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

Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 5

ML14141A065
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	04/18/2014
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-636, Rev. 0
Download: ML14141A065 (121)

Text

Attachment 5 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER 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@kldcompanies.com April 18, 2014 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR -636 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTIO N ..................................................................................................................................

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

1-2 1.2 The Peach Bottom Atom ic Pow er Station Location ...................................................................

1-4 1.3 Prelim inary Activities

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

1-6 1.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study ............................................................................................

1-10 2 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS .............................................................................................

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

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

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

2-5 3 DEM AND ESTIM ATION .......................................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Perm anent Residents

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

3-2 3.1.1 Special Facilities

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

3-2 3.1.2 Pennsylvania Dutch (Am ish) Population

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

3-2 3.2 Shadow Population

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

3-10 3.3 Transient Population

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

3-13 3.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................

3-18 3.5 M edical Facilities

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

3-22 3.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population

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

3-22 3.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................

3-22 3.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-25 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 PBAPS Study Area .........................................................................................

4-6 4.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................

4-6 4.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................................................................

4-7 4.3.4 Intersections

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

4-8 4.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................

4-8 5 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E ..........................................................................................

5-1 5.1 Background

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

5-1 5.2 Fundam ental Considerations

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

5-3 5.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ...................................................

5-6 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution

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

5-11 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers ............................................................................................................

5-12 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation

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

5-15 5.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas .................................................

5-17 6 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FO R EVACUATION SCENARIOS

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

6-1 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATIO N TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................

7-1 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation

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

7-1 7.2 Staged Evacuation

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

7-1 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation

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

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

7-4 7.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results ....................................................................................

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

7-6 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ...................................................................................................

7-7 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 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-i 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 F.3 Conclusions

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

F-9 G. TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT PLAN .....................................................................................................

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

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

G-1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

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

-1 K. EVACUATIO N ROADW AY NETW ORK .............................................................................................

K-1 L. ZONE BOUNDARIES

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

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

M -1 M .1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Tim es .......................................................................

M -i M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate .................

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

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

M -3 M .4 Enhancem ents in Evacuation Tim e ..........................................................................................

M -4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST

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

N-1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate iii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Figures Figu re 1-1. PBA PS Locatio n .......................................................................................................................

1-5 Figure 1-2. PBA PS Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ........................................................................................

1-8 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation M ethodology

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

2-4 Fig u re 3-1. P BA PS EPZ ...............................................................................................................................

3-4 Figure 3-2. Perm anent Resident Population by Sector .............................................................................

3-8 Figure 3-3. Perm anent Resident Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................

3-9 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector ...............................................................................................

3-11 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector ...................................................................................................

3-12 Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................

3-16 Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................

3-17 Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................

3-20 Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-21 Figure 4-1. Fundam ental D iagram s ............................................................................................................

4-9 Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ..............................................................

5-5 Figure 5-2. Evacuation M obilization Activities

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

5-10 Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

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

5-14 Figure 5-4. Com parison of Trip Generation Distributions

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

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

5-2 0 Figure 6-1. PBA PS EPZ Zo nes .....................................................................................................................

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

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

7-19 Figure 7-2. PBA PS Shadow Region ..........................................................................................................

7-20 Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ....................................

7-21 Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................

7-22 Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 25 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................

7-23 Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ..........................................

7-24 Figure 7-7. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................

7-25 Figure 7-8. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................

7-26 Figure 7-9. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 50 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................

7-27 Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario I for Region R03 ....................................................

7-28 Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-28 Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-29 Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-29 Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-30 Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-30 Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-31 Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-31 Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-32 Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-32 Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-33 Figure 7-21. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-33 Figure 7-22. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-34 Figure 7-23. Evacuation Time Estimates

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

7-34 Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

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

8-11 Figure 8-2. PBAPS Transit-Dependent Bus Routes within Pennsylvania

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

8-12 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 8-3. PBAPS Transit-Dependent Bus Routes w ithin M aryland ......................................................

8-13 Figure 10-1. Reception Centers and Host Schools ..................................................................................

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

10-3 Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Sim ulation-DTRAD Interface

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

B -5 Figure C-1. Representative Analysis Netw ork ...........................................................................................

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

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

C-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 PBAPS EPZ .................................................................................................

E-9 Figure E-2. Preschools

/ Daycares w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ...................................................................

E-iO Figure E-3. Day Cam ps w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ...................................................................................

E-11 Figure E-4. M edical Facilities w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ..........................................................................

E-12 Figure E-5. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ............................................................................

E-13 Figure E-6. Recreational Areas w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ............................................................................

E-14 Figure E-7. Lodging Facilities w ithin the PBAPS EPZ ............................................................................

E-15 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. Overview of Traffic and Access Control Points for the Peach Bottom Atomic Pow er Station ............................................................................................................................................

G-2 Figure G-2. Traffic and Access Control Points -Cecil County, M D ..........................................................

G-3 Figure G-3. Traffic and Access Control Points -Harford County, M D .....................................................

G-4 Figure G-4. Traffic and Access Control Points -Lancaster County, PA ...............................................

G-5 Figure G-5. Traffic and Access Control Points -York County, PA ............................................................

G-6 Figure H-1. Region R01 .............................................................................................................................

H-5 Figure H-2. Region R02 .............................................................................................................................

H-6 Figure H-3. Region R03 .............................................................................................................................

H-7 Figure H-4. Region R04 .............................................................................................................................

H-8 Figure H-5. Region R0S .............................................................................................................................

H-9 Figure H-6. Region R06 ...........................................................................................................................

H-iO Figure H-7. Region R07 ...........................................................................................................................

H-11 Figure H-8. Region R08 ...........................................................................................................................

H-12 Figure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H-13 Figure H-10. Region RiO .........................................................................................................................

H-14 Figure H-11. Region R11 .........................................................................................................................

H-15 Figure H-12. Region R12 .........................................................................................................................

H-16 Figure H-13. Region R13 .........................................................................................................................

H-17 Figure H-14. Region R14 .........................................................................................................................

H-18 Figure H-15. Region R15 .........................................................................................................................

H-19 Figure H-16. Region R16 .........................................................................................................................

H-20 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure H -17 .Regio n R 17 .........................................................................................................................

H -2 1 Fig u re H -18 .Regio n R 18 .........................................................................................................................

H -2 2 Fig u re H -19 .Reg io n R 19 .........................................................................................................................

H -23 Figure H -20 .Regio n R20 .........................................................................................................................

H -24 Fig u re H -2 1. Regio n R 2 1 .........................................................................................................................

H -2 5 Figure H -22. Regio n R22 .........................................................................................................................

H -26 Fig u re H -23 .Regio n R23 .........................................................................................................................

H -27 Fig u re H -24 .R eg io n R24 .........................................................................................................................

H -28 Figu re H -2 5 .Regio n R2 5 .........................................................................................................................

H -29 Figu re H -2 6 .Regio n R 26 .........................................................................................................................

H -30 Fig u re H -27 .Reg io n R 27 .........................................................................................................................

H -3 1 Fig u re H -28 .Reg io n R 28 .........................................................................................................................

H -32 Fig u re H -29 .Regio n R 29 .........................................................................................................................

H -33 Figu re H -30 .Regio n R 30 .........................................................................................................................

H -34 Figure H -31. Regio n R31 .........................................................................................................................

H -35 Fig u re H -32 .Reg io n R 32 .........................................................................................................................

H -3 6 Fig u re H -33 .R eg io n R 33 .........................................................................................................................

H -37 Figure H -34 .Regio n R34 .........................................................................................................................

H -38 Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ....... J-9 Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-9 Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

3) ............

J-10 Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-10 Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W e athe r (Sce n a rio 5 ) ...............................................................................................................................

J-1 1 Figure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

J-11 Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-12 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

J-12 Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

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

J-13 Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

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

J-13 Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

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

J-14 Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

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

J-14 Figure J-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good W eather, Special Event (Scenario

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

J-15 Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Im p act (Sce n a rio 14 ) ................................................................................................................................

J-15 Figure K-1. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Link-Node Analysis Network .......................................

K-2 Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 1 ......................................................................................

K-3 Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 2 ......................................................................................

K-4 Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 3 ................................................................................

K-5 Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 4 ......................................................................................

K-6 Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 5 ......................................................................................

K-7 Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 6 ......................................................................................

K-8 Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 7 ......................................................................................

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

K-l0 Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 9 .............................................................................

K-il Figure K-11. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 10 ................................................................................

K-12 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 21 ................................................................................

K-13 Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 12 ............................................................................

K-14 Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 13 ................................................................................

K-15 Figure K-15. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 14 ................................................................................

K-16 Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 15 ................................................................................

K-17 Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 16 ................................................................................

K-18 Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 17 ................................................................................

K-19 Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 18 ................................................................................

K-20 Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 19 ................................................................................

K-21 Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 20 ................................................................................

K-22 Figure K-22. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 21 ................................................................................

K-23 Figure K-23. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 22 ................................................................................

