 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R16 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1M45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R17 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R34 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 1 2:05 1 2:05 1 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 2 Miles R35 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R36 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R37 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R38 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R39 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R40 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R41 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R42 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R43 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R44 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend weekend dweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend 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 R45 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R46 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R47 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 R48 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:05 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter summer summer Midweek Weekend MidU ed a Midweek Weekend Midweek Region Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good IRain ISnow Good Rain Snow Good Speciail Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile Region RO1 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 J 3:45 1 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 ROS 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 ROB 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R09 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 RIO 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R11 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R12 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R13 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R14 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R1S 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R16 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R17 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R34 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 1 5:15 [ 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R35 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R36 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R37 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R38 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R39 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R40 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R41 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R42 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R43 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 R44 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend weeken dweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R45 R46 R47 R48 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 1-45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-7. School and Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather I Hillside Elementary School 1 90 I 15 I 1.3 I 28.4 I 3 SNew Cumberland Middle School 90 15 1.0 28.4 2 St hrs' col90 15 0.7 28.4 1 ,Capital Area Scooo, For Te Ars'01 0.0 0.0 0 Chambe Hill Elementary Scoo 90 15 3.0 2.8 65 Elizabeth Z. Price Elementary School 90 15 5.5 2.2 148 Foose Elementary School 90 15 1.5 50.0 2 George Feaser Middle School 90 15 13.3 50.0 16 Hershey Christian School 90 15 8.2 3.1 159 Hershey High School 90 15 4.3 3.7 69 Hershey Middle School 90 15 4.0 3.7 64 Hershey Primary Elementary School 90 15 3.9 3.7 64 John C. Kunkel Elementary School 90 15 20.5 50.0 25 Lawnton Elementary School 90 15 3.5 3.3 63 Londonderry Elementary School 90 15 17.0 4.0 257 Lower Dauphin Conewago Elementary 90 15 8.0 1.9 254 School Lower Dauphin High School 90 15 6.8 2.2 189 Lower Dauphin Middle School 90 15 6.5 2.3 167 Lyall J. Fink Elementary School 90 15 13.5 50.0 16 Middletown Area High School 90 15 17.1 49.8 21 Middletown Area Middle School 90 15 17.1 49.8 21 Milton Hershey School 90 15 2.0 1.1 110 Nye Elementary School 90 15 5.9 2.4 149 Paxtang Elementary School 90 15 0.5 22.7 1 Phase 4 Learning Center, Inc. 90 15 3.2 6.5 29 Robert Reid Elementary School 90 15 17.3 49.8 21 Rutherford Elementary School 90 15 2.4 2.2 66 1.0 1 in 1 7.1 1.4 29.8 52.5 36.0 14.2 15.9 15.9 14.8 36.0 1.4 27.5 27.5 29.8 29.8 36.0 36.0 36.0 8.5 29.7 4.1 2.8 36.0 1.4 9 2 40 70 48 19 21 21 20 48 2 37 37 40 40 48 48 48 11 40 5 4 48 2 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Seven Sorrows BVM School 90 15 13.2 50.0 16 South Hanover Elementary School 90 15 2.1 1.8 68 South Side Elementary School 90 15 0.5 17.0 2 St. Catherine Laboure School 90 15 2.7 3.1 52 St. Joan of Arc School 90 15 3.7 3.0 75 State Police Academy 90 15 2.7 17.3 9 Steelton-Highspire Elementary School 90 15 3.7 6.1 36 Steelton-Highspire High School 90 15 3.7 6.1 36 Swatara Middle School 90 15 3.9 7.8 30 Sylvan Heights Charter School 90 15 0.1 12.3 0 The Circle School 90 15 2.3 4.1 33 The Vista School 90 15 4.4 2.3 114 Tri-Community Elementary School 90 15 4.3 6.7 38 Bainbridge Elementary School 90 15 6.5 45.5 9 Bear Creek Elementary School 90 15 4.8 12.5 23 East High Street Elementary School 90 15 5.8 11.5 30 Elizabethtown Middle School & High 90 15 6.1 11.5 32 School Mill Road Elementary School 90 15 6.4 50.0 8 Mount Calvary Christian School 90 15 6.0 50.0 7 Rheems Elementary School 90 15 2.5 4.6 33 St. Peter's Parochial School 90 15 4.8 6.7 43 YOR CONT SCOOL Central York High School 90 15 0.9 27.4 2 Christian School of York 90 15 1.0 41.3 1 Conewago Elementary School 90 15 6.0 31.8 11 Crossroads Middle School 90 15 5.6 2.3 143 Fairview Elementary School 90 15 2.1 6.6 19 Fishing Creek Elementary 90 15 4.8 4.9 59 Hayshire Elementary School 90 15 1.1 12.0 6 Mount Wolf Elementary School 90 15 4.4 13.3 20 36.1 29.7 1.4 0.9 17.2 12.3 57.1 57.