Text

(Vcsns), Unit 1 - 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Evacuation Time Estimates
	ML22215A271
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	08/02/2022
From:	Lippard G; Dominion Energy South Carolina
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	22-186
	Download: ML22215A271 (366)
	v • d • e

V.C. Summer Nuclear Station

~ Dominion Bradham Blvd & Hwy 215 , Jenki nsvi lle, SC 29065 Mai ling Address:

P.O. Box 88, Jen kin sville, SC 29065 ,

iiiiii" Energy Domin ionEnergy.com August 2, 2022 Attn: Document Control Desk Serial No.22-186 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission VCS UC/HK/Rev 0 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12 DOMINION ENERGY SOUTH CAROLINA (DESC)

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION (VCSNS) UNIT 1 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX E, EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES Pursuant to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV, Paragraph 4, Dominion Energy South Carolina (DESC) submits the enclosed evacuation time estimate (ETE) studies for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS).

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Williamson at (803) 345-4464 .

Sincerely, .

~~

Site Vice President V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Enclosure Commitments contained in this letter: None cc: (Without Enclosures Unless Indicated)

G. J. Lindamood - Santee Cooper L. Dudes - NRC Region II G. Miller - NRC Project Mgr.

NRC Resident Inspector

VC Summer Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates EP100 Appendix 5 Work performed for Dominion Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com May 05, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1232

EP100 Appendix 5 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The VC Summer Nuclear Station Location ................................................................................. 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Schools and Licensed Day Care Centers..................................................................................... 34 3.7 Transit Dependent Population Demand Estimate ..................................................................... 35 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 37 3.9 Special Events............................................................................................................................. 37 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 38 3.11 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.12 Summary of Demand ................................................................................................................. 39 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the VCSNS Study Area ........................................................................................ 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 57 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................... 59 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 VC Summer Nuclear Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Licensed Day Care Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Generations of Chapin (Medical Facility) ............................................................................................... 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ................................................................. 88 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS ........................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers .................................................................................................................... 102 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B1 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................................ E0 E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 F.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ F5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations ................................................................................................. G1 VC Summer Nuclear Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 APPENDIX H............................................................................................................................................... H0 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 APPENDIX K ................................................................................................................................................ K0 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 APPENDIX L ................................................................................................................................................ L0 Protective Action Zone (PAZ) Boundaries .......................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped VC Summer Nuclear Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 List of Figures Figure 11. VCSNS Site Location ............................................................................................................... 112 Figure 12. VCSNS LinkNode Analysis Network ...................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 31. PAZ Comprising the VCSNS EPZ ............................................................................................. 319 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 320 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 321 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 322 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 323 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 324 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 325 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 326 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 327 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................. 515 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities .................................................... 516 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 517 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions ....................................................................... 518 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................................................... 519 Figure 61. Protective Action Zones Comprising the VCSNS EPZ ............................................................... 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 716 Figure 72. VCSNS Shadow Region ........................................................................................................... 717 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................................... 718 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 719 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 720 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 50 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 721 Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ....................................................... 722 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ....................................................... 722 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ....................................................... 723 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 ..................................................... 723 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 ..................................................... 726 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 ................................................... 726 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 ................................................... 727 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 ................................................... 727 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 ................................................... 728 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 ................................................... 728 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ....................................................................... 819 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes within the VCSNS EPZ ................................................................. 106 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 107 Figure 103. General Population Reception and School Reception Centers ........................................... 108 VC Summer Nuclear Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface ........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network .......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................. C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) ..................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ...................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E6 Figure E2. Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ .............................................................................. E7 Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................. E8 Figure E4. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E9 Figure E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ......................................................................................... E10 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ........................................................................................................ F6 Figure F2. Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................................... F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ....................................................................... F7 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households ..................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F8 Figure F6. Commuters per Households in the EPZ ................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ...................................................................................................... F9 Figure F8. Commuter Impacted by COVID19 ........................................................................................ F10 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F10 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................ F11 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating ...................... F11 Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F12 Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals .......................................................................... F12 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work ........................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Work to Home Travel Time .................................................................................................. F13 Figure F16. Preparation Time to Leave Home ........................................................................................ F14 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points (TACPs) for the VCSNS EPZ ............................................... G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H12 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H21 VC Summer Nuclear Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20. Region R20.......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21. Region R21.......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H22. Region R22.......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23. Region R23.......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24. Region R24.......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25. Region R25.......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H26. Region R26.......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H27. Region R27.......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H28. Region R28.......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H29. Region R29.......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H30. Region R30.......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H31. Region R31.......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure H32. Region R32.......................................................................................................................... H35 Figure H33. Region R33.......................................................................................................................... H36 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ............................... J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8) .................................. J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ............ J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11) ............................. J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................................................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ................................................................................................................ J13 Figure K1. Overview of Link Node Analysis ............................................................................................... K2 Figure K2. Grid 1 ....................................................................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. Grid 2 ....................................................................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. Grid 3 ....................................................................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. Grid 4 ....................................................................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. Grid 5 ....................................................................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. Grid 6 ....................................................................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. Grid 7 ....................................................................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. Grid 8 ..................................................................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. Grid 9 ................................................................................................................................... K11 Figure K11. Grid 10 ................................................................................................................................. K12 Figure K12. Grid 11 ................................................................................................................................. K13 VC Summer Nuclear Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K13. Grid 12 ................................................................................................................................. K14 Figure K14. Grid 13 ................................................................................................................................. K15 Figure K15. Grid 14 ................................................................................................................................. K16 Figure K16. Grid 15 ................................................................................................................................. K17 Figure K17. Grid 16 ................................................................................................................................. K18 Figure K18. Grid 17 ................................................................................................................................. K19 Figure K19. Grid 18 ................................................................................................................................. K20 Figure K20. Grid 19 ................................................................................................................................. K21 Figure K21. Grid 20 ................................................................................................................................. K22 Figure K22. Grid 21 ................................................................................................................................. K23 Figure K23. Grid 22 ................................................................................................................................. K24 Figure K24. Grid 23 ................................................................................................................................. K25 Figure K25. Grid 24 ................................................................................................................................. K26 Figure K26. Grid 25 ................................................................................................................................. K27 Figure K27. Grid 26 ................................................................................................................................. K28 Figure K28. Grid 27 ................................................................................................................................. K29 Figure K29. Grid 28 ................................................................................................................................. K30 Figure K30. Grid 29 ................................................................................................................................. K31 Figure K31. Grid 30 ................................................................................................................................. K32 Figure K32. Grid 31 ................................................................................................................................. K33 VC Summer Nuclear Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 310 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAZ ............................................................ 310 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 311 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 312 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 312 Table 37. School Population Demand Estimates .................................................................................... 313 Table 38. Licensed Day Care Centers Population Demand Estimates .................................................... 314 Table 39. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 315 Table 310. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary ............................................................ 315 Table 311. VCSNS EPZ External Traffic .................................................................................................... 316 Table 312. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 317 Table 313. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 318 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities ............................................................................... 510 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public .............................................................................. 510 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work .................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................. 511 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ...................................................... 512 Table 56. Mapping Distributions to Events............................................................................................. 512 Table 57. Description of the Distributions .............................................................................................. 512 Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation .................... 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation .......................... 514 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................. 66 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ............................ 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................ 711 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ......................... 713 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ....................... 714 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 715 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 810 Table 82. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............. 811 Table 83. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain.............................. 812 Table 84. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice ................................ 814 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................... 815 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ........................................................... 816 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice .............................................................. 816 VC Summer Nuclear Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 88. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather .................................... 817 Table 89. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ..................................................... 817 Table 810. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice...................................................... 817 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Evacuation Time Estimates .............................................. 818 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 103 Table 103. School/Licensed Day Care Center Reception Centers .......................................................... 105 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ......................................................... C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ............................................................................ C9 Table C3. Glossary ...................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ ................................................................................ E3 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E4 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E4 Table E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E5 Table F1. VC Summer Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ...................................................................... F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. The ETE with No MTC .............................................................................................................. G3 Table H1. Percent of PAZ Population Evacuating for Each Region .......................................................... H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ............................ J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change ....................................... M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 VC Summer Nuclear Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ACRONYM LIST Table 1. Acronym List ACRONYM DEFINITION AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ANS Alert and Notification System ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CR County Road COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household I Interstate ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MTC Manual Traffic Control NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization VC Summer Nuclear Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ACRONYM DEFINITION PAR Protective Action Recommendation PAZ Protective Action Zone pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center SB Southbound SR State Route SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TACP Traffic and Access Control Point TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation US US Highway VCSNS VC Summer Nuclear Station vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WB Westbound VC Summer Nuclear Station AL2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Dominion Energy and state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

Project Activities This project began in February, 2021 and extended over a period of about 14 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Dominion Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

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

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ from Dominion Energy and phone calls directly to General Information Services. (The percent of nonEPZ is from the previous study, as current data was not available.)