K-24 Figure K-24. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 23 ................................................................................

K-25 Figure K-25. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 24 ................................................................................

K-26 Figure K-26. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 25 ................................................................................

K-27 Figure K-27. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 26 ................................................................................

K-28 Figure K-28. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 27 ................................................................................

K-29 Figure K-29. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 28 ................................................................................

K-30 Figure K-30. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 29 ................................................................................

K-31 Figure K-31. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 30 ................................................................................

K-32 Figure K-32. Link-Node Analysis Network- Grid 31 ................................................................................

K-33 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 vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of Tables Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction

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

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

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

1-6 Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons ..........................................................................................................

1-10 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

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

2-6 Table 3-1. Total Am ish Population w ithin the EPZ by Zone .......................................................................

3-5 Table 3-2. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population

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

3-6 Table 3-3. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone ...........................................................

3-7 Table 3-4. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ...........................................................................

3-10 Table 3-5. Sum m ary of Transients and Transient Vehicles .....................................................................

3-15 Table 3-6. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles ......................................

3-19 Table 3-7. External Traffic Traveling through the Study Area .................................................................

3-24 Table 3-8. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ...........................................................................................

3-26 Table 3-9. Sum m ary of Vehicle Dem and .................................................................................................

3-27 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. Tim e Distribution for Com m uters to Travel Hom e ..................................................................

5-8 Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate .......................................................

5-8 Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ........................................................

5-9 Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................

5-11 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions

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

5-12 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation

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

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

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

5-21 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R12) ............................................................

6-4 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13-R24) ............................................................

6-5 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R25-R34) ............................................................

6-6 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

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

6-8 Table 6-5. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios

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

6-9 Table 6-6. Vehicle Estim ates by Scenario ................................................................................................

6-10 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

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

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

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

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

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

7-15 Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R12) ..........................................................

7-16 Table 7-6. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13-R24) ..........................................................

7-17 Table 7-7. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R25-R34) ..........................................................

7-18 Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates ..............................................................................

8-14 Table 8-2. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates

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

8-15 Table 8-3. School, Pre-school, and Day Cam p Host Facilities

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

8-17 Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................

8-19 Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources

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

8-20 Table 8-6. Bus Route D escriptions

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

8-21 Table 8-7. School, Pre-school, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-24 Table 8-8. School, Pre-school, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-26 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 8-9. School, Pre-school, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-28 Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-30 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-32 Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-34 Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-36 Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-38 Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-39 Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-40 Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates

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

8-41 Table 12-1. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation

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

12-2 Table A-1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Term s .................................................................................

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

C-2 Table C-2. Input Requirem ents for the DYNEV II M odel ...........................................................................

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

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

E-2 Table E-2. Preschools

/ Daycares w ithin the EPZ ......................................................................................

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

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

E-5 Table E-5. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

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

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

E-8 Table H-1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions RO1-R12) .........................

H-2 Table H-2. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R13-R24) .........................

H-3 Table H-3. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R25-R34) .........................

H-4 Table J-1. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections

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

J-2 Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input .........................................................................................

J-4 Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) .......................

J-5 Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (R e g io n R0 3, Sce n ario 1) ............................................................................................................................

J-6 Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ....................

J-7 Table K-i. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics

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

K-37 Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

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

K-107 Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ...................................

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

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

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

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

N-i Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) located in Peach Bottom Township in York County, Pennsylvania.

ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Exelon and state and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies.

Most important of these are:* NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011. (NRC, 2011a).* NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November, 1980. (NRC, 1980a).* 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)0 NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants," January 2005. (NRC, 2005).* 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 Proiect 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 PBAPS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network.* Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus a Shadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant." Analyzed the results of a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database.

The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to conducting the survey." Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county were provided by Exelon and by state and county agencies, and supplemented by phone calls to individual facilities.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

" The traffic demand and trip-generation rates of evacuating vehicles were estimated from the gathered data. The trip generation rates reflected the estimated mobilization time (i.e., the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation trip) computed using the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents." Different nomenclature is used for evacuating areas between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Maryland.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania considers municipal areas (townships or boroughs), and often refers to them as Sub-areas.

The State of Maryland uses both Zone and Sector. For purposes of this study, the term Zone will be used to classify evacuating areas." The EPZ is subdivided into 24 Zones. Following federal guidelines, these existing Zones are grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors)that define a total of 34 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 -Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair -was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane on US-i northbound was closed from the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line to the interchange with Pennsylvania State Route 10 (PA-10)." 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 PBAPS 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, pre-schools, and day camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to Host Schools or Reception Centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at schools, pre-schools, or day 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 state and county plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, wheelchair van, or ambulance, as required.

Separate ETE are Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 calculated for the transit-dependent evacuees, for homebound special needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETE A total of 476 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 34 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (34 x 14 = 476). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond 2 miles will evacuate (non-compliance) even though they are advised to shelter-in-place.

The computational procedure is outlined as follows: " A link-node representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents a unidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or merge point. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations and on established traffic engineering procedures." The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located within the EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting the mobilization process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending on population density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area." The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), and then simulates the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 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 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), and the counties within the EPZ.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 for additional discussion.

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 PBAPS EPZ showing the layout of the 24 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.* Table 3-2 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Zone based on the 2010 Census data." Table 6-1 through Table 6-3 defines each of the 34 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Zones." Table 6-4 defines the Evacuation Scenarios." Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively.

These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region." Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile region for un-staged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively." Table 8-7 presents ETE for the children at schools, pre-schools and day 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Conclusions" General population ETE were computed for 476 unique cases -a combination of 34 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 1:40 (hr:min) to 3:15 at the 9 0 th percentile." Inspection of Table 7-2 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios are approximately equal to mobilization time (3:45). This result implies that the minimal congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization; see Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-9 and Section 7.3.* 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 and Table 7-2 indicates that the Special Event -Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair -increases the 9 0 th percentile ETE by 15 minutes at most for wind blowing toward the south and west to the EPZ boundary (Regions R19 through R21) and has no impact on 1 0 0 th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion." Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which cause a roadway closure -i.e., one lane on US-1 Northbound (see Section 2.2, item 8 for additional information)

-increases 9 0 th percentile ETE by at most 10 minutes and has no impact on 1 0 0 th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion." All traffic congestion (LOS F) within the EPZ clears by 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-9." Separate ETE were computed for schools, pre-schools, and day camps, medical facilities, transit-dependent persons, and homebound special needs persons. The average single-wave ETE for schools, pre-schools, day camps, and medical facilities is about 25 minutes shorter than the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile.

The average single wave ETE for transit-dependent persons is about 20 minutes longer than the general population at the 90th percentile.

The average single wave ETE for homebound special needs persons is approximately equal to the general population ETE at the 9 0 th percentile.

• 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 <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes. The 100th percentile ETE will parallel trip generation times that are exceed the time at which congestion within the EPZ clears (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes).

See Table M-1.* The general population ETE is affected by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region with 9 0 th percentile ETE and 1 0 0 th percentile ETE increasing by 20 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively, when increasing from 20% shadow evacuation to 100% shadow evacuation.

See Table M-2.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES-S KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• An increase in permanent resident population within the EPZ of 33% or more results in 90th percentile ETE changes which meet the federal criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses.

See Section M.3.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. PBAPS EPZ Zones Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-2. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Delta 741 728 Drumore North 925 984 Drumore South 1,318 1,576 East Drumore 3,535 3,791 Fawn 2,727 3,099 IFmwn 4F, ~ .--L Fulton East 1,316 1,408 Fulton West 1,510 1,666 Little Britain 3,514 4,106 Lower Chanceford North 1,844 1,885 Lower Chanceford South 1,055 1,143 Martic 4,272 4,465 Peach Bottom Central 1,265 1,462 Peach Bottom East 621 724 Peach Bottom West 2,526 2,627 Providence 3,841 3,996 Quarryville 1,994 2,576 West Nottingham 2,634 2,722 Zone 1 3,373 3,718 Zone 2 3,612 3,848 Zone 3 3,410 3,467 Zone 4 969 907 Zone 5 1,188 1,208 Zone 6 6,408 7,037 EPZ Population Growth: 8.23%Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R12)Region

Description:

2-Mile 5-Mile ull Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles RegionNumber:

Ring Ring I EPZ 0 R 0 0 R09 R10 Rl_ R12 Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R~OS R0 R07 ROB R09 [R1O R11 R12 Wind Direction Toward: N/A N/A N/A N, NNE NE, E, SW, ENE ESE, SSE SSW, WSW NW NNW cc WWAI Zone Delta I I x A Drumore North I I_____ $ t t t t Drumore South 4 4 4 4 4- I-East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South Martic Peach Bottom Central Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 I I1x Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 7nna A Zone(s) Shelter-in-Place Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because it is surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13-R24)Region

Description:

Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 RI R16 R17 RI R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 Wind Direction Toward: N, NE ENE E, ESE NNE SE SSE SW W WNW NW NNW E SSW WSW Zone Delta Drumore North Drumore South East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South Martic Peach Bottom Central Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom West Providence I I I Quarryville i T i West Nottingham I I II I I I I Zone 1 I 1 I Zone 2 I I I Zone 3 I I I Zone 4 Zone 5-9 II I I I I Zone(s) Shelter-in-Place Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R25-R34)Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 N, NE, E, ESE, W, Wind Direction Toward: 5-Mile Ring SSE SSW, WSW W NW NNW NNE ENE SE SWWNW Zone Delta Drumore North Drumore South -AE East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South Martic Peach Bottom Central Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 ne(s) Shelter-in-Place Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Summer Midweek, Evening Good None S Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None Winter Midweek, Evening Good None 12 Weekend Midweek, Fireworks at 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Mason Dixon Fair Single Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-1 Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-12 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 Miwe ekn idweek M idekWeedMidweek MidweekMiwe MiwekWekn Ween idekWeekend Weekend WeekendMiwe Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Good Ran Good Good Ri So Good Ri Snw Good Special Roadway_______________Weather RI n I Weather RI n Weather Weather RI n Sno Weather RI n Sno Weather Event Impact_______________Entire 2-MileRegion,_S-Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R02 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:45 2:05 R03 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:35 2:15 2:30 2:35 j3:10 j2:20 2:30 3:05 2:15 2:20 2:35 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:45 1:55 1:55 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:45 1:45 1:55 ROS 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:50 1:50 2:25 1:50 1:50 2:00 R06 2:00 2:00 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:00 2:00 2:35 1:50 1:50 2:30 1:50 1:50 2:00 R07 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:55 1:55 2:35 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 1:55 R08 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:50 1:50 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:50 2:30 1:45 1:50 2:05 R09 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:00 R10 2:00 2:00 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:00 2:00 2:40 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:45 2:00 R11 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:55 1:55 2:35 1:40 1:45 2:30 1:45 1:40 1:55 R12 1:55 1:55 1:40 1:40 1:45 2:00 12:00 2:35 1:45 1:45 2:25 1:45 1:45 11:55 S-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ____R13 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:20 2:05 2:15 2:20 2:55 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:00 2:05 2:15 R14 2:10 2:15 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:10 2:15 2:50 1:55 2:00 2:35 1:55 1:55 2:10 RIS 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:55 2:15 2:20 2:45 2:15 2:15 2:20 R16 2:35 2:45 2:35 2:45 2:15 2:30 2:40 3:15 2:30 2:45 3:10 2:15 2:15 2:45 R27 2:20 2:30 2:15 2:20 2:00 2:15 2:25 3:00 2:15 2:15 2:50 1:55 2:00 2:20 R18 2:20 2:30 2:15 2:25 1:55 2:20 2:30 3:00 2:15 2:20 2:55 1:55 1:55 2:20 R19 2:15 2:20 2:05 2:10 1:55 2:15 2:20 2:50 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:00 2:10 2:15 R20 2:20 2:30 2:10 2:15 2:10 2:25 2:30 3:05 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:25 2:20 R21 2:20 2:30 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:30 3:05 2:10 2:15 2:50 2:10 2:25 2:20 R22 2:25 2:35 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:25 2:35 3:10 2:15 2:25 3:00 2:15 2:20 2:25 R23 2:05 2:05 1:45 1:45 1:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 1:45 1:45 2:30 1:50 1:45 2:05 R24 2:15 2:20 2:00 2:10 2:00 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:00 2:05S 2:45 11:55 2:00 2:15 ES-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-13 Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend weekend dweek Midweek Weekend weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather R Weather I S Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R25 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:55 2:15 2:15 2:50 2:15 2:15 2:20 R26 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:15 2:15 2:45 2:15 2:15 2:10 R27 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:50 2:15 2:15 2:50 2:15 2:15 2:15 R28 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:05 R29 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:05 R30 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:20 2:20 2:55 2:20 2:15 2:20 R31 2:20 2:25 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:25 2:25 3:00 2:20 2:20 2:55 2:20 2:15 2:20 R32 2:10 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:10 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:10 R33 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:45 2:05 2:05 2:05 R34 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:10 2:10 2:10 ES-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-14 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 MdekWeed MdekMdekWeedMidweek Midweek Midweek Midee Weknd Weekend MiweIekn Weekend WeekendMiwe Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Ran Good Ran Good Good Ri Snw Good IRi Snw Good Special Roadway Weather RaIn Weather RIn Weather Weather Ran So Weather RIn So Weather Event Impact________Entire 2-Mile Region, 5-Mile Region, and EPZ R02 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 T3:45 3:45 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R03 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 j3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 2-Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R10 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R12 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R12 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 14:50 13:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 S~~~5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary ____R13 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R14 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R15 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R16 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R17 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R18 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R19 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R20 3:S5 3:55 3:5S 3:55 3:SS 3:5S 3:S5 4:5S 3:SS 3:55 4:55 3:S5 3:55 3:55 R21 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R22 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 R23 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:SS 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:5S 3:55 3:55 R24 3:55 3:55 155S 3:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 4:55 3:55 3:55S 4:55 3:55 3:55 3:55 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend weekend dweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather I S Weather R S Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R25 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R26 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R27 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R28 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R29 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R30 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R31 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R32 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R33 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 R34 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 4:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-16 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 Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good i Good Rain Good Good Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Rain Weather Weather Weather I Snow Weather Weather Event Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile Region R02 1 1:40 1:1:40 1:4 401 1:40 1:401 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R02 1:40 1:40 J1:40 1:40 1:0 1 1:4 1:40 j2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 J 14 :014 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 ROS 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R06 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R07 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R08 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R09 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 RiO 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R11 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R12 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R25 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R26 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R27 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R28 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R29 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R30 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R31 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R32 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R33 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 R34 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 1:40 2:15 1:40 1:40 2:25 1:40 1:40 1:40 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Area within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Rain Good Rain Good Good J Rain Snow Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Un-staged Evacuation Mile and S-Mile Region R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:45 J3:45 J3:45 3:45 j 3:45 J3:45 j 3:45 14:45 J3:45 3:45 4:45 J 3:45 [ 3:45 J 3:45 Un-staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5-Miles R04 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 ROS 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R06 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R07 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R08 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R09 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 RIO 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R11 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R12 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Region R25 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 [ 3:45 ] 4:45 3:45 3:45 ] 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation Mile Ring and Keyhole to 5 Miles R26 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R27 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R28 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R29 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R30 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R31 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R32 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R33 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 R34 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 4:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-7. School, Pre-school, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather Darlington Elementary School South Eastern Middle School West I Delta-Peach Bottom Elementary School I I cniarens center or Nortn -arTor I I 15 1 7.1 1 11.9 I 36 I 2 Facility is located just outside the EPZ; however, the facility will evacuate as per county plans. ETE for this facility is not included in the average for the EPZ.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Mechanic Grove CLASP 90 J 15 49 33.9 9 The Crayon Box Day Care Center 90 15 29 27.5 6 Busy Hands Daycare 90 15 09 50.0 1 Shining Stars Daycare 90 15 12 19.3 4 Kidsville Junction Childcare 90 15 3.4.7 Delta Christian Academy 90 15 11.5 12.8 54 Pre-school Maximum for EPZ: Pre-School Average for EPZ: BSA Camp Horseshoe 90 15 .1 29.7 8 Camp Conowingo GSA 90 15 78 12.2 Camp Habonim 90 15 2.2 24.8 5 Camp Ramblewood 90 15 3.5 44.9 5 Indian Lake Christian Camp 90 15 8.5 44.4 11 Broadcreek Memorial Camp 90 15 8.1 42.3 11 Camp Andrews 90 15 7.4 15.3 29 Camp John H. Ware 90 15 16.5 39 Camp Donegal 90 15 6.1 49.9 7 Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: Day Camp Average for EPZ: 8.3 10 8.3 10 5.6 7 Q22 1 n 1,4..1 1/14.1 17 Pre-School Maximum: A. 7 12.4 15 9.2 11 5.2 6 5.2 6 4.8 ] b 20c iU.b I i Day Camp Maximum: Day Camp Average: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather i Rout Trve Piku Ditac Tim to Drve Trve Pickup Bu zaio Legt Spe Tie TmST oR .R .nod Rs ie Tm Delta/Peach Bottom 1-3 120 13.0 17.7 44 30 3:15 14.1 17 5 10 51 30 5:10 Municipal Bldg.Drumore 1-5 120 10.6 25.1 25 30 2:55 4.8 6 5 10 32 30 4:20 Municipal Bldg. 5-10 135 10.6 34.2 19 30 3:05 4.8 6 5 10 32 30 430 East Drumore 1-7 120 4.2 34.7 7 30 2:40 8.3 10 5 10 21 30 4:0 Municipal Bldg. 7-14 135 4.2 41.3 6 30 2:55 8.3 10 5 10 21 30 4:5 Fawn Grove/Fawn Municipal Bldg.2:40 1 14.1 17 5 1-2 120 4.0 1 32.8 7 30 10 27 30 4:10 Fulton 1-4 120 11.7 30.0 23 30 2:55 4.8 6 5 10 34 30 4:20 Municipal Bldg. 5-8 135 11.7 38.9 18 30 305 4.8 6 5 10 34 30 4:30 1-6 120 9.7 39.4 15 30 2:45 8.3 10 5 10 35 30 4:15 Little Britain Municipal Bldg. 7-12 135 9.7 42.0 14 30 3:0 8.3 10 5 10 35 30 4:30 13-16 150 9.7 42.7 14 30 3:5 8.3 10 5 10 34 30 445 Lower Chanceford 1-2 120 4.5 49.7 5 30 2:35 10.6 13 5 10 24 30 4:00 Municipal Bldg.Martic ....Mun ticiaBlg 1-5 120 2.3 33.2 4 30 2:35 7.1 9 5 10 16 30 3:4S Municipal Bldg. 1-7.9 Providence 1-4 120 1.6 35.5 3 30 2:35 4.8 6 5 10 10 30 3:0 Municipal Bldg. 5-8 135 1.6 29.2 3 30 2:50 4.8 6 5 10 10 30 355 Quarryville