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 14.2 1-0 48 40 2 1 23 16 76 76 4 4 4 19 A J.L.4 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.3 1 r : 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 In 2.4 2.2 21.1 1.6 3.6 5.2 1.1 21.0 3 3 28 2 5 7 1 28 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Mt. LIOn tiementary aCnoou Newberry Elementary School Northeastern High School 90 15 0.9 4.1 13 90 15 7.8 4.1 114 90 15 6.4 12.6 31 Northeastern Middle School 90 15 6.8 12.9 32 Orendorf Elementary School 90 15 6.2 12.2 31 Red Land High School 90 15 5.6 2.3 143 Red Mill Elementary School 90 15 10.6 3.4 188 Roundtown Elementary School 90 15 1.9 15.2 8 Shallow Brook Intermediate School 90 15 6.3 12.2 31 Sinking Springs Elementary School 90 15 1.7 7.8 13 Spring Forge Intermediate 90 15 6.0 12.2 30 York Haven Elementary School 90 is 11.8 50.0 14 Sdcool MaxmumfrEZ Best Friends Day Care Center 90 15 2.0 1.5 79 Children's School of New Cumberland 90 15 0.8 1.3 38 Hillside Elementary Latch Key 90 15 1.5 1.2 74 Program I I Learning & Sharing Child 90 15 2.2 1.6 81 Aa to Zz Child Care -Humnmelstown9015.221 9 Twp Aa to Zz Child Care -Swatara Twp 90 15 2.4 3.6 40 All About Kids Early Learning Center 90 15 2.8 3.9 43 All God's Children 90 15 6.6 11.1 36 All Saints Christian Childcare 90 15 2.9 1.1 166 Bright Futures Learning Centers 90 15 2.0 14.2 8 Capital Area Head Start -Keystone 90 15 3.1 3.6 51 Partnership 90 15 3.1 3.6 51 5.2 5.2 20.7 20.7 20.7 0.2 4.9 1.3 20.7 1.3 20.7 20.7 7 7 28 28 28 1 7 2 28 2 28 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 44 44 44 44 44 42.1 46.1 46.1 58.1 13.5 56.9 56.9 56 61 61 77 18 76 76 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Lapital Area Neaa btart -bteenon Vu .: :.b 11.6 ZV Caring Hands Learning Center 90 15 0.7 2.5 17 CCLC at Hershey 90 15 4.0 1.1 215 Children's House of Hershey 90 15 10.2 2.4 260 Derry Preschool 90 15 6.4 1.6 242 Discovery Kids Child Care Center -90 15 13.2 50.0 16 Emmaus Street Discovery Kids Child Care Center -90 15 21.2 4.8 266 Lauffer Road Discovery Kids Child Care Center -90 15 18.1 50.0 22 Oberlin Road Ebenezer Christian Childcare 90 15 18.3 50.0 22 Faith in Children 90 15 3.0 5.3 34 Fishburn Flock Christian Childcare 90 15 3.3 1.1 181 God's Little Angels Daycare 2 90 15 3.8 4.7 48 Grace Christian Child Care 90 15 5.7 1.4 245 Grace Temple Child Care Center 90 15 2.1 16.4 8 Growing Adventures Child Care 90 15 18.1 50.0 22 Growing Center at Foose Elementary 90 15 0.4 21.6 1 Hilltop Christian Nursery School 90 15 4.1 1.1 221 Kids World Early Learning Center 90 15 1.9 3.9 29 Kinder Care Learning Center 90 15 3.3 1.1 183 Learning Express 90 15 5.9 2.4 149 Little Treasures 90 15 0.3 1.1 17 Loving Arms Day Care 90 15 17.3 49.8 21 Middletown Christian School 90 15 16.4 50.0 20 PSU Harrisburg Child Learning Center 90 15 19.7 50.0 24 Sonshine Learning Station 90 15 14.7 48.7 18 Sunny Day Child Care 90 15 1.4 1.7 49 Tender Years -Hershey 90 15 3.8 1.2 190 The Goddard School 90 15 7.5 1.8 252 Theodore McNair's ChildCare Center 90 15 2.9 6.1 29 Trinity Early Academic Learning 90 15 3.5 6.1 34 4b.1L I bi 15.8 13.5 39.9 13.5 57.4 21 18 53 18 77 39.9 1 53 57.4 77 57.4 46.1 13.5 46.1 13.5 56.9 57.4 56.9 13.5 46.1 13.5 42.1 46.2 57.4 57.4 57.4 57.4 42.1 13.5 13.5 46.1 46.1 77 61 18 61 18 76 77 76 18 61 18 56 62 77 77 77 77 56 18 18 61 61 Three Mile Island ES-28 Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 I Turner Academic Academy I 90 I 15 I 1.7 1 33.9 I 3 U-Gro Hershey 90 15 4.9 1.2 238 U-Gro Learning Center at Tech Port 90 15 2.2 2.9 23 Elizabethtown Child Care Center 90 15 4.2 6.2 41 Gears Community Center 90 15 4.7 6.6 43 Masonic Village Hildebrandt Learning 90 15 4.6 5.4 51 Center Maytown Community Nursery School 90 15 1 1.3 4.5 17 ACE Administration BldgCa 90 15 4.4 4.5 58 Billie Ort's Laugh-n-Learn Day Care9019.3714 Center 90 15 1.7 4.5 142 Munchkin Meadow 90 15 6.9 21.9 19 Nanny's Kids Child Care Center 90 15 1.4 20.4 4 Otterbein Day Care 90 15 4.7 14.3 20 Stillmeadlow Nazarene Child Care 9 526931 Center Sunbeam Station Child Care 90 15 4.8 1 6.4 1 45 Whales Snails & Puppy Dog Tail 90 15 10.7 4.5 142 YWCA Early Learning Center 90 is 4.9 10.2 29 56.9 76 13.5 18 A r I C1 17 Su.b 1 'Li 31.7 42 8.9 20.7 9.9 12 28 13 31.3 42 20.7 28 31.7 42 20.7 1 28 Pre-School and Pre-School and Daycare Maximum for EPZ: Pre-School and Daycare Average for Pre-bcnoo ana Daycare Average: Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather LwU I JLA 4/1 31../4L.LU+---- i__ __ _ 4 i i 201 1 90 1.7 1.2 87 30 31.7 42 5 10 lU 30 86 202 1 90 0.8 1.2 40 30 1-3 90 25.5 4.7 326 30 203 203 4-6 110 25.5 4.8 319 30 1-5 90 13.5 2.6 312 30 204 6-10 110 13.5 2.7 305 30 1-4 90 14.2 4.6 183 30 205 5-7 110 14.2 5.0 170 30 1-3 90 9.3 4.1 135 30 206 4-6 110 9.3 4.8 117 30 1-6 90 11.4 5.9 116 30 207 7-11 110 11.4 7.0 98 30 208 1-3 90 9.8 49.1 12 30 209 1-3 90 13.5 9.6 84 30 1-4 90 8.7 7.8 67 30 210 5-7 110 8.7 9.5 55 30 1-5 90 13.5 5.8 139 30 211 ___6-9 110 13.5 6.5 125 30 212 1-4 90 13.1 11.3 70 30 213 1-4 90 7.0 12.4 34 30 214 1-3 90 7.0 3.3 128 30 31.7 42 5 10 75 30 43.0 57 5 10 129 30 43.0 57 5 10 129 30 13.5 18 5 10 53 30 13.5 18 5 10 53 30 45.3 60 5 10 100 30 45.3 60 5 10 100 30 48.0 64 5 10 91 30 48.0 64 5 10 91 30 46.1 61 5 10 94 30 46.1 61 5 10 94 30 14.3 19 5 10 44 30 14.3 19 5 10 56 30 12.3 16 5 10 40 30 12.3 16 5 10 40 30 30.6 41 5 10 77 30 30.6 41 5 10 77 30 7.9 11 5 10 44 30 9.8 13 5 10 33 30 15.2 20 5 10 39 30 29.0 39 5 10 55 30 1-3 90 6.1 5.3 69 30 215 4-6 110 6.1 6.2 59 n in 2n Maximum Average Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure H-8. Region R08 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate ES-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 Three Mile Island Generating Station (TMI), located in Londonderry, 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: 0 Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR-7002, November 2011.0 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, November 1980.* Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR 1745, November 1980.* Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-6863, January 2005.0 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~ .Stkhle Inercto I 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.Cumberland County Dauphin County Provided existing emergency plan, including traffic Lancaster County and access control points and other information Lebanon County critical to the ETE study. Engaged in the ETE York County development and informed of the study results.Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency I Three Mile Island 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, transient attractions, 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 46 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, Three Mile Island 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Exelon and from the telephone survey.b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1)to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.c. Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.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 TMI.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 Three Mile Island Generating Station Location TMI is located along the Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

