Text

Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4
	ML14141A054
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	04/21/2014
From:	; KLD Engineering, PC
To:	; Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14141A046	List: ML14141A047; ML14141A048; ML14141A049; ML14141A050; ML14141A051; ML14141A053; ML14141A054; ML14141A055; ML14141A056; ML14141A057; ML14141A058; ML14141A059; ML14141A060; ML14141A061; ML14141A062; ML14141A063; ML14141A064; ML14141A065; ML14141A066; ML14141A067; RS-14-151, Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 5; RS-14-151, Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, and Peach Bottom - 10 CFR 50, Appendix E - Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis Information; RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4; RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4; RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4; RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4; RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4; RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4; RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4; RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4; RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 3; RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 3; RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 3; RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4; RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4; RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4; RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4; RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 5; RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 5; RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 5; RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 5 of 5;
References
	RS-14-151 KLD TR-637, Rev. 0
	Download: ML14141A054 (136)
	v • d • e

Attachment 2 Byron Generating Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

BYRON GENERATING STATION 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@kldcomoanies.com April 21, 2014 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 637

Table of Contents I

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................

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

1-2 1.2 The Byron Generating Station Location.....................................................................................

1-3 1.3 Prelim inary Activities.................................................................................................................

1-5 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study..............................................................................................

1-9 2

STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS.............................................................................................

2-1 2.1 Data Estim ates...........................................................................................................................

2-1 2.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions..........................................................................................

2-2 2.3 Study Assum ptions.....................................................................................................................

2-5 3

DEM AND ESTIM ATION.......................................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents.................................................................................................................

3-2 3.1.1 Special Facilities.................................................................................................................

3-2 3.2 Shadow Population....................................................................................................................

3-7 3.3 Transient Population................................................................................................................

3-10 3.4 Em ployees................................................................................................................................

3-14 3.5 M edical Facilities......................................................................................................................

3-18 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population..............................................................

3-18 3.7 Special Event............................................................................................................................

3-18 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and...............................................................................................................

3-21 4

ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections..............................................................

4-2 4.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highw ay........................................................................

4-4 4.3 Application to the BYR 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 FOR EVACUATIO N SCENARIOS.....................................................................

6-1 7

GENERAL PO PULATION EVACUATIO N TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE)..........................................................

7-1 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation.........................................................................

7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation......................................................................................................................

7-1 Byron Generating Station i

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation.....................................................................

7-2 7.4 Evacuation Rates........................................................................................................................

7-3 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results....................................................................................

7-4 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results.........................................................................................................

7-5 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 13 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................

13-1 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-12 C.2 Im plem entation.......................................................................................................................

C-12 C.2.1 Com putational Procedure................................................................................................

C-12 C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD)..............................................

C-15 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 G.

TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN.....................................................................................................

G-1 Byron Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

G.i Traffic Control Points................................................................................................................

G-1 G.2 A ccess Co ntro l Po ints................................................................................................................

G -1 H.

EVACUATION REGIONS.....................................................................................................................

H-i J.

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

EVACUATION ROADWAY NETW ORK...............................................................................................

K-i L.

SUB-AREA BOUNDARIES....................................................................................................................

L-1 M.

EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES..........................................................................................

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

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

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

M-4 N.

ET E C R IT ER IA C H EC KLIST...................................................................................................................

N -i Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

List of Figures Fig u re 1-1. BY R Lo catio n...........................................................................................................................

1-4 Figure 1-2. BYR Link-Node Analysis Netw ork............................................................................................

1-7 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology.......................................................................................

2-4 Fig u re 3 -1. BY R E P Z...................................................................................................................................

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

3-5 Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector.................................................................................

3-6 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector.................................................................................................

3-8 Figure 3-5. Shadow V ehicles by Sector.....................................................................................................

3-9 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................

3-12 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector.................................................................................................

3-13 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector............................................................................................

3-16 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector................................................................................................

3-17 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. Comparison 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 e g io n....................................................................................................................................

5 -2 0 Figure 6-1. BY R EPZ Sub-areas..................................................................................................................

6-6 Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology.....................................................................................

7-15 Figure 7-2. BYR Shadow Region..............................................................................................................

7-16 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate............................................

7-17 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.................. 7-18 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.................. 7-19 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate..........................................

7-20 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................ 7-21 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03......................................................

7-22 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03......................................................

7-22 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03....................................................

7-23 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03....................................................

7-23 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03....................................................

7-24 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03....................................................

7-24 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03....................................................

7-25 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03....................................................

7-26 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03..................................................

7-26 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03..................................................

7-27 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03..................................................

7-27 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03..................................................

7-28 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03..................................................

7-28 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations......................................................................

8-11 Figure 8-2. BYR Transit Dependent Bus Routes......................................................................................

8-12 Figure 10-1. General Population Reception Communities and Relocation Centers...............................

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

1 0-3 Byron Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-D TRAD Interface........................................................................

B-5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Network...........................................................................................

C-4 Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s...........................................................................................................

C-6 Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration w ith t1 > 0..............................................................................

C-6 Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C-3)....................................................

C-14 Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities.....................................................................................................

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

E-8 Figure E-2. Preschools and Cam ps w ithin the BYR EPZ.............................................................................

E-9 Figure E-3. M edical and Correctional Facilities w ithin the BYR EPZ.......................................................

E-10 Figure E-4. Em ployers within the BYR EPZ..........................................................................................

E-11 Figure E-S. Recreational Areas within the BYR EPZ.................................................................................

E-12 Figure E-6. Lodging Facilities within the BYR EPZ....................................................................................

E-13 Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ.......................................................................................................

F-2 Figure F-2. Household Vehicle Availability................................................................................................

F-2 Figure F-3. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ.....................................................................................

F-3 Figure F-4. Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation...............................................................................

F-4 Figure F-5. Com m uter Evacuation Response........................................................................................

F-5 Figure F-6. Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork...............................................................................

F-6 Figure F-7. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e.....................................................................................................

F-7 Figure F-8. Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation....................................................................................

F-8 Figure F-9. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow...............................................................................

F-9 Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the Byron Generating Station....................................

G-2 Figure H-1. Region RO1.............................................................................................................................

H-4 Figure H-2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................

H-5 Figure H-3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................

H-6 Figure H-4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................

H-7 Figure H-5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................

H-8 Figure H-6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................

H-9 Figure H-7. Region R07...........................................................................................................................

H-IO Figure H-8. Region R08...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Figure H-9. Region R09...........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-iO. Region RIO.........................................................................................................................

H-13 Figure H-11. Region R11.........................................................................................................................

H-14 Figure H-12. Region R12.........................................................................................................................

H-15 Figure H-13. Region R13.........................................................................................................................

H-16 Figure H-14. Region R14.........................................................................................................................

H-17 Figure H-15. Region R15.........................................................................................................................

H-18 Figure H-16. Region R16.........................................................................................................................

H-19 Figure H-17. Region R17.........................................................................................................................

H-20 Figure H-18. Region R18.........................................................................................................................

H-21 Figure H-19. Region R19.........................................................................................................................

H-22 Figure H-20. Region R20.........................................................................................................................

H-23 Figure H-21. Region R21.........................................................................................................................

H-24 Figure H-22. Region R22.........................................................................................................................

H-25 Figure H-23. Region R23.........................................................................................................................

H-26 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1).............. J-8 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)..........................

J-8 Byron Generating Station v

KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).......... J-9 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4).......................... J-9 Figure 1-5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario 5).....................................................................................................................

J-10 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6).............. J-10 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)..........................

J-11 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8).............................

J-11 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9).............. J-12 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)...........................

J-12 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11).........................

J-13 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, G ood W eather (Scenario 12)..................................................................................................................

J-13 Figure 1-13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Eve nt (Scenario 13)......................................................................................................................

J-14 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (S ce n a rio 1 4 )............................................................................................................................................

J-14 Figure K-1. Byron Generating Station Link-Node Analysis Network.........................................................

K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 1......................................................................................

K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-G rid 2......................................................................................

K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 3................................................................................

K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 4......................................................................................

K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 5......................................................................................

K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 6......................................................................................

K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 7......................................................................................

K-9 Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 8..............................................................................

K-10 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 9............................................................................

K-11 Figure K-i1. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork-Grid 10................................................................................

K-12 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Netw ork - Grid 11................................................................................

K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network - Grid 1 2................................................................................

K -14 13............................................................................

K-15 1 4................................................................................

K -1 6 1 5................................................................................

K -1 7 1 6................................................................................

K -1 8 1 7................................................................................

K -1 9 1 8................................................................................

K -2 0 1 9................................................................................

K -2 1 2 0................................................................................

K -2 2 2 1................................................................................

K -2 3 2 2................................................................................

K -2 4 2 3................................................................................

K -2 5 2 4................................................................................

K -2 6 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 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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 Byron Generating Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate 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.................................................................................

2-6 Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population.......................................................................................

3-4 Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area.....................................................

3-4 Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector.............................................................................

3-7 Table 3-4. Sum m ary of Transients and Transient Vehicles.....................................................................

3-11 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles......................................

3-15 Table 3-6. BYR External Traff ic................................................................................................................

3-20 Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and...........................................................................................

3-22 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and.................................................................................................

3-23 Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities................................................................................