.. ..... .MunicipalBldg 1 120 1.2 15.8 5 30 2:35 8.3 10 5 10 14 30 3:45 Municipal Bldg. 183 1 West Nottingham 1-2 120 1.5 26.3 3 30 2:35 15.0 18 5 10 22 30 4:00 Municipal Bldg.Zone 1 1-2 120 6.9 11.9 35 30 3:05 13.0 16 5 10 33 30 440 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Zone 2 &Zone 4 13 10 1. 75 1 30 5.Zone 3 1-3 9.2 11 Zone S .._....Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure H-8. Region R08 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate ES-23 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), located in Peach Bottom Township in York County, Pennsylvania.

ETE provide state and local governments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by Federal Governmental agencies.

Most important of these are: NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies," November 2011. (NRC, 2011a)NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones," November, 1980. (NRC, 1980a)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)* NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants," January 2005. (NRC, 2005)* 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkhle Naur of Saeolde Inercto Exelon Provided data (telephone survey, employees, transients, special facilities, transit resources) needed for the study. Coordinated information exchange with offsite response organizations.

Reviewed draft report and provided comments.i Maryland Emergency Management (MEMA)Agency Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA)Cecil County, MD Harford County, MD Chester County, PA Lancaster County, PA York County, PA Provided existing emergency plans, including traffic and access control points and other information critical to the ETE study. Engaged in the ETE development and informed of the study results.Lancaster County GIS Department Provided data for the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish)population.

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.

Phone calls to some of the medical facilities were made to supplement data that was provided.2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 (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 6 existing Zones in Maryland identified by the Army Corps of Engineers and 18 Zones in Pennsylvania which generally follow township boundaries and major roadways or rivers to define Evacuation Regions. "Regions" are groups of contiguous Zones for which ETE are calculated.

The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at special facilities and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by 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 PBAPS.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, pre-schools, day camps and medical facilities), for the transit-dependent population and for homebound special needs population.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 1.2 The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Location The PBAPS site is located on the west bank of the Susquehanna River in Peach Bottom Township in York County, Pennsylvania.

The site is approximately 37 miles north-northeast of Baltimore, Maryland and 60 miles west-southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The EPZ consists of parts of Chester, Lancaster, and York Counties in Pennsylvania and Cecil and Harford Counties in Maryland.

Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the PBAPS. This map shows the location of the plant relative to the aforementioned nearby major cities, and identifies the major population centers and roadways in the area.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 X I a i!M d'; ... ,' _ .. 7-,,, 7igureV *. PBAPSLocatio 0 20 40 74V2.Ev c ai nT m Esti ate ev.c'3 3 300 Figure"It 1- PSP octo Peach Botom Atoic PowerStation15" nL niernPC EvacutionTimeEstiate ev.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.Field Surveys of the Highway Network KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded.

These characteristics are shown in Table 1-2: Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

• Number of lanes 0 Posted speed* Lane width 0 Actual free speed* Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use* Interchange geometries 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1-6 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).Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

-CsocssOsr

\~.....LR~c~,,,ysrsoooorss , o )0 10 G -Ul LI '~15l ~Pn 30 Stonesoo Ae lol E. 4 I/3Wp\ -et ~jhali 101', 200 ,a le_____________________________-j&--(iv)!

l 9 ar, ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z , 5,1, 5MleRns ngti95 1 5I .O j3) Ih ER aean0I'_____________________________

1Isgen~. UI.Oolatto 14'Gon Figure 1-2. PBAPS Link-Node Analysis Network 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-8 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1-9 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 shorter (approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />) 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: 0 The highway representation is far more detailed, which can reduce ETE as more potential routes are available to evacuees.* Dynamic evacuation modeling used which adjusts routing to avoid traffic congestion to the extent feasible (similar to a modern GPS), which can reduce ETE.0 Trip generation rates based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities.

Short trip generation times loads a higher percentage of vehicles on the road in a shorter period of time. This can result in demand exceeding roadway capacity, traffic congestion, and prolonged ETE. Longer trip generation rates reduce the percentage of vehicles getting on the roadway network within each time period allowing the network to process these vehicles more efficiently, which can reduce ETE.* 2010 HCM used -baseline capacity estimates have continuously increased from one version to the next of the HCM. The previous study does not specify which version of the HCM was used (2000 HCM at latest given the report date). Higher capacity estimates result in lower ETE.Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons T-i Previou ET ' Study1Crr'nt Ti Study Resident Population Basis Data obtained from analysis of block group data from 2000 Census data.Population

= 54,667 ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks; area ratio method used.Population

= 59,595 4- 4 Resident Population Vehicle Occupancy Data based upon 2000 Census average household occupancy rates and data on vehicles available per household.

Assumed to be one vehicle per household yielding:

3.0 persons/vehicle A high demand alternative was also considered wherein all households with two or more vehicles evacuate in two vehicles.

This yields a vehicle occupancy of 1.75 persons/vehicle 2.48 persons/household, 1.36 evacuating vehicles/household yielding:

1.82 persons/vehicle 1-10 KID Engineering, p.c.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 I -iP o Snt I 'I Employee Population Data obtained from Harris InfoSource, field survey work, and from the list of employers used in the 1990 study.Employees

= 2,414 Employee estimates based on information provided about major employers in EPZ, US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Employees

= 1,760 i i__________________

Transit-Dependent Population Evacuees who do not have access to transportation and confined persons who require special transportation assistance will be provided transportation by the appropriate agency.Estimates based upon U.S. Census data, results of the telephone survey, and data provided by Lancaster County GIS. A total of 977 people who do not have access to a vehicle, requiring 33 buses to evacuate.An additional 1,416 Pennsylvania Amish women and children require transportation to evacuate (50 buses are required to evacuate this population).

An additional 54 homebound special needs persons require special transportation to evacuate (17 wheelchair vans and 1 ambulance

-are required to evacuate this population).

Data for hotels, motels, and recreational areas were obtained from the 2002 AAA TourBook for Pennsylvania and from state Transient and county tourism websites; seasonal Tranien estimes basedon Tranientinformation provided by Exelon.Population occupancy was estimated based on a telephone survey of selected facilities.

Transients

= 5,760 State and local parks provided visitation numbers for parks and campgrounds.

Transients

= 6,787 Medical facility population based on information provided by Exelon and through phone calls made to facilities.

Total Population

= 400 Medical Facility Buses/Vans Required = 15 Current Census = 461 Autos = 50 Buses Required = 14 Wheelchair Vans = 37 Ambulances

= 3 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 To-ic Prvos StdCurn T Std School Population Data obtained by contacting regional school districts and private schools. Day care facilities were obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare website. Open Doors Child Care Resource Center provided day care facilities for Maryland School enrollment

= 11,081 Pre-School enrollment

= 374 Day Camps were considered as transient facilities.