The site is approximately 85 miles west-northwest of Philadelphia, PA. The EPZ consists of parts of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and York Counties in Pennsylvania.

Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding TMI. This map shows the location of TMI relative to Philadelphia, as well as the major population centers and roadways in the area.1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.Three Mile Island 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 1-1. TMI Location Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 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 0 Posted speed* Lane width 0 Actual free speed* Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use* Interchange geometries

Control devices* Lane channelization

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

Geometrics:

curves, grades (>4%) 0 Traffic signal type* Unusual characteristics:

Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warning signs, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure.

No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections.

For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph -not a material difference

-for two-lane highways.

Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for two-lane highways.The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographical information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction.

For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 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 Three Mile Island 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 provided by Exelon; these results provide critical 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 KID under contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Three Mile Island 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 1-2. TMI Link-Node Analysis Network Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 KID. 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 TMI.DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.Three Mile Island 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2003 study. Despite the approximate 12% population increase in the EPZ since the last ETE study, both the ETE for winter scenarios and summer scenarios ETE are less in this study. The following 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.* An increase in average vehicle occupancy (19%) which results in 19% less evacuating vehicles.9 The highway representation is far more detailed providing more routing choices for evacuees, which could reduce ETE.* Dynamic evacuation modeling used which adjusts routing to avoid traffic congestion to the extent feasible (similar to a modern GPS) and could reduce ETE.0 Roadway improvements to accommodate the significant increase in population.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-icPeiu T StdCurn T Std Resident Population Basis 2000 US Census Data;Population

= 201,894 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population

= 226,019 Vehicle occupancy based on Census 2000 data on vehicles available per household.

Households with 1 vehicle were assigned Resident Population 1 vehicle per household.

Households with 2.42 persons/household, 1.26 Vehilen Occpuatin 2 vehicles were assigned 2 vehicles per evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy household.

Occupancy is 1.62 yielding:

1.92 persons/vehicle.

persons/vehicle for most of the EPZ, with community specific values up to 2.1 person per vehicle Employee estimates based on lists Employee estimates based on obtained from the Harris InfoSource information provided about major Employee Directory, county lists of major employers in EPZ, US Census Population employers, and the facility list from the Longitudinal Employer-Household 1994 study report. 1.0 employee per Dyngics vehicle was used for all major employers.

IEmployees

= 19,041 Employees

= 35,029 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

-I. Toi PrvosEESuyCurn T td Transit-Dependent Population Recognized there will be some transport dependent population and pick up points have been established for this population.

No number provided and no explicit assignment of vehicles was made to reflect this population.

Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 2,445 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 82 buses to evacuate.

An additional 366 homebound special needs persons need special transportation to evacuate (51 wheelchair vans and 82 ambulances are required to evacuate this population).