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

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

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

6-4 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions...............................................................................................

6-7 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios............................................

6-8 Table 6-4. V ehicle Estim ates by Scenario..................................................................................................

6-9 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population...........................

7-9 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population....................... 7-10 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region............................ 7-11 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region.......................... 7-12 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions.........................................................................................

7-13 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates..............................................................................

8-13 Table 8-2. School, Preschool, and Camp Population Demand Estimates...............................................

8-14 Table 8-3. School, Preschool, and Cam p Relocation Facilities................................................................

8-15 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and............................................................................................

8-16 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources..................................................................................

8-17 Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions..........................................................................................................

8-18 Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather.......................... 8-20 Table 8-8. School, Preschool, and Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain..........................................

8-22 Table 8-9. School, Preschool, and Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow.........................................

8-24 Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes........................................................................

8-26 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather........................................

8-27 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain.........................................................

8-28 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow.......................................................

8-29 Byron Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather.............................................

8-30 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain.............................................................

8-31 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Snow............................................................

8-32 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates....................................

8-33 Table 8-18. Correctional Facility Evacuation Time Estimate...................................................................

8-34 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation.............. 12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms.................................................................................

A-i Table C-1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II........................................................

C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model...........................................................................

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

C -7 Table E-1. Schools w ithin the EPZ.............................................................................................................

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

E-3 Table E-3. Cam ps w ithin the EPZ...............................................................................................................

E-3 Table E-4. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ..............................................................................................

E-4 Table E-5. Em ployers w ithin the EPZ.........................................................................................................

E-5 Table E-6. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ............................................................................................

E-6 Table E-7. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ...............................................................................................

E-7 Table E-8. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ........................................................................................

E-7 Table H-i. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region................................................

H-2 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections....................................

J-2 Table J-2. Sample Simulation Model Input.........................................................................................

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

1-4 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, S ce n a rio 1 ).................................................................................................................................................

J-5 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1......................... J-6 Table K-i. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics......................................................................

K-47 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled...........................................

K-84 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 with Population Change.................................................................................

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

N-1 Byron Generating Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuatinn Timp Fstimate 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 Byron Generating Station (BYR) located in Byron Township, Illinois. 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:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011.

(NRC, 2011a).

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November, 1980.

(NRC, 1980a).

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants,"

January 2005. (NRC, 2005).

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

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

Overview of Project Activities This project began in January, 2014 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 BYR, 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.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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 12 Sub-areas. (Note, the Sub-areas in the BYR EPZ are not numbered sequentially and do not start at 1. The Sub-area numbers range from 10 to 40.) Following federal guidelines, these existing Sub-areas are grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 23 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 - ByronFest - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein County Route 4/Stillman Road northbound was closed from the intersection of IL-72 to Kishwaukee Road.

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 BYR 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, preschools, and camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to relocation centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at schools, preschools, or camps prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for children at these facilities 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 Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents.

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.

Byron Generating Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Computation of ETE A total of 322 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 23 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (23 x 14 = 322).

Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including children 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), and then simulates the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been Byron Generating Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA).

The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7.3 indicate minimal traffic congestion within the EPZ.

As such, no additional traffic control points (TCPs) or access control points (ACPs) are identified as a result of this study. The existing traffic management plans are adequate. 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 BYR EPZ showing the layout of the 12 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.

" Table 6-1 defines each of the 23 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Sub-areas.

" Table 6-2 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 children at schools, preschools and camps 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 322 unique cases - a combination of 23 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 3:35 at the 9 0 th percentile.

Inspection of Table 7-2 indicates that the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Byron Generating Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Scenarios, with the exception of the special event, are approximately equal to mobilization time.

This result implies that the minimal congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization; see Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-7.

Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2-mile Region. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event -

ByronFest - significantly impacts ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles by increasing the ETE for evacuation of areas beyond 2 miles by up to an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 40 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 5 minutes, respectively.

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., County Route 4/Stillman Road northbound (see Section 2.2, item 7 for additional information) -

increases the 90th percentile ETE by at most 20 minutes - a nominal change, and has no impact on the 1 0 0 th percentile. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

All traffic congestion (LOS F) within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the Advisory to Evacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-7.

" Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools, camps, medical facilities, correctional facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for this population is at most 35 minutes longer 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 100th percentile is sensitive 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 30 minutes.

BYR is a low population site with minimal congestion; therefore, ETE is dictated by trip generation. See Table M-1.

The general population ETE is not affected by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M-2.

A population increase of 82% or more results in 90th percentile ETE changes which meet the federal criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 6-1. BYR EPZ Sub-areas Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Su-are 2000 Pouato 201 Populatio 10 1,259 1,137 12 4,065 3,968 14 719 758 17 5,840 6,563 19 1,748 1,770 20 5,310 4,909 23 3,671 4,135 25 979 985 27 1,671 3,181 28 709 738 39 478 466 40 508 506 I

-opu-0 EPZ Population Growth:

8.01%

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions I

Sub-Area Region Description 10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 Evauat 2-Mile Ringan onwn o

ie R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Full EPZ Sub-Area Region Wind Direction Toward:

10 12114 17 19 201 23 25 27 28139 40 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE, NEj111 N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO ROI RO5 SE R06 SSE, S R07 SSW, SW, WSW 2 0 li T i0 1

0 11111111 111111.

Sub-Area Region Wind Direction Toward:

10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 R08 NNW, N R09 NNE RIO NE R11 ENE R12 E, ESE R13 SE, SSE N/A S

REFER TO RO2 R14 SSW R16 W

R17 WNW R18 NW Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

___________________________________________________________________________ile Sub-Area Region Wind Direction Toward:

101 12 1 14 1

R19 5-Mile Ring R20 NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE 27 21 39 40 I

I I

N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO F R21 SE R22 SSE, S R23 SSW, SW, WSW I

I I

I Sub-area(s) Shelter-in-Place Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scnai Sesn Da of Wee Tim of Day Weahe Specia 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5

Summer

Midweek, Evening Good None Summer 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 Wnter

Midweek, 12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None MiWeeken 13 Summer

Midweek, Evening Good ByronFest Weekend Closure of County 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 4/Stillman Rd Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek weekend Midweek Weekend 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 Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather I Weather Weather Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ RO 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:55 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:50 3:15 2:00 R03 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:25 2:15 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 3:20 2:00 ROS 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:25 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ ROB 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:35 2:05 R09 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:20 2:05 RIO 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:15 2:15 R11 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:10 2:15 R12 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:20 R13 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:15 2:00 R14 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:00 RIS 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:00 R16 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:30 2:00 R17 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:30 2:00 R18 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:35 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 3:15 2:25 R20 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 3:25 2:35 R21 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R22 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:10 R23 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:10 ES-il KID Engineering, P.C.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD 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 Weekend Eire2 R Midweek Weekend Midweek EPZ Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday.

Evening Evening Midday Reio GodG od Go odGo Roadway Reio God Rain Rain Wod Go Rain Snow God Rain So God ByronFest Weather Weathr ai Weather Weather Weather Weather Impact Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 R02 3:35 3:35' 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 I

4:15 3:35 R03 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:45 3:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 T 4:35 3:35 4:15 3:35 R05 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 } 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ ROB 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 R09 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 RIO 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 R11 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R12 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R13 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R14 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R15 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:35 3:40 R17 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:35 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:40 3:40

______Staged Evacuation Mile Region, and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 R20 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 R21 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R22 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 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 MidU e d

a Midweek Weekend Midweek Region Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Scnrio:

(1:5 (1:55 1:50 11:5 [

(150 11:5 (7)55 1:50 2:)10)

(1(1:50 (1:50 (141:5 R0-,..,1:55, 11:5]

5 115 1:5 t.J 1:5 155220

4 1:50 2:1 i

J 1:50 1:5 J

5 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Good Ran Good Good nw Good T

i SnwGood ByronFest Roda weather Ran Weather Ran Weather Weather TRain Sno Weather Ri Snw Weather Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and e-Mile Region R01 1: 55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 RO4 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 RO6 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R07 1:55 (1:55 J 1:50 1:50 [

1:50 1:55

[1:55 [2:20 [

1:45

]1:50 [

2:10 1:50

]

1:50

]

1:55 Staged Evacuation - S-Mile Region R1,9 1:55 11:55 1:50 1:sol 1:50 1:55 1 :55sl 2:20 1 1:45 1 :50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R21 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R22 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R23 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 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 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 Good Rain S

Good Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather S

Weather Weather Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile Region RO 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R02 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 1 3:30 4:30 1

3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R05 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R19 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 1

3:30

[ 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R21 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R22 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 8-7. School and Preschool Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Byron High School 90 15 10.5 47.0 13 Byron Middle School 90 15 10.8 47.0 14 Chana Education Center 90 15 3.6 47.6 4

David L. Rahn Junior High School 90 15 4.2 48.0 5

Etnyre Middle School 90 15 6.9 48.0 9

Highland Elementary School 90 15 9.2 48.0 12 Jefferson Grade School 90 15 7.0 48.0 9

Kings Consolidated School 90 15 4.3 41.3 6

Lorado Taft Field Campus 90 15 8.7 42.5 12 Mary Morgan Elementary School 90 15 10.4 47.0 13 Meridian Junior High School 90 15 8.9 48.0 11 Ogle County Educational Cooperative 90 15 10.4 47.0 13 Oregon Senior High School 90 15 6.5 48.9 8