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

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Dominion Energy and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, and special facilities (schools, licensed day care centers, medical facility) gathered for the 2012 ETE study were reviewed and either confirmed or updated accordingly by the OROs. If updated information was not provided and could not be obtained from online sources/phone calls directly to the facility, data gathered in the 2012 ETE study was assumed still accurate for this study.

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

Following federal guidelines, the existing 13 Protective Action Zones (PAZ) within the EPZ were grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 33 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R33).

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain, Ice). One special scenario, Labor Day Parade in Chapin, was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on eastbound Interstate (I)26 from Columbia Avenue (Exit 91) to State Route 60 (Exit 102A/B) for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions where the 2Mile Region and sectors downwind to 5 miles were evacuated.

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

A rapidly escalating accident at the VCSNS that quickly assumes the status of a general emergency wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the Alert and Notification System (ANS).

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

If the emergency occurs while schools or licensed day care centers are in session, the ETE study assumes that the school/day care children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers located outside the EPZ and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at these facilities will be picked up by parents or relatives prior to the arrival of the buses. The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided by the counties in the EPZ. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated by bus, wheelchair transport vehicle, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transit dependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from Generations of Chapin (a medical facility).

Attended final virtual meeting with Dominion Energy personnel and the OROs to present results of the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 462 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 33 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (33 x 14 = 462). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that are compliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), then simulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

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

Traffic Management This study reviewed, modeled and analyzed the comprehensive existing traffic management plans provided by the counties within the EPZ, and the South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Site Specific Plan, Part 3). Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic and access control points have been identified as a result of this study. Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G.

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

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

Table 61 defines each of the 33 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of PAZ.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 71 and Table 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90% and 100% of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region. These tables also include ETE results for staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R02 and R04 through R11 are compared to Regions R25 through R33, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72.

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

Table 82 presents the ETE for the children at schools and licensed day care centers in good weather.

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

Table 88 presents ETE for the medical facility population (Generations of Chapin) in good weather.

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 61 displays a map of the VCSNS EPZ showing the layout of the 13 PAZs that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Figure H7 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R07) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 462 unique cases - a combination of 33 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Tables 71 and 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. The 90th percentile ETE range from 2:05 (hr:min) to 3:15. The 100th percentile ETE range from 5:00 to 5:10 and are dictated by trip mobilization of residents (i.e., the time it takes to prepare to evacuate plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary).

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

The population centers of Chapin (PAZ D2), White Rock and Irmo in the Shadow Region display the most congestion during the evacuation for Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather conditions) for the full EPZ. US Highway (US) 76 eastbound (just north of Irmo), exhibits the last of the traffic congestion within the EPZ. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 76.

The comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday with good weather) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the Special Event - Labor Day Parade in Chapin - has no impact to the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the roadway impact (a single lane closure on I26 eastbound) has no impact on the 90th percentile ETE for all Regions except for Region R03 and Regions R18 through R22.

During an evacuation of Region R03 and Regions R18 through R22, the 90th percentile ETE increases at most by 40 minutes. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional information.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicate that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond the 2Mile Region (compare Regions R02, R04 through R11 with Region R25 through R33, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 30 minutes (see Table 71) for the 90th percentile ETE and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their VC Summer Nuclear Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 evacuation. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation is not recommended for the VCSNS EPZ.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, licensed day care centers, medical facility (Generation in Chapin), transitdependent persons, and access and/or functional needs persons. The average (singlewave) ETE for schools and licensed day care centers, transit dependent people and medical facility (Generations of Chapin) are at most 50 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for the general population during Scenario 6 (winter, midweek, midday with good weather) conditions except for the 90th percentile ETE for the access and/or functional needs population. The average single wave 90th percentile ETE for the access and/or functional needs population is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 minutes greater than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient transportation resources available to evacuate the school and licensed day care center, transit dependent people, patients, and access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ in a single wave. As such, second wave ETE would likely not apply for this site. A second wave ETE is presented for the transit dependent people in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers. See Section 8.

A reduction or addition of base trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 15 to 30 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , since trip generation time within the EPZ dictates 100th percentile ETE. See Appendix M.1 and Table M1.

The general population ETE is minimally impacted when reducing the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. The 90th and 100th percentile ETE are significantly impacted to increases in the shadow evacuation percentage. For example, the 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE increases by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 30 minutes and 1 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes, respectively, during an evacuation of the entire (100%) Shadow Region.

See Appendix M and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 62% or greater result in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes for the full EPZ (Regions R03), which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Appendix M.3 and Table M3.

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAZ 2010 Population 2020 Population A0 220 178 A1 395 363 A2 618 538 B1 341 242 B2 382 307 C1 411 362 C2 1,515 1,338 D1 2,214 3,217 D2 3,908 4,987 E1 536 482 E2 1,997 2,130 F1 202 241 F2 1,436 1,469 EPZ TOTAL 14,175 15,854 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 11.84%

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind Degree PAZ Region Description From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R01 2Mile Region 0° 359° X R02 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ 0° 359° X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R04 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R05 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R06 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R07 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R08 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R09 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R10 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R11 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R12 S 168.8° 191.3° X X X X R13 SSW 191.3° 213.8° X X X X X R14 SW 213.8° 236.3° X X X X X X R15 WSW 236.3° 258.8° X X X X X X R16 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X X X R17 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X X X R18 NNW 326.3° 348.8° X X X X X X R19 N 348.8° 11.3° X X X X X X R20 NNE 11.3° 33.8° X X X X X R21 NE 33.8° 56.3° X X X X X R22 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X X X R23 ESE 101.3° 123.8° X X X X R24 SE, SSE 123.8° 168.8° X X X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R25 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R26 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R27 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R28 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R29 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R30 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R31 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R32 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R33 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenarios Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Labor Day 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Parade in Chapin Roadway Impact: Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I26 Eastbound 1

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R02 2:45 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:35 2:45 R03 2:45 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:35 3:15 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 R05 2:55 2:55 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:55 R06 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:50 R07 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:40 R08 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:35 R09 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:25 R10 2:30 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 R11 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:40 2:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 3:00 R13 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 3:00 R14 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:05 R15 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 3:00 R16 2:55 2:55 2:45 2:45 2:45 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:55 R17 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:45 3:00 R18 2:30 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:40 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 3:10 R19 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 3:15 R20 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 3:15 R21 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 3:10 R22 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:35 R23 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 R24 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R25 3:00 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 3:00 R26 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R27 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R28 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R29 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 R30 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:50 R32 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 R33 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R13 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R15 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R16 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R17 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R18 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R19 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R21 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R22 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R23 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R24 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R25 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R26 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R27 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R28 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R29 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R30 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R31 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R32 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R33 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 73. Staged Evacuation Results Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R05 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R06 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R07 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R08 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R09 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R10 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R11 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R25 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R26 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R27 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R28 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R29 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R31 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R32 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R33 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 74. Staged Evacuation Results Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R06 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R07 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R08 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R09 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R10 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R11 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R25 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R26 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R27 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R28 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R29 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R30 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R31 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R32 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R33 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 82. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

School and Licensed Day Care Center Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