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

Transients

= 78,878 Transients

= 35,749 Special facility population based on Special facility (medical facilities and information provided by each county jails) population based on Special Facilities emergency management agency. information provided by Exelon Population Special Facility Population

= 3,892 Special Facility Population

= 5,142 Vehicles originating at special facilities

= Vehicles originating at special 539 facilities

= 351 School population based on information School population based on provided by regional school districts and information provided by Exelon SchoolSchool enrollment

= 39,768 School enrollment

= 37,071 Daycare enrollment

= 7,151 Preschool enrollment

= 5,228 Voluntary evacuation from 20% of the population within the within EPZ in areas Not considered EPZ, but not within the Evacuation outside region to be Region (see Figure 2-1)evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ Shadow Evacuation Not considered within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)Network Size 389 links; 319 nodes 6,219 links; 4,944 nodes Field surveys conducted in December 2013 and January 2014.Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in 2002. D s and i ntre inswre video Roads and intersections were video Data Road capacities based on 1985 HCM archived.Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

-I Toi0rviu Std Curn 6T td School Evacuation Direct evacuation to designated Host School.Direct evacuation of schools to designated Host School. Direct evacuation of pre-schools and daycares to designated Reception Center.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 mobilization activities:

Preparation and mobilization times were Residents with commuters returning based on assumptions.

leave between 15 and 225 minutes.Permanent Residents leave between 30 Trip Generation for and 150 minutes. Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 15 and 165 Employees and transients leave between mnts minutes.30 and 60 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 105 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Fair or Adverse. The capacity and free Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity Fairor dvese. he apaity nd ree and free flow speed of all links in the Weather flow speed of all links in the network are ne are reduced by 10% in the reduced by 20% in adverse weather.event of rain and 20% for snow.Modeling NetVac2 DYNEV II System -Version 4.0.18.0 Hershey Park Stadium Event Special Events None considered Special Event Population

= 14,000 additional transients 48 Regions (central sector wind Evacuation Cases 6 Scenarios for full EPZ producing 6 direction and each adjacent sector unique cases. technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 672 unique cases.ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Evacuatieontime for a full EPZ evacuation.

Results percentile population.

Results presented by Scenario.

presented by Region and Scenario.Winter Weekday Midday, Evacuation Time Winter Day, Fair Weather: 5:57 Good Weather: 4:55 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 9 0 th percentile Summer Weekend, Fair Weather: 6:11 Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 5:10 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 data provided by Exelon and the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics tools (see Section 3.4).3. Population estimates at special facilities and transient attractions 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 2.42 persons per household (See Appendix F, Figure F-i) and 1.26 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F-4) are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees, transients, and special events is as follows: a. Employees:

vehicle occupancy data was provided by Exelon; one employee per vehicle.b. Transients:

ranges from 2 to 2.42 persons per vehicle depending on the type of facility.c. Special Events: Hershey Park Stadium Event -assumed an estimated occupancy of 2.42 persons per vehicle (equal to average household size within the EPZ).Three Mile Island 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 90th and 100th 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 northbound on Interstate 83 (1-83)from the junction with State Route (SR)-382 to the junction with SR-581. A single lane westbound on SR-581 was also closed from the junction with 1-83 to the junction with I-81 southbound.

Finally, a single lane southbound on 1-81 was also closed from the junction with SR-581 to the end of the study area.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.Three Mile Island 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 summer Midweek Midday bood None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Summer Midweek, Evening Good None 5 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 Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None Summer Midweek, Evening Good Hershey Park 13 Weekend Stadium Event Single Lane Closure 1-83 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Northbound to SR-581 Westbound to 1-81 Southbound 2 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

~sRegion ~eEPfl Is moos EEI 9r I Keynole: z-Mile egion a o Miles uownwina I Kayfloie:

6-Mile Kegion & 1U Miles uownwino I biagea tvacuauon:

z-MuIe iegion o Miles uownwlno 11 I* Plant Location m Region to be Evacuated:

100% Evacuation 5 20% Shadow Evacuation mShelter, ten Evacuate I I* JI Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.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. 59 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F-3); 68 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 40 percent (59% x 68% = 40%) 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 plans, 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.Three Mile Island 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. If pre-schools and daycares are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated Reception Centers c. Buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips

("waves")

of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

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 2 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.Three Mile Island 2-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Sceari Caacty Speed Moiizto Tim fo Geea P opulatio Rain 90% 90% No Effect Snow 80% 80% 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.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 2-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 TMI 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 TMI EPZ is subdivided into 46 Sub-areas.

The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Three Mile Island 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 (2.42 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.26 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 TMI. 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 Dauphin County Prison 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.These 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.

Three Mile Island 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 3.1.2 Colleges, Universities, and Boarding Schools There are two higher education facilities and one private boarding school within the EPZ. For students evacuating in private vehicles from colleges and universities, the same trip generation distribution (see Section 5) as permanent residents was used. Based on college emergency plans, students will evacuate using personal vehicles.

Thus, no buses were considered for the colleges.

However, students at the boarding school will be evacuated via bus and are treated the same as children at other schools in the EPZ (see Section 8).Penn State University Harrisburg (located in Middletown, 3.6 miles north-northwest of TMI) has 1,200 enrolled students according to data provided by Exelon. Emergency plans posted on Penn State Harrisburg's website' indicate that the university will establish confirmation that each student can provide their own means for evacuating.

According to the university website, a majority of the students enrolled are commuters; therefore, counted in the resident population.

However, for the non-commuters, there is housing available for approximately 400 students.

To estimate the upper bound of student vehicles, it was assumed that each student would be evacuating in their own vehicle. A total of 400 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.Elizabethtown College (located in Elizabethtown, 6.9 miles east of TMI) has 1,800 enrolled students according to data provided by Exelon. The college website2 was used to determine the location of regulated residential parking lots available to students.