Stillman Valley High School 90 15 9.4 48.0 12 Village of Progress 90 is5 6.3 48.0 8

Best Beginnings Child Care 90 15 6.7 42.7 9

Bright Beginnings Pre School 90 15 10.8 50.3 13 Jack & Jill Nursery School 90 15 3.9 49.9 5

Kenneth Scott Day Care 90 15 8.0 43.2 11 Rainbow Corner Pre-School 90 15 6.6 43.4 9

Saint Mary's Head Start (Oregon Head Start) 90 15 8.2 43.2 11 Valley Covenant Church Preschool 90 15 8.7 48.0 11 Camp Lowden Boy Scout Camp 90 15 2.5 47.8 3

Camp McCormick Girl Scouts Camp 90 15 5.3 52.4 6

Lutheran Outdoor Ministries Center 90 15 4.7 46.5 6

Mooseheart Camp Ross 90 15 5.6 52.6 6

19.9 19.9 26.8 26.5 16.1 5.8 16.1 36.8 16.1 19.9 5.8 19.9 16.1 5.8 16.1 22 22 29 29 18 6

18 40 18 22 6

22 18 6

18 16.1 19.9 26.5 16.1 16.1 16.1 qRS 18 22 29 18 18 18 I11.V 1 v 8.4 9

16.1 18 21.5 23 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather 51 & B2 b

120 7.8 1 43.8 1

11 30 9.9 11 5

1U D1 2

120 4.7 48.8 6

30 LI &L2 2

120 3.0 48.3 4

30 M1 &M2 2

120 4.6 43.8 6

30 O1 & 02 4

120 7.1 42.9 10 30 S1 &S2 2

120 9.6 48.9 12 30 Maximum ETE:

Average ETE:

5.8 6

5 10 17 30 19.9 22 5

10 29 30 26.5 29 5

10 40 30 16.1 18 5

10 35 30 5.8 6

5 10 28 30 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

I Figure H-8. Region R08 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 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 Byron Generating Station (BYR), located in Byron Township, Illinois.

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:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011.

(NRC, 2011a)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November, 1980.

(NRC, 1980a)

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

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants,"

January 2005. (NRC, 2005)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

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

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* Stakeholder. Inercto Provided data (telephone survey, employees, transients, special facilities, transit resources)

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

Reviewed draft report and provided comments.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA)

Provided existing emergency plans, including traffic and access control points and other Ogle County Sherriff's Department information critical to the ETE study. Engaged in the ETE development and informed of the study Winnebago County Office of Emergency results. Provided data for medical facilities in the Management EPZ.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1.1 Overview of the ETE Process The following outline presents a brief description of the work effort in chronological sequence:

1. Information Gathering:

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

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

c.

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

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

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

f.

Obtained data from Exelon and local offsite response organizations (OROs) 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. Utilized the 12 existing Sub-areas' which generally follow township boundaries and major roadways or rivers 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.

'The Sub-areas in the BYR EPZ are not numbered sequentially and do not start at 1. The Sub-area numbers range from 10 to 40.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 county and state agencies, Exelon and from the telephone survey.

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

c.

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

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

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

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, preschools, day camps, medical and correctional facilities), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Byron Generating Station Location The BYR site is located approximately 3.7 miles south-southwest of the City of Byron in Ogle County, Illinois.

At its closest approach, the Rock River is approximately 2.2 miles west-southwest of the plant. The site is approximately 20 miles southwest of Rockford, Illinois and 85 miles west-northwest of Chicago, Illinois. The EPZ consists of part of Ogle and Winnebago Counties. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the BYR site relative to Rockford and Chicago, as well as the major population centers and roadways in the area.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 1-1. BYR Location Byron Generating Station 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 Actual free speed Shoulder type & width 0

Abutting land use Interchange geometries 0

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 Byron Generating Station 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Telephone Survey The results of a telephone survey conducted in 2011 were obtained to gather information needed for the evacuation study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 1-2. BYR Link-Node Analysis Network Byron Generating Station 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 KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

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

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

NUREG/CR-4873, PNL-6171, "Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code," 1988. (NRC, 1988a)

NUREG/CR-4874, PNL-6172, "The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code," 1988. (NRC, 1988b)

The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

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

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

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

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

Byron Generating Station 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 this ETE study with the previous (2003) study. The ETE in this study are longer (35 minutes) than in the 2003 study. The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

" An increase in permanent resident, employee, and transient population.

A decrease in resident vehicle occupancy, which results in more evacuating vehicles and longer ETE.

Consideration of shadow evacuation which can congest roadways outside the EPZ and delay the egress of EPZ evacuees, prolonging ETE.

Trip generation rates are based on telephone survey results of EPZ residents. The trip generation times in this study are significantly longer than in the previous study.

As discussed in Section 7, the 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE are dictated by trip generation time due to the minimal traffic congestion within the EPZ. Thus, longer trip generation time results in longer ETE.

Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic PrvosEESu urnI td Resident Population Basis Data obtained from 2000 Census data and Township & Block Group Level.

Population = 27,096 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.

Population = 29,116 The vehicle data was derived from the Resident demographic data and average number of 2.32 persons/household, 1.29 Population Vehicle persons per household and assumed to be evacuating vehicles/household Occupancy one vehicle per household. Vehicle yielding: 1.80 persons/vehicle occupancy 2.62 persons per household.

Employee estimates based on information provided about major EmlyeData obtained by survey of major employers in EPZ, US Census Employee employers, IEMA and Harris Infosource emlyrinEZUSCsu Population Employees = 3,477 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Employees = 1,120 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

-I Topic Preiou IT td urn td Transit-Dependent Population Assumed people without vehicles will receive rides from either neighbors or designated public service vehicles.

Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey. A total of 267 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 9 buses to evacuate. An additional 142 homebound special needs persons require special transportation to evacuate (33 wheelchair vans, and 7 ambulances - are required to evacuate this population).

Data obtained by telephone surveys, Transient estimates based upon Transient IEMA, Harris Infosource, 2003 AAA Tour information provided by Exelon Population Book for Illinois, regional tourism websites about transient attractions in EPZ.

Transients = 6,989 Transients = 10,173 Medical facility population based on information provided by Exelon and Medical Facility Data obtained from IEMA, county officials county agencies and telephone surveys.

Current Census = 286 Population Total Population = 715 Buses Required = 7 Wheelchair Vans Required = 38 Ambulances Required = 8 Data obtained from IEMA, county officials School population based on and telephone surveys, information provided by Exelon School Population School enrollment = 6,265 School enrollment = 5,406 Preschool and Nursery School enrollment Preschool enrollment = 226

= 367 Day Camp enrollment = 1,546 Voluntary evacuation from Not Considered since based on the 20 percent of the population within within EPZ in areas NUREG-0654 Appendix 4 values, there will the EPZ, but not within the outside region to be a minor effect to network.

Evacuation Region (see Figure 2-1) be evacuated Shadow 20% of people outside of the EPZ Evacuation Not considered.

within the Shadow Region (see Figure 7-2)

Network Size 187 links; 148 nodes 1,029 links; 786 nodes Field surveys conducted in January Evacuation routes from public brochure, 2014. roads and uiterein wer e Roadway highway and local roadway maps verified videoad.

Geometric Data by field road survey data collection in Road apcites o

2003.Road capacities based on 2010 2003.

HM H CM.

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Relocation Center.

Relocation Center.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Toi Prviu ET tdIurn T

td Ridesharing Not Considered.

50 percent ot transit-dependent persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

-I-

+

Trip Generation for Evacuation Residents with commuters returning leave between 15 and 180 minutes.

Residents without commuters returning leave between 0 and 75 minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 0 and 45 minutes.

Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 210 minutes.

Residents without commuters returning leave between 15 and 150 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 Good, Rain, or Snow. The capacity Weather flow speed of all links in the network are and free flow speed of all links in reduced by 20% in adverse conditions in the network are reduced by 10% in the summer and 30% in winter, the event of rain and 20% for snow.

Modeling NetVac 2 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.19.0 Special Events Not considered.

ByronFest - 23,100 additional transients 23 Regions (central sector wind 8 combinations for 20 evacuation zones direction and each adjacent sector producing 160 cases.

technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 322 unique cases.

Evacuation Time ETE reported for 1 0 0 th percentile for each ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Estimates Evacuation Section. Results presented by percentile population. Results Reporting Scenario.

presented by Region and Scenario.

Evacuation Time Winter, Weekday, Midday, Estimates for the Winter, Daytime, Fair Weather: 3:05 Good Weather: 3:40 entire EPZ, 1 0 0 th Summer, Daytime, Fair Weather: 3:05 Summer Weekday, Midday, percentile I Good Weather: 3:40 Byron Generating Station 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 on the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics tools (see Section 3.4). Internet searches of individual employers and aerial imagery were used to supplement data provided by Exelon.

3. Population estimates at special and transient facilities are based on data provided by Exelon and state and county agencies.

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 2.32 persons per household (See Appendix F, Figure F-i) and 1.29 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F-4) are used. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees, transients, and the special event is as follows:

a.