FAIRFIELD COUNTY McCroreyListon School Of Technology 120 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:30 6.8 10 2:40 Kelly Miller Elementary School 120 15 1.4 44.1 2 2:20 6.9 10 2:30 McCroreyListon Child Development 120 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:30 6.8 10 2:40 Center Kelly Miller Child Development Center 120 15 1.4 44.1 2 2:20 6.9 10 2:30 Jacqueline Wylie Evacuated by Private Vehicles Jackie Chappell LEXINGTON COUNTY Chapin High School 90 15 4.8 45.0 7 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin Intermediate School 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin Elementary School 90 15 2.5 24.8 6 1:55 10.4 14 2:05 Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:05 Elaine Alewine 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:05 Abner Montessori School/Chapin 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:10 Children's Center Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin United Methodist Church 90 15 5.6 45.0 8 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 Preschool Inez's Childcare Center 90 15 5.6 45.0 8 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 NEWBERRY COUNTY Little Mountain Elementary2 90 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:00 6.0 9 2:10 Little Angels Daycare 90 15 7.1 45.0 10 1:55 6.0 9 2:05 MidCarolina High School 90 15 2.0 41.9 3 1:50 2.3 4 1:55 MidCarolina Middle School 90 15 2.0 41.9 3 1:50 2.3 4 1:55 2

The ETE computation represents the children at the Little Mountain Elementary school and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

School and Licensed Day Care Center Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

PomariaGarmany Elementary3 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 7.3 10 2:05 RICHLAND COUNTY Chapin Middle School 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Academy for Success 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Spring Hill High School 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 The Center for Advanced Technical 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Studies Sally Becker Evacuated by Private Vehicles Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 Maximum: 2:40 Average for EPZ: 2:00 Average: 2:20 3

The ETE computation represents the children at the Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave SecondWave Number Route Travel Route PAZ of Mobilization Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Serviced Buses (min) Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

A0, B1, B2 1 60 10.0 45.0 13 30 1:45 6.9 9 5 10 36 30 3:15 A1, A2 1 60 13.0 45.0 17 30 1:50 6.9 9 5 10 44 30 3:30 C1, C2 1 60 14.3 45.0 19 30 1:50 6.9 9 5 10 47 30 3:35 D1 1 150 6.7 45.0 9 30 3:10 30.9 41 5 10 59 30 5:35 D2 1 150 4.8 45.0 6 30 3:10 10.5 14 5 10 27 30 4:40 E1, E2, F1, F2 1 150 11.4 45.0 15 30 3:15 5.2 7 5 10 37 30 4:45 Maximum ETE: 3:15 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Average ETE: 2:30 Average ETE: 4:15 Table 88. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Loading EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

LEXINGTON COUNTY Generations of Ambulatory 90 1 29 29 5.3 45.0 7 2:10 Chapin Wheelchair bound Bus 90 5 25 25 5.3 45.0 7 2:55 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 2:35 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 61. VCSNS EPZ Protective Action Zones VC Summer Nuclear Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H7. Region R07 VC Summer Nuclear Station ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. This ETE study provides Dominion Energy, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

1, February 2021.

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

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

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Dominion Energy, the Fairfield, Lexington, Richland, and Newberry Counties, and South Carolina State government to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed existing county and state Emergency Operations Plans.

e. Conducted a random sample demographic survey of EPZ residents.

f. Obtained demographic data from the 2020 Census.

g. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe special facilities (i.e.,

schools/day cares and medical facilities), major employers, access and/or VC Summer Nuclear Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 functional needs populations, transportation resources available, the special event, and other important information.

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

3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios (See Section 6). These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in trip generation distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different seasons, day of week, time of day, and weather conditions.

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic and Access Control Points (TACP) located within the study area. See Section 9 and Appendix G.

5. Used existing Protective Action Zones (PAZ) to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 13 PAZs along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous PAZs for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at schools, licensed day care centers, medical facility, transit dependent people at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.

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

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

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

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

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

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each origin (location of each source where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to 1

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the plant.

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

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

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, licensed day care centers, and Generations of Chapin), for the transitdependent population and for the access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The VC Summer Nuclear Station Location The VCSNS is located on the southern shoreline of Monticello Reservoir, in Jenkinsville, Fairfield County, South Carolina. The site is approximately 17 miles westsouthwest of Winnsboro, 18 miles east of Newberry, and 25 miles northwest of Columbia. The EPZ consists of parts of Fairfield Lexington Newberry, and Richland Counties in South Carolina. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding VCSNS. This map also identifies the major population centers, and the major roads in the area, and the location of the plant relative to Winnsboro, Newberry, and Columbia.

The EPZ is predominantly rural in nature, with a permanent resident population of 15,854. It is characterized by gently rolling terrain and has good primary and secondary paved roads. There are no major concentrations of population within the EPZ, except for Chapin. Transient attraction within the EPZ includes Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, and Broad River.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In 2021, KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 12.

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

- for twolane highways. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The data from the audio and video recordings were used to create detailed geographic information systems (GIS) shapefiles and databases of the roadway characteristics and of the traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. Roadway types were assigned based on the following criteria:

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway Ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major Arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor Arterial: 2 lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local Roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2016 Exhibit 1546. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Traffic signals are either pretimed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change with the traffic volume on competing approaches) or are actuated (signal timings vary over time based on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches). Actuated signals require detectors to provide the traffic data used by the signal controller to adjust the signal timings. These detectors are typically magnetic loops in the roadway, or video cameras mounted on the signal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches. If detectors were observed on the approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings were not collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TACPs at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed in 2021 to gather information needed for the ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

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

This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transitdependent residents.

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

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

DYNEV II consists of four submodels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, IDYNEV, the following references are suggested:

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

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

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

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

DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network. This description enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures that are designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees. The effects of these countermeasures may then be tested with the model.

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR 486, dated April 2012, Rev 5). The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ for Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather) and Scenario 6 (winter, midweek, midday with good weather) increased by 20 minutes and 25 minutes, respectively, when compared with the previous ETE study. The 100th percentile ETE (dictated by the trip generation time plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) for the full EPZ increased by 15 minutes for all the scenarios. (See Table 13 final rows.)

The major factors contributing to the increase in ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study can be summarized as follows:

The permanent resident population in the EPZ has increased by 11.8%. This population increase results in in additional resident evacuating vehicles, which can increase the ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region increased by 16.1%. This population increase results in significantly more vehicles evacuating in the Shadow Region, which reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees which can increase the ETE.

Household size within the study area decreased from 2010 to the current survey (2.68 vs 2.52persons/household); resulting in additional resident evacuating vehicles. The number of resident vehicles increased by 21.6% compared to previous ETE study, due to VC Summer Nuclear Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 the increase in resident population (discussed above) and overall reduction in household size, which can increase ETE.

The number of transient population and school enrollment significantly increased by 58.7%, compared to the previous study. This results in additional evacuating vehicles within the study area, which can increase the ETE.

Note that in the previous study, major employers were considered those with 50 or more total employees, while this study considered employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift as major employers, as per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance.

As such, the number of fast mobilizing employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly (34.6%), which results in a decrease in vehicle demand, potentially decreasing the 100th percentile ETE (see Table 13) but increasing the 90th percentile ETE, as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of the general population.

Trip generation times increased by at most 60 minutes for the permanent resident (without commuter) population based on the data collected from the demographic survey. As a result, vehicles are generated over a longer period of time which can decrease local congestion decreasing the 90th percentile ETE. This trip generation increase is directly correlated with the increase of the 100th percentile ETE for all scenarios. As discussed in Section 7, there is minimal to no congestion within the EPZ and all congestion clears prior to the end of the trip generation time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) during summer, midweek, midday with good weather conditions (Scenario 1). As such, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize (plus a 10 minute travel time to the EPZ boundary).

The majority of the factors, discussed above, that can increase ETE outweigh those that can decrease the ETE, thereby explaining why the 90th percentile and the 100th percentile ETEs for the full EPZ increased for all scenarios in this study, relative to the 2012 ETE Study.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies.