Aerial imagery was then used to determine the total number of parking spaces within these lots. A total of 682 spots were counted. Again, to estimate the upper bound of student vehicles, it was assumed that each student would evacuate in their own vehicle. A total of 682 evacuating student vehicles have been incorporated for this college and have been counted as resident vehicles in both Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.Milton Hersey School (located in Hershey, 9.5 miles north-northeast of TMI) has 1,875 enrolled students according to data provided by Exelon. The schoolchildren range from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade. It is assumed that all students will be evacuated via bus. The student population has been incorporated for this school and counted as resident population in Table 3-2; due to their dependency on bus transportation, there are no resident vehicles assigned to this school in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.1 https://harrisburi.psu.edu/safety-police-services/emergency-response-ppan#Campus Evacuation 2 http://www.etown.edu/offices/facilities-manaRement/Etown%20ColleRe%2OCampus%20Map%202011.pdf Three Mile Island 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 3-1. TMI EPZ Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Sub-area 200Pplain 21.Pplto Lower Allen 2,146 2,312 New Cumberland 7,349 7,277 Conewago (Dauphin) 2,813 2,997 Derry 21,317 24,679 Harrisburg 5,414 5,521 Highspire 2,735 2,399 Hummelstown 4,360 4,538 Londonderry (North) 3,372 3,439 Londonderry (South) 1,842 1,796 Lower Paxton 4,932 5,957 Lower Swatara (North) 2,853 2,750 Lower Swatara (South) 5,227 5,518 Middletown 9,296 8,901 Paxtang 1,554 1,561 Royalton 963 907 South Hanover 4,793 6,248 Steelton 5,844 5,990 Swatara 22,641 23,362 Conoy (North) 800 812 Conoy (South) 2,262 2,382 East Donegal 3,895 5,291 Elizabethtown 11,916 11,545 Mount Joy 6,442 8,114 West Donegal (North) 3,136 4,065 West Donegal (South) 3,408 4,195 SuhLnodry906 825 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population (Continued)

Lonewago tast IYorK) Z t /!I 4,bb5 Conewago West (York) 2,299 2,845 Dover 1,489 1,467 East Manchester (East) 2,707 3,827 East Manchester (West) 2,394 3,437 Fairview (East) 4,924 5,918 Fairview (West) 9,410 10,750 Goldsboro 939 952 Hellam 942 978 Lewisberry 385 362 Manchester Borough 2,327 2,763 Manchester Township (East) 3,369 4,182 Manchester Township (West) 7,418 11,714 Mount Wolf 1,373 1,393 Newberry (Northeast) 5,768 6,070 Newberry (Southeast) 4,983 5,681 Newberry (West) 3,568 3,533 Springettsbury 369 340 Warrington 1,098 1,052 York Haven 809 709 York Cou~nt Total: 59,550 -72,638 EPZ Population Growth: 12.02%Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area Lower Allen I 2,312 1,204 New Cumberland 7,277 3,788 Conewago (Dauphin) 2,997 1,565 Derry 24,679 12,087 Harrisburg 5,521 2,856 Highspire 2,399 1,251 Hummelstown 4,538 2,362 Londonderry (North) 3,439 1,792 Londonderry (South) 1,796 932 Lower Paxton 5,957 3,104 Lower Swatara (North) 2,750 1,437 Lower Swatara (South) 5,518 3,058 Middletown 8,901 4,638 Paxtang 1,561 813 Royalton 907 474 South Hanover 6,248 3,247 Steelton 5,990 3,127 Swatara 23,362 11,687 Dauphin Count Total: 106,563 Conoy (North) 812 422 Conoy (South) 2,382 1,243 East Donegal 5,291 2,755 Elizabethtown 11,545 5,927 Mount Joy 8,114 4,224 West Donegal (North) 4,065 1,891 West Donegal (South) 4,195 2,183 LncasterCqny Total: 36,40 145 South Londonderry 77 -825 430 Lebanon Count Total: 1 825 430 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area (Continued) 200 01 Sub-arIeaJ Poplaio ResI~a.1~

ident Vehicle YORKJ COUNT Conewago East (York)4,6243 Conewaxo West (York)2,845 1,480 Dover 1,467 763 East Manchester (East) 3,827 1,995 East Manchester (West) 3,437 1,788 Fairview (East) 5,918 3,084 Fairview (West) 10,750 5,599 Goldsboro 952 497 Hellam 978 509 Lewisberry 362 190 Manchester Borough 2,763 1,436 Manchester Township (East) 4,182 2,181 Manchester Township (West) 11,714 6,098 Mount Wolf 1,393 724 Newberry (Northeast) 6,070 3,159 Newberry (Southeast) 5,681 2,958 Newberry (West) 3,533 1,845 Springettsbury 340 176 Warrington 1,052 548 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW S -50 3.054...soI NNE 21,76 WNW;-EN E 4,7-J W 1129 587 145-I E t 462\--WSW 34 462 S SW Resident Population ESE 7,812 ,. 6.041 ssw 6,404 S 4,60 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 22 148 86 0 24 o 26 21,4 25 814 E Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 353 353 1- 2 2,029 2,382 2 -3 8,460 10,842 3 -4 15,489 26,331 4-5 13,043 39,374 5 -6 18,653 58,027 6-7 29,100 87,127 7-8 32,934 120,061 8-9 36,736 156,797 9 -10 42,042 198,839 10 -EPZ 27,180 226,019 Total: 226,019 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW--"" [5788 NNE 1,848 " WNW 1.489 35-582 306 536 51 241 WSW 18 SR F3,53 Resident Vehicles EN E E 1,7 ESE 3.148 55W r7156 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary 3,332 *, --S 10E37 2,35 N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 184 184 1-2 1,057 1,241 2 -3 4,404 5,645 3-4 8,248 13,893 4- 5 6,792 20,685 5- 6 9,502 30,187 6- 7 15,041 45,228 7-8 17,143 62,371 8-9 18,911 81,282 9- 10 21,027 102,309 10 -EPZ 14,016 116,325 Total: 116,325 W E Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the TMI (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.Note there are several large medical facilities and a large jail within the Shadow Region. The Census blocks for these facilities indicate a large resident population with no households assigned.