Employees: one employee per vehicle.

b. Transients: varies from 2.00 to 2.32 persons per vehicle depending on the type of facility. See Section 3.3 for additional information.

c.

Special Event: ByronFest has an estimated occupancy of 2.32 persons per vehicle (average household size from telephone survey).

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1.

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

A scenario is a combination of circumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

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

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

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

5.

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

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

7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of County Route 4/Stillman Rd northbound from the intersection with IL-72 to the intersection with Kishwaukee Road.

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. (NRC, 1988a).

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.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scnai Sesn Day of Wee Tim of Day Weahe Speia 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5

Summer

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 6

Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7

Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8

Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9

Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter

Midweek, Evening Good None Weekend 13 Summer

Midweek, Evening Good ByronFest Weekend Closure of County 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 4/Stillman Rd Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Byron Generating Station 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. 52 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F-3); 42 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 22 percent (52% x 42% = 22%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

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

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

6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at the Advisory to Evacuate.

Their number and location will depend on the Region to be evacuated and resources available. The objectives of these TCP are:

a.

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

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.

c.

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

d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.

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

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

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 relocation centers.

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

e. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

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

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies, and on guidance in Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002 (IES, 1981).

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; the factors are shown in Table 2-2 (Agarwal, 2005).

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. Buses used to transport children from Day Camps are assumed to transport 50 children per bus.

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.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather 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.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day.

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the BYR 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 (visit a park, camping) 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 BYR EPZ is subdivided into 12 Sub-areas. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data. The average household size (2.32 persons/household - See Figure F-i) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.29 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 BYR. 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 Ogle County Correction Center and several medical facilities are located within the EPZ (see Table E-4 and Table E-8).

The medical facilities have permanent residents that are included in the Census; however, the facilities are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are addressed in Section 8. The Ogle County Correction Center (located in Oregon, Illinois 4.9 miles south-southwest of BYR) will evacuate to Stephenson County Jail. The Ogle County Sherriff's Department reports a current census of 81 inmates as of April 2014. The jail will be evacuated via bus and is also addressed in Section 8.

As such, residents of the medical facilities and jail 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.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 3-1. BYR EPZ Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population 10 1,259 1,137 12 4,065 3,968 14 719 758 17 5,840 6,563 19 1,748 1,770 20 5,310 4,909 23 3,671 4,135 25 979 985 27 1,671 3,181 28 709 738 39 478 466 40 508 506 EPZ Population Growth:

8.01%

Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area 10 1,137 631 12 3,968 2,100 14 758 423 17 6,563 3,529 19 1,770 985 20 4,909 2,657 23 4,135 2,296 25 985 548 27 3,181 1,770 28 738 408 39 466 260 40 506 279 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

N NNW F67874 1

8341 83I NNE 211 WNW 9 ENE 36 W

---450 82 35 248 31.3 WSW 162 Sw Resident Population 673 1 I-E 2,720 16 SSW so ESE 341,1 ES

/

6671 SE 293 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

92 5

8 0

0 0

32 0 )2 E

-0 1

S 5016 665-j Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 36 36 1-2 581 617 2-3 641 1,258 3 -4 3,142 4,400 4-5 6,210 10,610 5 -6 578 16,188 6-7 1,350 17,538 7-8 3,344 20,882 8-9 2,629 23,511 9-10 3,0481 26,559 10 - EPZ 2,557 29,116 Total:

29,116 W

Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

NNW N

F376 22-

-46 NNE 118 WNW

-550--1 ENE 1,77 I

I L

W WSW 172

-J E

/

I ESE 388 7 36

-9 SSW 1,669 0 0-S F282I F3671 Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 19 19 1-2 325 344 2-3 357 701 3-4 1,627 2,328 4-5 3,403 5,731 5-6 3,070 8,801 6-7 752 9,553 7-8 1,860 11,413 8-9 1,358 12,771 9 - 10 1,696 14,467 10- EPZ 1,419 15,886 Total:

15,886 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

5Is 29

'1 E

W Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 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 BYR (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed to do so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002 guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect to evacuate.

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

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Seto Pouato EvcaigVhce NNE 4,185 2,328 NE 11,094 6,169 ENE 1,371 765 E

1,511 838 ESE 81 46 SE 7,793 4,332 SSE 1,225 677 S

309 174 SSW 1,604 893 SW 474 264 WSW 123 71 W

219 123 WNW 441 247 NW 667 373 NNW 509 283 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

N NNW NNE WNW 441 2-2-1 wsw ENE 549 21 E

178 551 1,1 2

21 ESE SE EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW

-L/1-SSE 309 Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 1,018 1,018 11-12 2,034 3,052 12 - 13 5,532 8,584 13-14 9,301 17,885 14-15 16,759 34,644 Total:

34,644 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

N NNW NNE WNW 247 w

123 71 ENE 306 90 E

98 306 838 14 ESE SE EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW

-J' i

SSE 174's 17 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ - 11 565 565 11 - 12 1,132 1,697 12 - 13 3,082 4,779 13-14 5,174 9,953 14-15 9,324 19,277 Total:

19,277 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 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 (visit a park, camping).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at a campground or lodging facility. Data for the transient facilities within the EPZ were provided by Exelon. The BYR EPZ has a number of facilities that attract transients, including:

Campgrounds - 2,835 transients; 1,224 vehicles; 2.32 people per vehicle Golf Courses - 570 transients; 248 vehicles; 2.32 people per vehicle Parks-3,830 transients; 1,687 vehicles; 2.32 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.)

Byron Sportsman's Club - 80 transients; 35 vehicles; 2.32 people per vehicle Byron Dragway - 500 transients; 216 vehicles; 2.32 people per vehicle Motosports Park-1,800 transients; 776 vehicles; 2.32 people per vehicle Lodging - 558 transients; 269 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle It is assumed that families will travel to campgrounds, golf courses, parks, hunting clubs, and motorsports events together in a single vehicle. Thus, the average household size in the EPZ of 2.32 persons (Figure F-i) is used as the vehicle occupancy for these facilities. It is further assumed that there are 2 people per vehicle at lodging facilities.

Appendix E, Table E-6 and Table E-7 summarize the transient data that was gathered for the recreational areas and lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total, there are 10,173 transients evacuating in 4,455 vehicles, an average of 2.28 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.

Byron Generating Station 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Subae TrninsTasetVhce 10 0

0 12 140 62 14 2,284 1,015 17 1,662 718 19 3,314 1,456 20 918 401 23 1,220 528 25 150 65 27 0

0 28 385 166 39 0

0 40 100 44 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

NNW 1,880 N

NNE F

2,212 0

100 L

WNW 0

w 47070-1o WSW 764 0H ENE 270---j E

'I ESE E3851 0

SSW F528I s L 0-1 150--

Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0- 1 1,800 1,800 1-2 0

1,800 2-3 1,120 2,920 3-4 1,590 4,510 4-5 1

1,192 5,702 5-6 440 6,142 6-7 545 6,687 7-8 157 6,844 8 - 9 1,080 7,924 9-10 1,385 9,309 10 - EPZ 864 10,173 Total:

10,173 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N

0

,80 0 200 0

0 0

0 E

W Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

N NNW F

0 F216

-811 0

0 NNE 44 L

WNW 0

w WSW 359 5177-31

-1 ENE 117-j E

ESE

/

166 0

ssw -

S W---

65--j--

N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 776 776 1-2 0

776 2-3 484 1,260 3-4 712 1,972 4-5 518 2,490 5 - 6 191 2,681 6-7 237 2,918 7-8 69 2,987 8-9 467 3,454 9-10 598 4,052 10 - EPZ 403 4,455 Total:

4,455 Boundary 0

E W

Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

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

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

Maximum shift employment data were provided by Exelon for the major employers (generally speaking 50 or more employees in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002) in the EPZ. The IEMA requested that major employers listed in the county emergency plans be listed in this study.

These employers - many of which have less than the 50 employees typical of a major employer

- are listed in Table E-4 along with the major employers in the EPZ. Internet research confirmed these employers to be small businesses. Smaller employers typically hire local residents. As such, employees at these smaller employers are not considered because they are already included in the permanent resident population discussed in Section 3.1.

Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 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, 54.9%, 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-5, the Employees (Max Shift) column is multiplied by the percent of employees commuting into the EPZ (54.9%) 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.

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

Byron Generating Station 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles 10 0

0 12 82 82 14 22 22 17 247 247 19 428 428 20 303 303 23 0

0 25 0

0 27 38 38 28 0

0 39 0

0 40 0

0 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

N NNW 0

F42 8NE

- j.X-+-------L.j 247-1 WNW I

I-W WSW 104Eloe Employees ENE IZ E

IF 38 ESE w -g-0 ssw 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary 0

S L-0 --

N Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 428 428 1-2 0

428 2-3 0

428 3-4 78 506 4-5 169 675 5-6 151 826 6-7 20 846 7-8 214 1,060 8-9 0

1,060 9-10 0

1,060 10 - EPZ 60 1,120 Total:

1,120 W

E Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

NNW 0

N 428 8 o1 0

NNE 247 0

WNW W,

0 wS I77 WSW z

I -

0 FV20 Employee Vehicles

-j 38

-1 ENE L-- ---

E ESE L-0--1 0

SSW 28-3-3 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary 0

S LIZ N

Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 428 428 1-2 0

428 2-3 0

428 3-4 78 506 4-5 169 675 5-6 151 826 6-7 20 846 7-8 214 1,060 8-9 0

1,060 9-10 0

1,060 10 -EPZ 60 1,120 Total:

1,120 W

E Inset 0 - 2 Miles S

Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Exelon and the Ogle County Sherriff's Department for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E-4 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 and wheelchair vans, up to 4 people and ambulances 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 39, 1-88 and US-20. 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 (HPMS, 2013) to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor (TRB, 2010), which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV).