School population based on information provided by Exelon School enrollment

= 10,316 Pre-School enrollment

= 350 Day Camp enrollment

= 3,185 Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within within EPZ in areas Not Considered.

the EPZ, but not within the outside region to Evacuation Region (see Figure 2-1)be evacuated Shadow 20% of people outside of the EPZ Evacuation Not considered.

within the Shadow Region Evacuation_

_ (see Figure 7-2)Network Size 270 links; 253 nodes 1,888 links; 1,672 nodes Field surveys conducted in January Roadway geometric and operational data 2014. Roads and intersections were Roadway video archived.were compiled based on field surveys Geometric Data performed in 2002. Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Direct evacuation to designated Host School for schools. Direct Direct evacuation to designated Host HotShlfrscos.Det School Evacuation Dct evacuation to designated Reception School. Center for pre-schools and day camps.50 percent of transit-dependent Ridesharing Not Considered.

persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 To-ic Prvos StdCurn T Std Based on residential telephone survey of specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave between 15 and 225 minutes.Residents without commuters returning leave between 15 and 165 minutes.Employees and transients leave between 15 and 105 minutes.Trip Generation for Evacuation Residents leave between 15 and 135 minutes. Employees and transients leave between 15 and 75 minutes.All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.Normal or Adverse. The capacity and free Good, Rain, or Snow. The capacity Norml orAdvrse.Thecapaityand ree and free flow speed of all links in Weather flow speed of all links in the network are the netw are ed by 10% in reduced by 20% rain and 30% for snow. the eetwora and 20% f n the event of rain and 20% for snow.Modeling NetVac2 DYNEV II System -Version 4.0.19.0 Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair Special Events Not considered.

Special Event Population

= 5,000 additional transients.

34 Regions (central sector wind 12 unique cases for the entire EPZ. 10 direction and each adjacent sector unique cases for partial EPZ scenarios, technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 476 unique cases.ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th percentile Evacuation Time for the full EPZ scenarios, and ETE ETE reported for 9 0 th and 1 0 0 th Estimates reported for the 1 0 0 th percentile for the percentile population.

Results Reporting partial EPZ scenarios.

Results presented by presented by Region and Scenario.Scenario.Evacuation Time Winter, Weekday, Midday, Estimates for the Winter, Daytime, Normal Weather: 5:09 Good Weather: 3:55 entire EPZ, 100th Summer, Weekend, Normal Weather: entire 4:46 Summer, Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 3:55 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 1-13 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). Employment estimates are based upon data provided by Exelon.3. Population estimates at special and transient facilities are based on data provided by Exelon, state and county agencies, and telephone calls to individual facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.48 persons per household (See Appendix F, Figure F-i) and 1.36 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 2.0 to 2.48 persons per vehicle depending on the type of facility.

See Section 3.3 for additional information.

c. Special Event: Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair has an estimated occupancy of 2.48 persons per vehicle (average household size from telephone survey).Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. Different nomenclature is used for evacuating areas between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Maryland.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania considers municipal areas (townships or boroughs), and often refers to them as Sub-areas.

The State of Maryland uses both Zone and Sector. For purposes of this study, the term Zone will be used to classify evacuating areas.2. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population for each Region and for each Scenario.

The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time that Region is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.

A Region is defined as a group of Zones 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.

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

4. 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.5. 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 Zones included within these underlying configurations.

6. 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).7. 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 2-1.8. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane on US-1 Northbound from the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line to the interchange with PA-10.9. 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Summer 5 Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None 12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None Midweek, Fireworks at 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Mason Dixon Fair Single Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-1 Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 2-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

?ý =-A Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology 2-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Zones forming a Region that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.3. 55 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F-3); 50 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 28 percent (55% x 50% = 28%) 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 Host Schools.b. If pre-schools and day camps are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate children to the designated Reception Center.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

c. Buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities within the EPZ, as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips

("waves")

of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the general population to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of these people will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand for buses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent. This assumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies, 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 pre-schools, 50 students per bus for middle and high schools, and 30 children per bus for day camps. 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 Scnai Caacty Spee* Moiizto Tim fo Geea Population 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 PBAPS 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 (camping, visit a park) 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 Zone and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).The PBAPS EPZ is subdivided into 24 Zones. The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 (2.48 persons/household

-See Figure F-1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.36 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 Zone 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.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 the number of vehicles.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 Several medical facilities are located within the EPZ (see Table E-4). These facilities have permanent residents that are included in the Census; however, these facilities are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are addressed in Section 8. As such, the residents of these facilities are included in the EPZ resident population, but no evacuating vehicles are considered for these residents.

3.1.2 Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) Population There are many Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) people living within Lancaster County, PA. There are approximately 23 Amish Church Districts within the study area, according to Lancaster County emergency management officials.

Each church district includes a total of 135 Amish people. Thus, there are 3,105 (23 x 135) Amish people who reside within the study area.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 According to tradition, Amish people do not own or operate motor vehicles.

Rather, they travel in traditional horse-drawn buggies. Thus, the Amish population would not evacuate in vehicles.Based on discussions with Lancaster County emergency management officials, the Amish men will remain on their land while the women and children would evacuate in the event of an incident at PBAPS. Amish women and children are considered transit dependent.

They will walk to the nearest bus pickup point and be evacuated by bus -see Section 8. The Amish men will be considered emergency workers and will be issued dosimeters and potassium iodide (KI) to measure their exposure and limit ingestion of radioactive iodine to their thyroid in the event of a radiological release.The Amish population is included in the EPZ resident population, but no evacuating vehicles are considered for these residents.

In order to determine the total number of women and children who are transit dependent, a number of assumptions were made: 1. Adult males will remain with their land while women and children evacuate 2. Adult males are considered to be 15 years of age or older In order to determine the total number of Amish males versus Amish females, U.S. Census tracts that intersect the study area for Lancaster County were used. According to the total population within these tracts, there are 70,523 total people -35,096 male and 35,427 female.Thus, 49.8% of the population within Lancaster County is male (35,096 + 70,523 x 100%).According to the same census data, the total population of males 15 years of age or older is 26,994. Thus, 38.3% of the population within Lancaster County is comprised of adult males (26,994 -70,523 x 100%) and 61.7% are women and children.In order to determine where the Amish reside, the Lancaster County GIS Department provided the centroids of the 23 Amish Church Districts.

Each church district was then assigned 135 people. Table 3-1 presents the total Amish Population by Zone. Note, not all of the Amish Church Districts are within the EPZ. There are a total of 879 adult men and 1,416 women and children within the EPZ. The remaining Amish reside within the Shadow Region and total 310 men and 500 women and children.To accurately reduce the number of resident vehicles, block points within close proximity to each church district were selected until the total population totaled 135. The resident vehicles associated with each of these block points were then removed. A total of 1,246 resident vehicles were removed within the EPZ and 444 vehicles from within the Shadow Region to account for the Amish population.

Table 3-2 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ by Zone based on the methodology described in Section 3.1. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 3-3. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from PBAPS. This"rose" was constructed using GIS software.

The vehicles in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3 have been adjusted to account for the special facilities discussed in Section 3.1.1 and for the Amish population described in this section.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 3-1. PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. Total Amish Population within the EPZ by Zone Zon MenWoen Cide Delta 0 0 Drumore North 52 83 Drumore South 103 167 East Drumore 207 333 Fawn 0 0 Fawn Grove 0 0 Fulton East 0 0 Fulton West 103 167 Little Britain 259 416 Lower Chanceford North 0 0 Lower Chanceford South 0 0 Martic 52 83 Peach Bottom Central 0 0 Peach Bottom East 0 0 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 103 167 Quarryville 0 0 West Nottingham 0 0 Zone 1 0 0 Zone 2 0 0 Zone 3 0 0 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 0 0 Shadow Region 310 500 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-2. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Delta 741 728 Drumore North 925 984 Drumore South 1,318 1,576 East Drumore 3,535 3,791 Fawn 2,727 3,099 Fawn Grove 463 452 Fulton East 1,316 1,408 Fulton West 1,510 1,666 Little Britain 3,514 4,106 Lower Chanceford North 1,844 1,885 Lower Chanceford South 1,055 1,143 Martic 4,272 4,465 Peach Bottom Central 1,265 1,462 Peach Bottom East 621 724 Peach Bottom West 2,526 2,627 Providence 3,841 3,996 Quarryville 1,994 2,576 West Nottingham 2,634 2,722 Zone 1 3,373 3,718 Zone 2 3,612 3,848 Zone 3 3,410 3,467 Zone 4 969 907 Zone 5 1,188 1,208 Zone 6 6,408 7,037 EPZ Population Growth: 8.23%Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-3. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone Zone ~ ~~ 200Pplain21 Reidn Vehicles Delta 728 398 Drumore North 984 463 Drumore South 1,576 718 East Drumore 3,791 1,781 Fawn 3,099 1,695 Fawn Grove 452 246 Fulton East 1,408 772 Fulton West 1,666 764 Little Britain 4,106 1,887 Lower Chanceford North 1,885 1,041 Lower Chanceford South 1,143 628 Martic 4,465 2,373 Peach Bottom Central 1,462 802 Peach Bottom East 724 395 Peach Bottom West 2,627 1,439 Providence 3,996 2,044 Quarryville 2,576 1,413 West Nottingham 2,722 1,497 Zone 1 3,718 2,033 Zone 2 3,848 2,111 Zone 3 3,467 1,903 Zone 4 907 498 Zone 5 1,208 664 Zone 6 7,037 3,861 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW" 344 N°-" 1.988 NNE 4,058 .WNW 2,1f6 W Z,7 EN E E 79' 5,97-1 WSW ESE 4,474 1 0 SSW 3,126I 130 S 2,358 Resident Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 71 71 1-2 362 433 2-3 1,137 1,570 3-4 2,751 4,321 4-5 4,428 8,749 5- 6 4,726 13,475 6-7 6,016 19,491 7-8 8,162 27,653 8-9 8,200 35,853 9- 10 8,788 44,641 10 -EPZ 14,954 59,595 Total: 59,595-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 12 0 00 1o 0 0-0 )2 E W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimnate 3-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N LIkIADPI'd11W P1lPl I----" 1,043 -188S 2,164 WNW 1,19 W 751 ENE 360 E 33 1,.527 2,99' ESE 574, WSW 2S 5ss SSW 70 S 11,87 1,294 Resident Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 39 39 1-2 192 231 2-3 610 841 3-4 1,311 2,152 4-5 2,378 4,530 5-6 2,491 7,021 6-7 3,273 10,294 7-8 4,223 14,517 8- 9 4,267 18,784 9- 10 4,646 23,430 10 -EPZ 7,996 31,426 Total: 31,426-,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 2 e0 0e E 0 0 O I E W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-9 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 PBAPS (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 3-4, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.As discussed in Section 3.1.2, there are 810 Amish people residing in the Shadow Region. These people reside within the N, NNE, NE, and NNW sectors of the Shadow Region. The Amish population is reported for these sectors in Table 3-4, but no vehicles are considered.