Provided recent VCSNS employee data. Reviewed Dominion Energy and approved all project. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended Kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to Fairfield County Emergency Management, define data needs. Provided emergency plans and Lexington County Department of Emergency traffic management plans. Provided/confirmed Services, special facility data, transient data and special event data. Reviewed and approved all study Newberry County Emergency Management, assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development Richland County Services Department (ESD) and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended Kickoff meeting to define methodology and data requirements. Provided recent emergency plans (South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan, SCORERP South Carolina Emergency Management Division Part 3) and Basic Plan. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions and was informed of the study results. Reviewed and approved draft report. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census Resident Population blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Basis Population = 14,175 Population = 15,854 Vehicles = 7,892 Vehicles = 9,595 2.68 persons/household, 1.49 2.52 persons/household, 1.53 evacuating Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household yielding: vehicles/household yielding: 1.65 Vehicle Occupancy 1.80 persons/vehicle persons/vehicle.

Employees treated as separate Employee estimates are based on the population group. Employee estimates information by Dominion Energy and based on information provided by phone calls directly to General county emergency management offices Information Services and supplemented Employee about major employers in EPZ. 1.01 by previous study data . The values of 1.09 Population employees/vehicle is estimated based employees per vehicle based on on phone survey results. demographic survey results.

Employees = 1,158 Employees = 757 Vehicles = 1,143 Vehicles = 694 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Defined as households with 0 vehicles + and the results of the Demographic households with 1 vehicle with survey. A total of 215 people who do not commuters who do not return home + have access to a vehicle, requiring 6 buses TransitDependent households with 2 vehicles with to evacuate. An additional 91 homebound Population commuters who do not return home. special needs persons need special Telephone surveys results used to transportation to evacuate (37 require a estimate transit dependent population bus, 43 require a wheelchairaccessible (See Table 81). bus, 3 require a wheelchairaccessible van, and 8 require an ambulance).

Transient estimates are based on information provided by the counties within the EPZ the, and the previous ETE Phone calls to recreational facilities. study (confirmed or updated by the Transient Transients = 121 counties), supplemented by internet Population Vehicles = 53 searches and phone calls to specific facilities where data was missing.

Transients = 561 Vehicles = 425 Medical facility population based on Medical facility population based on information provided by Lexington information provided by Lexington County. County.

Special Facilities Medical Facility (Generations of Chapin) Medical Facility (Generations of Chapin)

Population Current census = 48 Current census = 54 Buses Required = 1 Buses Required = 1 Wheelchair Bus Required = 1 Wheelchair Bus Required = 2 Ambulances Required = 2 Ambulances Required = 0 VC Summer Nuclear Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study School population based on information provided by each county within the EPZ School population was based on and the previous ETE study (confirmed or information provided by local county updated by the counties), supplemented emergency management agencies.

School Population by internet searches and phone calls to specific facilities where data was missing.

School and licensed day care center School enrollment = 6,027 enrollment = 9,195 Buses required = 102 (204 vehicle) Buses required = 154 (308 vehicle)

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

Population 20% Population = 10,333 20% Population = 12,001 20% Vehicles = 5,747 20% Vehicles = 7,250 Network Size 1,295 Links; 944 Nodes. 1,543 Links ; 1,155 Nodes.

Roadway Geometric Field surveys conducted in May 2011.

Data Major intersections were video Field surveys conducted in February 2021.

archived. GIS shapefiles of signal Roads and intersections were video locations and roadway characteristics archived.

created during road survey. Road capacities based on HCM 2016.

Road capacities based on HCM 2010.

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Reception School Evacuation Reception Center/Host School. Center (Host School).

About 82 percent of transitdependent 50 percent of transitdependent persons persons will evacuate with a neighbor or Ridesharing will evacuate with a neighbor or friend. friend based on the results of the demographic survey.

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave leave between 45 and 285 minutes. between 60 and 300 minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning Evacuation leave between 15 and 180 minutes. leave between 30 and 240 minutes.

Employees and transients leave Employees and transients leave between between 15 and 120 minutes. 15 and 105 minutes.

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Weather Normal, Rain, or Ice. The capacity and Normal, Rain, or Ice. The capacity and free free flow speed of all links in the flow speed of all links in the network are network are reduced by 10% in the reduced by 10% in the event of rain and event of rain and 20% for ice. 20% for ice.

Modeling DYNEV II System Version 4.0.0.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 New plant construction workforce Labor Day Parade in Chapin, Lexington during peak construction year with an County outage at Unit 1.

Special Events Special Event Population = 4,200 Special Event Population = 5,000 additional employees during additional transients in Chapin during construction of new plant. Labor Day Parade.

Special Event Vehicles = 4,158 Special Event Vehicles = 1,984 30 Regions (central sector wind 33 regions (central sector wind direction direction and each adjacent sector and each adjacent sector technique used)

Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios and 14 scenarios producing 462 unique producing 420 unique cases cases.

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

Region evacuation is 90% complete Region 25 through Region 33 are staged evacuation.

ETE reported for 90th and 100th ETE reported for 90th and 100th percentile Evacuation Time percentile population. Results presented population. Results presented by Region Estimates Reporting by Region and Scenario. and Scenario.

Summer Midweek Midday Summer Midweek Midday Good weather = 2:25 Good weather = 2:45 Evacuation Time Rain = 2:25 Rain = 2:50 Estimates for the Winter Midweek Midday Winter Midweek Midday entire EPZ, 90th percentile Good weather = 2:25 Good weather = 2:50 Rain = 2:25 Rain = 2:50 Ice = 2:25 Ice = 2:50 Summer Midweek Midday Summer Midweek Midday Good weather = 4:55 Good weather = 5:10 Evacuation Time Rain = 4:55 Rain = 5:10 Estimates for the Winter Midweek Midday Winter Midweek Midday entire EPZ, 100th percentile Good weather = 4:55 Good weather = 5:10 Rain = 4:55 Rain = 5:10 Ice = 4:55 Ice = 5:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 11. VCSNS Site Location VC Summer Nuclear Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 12. VCSNS LinkNode Analysis Network VC Summer Nuclear Station 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of the evacuation time estimates (ETE).

2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions

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

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by Dominion Energy, the counties within the EPZ, phone calls to facilities, and the old data from the previous study, where data was not available (see Section 3.4).

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics website2, State Office of the Department of Social Services, and the previous ETE study (confirmed or updated by the counties), supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to specific facilities where data was missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on the results of the recent, randomsample demographic survey (see Appendix F). Average values of 2.52 persons per household (Figure F1) and 1.53 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F10) are used for permanent resident population.

5. On average, the relationship between persons and vehicles for transients (see Section 3.3) and the special event (see Section 3.9) are as follows:

a. Parks: 2.17 people per vehicle

b. Campgrounds: 1.19 people per vehicle

c. Marinas: 2.59 people per vehicle.

d. Golf Course: 1.35 people per vehicle

e. Special Events: 2.52 people per vehicle (the average household size)

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

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. The value of 1.09 employees per vehicle is used in the study (See Figure F7). In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average.

1 www.census.gov 2

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp VC Summer Nuclear Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 45 mph, based on South Carolina state laws3 for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

8. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in 2021 (verified by aerial imagery), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following4 (as per NRC guidance):

a. Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced coincident with the Alert and Notification System (ANS).

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

c. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the center of the containment building 34°17'54.6"N, 81°18'54.4"W.

3. The DYNEV II5 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c067.php 4

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.

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

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various stages of an emergency. See Section 5.1 for more detail.

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

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

10. The ETE also include consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region (see Section 3.10).

11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period. Rather, there is a 45minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 3.11).

12. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumed a 25 percent (%) reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

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

3. Commuter percentages (and the percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 60% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F6); 58% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F11). Therefore, 35% (60%

x 58% = 34.8%, rounded up to 35%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions

1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 82% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

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

a. Schools and licensed day care centers

i. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated Reception Centers.

ii. Buses will evacuate children at licensed day care centers within the EPZ, as needed.

iii. For the schools and licensed day care centers that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed no school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

iv. Children at schools and licensed day care centers, if in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

b. Medical Facilities (Generations of Chapin)

i. Buses, vans, passenger cars, wheelchair accessible buses (special needs bus), wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients from the 2012 study was used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities wherein new data was not provided.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

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

ii. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, bus, or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. This is considered separately from the general population ETE, as per NRC guidance (see Section 8).