The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor (TRB, 2010), 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 12,746 vehicles entering the EPZ as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5, 12 and 13) as discussed in Section 6.

3.7 Special Event One special event (Scenario 13) is considered for the ETE study - ByronFest - which occurs annually during the second full weekend in July. The event occurs in Byron, IL (Sub-area 17).

Event coordinators for ByronFest provided the following information:

The evenings have the peak attendance during the event.

The total attendance for the event is approximately 35,000 people over three days.

88% of total attendees come from outside of the EPZ.

It is conservatively assumed that 75% of the total attendees are present during the peak evening. Thus, there are 23,100 transients present for the event during the peak (35,000 x 0.75 x 0.88 = 23,100). Assuming that families travel to the event in a single vehicle and using the Byron Generating Station 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

average household size of 2.32 people per household (from the telephone survey), the 23,100 transients evacuate in 9,957 vehicles.

Shuttle buses are used on an as-needed basis to transport attendees from parking lots to the festival site; however, these shuttle buses would not be used to evacuate attendees. It is assumed that the time to shuttle attendees to parking lots or for attendees to walk to their vehicles is within the 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.

Temporary road closures are in place during the event, but all roadways could be quickly re-opened in the event of an emergency.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 3-6. BYR External Traffic NdNoe.

AADTVlm Tafi 8055 55 Interstate-39 Northbound 43,863 0.107 0.25 1,173 2,346 8031 31 Interstate-39 Southbound 43,863 0.107 0.5 2,347 4,694 8034 34 Interstate-88 Eastbound 14,480 0.116 0.5 840 1,680 8053 53 Interstate-88 Westbound 14,480 0.116 0.5 840 1,680 8003 725 US-20 Eastbound 43,863 0.107 0.25 1,173 2,346

-111 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 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, school, preschool and camp population

- are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 55,150 people and 38,492 vehicles are considered in this study.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand 10 1,137 30 0

0 0

1,167 12 3,968 30 140 82 111 295 120 0

0 4,746 14 758 0

2,284 22 0

0 250 0

0 3,314 17 6,563 87 1,662 247 85 1,795 0

0 0

10,439 19 1,770 0

3,314 428 0

150 476 0

0 6,138 20 4,909 60 918 303 171 1,687 400 0

0 8,448 23 4,135 30 1,220 0

0 1,505 300 0

0 7,190 25 985 0

150 0

0 75 0

0 0

1,210 27 3,181 30 0

38 0

0 0

3,249 28 738 0

385 0

0 125 0

0 0

1,248 39 466 0

0 0

0 466 40 506 0

100 0

0 0

0 606 Shadow 0

0 0

6,929 0

6,929

-9 0OENMIIS 0m 0

0 0

0MO 4 Special Facilities include medical facilities and the Ogle County Correction Center.

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand 10 631 2

0 0

0 633 12 2,100 2

62 82 18 14 8

0 0

2,286 14 423 0

1,015 22 0

0 18 0

0 1,478 17 3,529 6

718 247 22 70 0

0 0

4,592 19 985 0

1,456 428 0

6 32 0

0 2,907 20 2,657 4

401 303 26 78 28 0

0 3,497 23 2,296 2

528 0

0 62 20 0

0 2,908 25 548 0

65 0

0 4

0 0

0 617 27 1,770 2

0 38 0

0 0

1,810 28 408 0

166 0

0 6

0 0

0 580 39 260 0

0 0

0 260 40 279 0

44 0

0 0

0 323 Shadow 0

0 0

0 3,855 12,746 16,601 Vehicles for special facilities include wheelchair vans, ambulances and buses. Buses are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

7 Buses evacuating children from schools, preschools and camps are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

8 Vehicles for shadow population have been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Lane width Shoulder width Pavement condition Horizontal and vertical alignment (curvature and grade)

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

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

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

Byron Generating Station 4-1 KILD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qca~m= 3600) X (G -7 L)m = (3600)

Qcap,m

\\ hm

-C

\\h X Pm where:

Qcap, m Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executes movement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)

Byron Generating Station 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing movement, m; seconds per vehicle G

=

Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing movement, m, for each signal cycle; seconds L

=

Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing movement, m; seconds C

=

Duration of each signal cycle; seconds Pm

=

Proportion of GREEN time allocated for vehicles executing movement, m, from this lane. This value is specified as part of the control treatment.

m

=

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

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

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

where:

hsat

=

Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2

=

The various known factors influencing hm fm()

=

Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2,...

The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2,... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model (Lieberman, 1980), (McShane, 1980), (Lieberman, 2012). The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm Ž_ hsat That is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal to the saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.

These headways (or its inverse equivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.

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

Byron Generating Station 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

The value of VF can be expressed as:

VF = R X Capacity where:

R

=

Reduction factor which is less than unity We have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor is based upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson describe a research program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period (Zhang, 2004). When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and Byron Generating Station 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

indicated in Appendix K for freeway links.

The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

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

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

Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there.

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

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

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

Byron Generating Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington, D.C. (TRB, 2010)

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

Two-Lane roads: Local, State Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane Roads Ref: HCM Chapter 15 (TRB, 2010)

Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of a two-lane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h).

This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h. The HCM procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the time-varying demand: capacity relations.

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

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

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

4.3.2 Multi-Lane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 (TRB, 2010)

Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with free-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Byron Generating Station 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 (TRB, 2010)

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

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

Free Speed (mph):

55 60 65 70+

Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h):

2250 2300 2350 2400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:

capacity relationships. A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2,250 pc/h is adopted for this study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio.

The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp-freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an on-ramp or immediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area.

In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM 2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed.

Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010.

If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS F explicitly).

Byron Generating Station 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 (TRB, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of Byron Generating Station 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

Volume, vph Capacity Drop R

Zý:---- QS Density, vpm A

Vf R v,

~-,

I I

I kf

eptk Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 4-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

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

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

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

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

3.

ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

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

1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in the format recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863 (NRC, 2005).

2.

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The notification process consists of two events:

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

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 409 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an accident.

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

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

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

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan and documents the survey instrument and survey results. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Event Number 1

2 3

4 5

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

Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities h

I A

i 1->-2 Receive Notification 1

2 -4 3 Prepare to Leave Work 2

2,3 -- 4 Travel Home 3

2,4 -- 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4

N/A Snow Clearance 5

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.

S 0

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

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

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

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

Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

1 As 2

3 4

5 Residents Residents

/

.la w

-W MW

-w

p. W Households wait for Commuters1 Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 1

Af 2

-Af 5

W MW I(a) Accident occurs uring midweek, at midday; year round I

Residents, Transients away from Residence Residents, Transients at Residence 1

Ak 2

4 AMl 5

Return to residence, then evacuate 3~

I W

W W

w 1

2 5

Residents at home; transients evacuate directly w

Lw (b) Accident occurs during weekend or duing the evening 1

2 3,5 (c) Employees who live outside the EPZ ACTIVITIES 1.

2 Receive Notification 2 -

3 Prepare to Leave Work 2, 3 4 Travel Home 2, 4 0 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate Activities Consume Time EVENTS

1. Notification

2. Aware of situation

3. Depart work

4. Arrive home

5. Depart on evacuation trip 1 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 -> 2 Federal regulations (10CFR 50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, "[t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes" (NRC, 2011b). Furthermore, Item 2 of Section B in Appendix 3 of NUREG/CR-0654/FEMA-REP-1 states that "special arrangements will be made to assure 100%

coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ" (NRC, 1980b). Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapse Tim Peren of (Minutes).

Pouato Notfie 0

0%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 -> 3 It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will elect to shut down following notification and most employees would leave work quickly. Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly since facilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel or farmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure their facility. The distribution of Activity 2 -4 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.

Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumlaiv 0

0%

15 77%

30 92%

45 97%

60 99%

75 100%

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Elpe TmeI Retu~iIis~rning 0

0%

15 48%

30 80%

45 93%

60 97%

75 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home:

Activity 2, 4 -* 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate 0

0%

20 27%

40 68%

60 86%

90 94%

120 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance.

It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

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

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6.

The data in Table 5-6 are adapted from a survey conducted of households in the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) EPZ in 2012. DAEC is located in Iowa, approximately 128 miles west of BYR. It is assumed that snowfall and snow removal times are comparable in both EPZs.

Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6-8" of Snow Elaped Time ComplethIingI:f 0

46%

15 60%

30 82%

45 88%

60 96%

75 97%

90 98%

105 98%

120 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

.2 4a.

'U

.0 0

CL E

0 CL 0

0.

CL 80%

60%

40%

20%

-Notification

-Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home Prepare to Leave Home

-Clear Snow 0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Acitivty (min) 120 135 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

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

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to Events Disbutions A T:

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Ditibto Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also applies A

to employees who work within the EPZ who live outside, and to Transients within the EPZ.