Table 3-4. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector N 6,961 3,733 NNE 4,921 2,468 NE 3,051 1,614 ENE 2,237 1,228 E 3,610 1,981 ESE 7,927 4,356 SE 6,543 3,588 SSE 3,645 1,999 S 9,040 4,959 SSW 22,669 12,427 SW 4,978 2,730 WSW 2,557 1,405 W 869 476 WNW 1,580 869 NW 1,585 873 NNW 4,485 2,390 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N-6,961-7 NNW NNE WNW 1,580 w wSw 2,557 ENE 480 E 711 2,177 3,0 1,317 ESE SE EPZ Boundary toll Miles SSW .SSE Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 3,257 3,257 11-12 12,388 15,645 12- 13 15,054 30,699 13 -14 21,453 52,152 14- 15 34,506 86,658 Total: 86,658 Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW I 3,733 NNE F2,390 __________

,6 WNW 869 w wSw 1,405 ENE 1-,228 263.49 E 389 1,194 198 S5 724 ESE SE 3F, 588-1-, EPZ Boundary to 11 Miles SSW .... -SSE 12,427 ~S1,9 Shadow Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total EPZ -11 1,786 1,786 11- 12 6,796 8,582 12- 13 8,035 16,617 13- 14 11,629 28,246 14- 15 18,850 47,096 Total: 47,096 Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-12 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 (camping, visit a park).Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at campgrounds or lodging facilities.

Data for these facilities were provided by Exelon. The PBAPS EPZ has a number of areas and facilities that attract transients, including:

• Lodging Facilities

-48 transients; 24 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle* Campgrounds

-2,461 transients; 992 vehicles; 2.48 people per vehicle" Parks -1,693 transients; 686 vehicles; 2.48 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.)* Golf Courses -986 transients; 397 vehicles; 2.48 people per vehicle* Marinas and Boat Ramps -252 transients; 101 vehicles; 2.48 people per vehicle" Hilltop Farm Inc. -320 transients; 130 vehicles; 2.48 people per vehicle It is assumed that families will travel to campgrounds, parks, marinas, and other recreational facilities together in a single vehicle. Thus, the average household size in the EPZ of 2.48 persons (Figure F-i) is used as the vehicle occupancy for these facilities.

It is further assumed that there are 2 people and 1 vehicle per occupied room at lodging facilities.

Note there are multiple facilities within the EPZ that attract vehicle types other than passenger vehicles.

These vehicles, such as vehicles with boat trailers and Recreational Vehicles (RVs), are represented as two passenger vehicles in the simulation because of their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park, located 10.1 miles northeast of PBAPS in East Drumore, is one of the many campgrounds located within the EPZ. To estimate transient population at this and other campsites in the EPZ, internet searches 1 were conducted to estimate the total campsites available.

The average household size of 2.48 persons was then applied to the number of campsites to calculate the total number of transients.

There are approximately 210 campsites with available parking for RVs at this facility.

Since RVs are represented as 2 vehicles, it is conservatively estimated that 420 vehicles (210 x 2) and 521 transients (210 x 2.48) are visiting Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park during peak times. This same methodology was applied for all other campgrounds within the EPZ. RVs are represented as 2 vehicles in Table 3-5, but are represented as single vehicles in Table E-6.York Furnace Boat Launch, located 9.9 miles northwest of PBAPS in Lower Chanceford North, is one of the few marinas within the EPZ. To estimate transient population at this and other boat ramps and marinas in the EPZ, aerial imagery was used to count the total number of parking spaces. The average household size of 2.48 persons was then applied to the number of spaces to calculate the total number of transients.

There are approximately 41 parking spaces available 1 http://pacamping.com/

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 for vehicles with boat trailers at this facility.

Since vehicles with boat trailers are represented as 2 vehicles, it is conservatively estimated that 82 transient vehicles (41 x 2) and 102 transients (41 x 2.48) are visiting York Furnace Boat Launch during peak times. This same methodology was applied for all other marinas and boat ramps within the EPZ. Vehicles with boat trailers are represented as 2 vehicles in Table 3-5, but are represented as single vehicles in Table E-6.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E-6 presents the number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas. Table E-7 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.In total, there are 5,760 transients evacuating in 2,330 vehicles, an average of 2.47 transients per vehicle. Table 3-5 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Zone. Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 3-5. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ZoeTaset0rasetVhce Delta 0 0 Drumore North 0 0 Drumore South 822 331 East Drumore 898 572 Fawn 0 0 Fawn Grove 0 0 Fulton East 0 0 Fulton West 0 0 Little Britain 0 0 Lower Chanceford North 701 553 Lower Chanceford South 140 101 Martic 1,209 933 Peach Bottom Central 48 24 Peach Bottom East 20 9 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 0 0 Quarryville 0 0 West Nottingham 900 363 Zone 1 562 227 Zone 2 0 0 Zone 3 100 41 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 360 162 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW s 248 469___ NNE S377---' 0 '1- 0 WNW E-0--1 ENE W--I I E W W 0 WSW F48-J 900'--I E F900--0 SSW 3 320 ESE 0 0*" SE 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 2/0~0E 0 S E-L--L--hZ-Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 20 20 2-3 0 20 3-4 801 821 4 -5 209 1,030 5-6 30 1,060 6-7 509 1,569 7-8 869 2,438 8-9 100 2,538 9-10 1,170 3,708 10 -EPZ 2,052 5,760 Total: 5,760 W Inset 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-16 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW N I 337 NNE F843 152-200 0 'I WNW w---I W w- --0 36 ENE-I E F3 363 I ESE-130 I IZ Boundary wSw-. 0 SSW L-o]-0 S LYII1 L-0 --I N Transient Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 0 0 1-2 9 9 2-3 0 9 3-4 372 381 4-5 84 465 5-6 13 478 6-7 369 847 7-8 548 1,395 8-9 41 1,436 9-10 653 2,089 10 -EPZ 1,227 3,316 Total: 3,316 W E Inset 2 Miles S Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.4 Employees Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

S S 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 (50 or more employees in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002) in the EPZ.Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics OnTheMap Census analysis tool 3 were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZ to avoid double counting.

This tool allows the user to draw a cordon around any area in the US and a report of the number of employees commuting into and out of the cordoned area is produced.