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

d. Analysis of the number of required roundtrips (waves) of evacuating transit vehicles is presented.

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for primary schools/licensed day care centers and 50 students per bus for middle/intermediate/high schools

b. Ambulatory transitdependent persons and medical facility patients = 30 persons per bus VC Summer Nuclear Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

c. Vans = 8 persons per van

d. Ambulances = 2 bedridden persons (includes advanced and basic life support)

e. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

f. Wheelchair buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons

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

a. School/licensed day care center buses arrive at these facilities to be evacuated within 120 minutes of the ATE in Fairfield County and 90 minutes of the ATE, for the Counties of Lexington, Newberry and Richland.

b. Transitdependent buses are mobilized when approximately 86% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at about 150 minutes of the ATE, for all counties within the EPZ except for Fairfield County, where 60 minutes of the ATE are used. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

c. Vehicles will arrive at medical centers to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE

d. Ambulances and wheelchair transport vehicles within Fairfield County, arrives at medical facilities or at homes of the access and/or functional needs population within 180 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. School and licensed day care center buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

c. Buses for medical facilities and the access and/or functional needs population require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.

d. Wheelchair transport vehicles require 5 minutes of loading time per passenger.

e. Ambulances are loaded in 15 minutes per bedridden passenger.

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

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

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

2. The TACPs are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. Earlier activation of the TACP locations could delay returning commuters.

It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.

3. It is assumed that all transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning TACPs.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. Labor Day Parade in Chapin, Lexington County, located in PAZ D2, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of one lane on Interstate (I)26 Eastbound from Columbia Avenue (Exit 91) to State Route (SR) 60 (Exit 102A/B) for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

2. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; ice occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or ice begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued. No weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that the appropriate agencies are clearing/treating the roads as they would normally during ice storms, and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.

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

In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, this study assumes a 10%

and 20% reduction in speed and capacity for rain and ice, respectively. These factors are shown in Table 22.

4. It is assumed that employment is reduced slightly (4% reduction) in the summer for vacations.

5. It is also assumed that mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather. It is assumed that mobilization times are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in rain and ice, respectively. It is assumed that loading times are 5 minutes and 10 minutes longer in rain and ice, respectively. Refer to Table 22.

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

7. Due to the irregular shapes of the PAZs, there are instances where a small portion of a PAZ (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the PAZ population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the PAZ is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large VC Summer Nuclear Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) document.

8. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R25 through R33 in Table 61.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenarios Season6 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Labor 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Day Parade in Chapin Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on I26 Eastbound7 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Highway Free Flow Mobilization Time for Mobilization Time Loading Time for Scenario Capacity* Speed* General Population for Transit Vehicles Transit Vehicles Rain 90% 90% No Effect 10minute increase 5minute increase Ice 80% 80% No Effect 20minute increase 10minute increase

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

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

7 A single lane on I-26 will be closed in the eastbound direction from Columbia Avenue (Exit 91) to SR 60 (Exit 102A/B).

VC Summer Nuclear Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology VC Summer Nuclear Station 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 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 (e.g., resident, employee, transient, special facilities, etc.).

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the VCSNS EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents people who are year round residents of the EPZ.

Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

Employees people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ on a daily basis.

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Protective Action Zone (PAZ) and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The VCSNS EPZ is subdivided into 13 PAZ. The PAZ comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.52 persons/household was obtained from the 2021 demographic survey See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.53 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Sub section F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey results.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the PAZ and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by PAZ, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 11.84% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size (2.52 persons/household) and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.53 vehicles/household). Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from VCSNS. This population rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities/group homes. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Figure 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 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 (i.e., shopping, recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities. Data for transient facilities was based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ and the previous ETE study (confirmed to be still accurate by the counties). The average transient vehicle occupancy rates vary by facility from 0.6 persons per vehicle to 2.7 persons per vehicle. Note, recreational vehicles (RVs) at campgrounds are treated as 2 vehicles due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

As shown in the maps in Appendix E, the VCSNS EPZ has a number of total of fourteen areas and facilities that attract transients, including Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, and Broad River that offer hunting, fishing, and boating. There is also some camping along the Broad River. Nine recreational areas, all of which offer picnicking and seven of which have boat ramps, are located in the EPZ near the Monticello and Parr Reservoirs. The remaining five areas and facilities are campgrounds, golf courses and parks within the EPZ. The transient facilities within the VCSNS EPZ are summarized as follows:

Campgrounds - 427 transients and 360 vehicles; an average of 1.19 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 27 transients and 20 vehicles; an average of 1.35 transients per vehicle Marinas - 57 transients and 22 vehicles; an average of 2.59 transients per vehicle Parks - 50 transients and 23 vehicles; an average of 2.17 transients per vehicle Table E5 in Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the VCSNS EPZ. In total, there are 561 transients, evacuating in 425 vehicles (an average of 1.32 transients per vehicle) in the EPZ during peak times. Table 34 presents the transient population and transient vehicle estimates by PAZ. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

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

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

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

There are two major employers within the VCSNS EPZ: VC Summer Nuclear Station and General Information Services. The information of these two facilities is shown in Table E4 in Appendix E.

As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as major employers. As such, the employers with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) are not considered in this study. The total number of employees into the EPZ is based upon data provided by Dominion Energy and phone calls to VC Summer Nuclear Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 General Information Services. The percent of employees commuting in the EPZ was obtained from Dominion Energy for VC Summer Nuclear Station and the old data from the previous study was used for General Information Services.

To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.09 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employers. Table 35 presents employee and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by PAZ. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Medical Facilities The VCSNS EPZ has only one medical facility - Generations of Chapin. The capacity, current census and general information for Generations of Chapin was provided by Lexington County. Table E3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Table 36 presents the census of the Generations of Chapin. A total of 54 people has been identified as living in or being treated at Generations of Chapin. As per data provided by Lexington County, there are 29 ambulatory patients and 25 patients requiring wheelchair transport.

The transportation requirements for the medical facility population are also presented in Table

36. 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 buses up to 15 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people. One bus and two wheelchair buses are required to evacuate the medical facility population, as shown in Table 36. Buses are represented as two passenger vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.6 Schools and Licensed Day Care Centers School and licensed day care center population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools and licensed day care centers within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year are presented in Table 37 and Table 38, respectively. This information was provided by local county emergency management agencies. This was supplemented with the National Center for Education Statistics1, State Office of the Department of Social Services, the previous ETE study, and phone calls to specific facilities where data was missing. The column in Table 37and Table 38 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

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

While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of these private vehicles. All high school students except some students at Chapin High School and Spring Hill High School will use school buses to evacuate. Discussions with Chapin High School and Spring Hill High School officials indicate they would permit students who drive to 1

https://nces.ed.gov/

VC Summer Nuclear Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 school to evacuate using their personal vehicles. This approach conforms to that cited in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Students at Chapin High School and Spring Hill High School who evacuate using private vehicles will drive home and unite with their parents/family and then evacuate together using the average evacuating vehicles per household obtained from the demographic survey.

Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools/licensed day care centers and 50 for middle/intermediate and high schools.

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

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

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

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

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

Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available

Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Table 39 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own VC Summer Nuclear Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 82% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimated average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x 10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 39 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 39 indicates that transportation must be provided for 40 people. Therefore, a total of 2 bus runs are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the PAZs to pick up transit dependent people, 6 bus runs are used in the ETE calculations, see Sections 8.1 and 10 for further discussion.

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

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

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 6,291 0.147 1.61 1 0.597 0.416 0.457 2.42 2 0.597 0.416 215 1 0.82 30 0.18 215 30 2 These calculations are explained as follows:

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

The approximate number of HH is 6,291.

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

The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (14.7%), who are at home, equal (1.61 1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (6,291 x VC Summer Nuclear Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 0.147 x 0.61 x 0.597 x 0.416), as 59.7% of EPZ households have a commuter 41.6% of which would not return home in the event of an emergency. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms.