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

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

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

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

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

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses.

But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say "four hours" and 4 say "six or more hours".

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

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

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

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

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

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Byron Generating Station 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean

noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

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

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

Byron Generating Station 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

100.0%

90.0%

80.0% -

7 70.0% -

5 60.0%

U 50.0%

2 40.0%

30.0%

E u

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

LAf LA LAu Lq LA V!

LA LA LA LAý LA LA LA r4i r-rq r-.

r - r, " - r, i" r-.

" r-.

P-

ýA r-4

"~. mN m

4

-4 LA LA 0

o-Center of Interval (minutes)

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal

-4Lq L

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

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

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

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

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.)

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

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

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

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

1.

Sub-areas comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

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

3.

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

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

5.

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Sub-areas beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 9 0 th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region

2. The population in the shadow region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged Byron Generating Station 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuation scenarios. That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with no shelter delay.

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

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

Procedure

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

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

a.

Identify the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time for the Sub-areas comprising the 2 mile region. This value, Tscen, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time Tscen*

iii.

Following time Tscen*, the balance of trips are generated:

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

2.

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

c.

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

The value of Tscen* is approximately 1:45 for non-snow scenarios and approximately 2:15 for snow scenarios.

ged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:

a.

Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c.

Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions

3. Sta Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile two-mile evacuation time is 105 minutes for good weather and 135 minutes for snow scenarios. At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Since the 9 0 th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution. Following time Tscen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes. After Tscen +15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the un-staged trip generation distribution.

Table 5-10 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Item number 4 of Part D of the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents indicates the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is responsible for warning and/or evacuating visitors at state parks and forests. Law enforcement from the IDNR will provide access control along the Rock River in the BYR EPZ As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. Table 5-9 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes. It is assumed that this 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Byron Generating Station 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100 0.

8

S 60 S80 15 W

CO 0 2 0

C 0

CL 0.

00 0

Trip Generation Distributions

-Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm with Snow

/000 0

60 120 180 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min) 240 300 Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation 1

is 5%

5%

0%

1%

0%

1%

2 is 32%

32%

0%

10%

0%

5%

3 15 41%

41%

3%

22%

2%

13%

4 15 15%

15%

9%

25%

4%

18%

5 1s 5%

5%

16%

19%

10%

18%

6 15 1%

1%

19%

10%

15%

7 15 1%

1%

18%

5%

15%

10%

8 15 0%

0%

13%

3%

15%

7%

9 15 0%

0%

8%

3%

11%

5%

10 1s 0%

0%

6%

2%

9%

3%

11 1s 0%

0%

4%

0%

7%

2%

12 15 0%

0%

2%

0%

4%

2%

13 30 0%

0%

2%

0%

5%

1%

14 60 0%

0%

3%

0%

15 600 0%

0%

NOTE:

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

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Staged and Un-staged Evacuation Trip Generation

-Employees

/ Transients Residents with no Commuters Res no Comm with Snow Staged Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters

-Res with Comm and Snow

-Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow) 100 0.

40 CL 0

CL 2 60 0

"20 0.

0 0 0

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

Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*

Time Duration Residents with Residents Without Residents With Residents Without Period (Min)

Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow (Distribution C)

(Distribution D)

(Distribution E)

(Distribution F) 1 15 0%

0%

2 15 0%

2%

0%

1%

3 15 1%

5%

0%

3%

4 15 1%

5%

1%

3%

5 15 4%

3%

2%

4%

6 15 3%

2%

3%

7 15 4%

1%

3%

2%

8 15 65%

77%

3%

1%

9 15 8%

3%

2%

1%

10 15 6%

2%

67%

77%

11 15 4%

0%

7%

2%

12 15 2%

0%

4%

2%

13 30 2%

0%

5%

1%

14 60 0%

0%

3%

0%

15 600 0%

0%

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS An evacuation "case" defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.

The definitions of "Region" and "Scenario" are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Sub-areas that forms either a "keyhole" sector-based area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

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

A total of 23 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Sub-areas considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6-1. The Sub-area configurations are identified in Figure 6-1. Each keyhole sector-based area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R07) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R08 through R18).

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R19 through R23 are identical to Regions R02, and R04 through R07, respectively; however, those Sub-areas between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2-mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

Each Sub-area that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) determination flowchart on page BY 4-3 of the Exelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Byron Station (Exelon, 2013). There are instances when a small portion of a Sub-area is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of Sub-area population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Sub-area would not be included in the Region.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 23 x 14 = 322 evacuation cases. Table 6-2 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. Table 6-3 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each Scenario.

Table 6-4 presents the vehicle counts for each Scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ.

The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 6-3, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H-1. The percentages presented in Table 6-3 were determined as follows:

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is the product of 52% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F-3) and 42% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Figure F-5) which equals 22%. See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer when most transient facilities are open and operational.

Due the large number of lodging facilities, some of which have conference centers, which are at half capacity during the day, it is estimated that peak transient activity is 77%. Transient activity during the week in the summertime is estimated to be slight more than half (43%) of the weekend peak since some facilities, like the Byron Dragway, Motosports Park, and Byron Sportsman's Club are only open on weekends. Transient activity in the winter is estimated to be about one-third of the summer peak - 28% on weekends and 16%

during the week - due to the large number of campgrounds, golf courses, and parks within the EPZ that are closed or less populated during winter months.

Due to the number of lodging facilities and campgrounds, transient activity during the evening is estimated to be 32% in the summer and 12% in the winter.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6-3, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadow region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario-specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the shadow region. For example, using the values provided in Table 6-4 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

20%x 1+

1,075 0

3,471 + 12,415) =

One special event - ByronFest - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

There are various camps in the EPZ area that are typically open during the summer. Since these camps offer overnight accommodations, it was estimated that its peak (100%) is during the summer (midweek, midday and evening). Some of the day camps have activities during winter weekends so activity was estimated at 50% on winter weekends during the day.

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions I

Sub-Area Region Description 10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 Evauat 2-Mile Ringan onwn o

ie R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Full EPZ Sub-Area Region Wind Direction Toward:

10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO R01 RSo SE R06 SSE, S R07 SSW, SW, WSW

_Sub-Area Region Wind Direction Toward:

12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 R08 NNW,N R09 NNE RIO NE R11 ENE

_m R12 E, ESE R13 SE, SSE N/A S

REFER TO R02 R14 SSW R15 SW, WSW R16 W

R17 WNW R18 NW Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

I Stage Evcain-*0l aiu vcaete vcut o

n idt ie Region Wind Direction Toward:

Sub-Area 10 1 12 1 14 17 I

R19 5-Mile Ring

__E__NE R20 W NNW, N, NNE, NE _______

27 28 39 40 N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO R01 L

R21 SE I___ _

R22 JSSE, S

_J_

R23 SSW, SW, WSW Sub-area(s) Shelter-in-Place Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Figure 6-1. BYR EPZ Sub-areas Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Sesn Day of Wee Tim of Day Wete Speia 1

Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2

Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3

Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4

Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 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 Wnter

Midweek, WWinter weekend Evening Good None 12MiWeeken Summer

Midweek, Evening Good ByronFest 13 Weekend Closure of County 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 4/Stillman Rd Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Hoshod 22H 7ou6s4ehol0ds0%0 00 10 2Wt Witou 78E9x43t2e0rn0al0 10 10 3

2%

98%

10%

77%

20%

0%

100%

0%

100%

4 2%

98%

10%

77%

20%

0%

100%

0%

100%

5 2%

98%

10%

32%

20%

0%

100%

0%

100%

40%

6 22%

78%

100%

16%

21%

0%

100%

7 22%

78%

100%

16%

21%

0%

100%

8 22%

78%

100%

16%

21%

0%

100%

9 2%

98%

10%

28%

20%

0%

50%

0%

100%

10 2%

98%

10%

28%

20%

0%

50%

0%

100%

11 2%

98%

10%

28%

20%

0%

50%

0%

100%

12 2%

98%

10%

12%

20%

0%

100%

40%

13 2%

98%

10%

32%

20%

100%

0%

100%

40%

14 22%

78%

96%

43%

21%

0%

100%

10%

100%

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

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

Employees....................................................

EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients.....................................................

People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (non-employment) purposes.

Shadow.........................................................

Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis for the values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.

Special Event................................................

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

Camps...........................................................

Camps where children stay for an extended period of time during the summer months.

School and Transit Buses..............................

Vehicle-equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transit-dependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic...............................

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario Hoseod Households Wit Wihu xera oa Returning Reuring Spca Scoo Transit Though ScenaioE Scnai Cmutr Comtr Emlye Trniet Shdo Eventr.