The tool was used to draw a cordon around the EPZ. The inflow/outflow report for the EPZ was then used to calculate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 68.9%, 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 (68.9%) 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 3-6 presents employees commuting into the EPZ and their vehicles by Zone. Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.3 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-6. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles Zon Emplyee Empoye Vehcle Delta 0 0 Drumore North 0 0 Drumore South 0 0 East Drumore 338 338 Fawn 84 84 Fawn Grove 63 63 Fulton East 74 74 Fulton West 0 0 Little Britain 0 0 Lower Chanceford North 0 0 Lower Chanceford South 0 0 Martic 0 0 Peach Bottom Central 0 0 Peach Bottom East 552 552 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 173 173 Quarryville 35 35 West Nottingham 87 87 Zone 1 231 231 Zone 2 87 87 Zone 3 0 0 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 36 36 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-19 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N NNW LIII NNE F-552 I 2463-0 -------- -- 2'90 WNW w-0--]ENE-74-j I L W 147 WSW 35--jg]87 I--J E F870 SSW sw 0 0 ESE SE-36 10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 )0 E 0 , S F 87--w- -Employees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 552 552 1-2 0 552 2-3 0 552 3-4 0 552 4-5 0 552 5-6 0 552 6-7 161 713 7-8 35 748 8-9 209 957 9-10 279 1,236 10 -EPZ 524 1,760 Total: 1,760 W Inset 0- 2 Miles S Figure 3-8. Employee Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW F-552 s 0 N L- -'\ 0 -"-NNE 9463 290 WNW W F 471 147 WSW 35gg--ENE , 74 0-I E 17 87-i' ESE 0 0 , Wr5-0 SSW E---1 S E87 w-SE 36---j_,10 Miles to EPZ Boundary N 0 0 552 0 100 o 0 0 0 0 E Employee Vehicles Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total 0-1 552 552 1-2 0 552 2-3 0 552 3-4 0 552 4-5 0 552 5-6 0 552 6-7 161 713 7-8 35 748 8-9 209 957 9- 10 279 1,236 10 -EPZ 524 1,760 Total: 1,760 W Inset 0 -2 Miles S Figure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-21 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Exelon for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Phone calls were made to some facilities to determine the number of ambulatory and non-ambulatory persons.Table E-4 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered.

Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.

The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (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 study area 95, US-i, and US-40. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the study area during the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Federal Highway Administration to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes.The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 3 0 th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV), and are presented in Table 3-7, for each of the routes considered.

The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (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 23,872 vehicles entering the study area 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 -Fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair -which occurs on a Saturday in July. The event occurs in Delta, PA on the grounds of the Mason Dixon Fair Association.

York County emergency services indicated that 30,000 people attend the Mason Dixon Fair over a 6-day period. The peak attendance

-approximately 10,000 people -is on Saturday for the Fireworks Show. York County also indicated that approximately half of the people present for the fireworks are local residents who reside within the EPZ. Thus, the Firework Show draws an additional 5,000 transients into the EPZ. Assuming families would travel to the event together in a single vehicle, the average household size of 2.48 people per household was used to Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 3-22 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 determine the number of vehicles.

The 5,000 transients present for the event would evacuate in 2,017 vehicles (5,000 -2.48).Vehicles were loaded on local streets near the event for this scenario.

Transit buses to transport attendees to parking lots are not considered as part of this study. There are no roadway closures or special traffic control treatments in place during this event.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-23 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-7. External Traffic Traveling through the Study Area 8023 1925 1-95 North 81,723 0.091 0.5 3,718 7,436 8009 9 1-95 South 81,723 0.091 0.5 3,718 7,436 8088 1886 US-1 North 12,810 0.116 0.5 743 1,486 8027 1924 US-1 South 12,810 0.116 0.5 743 1,486 8729 1729 US-40 East 28,177 0.107 0.5 1,507 3,014 8734 1734 US-40 West 28,177 0.107 0.51,0304 IHighway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2013 2 HCM 2010 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-24 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.8 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9, respectively.

This summary includes all population groups described in this section. Additional population groups -transit-dependent, special facility and school population

-are described in greater detail in Section 8. A total of 101,152 people and 70,657 vehicles are considered in this study.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-25 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-8. Summary of Population Demand Drumore North 984 97 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 1,221 Drumore South 1,576 189 822 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,587 East Drumore 3,791 388 898 338 392 1,242 0 0 0 7,049 Fawn 3,099 53 0 84 0 1,260 0 0 0 4,496 Fawn Grove 452 8 0 63 0 936 0 0 0 1,459 Fulton East 1,408 24 0 74 0 997 0 0 0 2,503 Fulton West 1,666 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 Little Britain 4,106 475 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 4,881 Lower Chanceford North 1,885 32 701 0 0 0 70 0 0 2,688 Lower Chanceford South 1,143 19 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,302 Martic 4,465 157 1,209 0 0 374 0 0 0 6,205 Peach Bottom Central 1,462 25 48 0 0 440 0 0 0 1,975 Peach Bottom East 724 12 20 552 0 0 0 0 0 1,308 Peach Bottom West 2,627 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,672 Providence 3,996 231 0 173 0 12 0 0 0 4,412 Quarryville 2,576 44 0 35 0 489 0 0 0 3,144 West Nottingham 2,722 46 900 87 0 0 0 0 0 3,755 Zone 1 3,718 63 562 231 34 3,117 190 0 0 7,915 Zone 2 3,848 66 0 87 0 413 0 0 0 4,414 Zone 3 3,467 59 100 0 0 398 410 0 0 4,434 Zone 4 907 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 922 Zone 5 1,208 21 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 0 2,229 Zone 6 7,037 121 360 36 35 567 1,075 0 0 9,231 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 421 0 17,332 0 17,753 4Transit Dependent population includes Amish women and children.6 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-26 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-9. Summary of Vehicle Demand Delta 398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 Drumore North 463 6 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 479 Drumore South 718 14 331 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,063 East Drumore 1,781 28 572 338 53 54 0 0 0 2,826 Fawn 1,695 4 0 84 0 50 0 0 0 1,833 Fawn Grove 246 0 0 63 0 38 0 0 0 347 Fulton East 772 2 0 74 0 36 0 0 0 884 Fulton West 764 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 778 Little Britain 1,887 32 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 1,939 Lower Chanceford North 1,041 2 553 0 0 0 6 0 0 1,602 Lower Chanceford South 628 2 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 731 Martic 2,373 10 933 0 0 12 0 0 0 3,328 Peach Bottom Central 802 2 24 0 0 14 0 0 0 842 Peach Bottom East 395 0 9 552 0 0 0 0 0 956 Peach Bottom West 1,439 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,443 Providence 2,044 16 0 173 0 2 0 0 0 2,235 Quarryville 1,413 2 0 35 0 16 0 0 0 1,466 West Nottingham 1,497 4 363 87 0 0 0 0 0 1,951 Zone 1 2,033 4 227 231 5 122 14 0 0 2,636 Zone 2 2,111 4 0 87 0 16 0 0 0 2,218 Zone 3 1,903 4 41 0 0 14 28 0 0 1,990 7 Vehicles with boat trailers and RVs are counted as two passenger vehicles.8 Vehicles for medical facilities include wheelchair vans, ambulances and buses. Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.9 School buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

10 Day Camp buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-27 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Zone4 498 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 Zone 5 664 2 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 734 Zone 6 3,861 8 162 36 10 18 74 0 0 4,169 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 9,419 23,872 33,309-II I L-19I131I Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 3-28 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)Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 4-1 KLD 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: Qcapm 3600) x -( -L (3 6 )x 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)Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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, h~n = fm (hsat, Fl, F2 ...)where: hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F 1 ,F 2 = The various known factors influencing hm fM() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ...The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F 1 , F 2 , ... 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 > 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, F 1 , F 2 ,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5)of the HCM 2010.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 4.3 Application to the PBAPS 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 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 I", 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 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 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).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm A Vf R vc lNOWKegimes I S mph: Free Forced:_------------------

I Ir I I I I* i veIIsitv.vpm I k 0 Opt k 5 Figure 4-1. Fundamental Diagrams Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 1 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 391 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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"e c " vt is to n 1->-2 Receive Notification 1 2 -- 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 1 AMl 2 3 Af 4 Residents Residents-m=w 1 2 W IqW 5 O Households wait for Commuters 1 Households without Commuters and households who do not wait for Commuters 5 W-M MW (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at midday; year round I Residents, Transients away from Residence 1 A90 2 As 4 Ada 5 Ak Return to residence, then evacuate--b~ I-Lw W w Residents, Transients at Residence 1 2 5 Residents at home;transients evacuate directly (b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the 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 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate Activities Consume Time 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 "[s]pecial 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 Elase Tim Pecn of (Mnues Pouato Notifie 0 0%5 7%10 13%15 27%20 47%25 66%30 87%35 92%40 97%45 100%Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 -> 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.0Cumulative

-Percent 0 0%15 64%30 88%45 95%60 97%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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Cumuativ 0 0%15 43%30 70%45 87%60 96%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 survey. This are provided directly by those households which responded to distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate E ~I1SLILOE Cumula ~tiOve(f the telephone 0 0%20 25%40 65%60 85%90 95%120 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) telephone survey conducted in 2008. SSES is also in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, only 92 miles north of PBAPS. 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~F.I¶~SEU p[1~hEEEhh ChumJpulativ.

e i f 0 0%15 40%30 73%45 82%60 90%75 94%90 95%105 97%120 99%135 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Mobilization Activities 100%U 0.0 40.S a, 4.CuL E 0 U.2 41 CL 0.0 a-0.80%60%40%20%-Notification

-Prepare to Leave Work-Travel Home-Prepare to Leave Home-Clear Snow 0%0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)105 120 135 Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Appl "Smig Alorth To Ditibto Obaie Even Define 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 5-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Distrbto Descriptio 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 <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

3) Some high values are representative and plausible, and one must not cut them as part of the consideration of outliers.The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered "outliers" for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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% -70.0%60.0%50.0%2 40.0%S30.0%E 10.0%0.0%LA Li. L'i LA Lq Lq LA Lq Lq Lq LA LA LA LAi LA LA (N r, (Nj r, r4 r, "N P, (N r11 (N r1 r, (N r, "N.-4 -4 (N "N m mA t LA LA o 0w mO -Center of Interval (minutes)-Cumulative Data --Cumulative Normal Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two key aspects, both very important in loading a network to estimate evacuation times: Most of the real data is to the left of the "normal" curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;The last 10-15% of the real data "tails off" slower than the comparable "normal" curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.Because these two features are important to preserve, it is the histogram of the data that is used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. One could consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve is unambiguous and preserves these important features;7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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. Zones comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Zones 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 Zones beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region.2. The population in the Shadow Region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending to approximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Zones comprising the2 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Appendix 20 of Annex E of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Emergency Plan states that the Pennsylvania Fish and boat Commission establishes and operates waterway access control points as required.