The members of HH with 2 vehicles that are away (45.7%), who are at home, equal (2.42 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 6,291 x 0.457 x 0.42 x (0.597 x 0.416)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

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

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Based on data provided by the counties within the EPZ, there are an estimated 45 access and/or functional needs people within the Richland County, 24 people within the Newberry County, 14 people within the Lexington County, and 8 people within the Fairfield County who are within the EPZ and require transportation assistance to evacuate.

Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people were received from Lexington and Fairfield County directly. The breakdown of the type of access and/or functional needs population within Richland and Newberry Counties was not available. It is assumed that the percent breakdown used for Lexington and Fairfield Counties will be used for Richland and Newberry Counties as well. This results in 37 ambulatory persons, 46 wheelchair bound persons and 8 bedridden persons for a total access and/or functional needs population of 91 people. A total of 5 buses (capacity of 30 ambulatory persons per bus), 6 wheelchair buses (capacity of 15 wheelchair bound persons per wheelchair bus), 1 wheelchair van (capacity of 4 wheelchair bound persons per van) and 4 ambulances (capacity 2 bedridden persons per ambulance) for a total number of 16 vehicles deployed. Table 310 shows the total number of people registered for access and/or functional needs by type of need. The table also estimates the number of transportation resources needed to evacuate these people in a timely manner.

Buses and wheelchair buses needed to evacuate the special needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.9 Special Events Several special events were discussed through emails with VCSNS and the OROs. The events that were considered include:

Events at Baltic Circle - 1,000 attendees The 10k Charity Run at Palmetto Trail - Several hundred participants Dutch For Football Game (outside of the EPZ) - 1,000 to 3,000 attendees Labor Day Parade in Chapin - 10,000 attendees Event at MidCarolina Middle and High Schools - No attendance data provided.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Based on discussions with VCSNS and OROs, the Labor Day Parade in Chapin, Lexington County, located in PAZ D2, was chosen as the special event (for Scenario 13) in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, because it has the largest transient population. This event occurs annually in September on Labor Day.

Based on the data received from Lexington County, the total attendance for the event is approximately 10,000 people. It is estimated that 50% of these people are local residents and were subtracted out to avoid double counting. This results in 5,000 people who are additional transients present in the EPZ during the Labor Day Parade. It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; and based on the demographic survey the average household size of 2.52 was used as the vehicle occupancy, which results in 1,984 (5,000/2.52 = 1,984) vehicles.

Temporary road closures are used for the parade portion of the festival, but all roadways could be quickly reopened in the event of an emergency. It is assumed that the roads would be re opened by the time transients at the event gather their belongings and return to their vehicles to begin their evacuation trip. Vehicles were loaded at the General Information Services parking lot and at local streets near the event for this scenario. Public transportation to transport attendees to parking lots are not provided and are not considered as part of this study.

3.10 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - US Highway (US) 76, US 176, and US 321, as well as Interstate (I)26. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from 2019 was obtained from the South Carolina Department of Transportation website2 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour (vph) on the aforementioned routes. The 2020 AADT data was available, but it was not used in this study due to the significant decrease in traffic on these highways caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vph. The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 311, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months since traffic and access control points (TACPs) are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE, to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 11,944 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the TACP and the diversion of this 2

https://scdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=7420aa1f39d84400a6d7e8cdaacc89cd#

VC Summer Nuclear Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12), as discussed in Section 6.

3.11 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 58, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ. Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.

This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of Time Period 1. Rather, there is a 45minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 2,523 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, with good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is summarized in Table 312 and Table 313, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 43,462 people and 32,218 vehicles are considered in this study.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population PAZ 2010 Population 2020 Population A0 220 178 A1 395 363 A2 618 538 B1 341 242 B2 382 307 C1 411 362 C2 1,515 1,338 D1 2,214 3,217 D2 3,908 4,987 E1 536 482 E2 1,997 2,130 F1 202 241 F2 1,436 1,469 EPZ TOTAL 14,175 15,854 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 11.84%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by PAZ 2020 2020 Population PAZ Resident Vehicles A0 178 108 A1 363 221 A2 538 327 B1 242 148 B2 307 185 C1 362 219 C2 1,338 811 D1 3,217 1,956 D2 4,987 3,001 E1 482 291 E2 2,130 1,290 F1 241 147 F2 1,469 891 EPZ TOTAL 15,854 9,595 VC Summer Nuclear Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 191 116 NNE 58 36 NE 833 508 ENE 6,204 3,706 E 1,063 646 ESE 915 555 SE 5,168 3,141 SSE 22,074 13,279 S 11,302 6,865 SSW 5,238 3,177 SW 1,556 945 WSW 2,256 1,363 W 2,047 1,245 WNW 916 553 NW 81 49 NNW 104 64 TOTAL 60,006 36,248 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles PAZ Transients Transient Vehicles A0 0 0 A1 44 17 A2 27 10 B1 12 20 B2 0 0 C1 0 0 C2 350 240 D1 0 0 D2 12 10 E1 65 100 E2 25 18 F1 26 10 F2 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 561 425 VC Summer Nuclear Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ PAZ Employees Employee Vehicles A0 286 262 A1 0 0 A2 0 0 B1 0 0 B2 0 0 C1 0 0 C2 0 0 D1 0 0 D2 471 432 E1 0 0 E2 0 0 F1 0 0 F2 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 757 694 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Munici Wheel Bed Wheel Current Ambu chair ridde Bus chair Bus Ambulance PAZ Facility Name pality Capacity Census latory Bound n Runs Runs Runs LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC Generations D2 Chapin 64 54 29 25 0 1 2 0 of Chapin Lexington County Subtotal: 64 54 29 25 0 1 2 0 TOTAL: 64 54 29 25 0 1 2 0 VC Summer Nuclear Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 37. School Population Demand Estimates Buses PAZ Schools Enrollment Required FAIRFIELD COUNTY A2 McCroreyListon School of Technology 135 2 C2 Kelly Miller Elementary School 221 4 Fairfield County Subtotal: 356 6 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 Chapin High School3 1,552 18 D2 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 45 1 D2 Chapin Intermediate School 811 17 D2 Chapin Elementary School 874 13 Lexington County Subtotal: 3,282 49 NEWBERRY COUNTY E2 Little Mountain Elementary 428 7 E2 MidCarolina High School 738 15 E2 MidCarolina Middle School 557 12 F2 PomariaGarmany Elementary 347 5 Newberry County Subtotal: 2,070 39 RICHLAND COUNTY D1 Chapin Middle School 976 20 D1 Academy for Success 125 3 D1 Spring Hill High School3 1,135 12 D1 The Center for Advanced Technical Studies 313 7 Richland County Subtotal: 2,549 42 SCHOOLS TOTAL: 8,257 136 3

There are 700 and 550 high school students that drive to Chapin High School and Spring Hill High School, respectively. Discussions with high school officials indicate they would permit students to evacuate the school using their personal vehicles. The remaining 852 students at Chapin High School and 585 students at Spring Hill High School will require buses to evacuate.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 38. Licensed Day Care Centers Population Demand Estimates PAZ Licensed Day Care Centers Enrollment Buses Required FAIRFIELD COUNTY A2 McCroreyListon Child Development Center 20 1 B2 Jacqueline Wylie4 6 0 B2 Jackie Chappell4 6 0 C2 Kelly Miller Child Development Center 40 1 Fairfield County Subtotal: 72 2 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 70 1 D2 Elaine Alewine 6 1 D2 Abner Montessori School/Chapin Children's Center 246 4 D2 Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 332 5 D2 Chapin United Methodist Church Preschool 50 1 D2 Inez's Childcare Center 52 1 Lexington County Subtotal: 756 13 NEWBERRY COUNTY E2 Little Angels Daycare 44 1 E2 Little Mountain Elementary 20 1 F2 PomariaGarmany Elementary 40 1 Newberry County Subtotal: 104 3 RICHLAND COUNTY 4

D1 Sally Becker 6 0 Richland County Subtotal: 6 0 DAY CARE CENTERS TOTAL: 938 18 4