Cap Bu.ses Buses ahi i iic Vehcle 1

3,471 12,415 1,075 1,936 4,116 106 25 18 12,7461 35,908 2

3,471 12,415 1,075 1,936 4,116-106 25 18 12,746 35,908 3

347 15,539 112 3,409 3,883 106 18 12,746 36,160 4

347 15,539 112 3,409 3,883 106 18 12,746 36,160 5

347 15,539 112 1,434 3,883 106 18 5,098 26,537 6

3,471 12,415 1,120 698 4,127 240 18 12,746 34,835 7

3,471 12,415 1,120 698 4,127 240 18 12,746 34,835 8

3,471 12,415 1,120 698 4,127 240 18 12,746 34,835 9

347 15,539 112 1,230 3,883 53 18 12,746 33,928 10 347 15,539 112 1,230 3,883 53 18 12,746 33,928 11 347 15,539 112 1,230 3,883 53 18 12,746 33,928 12 347 15,539 112 517 3,883 18 5,098 25,514 13 347 15,539 112 1,434 3,883 9,957 106 18 5,098 36,494 14 3,471 12,415 1,075 1,936 4,116 106 25 18 12,746 35,908 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover the 23 regions within the BYR EPZ and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE for the 2-mile region in both staged and un-staged regions are presented in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. Table 7-5 defines the Evacuation Regions considered.

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

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

The ETE for the BYR EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 7-1. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of people located in Sub-areas outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of those people in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.

Figure 7-2 presents the area identified as the Shadow Region. This region extends radially from the plant to cover a region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles.

The population and number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region were estimated using the same methodology that was used for permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 34,644 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate.

See Table 6-4 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, traveling away from the BYR site, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region.

All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

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

1. Sub-areas comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Byron Generating Station 7-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.

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

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region is advised to evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2 mile region evacuating traffic crosses the 2 mile region boundary.

5.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-7 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 2010, page 5-5):

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

Demand-to-capacity ratios describe the extent to which capacity is exceeded during the analysis period (e.g., by 1%, 15%, etc.);

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

Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue, and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks.

Figure 7-3 displays peak traffic congestion within the EPZ just 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months after the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE). At this time, more than 90% of transients and employees have begun their evacuation trips, as well as about half of the EPZ residents. Traffic volume leaving the major population centers in the EPZ (Byron, Mount Morris, Oregon and Davis Junction) is heavy.

Illinois State Route 72 (IL-72) eastbound and N Junction Rd southbound are congested (LOS F) in Davis Junction. N Tower Rd is congested northbound leaving Byron as it encounters a stop sign Byron Generating Station 7-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

at the intersection with Montague Rd. N Kishwaukee Rd northbound is congested due to a stop sign at the intersection with N Stillman Valley Rd. N Stillman Rd southbound is congested in Stillman Valley due to a stop sign at the intersection with IL-72. All major routes (IL-2, IL-64) leaving Oregon and Mount Morris are operating at LOS D or better. Rock City Rd northbound is congested in the Shadow Region due to a stop sign at the intersection with US-20. IL-2 southbound and minor roads (Broad St in Grand Detour and Lost Nation Rd) intersecting IL-2 are congested in the vicinity of Dixon, IL in the Shadow Region.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 30 minutes after the ATE, Figure 7-4 shows that traffic congestion within the EPZ is beginning to dissipate. At this time, more than 80% of evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and approximately 70% have successfully evacuated the EPZ. N Junction Rd has cleared, while congestion persists along IL-72 eastbound in Davis Junction. N Tower Rd is still congested northbound leaving Byron. N Kishwaukee Rd northbound is still congested. N Stillman Rd southbound in Stillman Valley has cleared. All routes leaving Oregon and Mount Morris are operating at LOS B or better. Rock City Rd northbound is still congested in the Shadow Region.

Congestion along IL-2 southbound and minor roads intersecting IL-2 has intensified in the Shadow Region with queuing from Dixon to Grand Detour. Note that there is no traffic congestion within the 2-mile or 5-mile radius of the plant.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 5 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 7-5, all congestion within the EPZ has cleared with all routes operating at LOS D or better. Congestion persists along Rock City Rd northbound in the Shadow Region and along IL-2 southbound and the minor roads intersecting IL-2 in the Shadow Region near Dixon. At this time, 94% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips, and 90% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months after the ATE, Figure 7-6 indicates that all roads in the EPZ are operating at LOS A.

This does not imply that there are no vehicles on the roads; rather, traffic volume is low and vehicles are experiencing no delay in their evacuation trip.

At this time, nearly all (99.6%)

vehicles have begun their evacuation trips, and 99.5% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ. These data indicate that the trip generation time (3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 30 minutes) is dictating the 1 0 0 th percentile ETE as evacuees who depart at this time are encountering no traffic congestion or delay. Congestion along Rock City Rd and IL-2 in the Shadow Region has almost cleared.

Finally at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 30 minutes after the ATE (Figure 7-7) the last road (IL-26/US-52) within the study area to exhibit traffic volume is clearing in Dixon.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 7-8 through Figure 7-21. These figures indicate the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 7-8, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic Byron Generating Station 7-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

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

In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 present the ETE values for all 23 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present the ETE values for the 2-Mile Region for both staged and un-staged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

Tabl Cotet ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 7-1 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 7-2 population within a Region, to evacuate from that Region.

All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90 percent of the 7-3 population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 7-4 population within the 2-mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The animation snapshots described above reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (un-staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-7.

It takes approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months to mobilize 90% of the population in the EPZ in good weather and rain, and up to 20 minutes longer in snow. All traffic congestion within the EPZ is clear within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . This implies that both the 9 0th and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE are dictated by mobilization time, not the time to clear traffic congestion. This is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 9 0 th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2-mile region) range from 1:45 (hr:min) to 1:55 for all non-snow scenarios and range between 2:05 and 2:20 for snow scenarios.

Byron Generating Station 7-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5-mile region) are 5 to 10 minutes longer than the ETE for Region RO0 and range between 1:50 and 2:25 (3:15 for the special event).

The increase in ETE is due to the longer distance to drive to reach the boundary of the 5-mile region.

The 9 0 th percentile ETE for Region R03 (full EPZ) are 5 to 15 minutes longer than the ETE for Region R02 due to the longer distance to drive to reach the EPZ boundary.

The 1 0 0 th percentile ETE for all regions are approximately equal to trip generation time (3:30 for good weather and rain and 4:30 for snow) as all traffic congestion within the EPZ is clear within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months after the ATE, except during the special event which is discussed below.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event - ByronFest -

significantly impacts ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles by increasing the ETE for evacuation of areas beyond 2 miles by up to an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 40 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 5 minutes, respectively. The 23,100 transients present for ByronFest during peak times almost doubles the EPZ population. The nearly 10,000 vehicles used by these people to evacuate significantly increases traffic congestion in the EPZ and prolongs ETE.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 indicates that the roadway closure - County Route 4/Stillman Road northbound from the intersection with IL-72 to the intersection with Kishwaukee Road (see Section 2.2, item 7) -

increases 90th percentile ETE by at most 20 minutes and has no impact on 1 0 0 th percentile ETE. The presence of alternate routes - IL-72 eastbound and Kishwaukee Rd northbound - lessens the impact of the roadway closure.

The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on a major evacuation route, could impact ETE. 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 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of the evacuation when most people begin their evacuation trip.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un-staged) and staged evacuation studies. Note that Regions R19 through R23 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02 and R04 through R07, respectively. The times shown in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 are when the 2-mile region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation strategy is to ensure the ETE for the 2-mile region is not impacted when evacuating people beyond 2 miles from the plant. As shown in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4, the ETE for the 2-mile region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented.

Byron Generating Station 7-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2-mile Region, Regions R02 and R04 through R07 are compared to Regions R19 through R23, respectively, in Table 7-1.

The ETE for each region increases when staging evacuation with some regions increasing by up to 50 minutes. As shown in Figure 5-5, staging the evacuation causes a significant "spike" (sharp increase) in mobilization (trip-generation rate) of evacuating vehicles: nearly 80 percent of the evacuating vehicles between 2 and 5 miles who have sheltered in place while residents within 2 miles evacuated, begin their evacuation trip over a 15 minute timeframe. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, increasing traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

In summary, the staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefit to evacuees from within the 2-mile Region and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond 2 miles from BYR. Staged evacuation is not recommended.

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

1.

Identify the applicable Scenario:

Season

" Summer

" Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

Day of Week Midweek Weekend Time of Day Midday Evening

" Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Snow Special Event ByronFest Road Closure (County Route 4/Stillman Rd Northbound)

Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered

" Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

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

The conditions of a winter evening (either midweek or weekend) and rain are not Byron Generating Station 7-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

explicitly identified in the Tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (10) for rain apply.

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

The seasons are defined as follows:

" Summer assumes that public schools are not in session.

" Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that public schools are in session.

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

2. With the desired percentile ETE and Scenario identified, now identify the Evacuation Region:

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

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

2 Miles (Region RO0)

To 5 Miles (Regions R02, R04 through R07)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R08 through R18)

Enter Table 7-5 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the plant. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.

3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected.

Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the Region identified in Step 2, proceed as follows:

The columns of Table 7-1 through Table 7-4 are labeled with the Scenario numbers.

Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number defined in Step 1.

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

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

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

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

Sunday, August 1 0 th at 4:00 AM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is toward the northeast (NE).

Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5-mile radius and downwind to 10 miles (to EPZ boundary).

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

A staged evacuation is not desired.

Table 7-1 is applicable because the 9 0 th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

1. Identify the Scenario as summer, weekend, evening and raining. Entering Table 7-1, it is seen that there is no match for these descriptors.

However, the clarification given above assigns this combination of circumstances to Scenario 4.