These blocks were filtered out and not included as part of the shadow population as jails and medical facilities outside of the EPZ would shelter-in-place.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector SecorPoultin vauain Vhile N 10,730 5,589 NNE 10,413 5,436 NE 12,939 6,727 ENE 3,232 1,690 E 4,838 2,520 ESE 18,389 9,571 SE 14,647 7,631 SSE 31,138 16,157 S 76,138 39,629 SSW 31,513 16,414 SW 3,566 1,859 WSW 3,173 1,653 W 15,698 8,172 WNW 47,373 22,872 NW 76,425 39,703 NNW 49,568 25,809 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW F49,5 68 NNE F10,413 WNW 147,373]w wSw 13,173 ENE 1.467 41 E 1.930 682 4,3 5,76" ESE SE* EPZ Boundar toll Miles SSW -L ...... SSE F31,5131 S F31,138 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 58,241 58,241 11-12 66,289 124,530 12- 13 94,018 218,548 13-14 112,148 330,696 14- 15 79,084 409,780 Total: 409,780 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N F5,589 NNW NNE 55,436 WNW 22,872]w wSw 1,653 ENE 769 86 E 1,004 356 F2,520 42 2,995 ESE F9,57 1 SE E B7,6311 S-J EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW S-16SSE s39,62 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ- 11 30,328 30,328 11- 12 32,628 62,956 12-13 48,913 111,869 13- 14 58,364 170,233 14-15 41,1991 211,432 Total: 211,432 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 TMI EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

Lodging Facilities

-8,407 transients; 4,210 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle* Campgrounds

-2,760 transients; 1,142 vehicles; 2.42 people per vehicle" Parks (including Hershey Park) -31,870 transients; 13,171 vehicles; 2.42 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.)* Retail -5,550 transients; 2,294 vehicles; 2.42 people per vehicle" Marinas and Boat Ramps -240 transients; 100 vehicles; 2.42 people per vehicle* Golf- 1,121 transients, 470 vehicles; 2.42 people per vehicle* Other facilities

-28,930 transients; 11,956 vehicles; 2.42 people per vehicle o Adventuresports

-200 transients; 83 vehicles o Giant Center (located within Hershey Park and holds recurring events such as hockey games, professional indoor football games, and music concerts)

-10,500 transients; 4,339 vehicles o Harrisburg International Airport (airport that at any given time would have people at the facility waiting for a flight or arriving from outside the EPZ) -1,200 transients; 496 vehicles o Hershey Park Arena/Stadium (holds large concerts as well as local sporting events) -16,000 transients; 6,612 vehicles o Township Pool (recreation area in Hershey that includes tennis, volleyball, softball, playground, and swimming)

-1,030 transients; 426 vehicles Hershey Park -located 10.2 miles north-northeast of TMI in Derry Township -is the major transient attraction within the EPZ. As indicated in Table E-5, the peak population considered at the park is 30,000 transients.

Obviously, the transient population at Hershey Park can vary significantly depending on weather and other conditions.

Many of the hotels and campgrounds in the EPZ serve as overnight accommodations for those people visiting Hershey Park. While the scenario percentages discussed in Section 6 cover a wide range of potential population at Hershey Park, it is conservatively assumed that the population considered at lodging facilities and campgrounds does not include those people already considered at Hershey Park. Double counting of Hershey Park transients at the Giant Center and Hershey Park Arena/Stadium was considered in developing the scenario percentages discussed in Section 6.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, retail, marinas and boat ramps, and golf courses), while Table E-6 presents the number of transients Three Mile Island 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ, and Table E-8 presents the number of transients and vehicles at other facilities.

In total there are 78,878 transients evacuating in 33,343 vehicles, an average of 2.37 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.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Sub-area TrasinsTasetVhcs Lower Allen 0 0 New Cumberland 00 Conewago (Dauphin) 842 353 Derry 65,540 27,406 Harrisburg 0 0 Highspire 156 73 Hummelstown 36 18 Londonderry (North) 400 166 Londonderry (South) 210 88 Lower Paxton 666 334 Lower Swatara (North) 519 234 Lower Swatara (South) 1,200 496 Middletown 0 0 Paxtang 0 0 Royalton 0 0 South Hanover 694 333 Steelton 60 25 Conoy (North) 0 0 Conoy (South) 0 0 East Donegal 0 0 Elizabethtown 0 0 Mount Joy 264 124 West Donegal (North) 360 149 West Donegal (South) 0 0 SuhLnodry0 0 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles (Continued)

Conewago East (York)0 0 Conewago West (York) 0 0 Dover 0 0 East Manchester (East) 0 0 East Manchester (West) 0 0 Fairview (East) 626 314 Fairview (West) 318 160 Goldsboro 0 0 Hellam 0 0 Lewisberry 0 0 Manchester Borough 0 0 Manchester Township (East) 0 0 Manchester Township (West) 0 0 Mount Wolf 0 0 Newberry (Northeast) 394 173 Newberry (Southeast) 0 0 Newberry (West) 100 42 Springettsbury 0 0 Warrington 1,620 670 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW-0_NNE---' -496 --6",168 * , WNW ENE_742-j W 0 0I-J E WsW ESE 360-j-0 ssW .-S L-0--]Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 210 210 2 -3 1,200 1,410 3-4 1,041 2,451 4-5 173 2,624 5-6 375 2,999 6-7 1,032 4,031 7-8 4,628 8,659 8-9 3,865 12,524 9-10 61,690 74,214 10 -EPZ 4,664 78,878 Total: 78,878 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 20 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 e )0 E W Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 1 08_NNE\ 234 7 1,849' 'WNW W 0 ENE 3-31-1 J E F124 ESE ,-14 9-1 Z Boundary WSW 0%SW-5-Transient Vehicles-0 SSW w--0 0-S L-i--Liz N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 88 88 2-3 496 584 3-4 431 1,015 4-5 82 1,097 5-6 183 1,280 6-7 432 1,712 7-8 2,044 3,756 8- 9 1,795 5,551 9- 10 25,709 31,260 10- EPZ 2,083 33,343 Total: 33,343 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