Children from Jacqueline Wylie ,Jackie Chappell, and Sally Becker day care centers will be transported by personal vehicles and a bus is not provided.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 39. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average Survey Percent HH Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population 2020 with Indicated Estimated with Indicated No. Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring EPZ No. of Vehicles No. of of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 15,854 0 1.61 2.42 6,291 0 14.7% 45.7% 59.7% 41.6% 215 82% 40 0.3%

Table 310. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Population Group Population Vehicles deployed RICHLAND, NEWBERRY, AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES Ambulatory 37 5 buses 35 5 wheelchair buses Wheelchair Bound 3 1 wheelchair van Bedridden 8 4 ambulances FAIRFIELD COUNTY Wheelchair Bound 8 1 wheelchair buses Total: 91 16 VC Summer Nuclear Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 311. VCSNS EPZ External Traffic Upstream Node Downstream Node Road Name Direction SCDOT AADT5 KFactor6 DFactor6 Hourly Volume External Traffic 8363 363 I26 Eastbound (EB) 53,200 0.091 0.50 2,421 4,842 8824 824 I26 Westbound (WB) 53,200 0.091 0.50 2,421 4,842 8401 401 US176 Eastbound (EB)7 4,700 0.136 0.25 160 320 8827 827 US176 Westbound (WB) 4,700 0.136 0.50 320 640 8813 957 US76 Eastbound (EB) 4,700 0.136 0.25 160 320 8664 664 US321 Northbound (NB) 3,600 0.136 0.50 245 490 8470 470 US321 Southbound (SB) 3,600 0.136 0.50 245 490 TOTAL: 11,944 5

2019 Traffic Counts. https://scdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MinimalGallery/index.html?appid=7420aa1f39d84400a6d7e8cdaacc89cd#

6 HCM 2016 7

AADT for US-176 is assumed equal to AADT for US-76 VC Summer Nuclear Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 312. Summary of Population Demand8 Transit Special Schools and Day Special Shadow External PAZ Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Care Centers Event Population9 Traffic Total A0 178 2 0 286 0 0 0 0 0 466 A1 363 2 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 409 A2 538 0 27 0 0 155 0 0 0 720 B1 242 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 B2 307 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 319 C1 362 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 C2 1,338 0 350 0 0 261 0 0 0 1,949 D1 3,217 8 0 0 0 2,555 0 0 0 5,780 D2 4,987 13 12 471 54 4,038 5,000 0 0 14,575 E1 482 11 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 558 E2 2,130 0 25 0 0 1,787 0 0 0 3,942 F1 241 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 267 F2 1,469 0 0 0 0 387 0 0 0 1,856 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,001 0 12,001 Total 15,854 40 561 757 54 9,195 5,000 12,001 0 43,462 8

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 313. Summary of Vehicle Demand10 Schools and Transit Medical Day Care Special Shadow External PAZ Residents Dependent11 Transients Employees Facility11 Centers11 Event Population12 Traffic Total A0 108 2 0 262 0 0 0 0 0 372 A1 221 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 A2 327 0 10 0 0 6 0 0 0 343 B1 148 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 B2 185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185 C1 219 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 C2 811 0 240 0 0 10 0 0 0 1,061 D1 1,956 2 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 2,042 D2 3,001 2 10 432 6 124 1,984 0 0 5,559 E1 291 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 E2 1,290 0 18 0 0 72 0 0 0 1,380 F1 147 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 F2 891 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 903 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,250 11,944 19,194 Total 9,595 12 425 694 6 308 1,984 7,250 11,944 32,218 10 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.

11 Buses (including transit-dependent buses, wheelchair buses, school/day care center buses) represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 31. PAZ Comprising the VCSNS EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector VC Summer Nuclear Station 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY The ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining how rapidly an evacuation can be completed. The capacity of a road is defined as the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016). This section discusses how the capacity of the roadway network was estimated.

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

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

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

This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. As indicated there, the SV varies with Free Flow Speed (FFS), and LOS. The SV is calculated by the DYNEV II simulation model, based on the specified link attributes, FFS, capacity, control device and traffic demand.

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

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

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

Weather conditions (rain, 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 (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of 1

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 10 mph to 75 mph in the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the HCM 2016. For example, HCM 2016 Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).

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

As discussed in Section 2.6 it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and often, also increase vehicletovehicles separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6 we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and ice, 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 atgrade intersections where flow can be interrupted by a control device or by turning or crossing traffic at the intersection. Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacity must be made for each section. Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by the addition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacity of the approach due to the factors there that can interrupt the flow of traffic. These additional lanes are recorded during the field survey and later entered as input to the DYNEV II system.

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. See Appendix G for more information.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The perlane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:

3600 3600 where:

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

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

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

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat

, F1, F2, VC Summer Nuclear Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV II simulation model by a mathematical model2. The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

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

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

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

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

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

2 Lieberman, E., "Determining Lateral Deployment of Traffic on an Approach to an Intersection", McShane, W. & Lieberman, E.,

"Service Rates of Mixed Traffic on the far Left Lane of an Approach". Both papers appear in Transportation Research Record 772, 1980. Lieberman, E., Xin, W., Macroscopic Traffic Modeling for Large-Scale Evacuation Planning, presented at the TRB 2012 Annual Meeting, January 22-26, 2012.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

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

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

Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as uninterrupted flow facilities. (This is in contrast with urban street systems which have closely spaced signalized intersections and are classified as interrupted flow facilities.) As such, traffic flow along rural roads is subject to the same effects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting in queuing and lower QDF rates. As a practical matter, rural roads rarely break down at locations away from intersections. Any breakdowns on rural roads are generally experienced at intersections where other model logic applies, or at lane drops which reduce capacity there. Therefore, the application of a factor of 0.90 is appropriate on rural roads, but rarely, if ever, activated.

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free flow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on 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 HCM 2016. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity 3

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 would be limited by the "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed below.

4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the study area. The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h. The HCM 2016 procedures then estimate LOS and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand:

capacity relations.

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

Most sections of twolane roads within the study area 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 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 12 Exhibit 128 of the HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,300 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 70 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area, service traffic VC Summer Nuclear Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas.

4.3.3 Freeways Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 10, 12, 13, 14 Chapter 10 of the HCM 2016 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained in Chapters 12, 13 and 14, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components. Chapter 10 also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.

Chapter 12 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for Basic Freeway Segments". Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

PerLane Capacity (pc/h): 2,250 2,300 2,350 2,400 The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, freespeeds and capacity based on field observations. The simulation logic calculates actual timevarying speeds based on demand:

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

Chapter 13 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacity, speed, density and LOS for freeway weaving sections. The simulation model contains logic that relates speed to demand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 13 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weaving segment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).

Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016 presents procedures for estimating capacities of ramps and of "merge" areas. There are three significant factors to the determination of capacity of a ramp freeway junction: The capacity of the freeway immediately downstream of an onramp or immediately upstream of an offramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximum flow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is the controlling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 1410 of the HCM 2016 and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Ramp capacity is presented in Exhibit 1412 and is a function of the ramp FFS. The DYNEV II simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic in accord with the procedures in Chapter 14 of the HCM 2016. If congestion results from an excess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to the two entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM 2016 does not address LOS F explicitly).

VC Summer Nuclear Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

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

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

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

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

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing a study area operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM 2016 - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2016 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation VC Summer Nuclear Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier.

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

4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area.

However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on twolane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals outside the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams VC Summer Nuclear Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) recommends that the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Section C of Part IV of Appendix E of 10 CFR 50 for details):

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

4. General Emergency At each level, the Federal guidelines specify a set of Actions to be undertaken by the licensee and by the state and local offsite agencies. As a Planning Basis, we will adopt a conservative posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, that a rapidly escalating accident at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly and no early protective actions have been implemented will be considered in calculating the Trip Generation time. We will assume:

1. The Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) will be announced coincident with the Alert and Notification System (ANS).