2. Enter Table 7-5 and locate the Region described as "Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary" for wind direction toward the NE and read Region RIO.

3. Enter Table 7-1 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region RIO. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region RIO; it contains the ETE value of 2:00.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summt a

Midweek Weekend Midwee Midweek Weekend Miidwee Midwekk Weekend Weekend Weekend R02*.,

2:0 2:0 1:55 1:5

.1:5 2:0 2:0 2:25 j 1:5 15 2:15ill 1:5 3:15 2:0 Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Good I an Good Good IGood GoindSnowdwoo Weather RanWeatherRin Weather Weather I Rain ISnow Weather IRi Snw Wea~ther ByronFest Impacta Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:55 R02 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:50 3:15 2:00 R03 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:25 2:15 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 2:00 2:15 1:50 3:20 2:00 ROS 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:25 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:50 1:50 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ ROB 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:35 2:05 R09 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:20 2:05 RIO 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:20 1:55 3:15 2:15 R11 2:00 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:10 2:15 R12 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:20 R13 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:15 2:00 R14 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:00 R15 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:10 2:00 R16 2:00 2:05 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:30 2:00 R17 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:25 1:55 1:55 2:15 1:55 3:30 2:00 R18 2:05 2:05 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:05 2:05 2:30 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:55 3:35 2:05 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 2:25 2:25 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:00 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:25 3:15 2:25 R20 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 3:10 2:35 2:35 3:05 2:35 3:25 2:35 R21 2:00 2:05 1:55 2:00 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:00 2:00 2:30 2:00 2:00 2:00 R22 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:10 R23 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:15

, 2:15 j 2:45 2:10 2:15 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:10 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summeaer Wint Winter Winter Summer oadway Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend W e ndMidweek Weekend Weeendweekn Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Ri Snw Good Rain Snow Good yoesRady WeatherI Weather Weather Weather Ran So Weather Weather Byones pRacta Entire 2-Mile Region, S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R02 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:15 3:35 R03 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:45 3:40 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:15 3:35 RO5 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ ROB 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 R09 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 RiO 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:25 3:40 R11 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R12 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R13 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R14 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R15 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:15 3:40 R16 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:35 3:40 R17 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:35 3:40 RIB 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 4:40 3:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R19 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 R20 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 4:20 3:35 R21 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R22 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 4:35 3:35 3:35 3:35 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-10 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 MidweekMiwe Mdek Midweek Weekend Miwe Midweek Weekend MidweekMiwe Mdek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday RegionGood Rain Snow Good ByronFest Roadway Ro a

ro i

e eoRWeatherr Ran Weather GRain Weather Weather By t

Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile Region R01 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R02 L1:55 1:55 1:50 11:50 J1:50 1:55 1 1:55 1 2:20 j1:45 ]1:50 J 2:10 J1:50 1:50 1:55 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R05 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R19 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1 1:45 1 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R21 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R22 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 R23 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:20 1:45 1:50 2:10 1:50 1:50 1:55 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-11 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 oadway Midweek Weekend MidUned Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Weathe Ri Sn w

eathe roes Impadwa Weather Weather Weather Weather I I

Un-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile Region RO2 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles RO4 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 T3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R05 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R06 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R07 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R19 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 1 4:30 1

3:30 1 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R20 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R21 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R22 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 R23 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 4:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 7-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions Sub-Area Region Description 10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 R01 2-Mile Ring R02 5-Mile Ring R03 Full EPZ Wind Direction Sub-Area Region Toward:

10 12 14117 19 20 23 125 27 28 39 40 R04 NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE __J L i N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO RO0 R05 SE R06 SSE, S

___ I

__ ~

R07 SSW. SW. WSW I

I I

Wind Direction Toward:

Sub-Area Region 1

17 1

R08 NNW, N R09 NNE RIO NE R11 ENE R12 E, ESE R13 SE, SSE N/A S

R14 SSW i

i R15 SW, WSW R16 W

R17 WNW R18 NW Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Staged Evcato 2-il Raiu EvcaeteIvcat onidt ie Wind Direction Sub-Area Region Toward:

10 12 14 17 19 20 23 25 27 28 39 40 R19 5-Mile Ring R20 I NW, NNW, N, NNE, NE I_

I__

Ii N/A W, WNW, ENE, E, ESE REFER TO ROS R21 SE S R22 SSE, S R23 SSW, SW, WSW I

I I I Sub-area(s) Shelter-in-P lace Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Figure 7-2. BYR Shadow Region Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

I"

_LV j~

&vnlj Me, p/

Congeton Paten at 010 rW50iO j

u-r..9

/,

Su-Sub-area

~~~~w 2,,01 MieRiz Shado~egin

~

~2V B

~oeeh~

a..npe2 gelm

,,d I

LOS B

D

E 10 Mile Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate Byron Generating Station 7-17 Evacuation Time Estimate KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Congstio Paten at 01:30+++

++ +.. + ++

+*++

+ +° 1

+ -

7+ J*

++":++'+ +;+;+

J

[

L* +JRld ont.t+

+

+++,es. 'o,, *.

t

/ ','i+

, l I

7i 4 I

1m"+*'i 1*;L I'r+

+ -

, t ++0.+-'"+."-+¥"'i

/."

I I

+I I

",m-

+*+ +**+(#'P

-,.,"+ + ++.

I+ '.... L

"*i'+;:++Sl.....

I I l..... I I#

+*.+'-*

+*;+-

17

++~~1 Su

ý+

'+; +/;+l /

.t I I

/*.*+++'++y ;

C-Vq...

- n I k

D K+++;

J -.l.b]

C-WV.+

% : 7*

.....+

Tq/-/

W+'

in 6,.nae*

(

I

/

I,

/

+,

Su-a. 12 Ju_+`+

"/

'"+

b-ses 9.

iSu.+,

1+

3 Mount

,++

A, foMIS.

+

~

~-2 su" T -.:+.5.I.... _,,,,+q

+++l s

+ + +]r ee

++.,,.

+

::++++..+**.

V...

_ + ++?

+ +-+

+

.... +....

I+............

+A

+' _.+ +i.... +

+

+'

+i

+ * / +*.+;+i.+; ;+(,

W NI C

+

A 2

Wile L,,1-1i

+

.+.

f*+

+/

"+,'+

+"+

+',

+

+**:*

-L.

Legend+

+

./.++-/..++.

.//

++,

I Sub-area I

')

' l

+

2, 5, 10, 15 Mile Rings Grov F.,

Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the Advisory/to Evacuate Byron Generating Station 7-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

C ong estion Pa te n at* 02 0 Peea-

"~idt

-4**+'..

b-r..p...

~ge o*..**

--- r --

... +*:o o

l

+

ubI*~l.

t+

,+..A.+

+

1O Leged Eva atio Ti2 Junctioe Ie "Tr0

e~

2" 4-

~ ~

~

Sb mY

.1-,.

Grove4

1

-1 Wnn 2

0 SMleRns

"*-o n

J i

Shaow egio

/*o,"

2 72ue76 ogsinPatrsa or fe teAvsr oEaut Byron Generating Station

~7-2 L

niernP Evacatin Tie Etimae Rv.7

Congestion Patterns at 03:30

,C

-**S"*

Ge'as*

Sb

40 chrr stphn C-/*d

\\

Stxbarll Cý4

/0..--

~S 7O Legen 10 Surw8 Co Mon.

.*im m

2 5,10, 5

Mie Rngs ro 2

7 if°S

'~1 7hdo Region rot*

0,...

ie Figure 7-7. Congb~estio Patrsa12or nd3 iue fe heAvsroEaut Byron~~~Su-Geeatn Statio 7-

KL2nineigiP Evacuationftw Tie stmae ev

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1) 2-Mile Region Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

C U(U w

w U

U, 0

30 25 20 15 10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03 30 25 to

.1-S20

'U wU 15

&A 0 5

0 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2-Mile Region Mile Region

-Entire EPZ 0

90%

0 100%

1 I

I II0I00 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 2-Mile Region Mile Region Entire EPZ 9

90%

6 100%

30 C

.6~

tu U

(U

'a w

U a,

25 20 S

15 0

10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ

& 90%

100%

30 25 M

U Ui 20 0

10 5

0 270 300 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min)

Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) Mile Region Mile Region

-Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

30 25 4-.° 20 15 0

5 n

Adik 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

'U Ui M

0 30 25 20 15 10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 0 90%

0 100%

30 25 20 15 5

0 1_68~

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 0 90%

0 100%

30 25

-20

-~ 0 15 "IO-

~.10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

30 25 an

'U U(U LU a,

-;ý 20 15 0

Z.10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

100%

30 25

'U M

20 15 0

10 5

_41101or I

I 0

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) Mile Region Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

30 25 4-20 U

15

:E 10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2-Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 0 90%

4 100%

30 25 m-20 U

r 15 u*o

.*10 5

0 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) Mile Region 5-Mile Region Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

30 tw 25 er-° m 120 (U

15 u*o-I0 S510 5

0 moo QW-AML 0

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 U

uLJ

'n U)

Z, 0

30 25 20 15 10 5

0 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) Mile Region Mile Region

-Entire EPZ 90%

0 100%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (min) 270 300 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 Byron Generating Station Evacuation Time Estimate 7-28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Rev. 0

ML14141A054

Text

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

Search