0 0 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 tool 3 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, 70.1%, 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 (70.1%) factor to determine the number of employees who are not residents of the EPZ. It is conservatively assumed for all major employers that there is 1 employee per vehicle as carpooling in the US is minimal.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.3 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Suae Emloee Emlye ehce CUMERAN CONT Lower Allen 0 0 S New Cumberland 79 79 Conewago (Dauphin) 0 0 Derry 13,560 13,560 Harrisburg 2,230 2,230 Highspire 0 0 Hummelstown 173 173 Londonderry (North) 119 119 Londonderry (South) 440 440 Lower Paxton 278 278 Lower Swatara (North) 990 990 Lower Swatara (South) 1,243 1,243 Middletown 210 210 Paxtang 0 0 Royalton 0 0 South Hanover 36 36 Steelton 556 556 Conoy (North) 0 0 Conoy (South) 0 0 East Donegal 0 0 Elizabethtown 1,265 1,265 Mount Joy 444 444 West Donegal (North) 279 279 West Donegal (South) 299 299 SuhLnodry0 0 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles (Continued)

Conewago East (York)472 472 Conewago West (York) 0 0 Dover 0 0 East Manchester (East) 225 225 East Manchester (West) 499 499 Fairview (East) 2,592 2,592 Fairview (West) 261 261 Goldsboro 0 0 Hellam 0 0 Lewisberry 0 0 Manchester Borough 201 201 Manchester Township (East) 2,473 2,473 Manchester Township (West) 37 37 Mount Wolf 307 307 Newberry (Northeast) 282 282 Newberry (Southeast) 113 113 Newberry (West) 104 104 Springettsbury 106 106 Warrington 0 0 York Haven 0 0 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW 3,596 N N L 7964 1400-~617 WNW 2,961 I I W 253- j 0 ENE E 2,4 ESE F40 wsw S, 0 ssw 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary'54 -SSE S 89 N F3,872 Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 440 440 1-2 0 440 2-3 519 959 3-4 933 1,892 4-5 617 2,509 5- 6 1,957 4,466 6- 7 2,006 6,472 7 -8 8,902 15,374 8- 9 6,622 21,996 9- 10 10,559 32,555 10 -EPZ 2,474 35,029 Total: 35,029 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KILD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW N r 964 NNE 14,00-00 WNW W I-0 I..-wSw 104-1 '0 0 ssw 472Z 154 -S 8-9-9-1 N Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 440 440 1-2 0 440 2-3 519 959 3-4 933 1,892 4-5 617 2,509 5-6 1,957 4,466 6- 7 2,006 6,472 7 -8 8,902 15,374 8 -9 6,622 21,996 9- 10 10,559 32,555 10 -EPZ 2,474 35,029 Total: 35,029 W E Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 81, 1-76, 1-83, and SR-283. 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 30th 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 27,380 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 in this ETE study -a large event at Hershey Park Stadium, which can occur multiple times per year, typically during the summer and in the evening. The facility is located within Hershey Park. As discussed in Section 3.3, the number of transients during peak season at Hershey Park Stadium is 16,000 people traveling in 6,612 vehicles.

According to the website 4 for this facility, festival concert capacity is 30,000 people.This results in an additional 14,000 transients that would be on Hershey Park grounds for a large event. Using the average household size of 2.42 people as discussed in Appendix F for the vehicle occupancy, an additional 5,785 transient vehicles are considered during the special event.4 http://www.hersheyparkstadium.com/stadium_info.php Three Mile Island 3-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Shuttle buses to transport attendees to Hershey Park parking lots are not considered as part of this study. It is assumed that the time for attendees to walk to their vehicles is within the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minute mobilization time for transients discussed in Section 5.Three Mile Island 3-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 3-6. TMI EPZ External Traffic 8003 3 1-81 North 65,502 0.091 0.5 2,980 5,960 8039 39 1-81 South 65,502 0.091 0.5 2,980 5,960 8104 104 1-76 East 26,249 0.107 0.5 1,404 2,808 8145 145 1-76 West 26,249 0.107 0.5 1,404 2,808 8267 267 1-83 North 46,613 0.107 0.5 2,494 4,988 8266 266 SR-283 West 45,385 0.107 0.5 2,428 4,856'Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2013 2 HCM 2010 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.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 474,465 people and 256,565 vehicles are considered in this study.Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand I Lower Allen 1 2,312 1 25 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 2,337 1 New Cumberland 17,277 j 79 1 0 1 79 0 1,746 0 0 9,181 Conewago (Dauphin) 2,997 32 842 0 0 256 0 0 4,127 Derry 24,679 267 65,540 13,560 671 7,121 0 0 111,838 Harrisburg 5,521 60 0 2,230 0 1,082 0 0 8,893 Highspire 2,399 26 156 0 0 22 0 0 2,603 Hummelstown 4,538 49 36 173 0 3,347 0 0 8,143 Londonderry (North) 3,439 37 400 119 0 533 0 0 4,528 Londonderry (South) 1,796 19 210 440 0 12 0 0 2,477 Lower Paxton 5,957 64 666 278 0 638 0 0 7,603 Lower Swatara (North) 2,750 30 519 990 0 818 0 0 5,107 Lower Swatara (South) 5,518 60 1,200 1,243 198 3,043 0 0 11,262 Middletown 8,901 96 0 210 288 1,225 0 0 10,720 Paxtang 1,561 17 0 0 0 258 0 0 1,836 Royalton 907 10 0 0 0 71 0 0 988 South Hanover 6,248 68 694 36 0 513 0 0 7,559 Steelton 5,990 65 60 556 0 156 0 0 6,827 Swatara 23,362 253 4,873 5,156 2,046 4,265 0 0 39,955 Dauphin County Total: 0,6 1,153 75,196 2491 320 3300 3,6 Conoy (North) 812 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 821 Conoy (South) 2,382 26 0 0 0 292 0 0 2,700 East Donegal 5,291 57 0 0 62 25 0 0 5,435 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-29 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 SElizabethtown 11,545 125 0 1 1,265 1 1,797 1 5,566 1 0 1 0 1 20,298 1 Mount Joy 8,114 88 264 444 0 941 0 0 9,851 West Donegal (North) 4,065 44 360 279 0 0 0 0 4,748 West Donegal (South) 4,195 45 0 299 80 463 0 0 5,082 anarew r (East) 5or l 4,98 64 626 2,2 0 075 0 0 59,32 Conewsgor 95tYr)2,4 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 92,7 Seoua 9,d78 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 983 Lesbanber te Conty 36825 49 0 0, 0 0 0 0 436 EatManchester Borough 2,7637 30 0 201 0 2,31 0 0 5,335 Mainhew r Eash (as,) 4,18 45 0 0 2,4 0 1,4 0 0 8,624 Mancheser ToWnshit Wet 11,714 127 01 371 0 5690 0 0 124475 oldsbor Wet(or)2852 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,86 MoeuW 1,937 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0928 ewisberry (norhes ast) 6,07 46 0 282 0 0 0 0 7,600 EabManchester aWest) 5,463 36 0 413 0 241 0 0 6,139 Newinberry 340 4 0 106 0 164 0 0 6,124 Newberry (Noteast) 6,070 66 394 282 0 788 0 0 7,600 Springettsbury 340 4 0 106 0 1,674 0 0 2,124 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-30 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Warrington 1,052 11 1,620 0 0 0 0 0 2,683 York Haven 709 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 717 York Couwy Totaok 72,638 785 3,058 7 0 12,453 80, 0 96,606 Shadow Region 0 0 1 000015 jj81,956 082,106 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.

Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-31 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand Lower Allen 1,204 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,206 A I n I 7Q I I r? I n I n I !qIC 41 Conewago (Dauphin) 1,565 2 353 0 0 8 0 0 1,928 Derry 12,087 18 27,406 13,560 109 264 0 0 53,444 Harrisburg 2,856 4 0 2,230 0 34 0 0 5,124 Highspire 1,251 2 73 0 0 2 0 0 1,328 Hummelstown 2,362 4 18 173 0 134 0 0 2,691 Londonderry (North) 1,792 2 166 119 0 18 0 0 2,097 Londonderry (South) 932 2 88 440 0 0 0 0 1,462 Lower Paxton 3,104 4 334 278 0 20 0 0 3,740 Lower Swatara (North) 1,437 2 234 990 0 24 0 0 2,687 Lower Swatara (South) 3,058 4 496 1,243 38 70 0 0 4,909 Middletown 4,638 6 0 210 23 46 0 0 4,923 Paxtang 813 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 823 Royalton 474 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 480 South Hanover 3,247 4 333 36 0 16 0 0 3,636 Steelton 3,127 4 25 556 0 8 0 0 3,720 Swatara 11,687 18 2,185 5,156 142 152 0 0 19,340 Daup hin County Total 5,30 8 31, 11 24,99 31 0 0123.Conoy (North) 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 422 Conoy (South) 1,243 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 1,255 East Donegal 2,755 4 0 0 7 2 0 0 2,768 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-32 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Elzabethtown/8 1 0 1 1,265 1 179 1 140 1 0 1 0 1 7,519 1 Mount Joy 4,224 6 124 444 0 28 0 0 4,826 West Donegal (North) 1,891 2 149 279 0 0 0 0 2,321 West Donegal (South) 2,183 2 0 299 10 14 0 0 2,510 Fairnc (ast)r 3onyToa, ,0845 46 231 2,528 09 09 0 0 51,994 South Londonderry 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 430 Conewago East (York) 2,430 4 0 472 0 12 0 0 2,918 Conewago West (York) 1,480 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,482 Dover 763 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 765 East Manchester (East) 1,995 2 0 225 0 0 0 0 2,222 East Manchester (West) 1,788 2 0 499 0 32 0 0 2,321 Fairview (East) 3,084 4 314 2,592 0 0 0 0 5,994 Fairview (West) 5,599 8 160 261 0 112 0 0 6,140 Goldsboro 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 497 Hellam 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 509 Lewisberry 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 Manchester Borough 1,436 2 0 201 0 94 0 0 1,733 Manchester Township (East) 2,181 4 0 2,473 0 62 0 0 4,720 Manchester Township (West) 6,098 8 0 37 0 18 0 0 6,161 Mount Wolf 724 2 0 307 0 12 0 0 1,045 Newberry (Northeast) 3,159 4 173 282 0 26 0 0 3,644 Newberry (Southeast) 2,958 4 0 113 0 10 0 0 3,085 Newberry (West) 1,845 2 42 104 0 14 0 0 2,007 Springettsbury 176 0 0 106 0 68 0 0 350 Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-33 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Warrington 548 2 670 0 0 0 0 0 1,220 York Haven 368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 368 YorkCowuygTotan 0 0 7,672 0 460 408 7,80 47,371: Shadow Region 000006 42,286 27,380 69,672 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.

NOTE: Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

Three Mile Island Evacuation Time Estimate 3-34 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

RA-14-033, TR-623, Rev. 0, Three Mile Island Generating Station, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Final Report. Cover Through Page 3-34

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Navigation menu

RA-14-033, TR-623, Rev. 0, Three Mile Island Generating Station, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Final Report. Cover Through Page 3-34

Text

SUMMARY

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

Navigation menu

Search