The following river access control points are identified within the study area: York Furnace Access along the west shore of the Susquehanna River at South River Drive off Accomac Road; Urey Island along the east shore of the Susquehanna River located near Pequea Borough. Attachment F2 of the Cecil County Emergency Plan states that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources will support Maryland State Police access control operations by restricting access of water craft along waterways through the establishment and maintenance of ACPs.Cecil County Emergency Plan states that The Department of Natural Resources notifies State Parks, and boaters of protective actions in the evacuation of waterways and that the Emergency Medical Service Coordinator does the same with other recreational facilities.

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 <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes. It is assumed that this 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 5-17 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 100 A..2 80 4-M M bI I~l.S 60 0 C 0 a,n CL 0 E 20 a,I IU a)Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients

-Residents with Commuters

-Residents with no Commuters-Res with Comm and Snow -Res no Comm with Snow 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Peren of T--tal Tip Generated Within~~ InicatedI'I" Time Prio Resident Resident [Res, .] -Residents

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .wtWihuCom erWithu Time~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ Duain Epoes Tasins Cmues Cmuer nw CmuesSo Peio (M n (Dsrbto A) (itiuinA0Dsrbto ) (itiuinD Dsrbto ) (itiuinF 1 15 4%4%0%1%0%0%2 15 27% 27% 0% 10% 0% 1%3 15 39% 39% 2% 20% 0% 7%4 15 20% 20% 7% 24% 2% 14%5 15 6% 6% 12% 20% 4% 18%6 15 2% 2% 17% 12% 9% 18%7 15 2% 2% 17% 5% 13% 13%8 15 0% 0% 15% 4% 14% 9%9 15 0% 0% 11% 2% 14% 7%10 30 0% 0% 13% 2% 22% 8%11 30 0% 0% 5% 0% 12% 4%12 30 0% 0% 1% 0% 6% 1%13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%14 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 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.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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.M 80 CU M CU*60 20 CL 0.[zoo,---.0, 1(0001ýI LOOF j i///1/ .10 /0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 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 5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 1 1b MU UW1 U7o U7o 2 15 0% 2% 0% 0%3 15 0% 4% 0% 2%4 15 2% 5% 0% 2%5 15 2% 4% 1% 4%6 15 4% 2% 2% 4%7 15 3% 1% 3% 2%8 15 59% 78% 2% 2%9 15 11% 2% 3% 1%10 30 13% 2% 67% 78%11 30 5% 0% 12% 4%12 30 1% 0% 6% 1%13 30 0% 0% 3% 0%14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%*Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Un-staged and Staged Evacuation.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power 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 Zones 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 34 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Zones considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6-1 through Table 6-3. The Zone 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 R12) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R13 through R24). Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively.

Regions R25 through R34 are identical to Regions R02 and R04 through R12, respectively; however, those Zones between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2-mile region (Region R01) has evacuated.

Generally, each Zone that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region. There are instances when a small portion of a Zone is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone would not be included in the Region. There may also be a case wherein a Zone is not within the keyhole; however, it is completely surrounded by Zones that are within the keyhole (see Regions R08 and RiO in Table 6-1). Under these circumstances, the Zone that is surrounded would also be included.A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 34 x 14 = 476 evacuation cases. Table 6-4 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated.

Table 6-5 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each Scenario.Table 6-6 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 6-5, while the regional percentages are provided in Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 6-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table H-1 through Table H-3. The percentages presented in Table 6-5 were determined as follows: The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is the product of 55% (the number of households with at least one commuter -see Figure F-3) and 50% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating

-see Figure F-5) which equals 28%. 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 (100%) during summer weekends since all transient facilities are open and operational.

Transient activity during the week in the summertime is estimated to be 65% of the weekend peak. Transient activity is estimated to be less during winter weekends and weekdays, 35% and 25%, respectively, due to the large number of parks and golf courses within the EPZ that are closed during winter months.Campgrounds and the one lodging facility are the only facilities offering overnight accommodations.

Based on the percentage of the total EPZ transients at these facilities, transient activity during the evening is estimated to be 35% in the summer and 10% in the winter.As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6-5, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 6 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 6-6 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows: 20% x + 1,690 21%2 8,708 + 22,718) =One special event -Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair -was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 6-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 It is assumed that day camps are only open during the summer; thus, 100% of day camp buses will be needed for all summer scenarios.

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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions RO1-R12)Region Description-Mile Full Evacuate 2-Mile Radius and Downwind to 5 Miles RegionDescription:

Ring Ring EPZ Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07I ROB R09 RIO R1I R12 Wind Direction Toward: Zone Delta N/A N/A N/A N, NE, E, W NNE ENE ESE, SSE SSW, WSW W NW NNW SE SW I I x x Drumore North I I 1 1 t 1 Drumore South_ m East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South Martic Peach Bottom Central Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 x Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone(s) Shelter-in-Place Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because it Is surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13-R24)Region

Description:

Evacuate 5-Mile Radius and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 RIS R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 Wind Direction Toward: Zone Delta Drumore North Drumore South East Drumore Fawn N, NE ENE E,ESE SE SSE S, SI W WNW NW NNW NNE SSW WSW I I I Fawn Grove i Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South Martic Peach Bottom Central Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham I I~rn I__I I I ~ I I M I -Zone 1 Zone 2 I I I I I Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 7nni:- 1 I I I I I I I I I Zone(s) Shelter-in-Place Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-3. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R25-R34)Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 ES 5-Mile N, NE, E W, W, Wind Direction Toward: Ring NESE, SSE SSW, WSW NW NNW Ring NNE ENE SSWWNW SE SW o Zone ../ .Drumore North Drumore South East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South f t t I_____ 4 ______ ______ ______Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. PBAPS EPZ Zones Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-4. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 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 Winter Midweek, Evening Good None 12 Weekend Midweek, Fireworks at 13 Weekend Mason Dixon Fair Single Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-1 Northbound 1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn). Summer assumes that school is not in session.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-5. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 1 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%2 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%3 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%4 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%5 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%6 28% 72% 100% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%7 28% 72% 100% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%8 28% 72% 100% 25% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%9 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%10 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%11 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%12 3% 97% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%13 3% 97% 10% 35% 20% 100% 100% 0% 100% 40%14 28% 72% 96% 65% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%Resident Households with Commuters

........ Households of EPZ residents who await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.Resident Households with No Commuters...

Households of EPZ residents who do not have commuters or will not await the return of commuters prior to beginning the evacuation trip.Employees

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

EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients

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

People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (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.Day Camp, School, and Transit Buses ...........

Vehicle-equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing day camps, 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 <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the evacuation begins.Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-9 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-6. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario 1 8,708 22,718 1,690 2,155 9,926 -220 41 166 23,872 69,496 2 8,708 22,718 1,690 2,155 9,926 -220 41 166 23,872 69,496 3 871 30,555 176 3,316 9,472 -220 -166 23,872 68,648 4 871 30,555 176 3,316 9,472 -220 166 23,872 68,648 5 871 30,555 176 1,161 9,472 -220 -166 9,549 52,170 6 8,708 22,718 1,760 829 9,947 -410 166 23,872 68,410 7 8,708 22,718 1,760 829 9,947 -410 166 23,872 68,410 8 8,708 22,718 1,760 829 9,947 -410 166 23,872 68,410 9 871 30,555 176 1,161 9,472 -166 23,872 66,273 10 871 30,555 176 1,161 9,472 -166 23,872 66,273 11 871 30,555 176 1,161 9,472 -166 23,872 66,273 12 871 30,555 176 332 9,472 ---166 9,549 51,121 13 871 30,555 176 1,161 9,472 2,017 220 -166 9,549 54,187 14 8,708 22,718 1,690 2,155 9,926 -220 41 166 23,872 69,496 Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03)Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Evacuation Time Estimate 6-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0