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

3. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

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

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

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency. For example, suppose one hour elapses from the Wireless Emergency Alert (in the form of text messages with unique tones and vibration) to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the Wireless Emergency Alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcasted. Thus, VC Summer Nuclear Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this 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 and notification systems (ANS) available within the EPZ (e.g. Integrated Public Alert and Warning SystemWireless Emergency Alert (IPAWSWEA), Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts in radio (WCOSFM 97.5, WTCBFM 106.7, WLTRFM 91.3) and televisions/News Media, loudspeakers and horns).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 316 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/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

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

As indicated in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from surveys of the EPZ residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted in February 2021 in support of this ETE study for this site. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained, documents the survey instrument utilized, and provides the survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the ETE to extend well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 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 Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work 4 Arrive Home 5 Depart on Evacuation Trip Associated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined in Table 51.

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 51. A household within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work and will await their return before beginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 51(a). A household within the EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, will follow the second sequence of Figure 51(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.

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

It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e., the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next.

Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain VC Summer Nuclear Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 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) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states, Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100% of the population within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ who may not have received the initial notification.

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of the ANS within the EPZ, it is assumed that 87 percent of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 30 minutes with the remainder notified within the following 15 minutes. The notification distribution is provided in Table 52. The distribution is plotted in Figure 52.

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.

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

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 56 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 57 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say four hours and 4 say six or more hours.

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternatives to consider:

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

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to be considered outliers for the component mobilization activities, using a method that objectively quantifies the process.

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

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

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

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 56, Table 57);

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

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

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.0 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 3.5 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. Values more than 3.3 standard deviations from the mean were removed for Distribution 4 (Prepare to Leave Home).

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

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 a) Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; b) The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions for each population group considered. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - travel home from work follows preparation to leave work, preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter, 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 and D, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 58 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

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

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

1. Protective Action Zones (PAZs) comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

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

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

5. The population between the 5Mile Region Boundary to EPZ boundary shelters in place.

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in PAZs in the 2 to 5Mile Region will shelterinplace and then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region, with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.

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

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

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

a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the PAZs comprising the 2Mile Region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results is scenariospecific.

It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

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

i. The nonshelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios, however, that was not the case for this site.

NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, uses the statement approximately 90th percent as the time to end staging and begin evacuating. The value of TScen* is 2:25 for all scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).

3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters Figure 55 and Table 59 present the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters and employees/transients; the 90th percentile 2Mile Region evacuation time is 145 minutes for all scenarios, on average. At TScen*, approximately 20% of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area.

These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Figure 55 and Table 59 provides the trip generation for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas The Basic Plan (December 2020), South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan (SCORERP), indicates that the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) will coordinate the clearance of all lakes and waterways within the 10mile EPZ.

The VCSNS Site Specific plan (December 2020), Part 3 of the SCORERP states that the SCDNR will alert persons boating or fishing on Lake Monticello along portions of the Broad River.

SCDNR officers will initiate alert and clearing efforts on the lake and river as needed.

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating general emergency. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes which is consistent with the FEMA REP Manual. Table 58 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles or campground facilities, pack their belongings and begin their evacuation trip.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities Event Sequence Activity Distribution 12 Receive Notification 1 23 Prepare to Leave Work 2 2,3 4 Travel Home 3 2,4 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public Elapsed Time Percent of (Minutes) Population Notified 0 0.0%

5 7.1%

10 13.3%

15 26.5%

20 46.9%

25 66.3%

30 86.7%

35 91.8%

40 96.9%

45 100%

VC Summer Nuclear Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Employees Elapsed Time Percent Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 35 88.7%

5 27.4% 40 92.0%

10 47.3% 45 94.2%

15 65.8% 50 94.7%

20 75.1% 55 95.1%

25 77.2% 60 99.2%

30 85.6% 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 Dont know responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0 40 80.6%

5 3.3% 45 89.9%

10 10.3% 50 94.6%

15 23.3% 55 96.7%

20 36.7% 60 98.4%

25 49.5% 75 99.6%

30 60.2% 90 100%

35 70.7%

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0 120 82.3%

15 3.1% 135 91.6%

30 18.4% 150 92.0%

45 32.6% 165 93.3%

60 52.3% 180 94.9%

75 66.7% 195 99.1%

90 72.3% 210 99.3%

105 75.4% 225 100%

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

Table 56. Mapping Distributions to Events Apply Summing Algorithm To: Distribution Obtained Event Defined Distributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3 Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4 Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5 Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5 Table 57. Description of the Distributions Distribution Description Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also A applies 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).

C 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).

VC Summer Nuclear Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents with Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 5% 5% 0% 0%

2 15 29% 29% 0% 2%

3 15 37% 37% 0% 9%

4 15 17% 17% 2% 14%

5 15 7% 7% 4% 17%

6 15 4% 4% 8% 16%

7 15 1% 1% 12% 10%

8 15 0% 0% 14% 6%

9 30 0% 0% 23% 12%

10 30 0% 0% 15% 7%

11 30 0% 0% 10% 4%

12 30 0% 0% 6% 3%

13 30 0% 0% 4% 0%

14 30 0% 0% 2% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 1-2) using Distribution C for good weather. Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period2 Residents Residents with Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 0% 0%

2 15 0% 0%

3 15 0% 2%

4 15 0% 3%

5 15 1% 3%

6 15 2% 4%

7 15 2% 2%

8 15 3% 1%

9 30 23% 26%

10 30 47% 52%

11 30 10% 4%

12 30 6% 3%

13 30 4% 0%

14 30 2% 0%

15 600 0% 0%

2 Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-8) is the same for Un-Staged and Staged Evacuation.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip VC Summer Nuclear Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Mobilization Activities 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

Notification Prepare to Leave 40% Work Travel Home Prepare Home 20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities VC Summer Nuclear Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution VC Summer Nuclear Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Trip Generation Distributions Employees/Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters 100 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 80 60 40 20 0

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

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions VC Summer Nuclear Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters 100 80 Percent of Population Evacuating 60 40 20 0

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

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region VC Summer Nuclear Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 6 EVACUATION CASES An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario. The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Protective Action Zones (PAZs), that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the Emergency Planning Zone (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 33 Regions were identified which encompass all the groupings of PAZs considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The PAZ configurations are identified in Figure 61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R11) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R12 through R24).

Regions R01, R02, and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R25 through R33 are geographically identical to Region R02 and Regions R04 through R11, respectively; however, those PAZs between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 14 x 33 = 462 evacuation cases. Table 62 provides a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population group and the vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and Appendix E are peak values. These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Regionspecific percentages, such that the population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the Region percentages are provided in Table H1.

Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each Scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the Scenario percentages in Table 63. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 35%, which is the product of 60% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F6) and 58.4% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Figure F11). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters (35%) will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 3% (10% x 35% = 3.5%, rounded to 3%) of households overall.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 It can be argued that the estimate of permanent residents overstates, somewhat, the number of evacuating vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert that some portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travel elsewhere. A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:

Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a period over the summer.

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

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer weekends and is less (70%) during the week. As shown in Appendix E, Table E5, the majority of transients use campgrounds offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ, offset by the other transit facilities in which evening use is minimal; thus, transient activity is estimated to be relatively high during the summer hours - 75% for evening. The recreational areas in the EPZ (shown in Table E5) are predominantly outdoors and will be frequented more often during the summer than the winter. As a result, transient activity during winter weekends is estimated to be 30%

and less during the week (15%). Since nearly all parks and marinas are closed during the evenings in the winter, transient activity is estimated to be 20%.

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 7 in Section 2.2); 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 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

666 20% 1 21%

3,338 6,257 One special event - Labor Day Parade in Chapin - was considered as Scenario 13, during the summer, weekend, midday, with good weather. Thus, the special event traffic is 100%

evacuated for Scenario 13 and 0% for all other scenarios.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Schools and licensed day care centers are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evening, thus no buses to evacuate school/day care children are needed under those circumstances.

Buses for the transitdependent population and patients at Generations of Chapin are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population and Generations of Chapin patients are present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be 100% for all midday scenarios, while it is significantly less (40%) during the evening scenarios.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind Degree PAZ Region Description From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R01 2Mile Region 0° 359° X R02 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ 0° 359° X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R04 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R05 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R06 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R07 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R08 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R09 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R10 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R11 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R12 S 168.8° 191.3° X X X X R13 SSW 191.3° 213.8° X X X X X R14 SW 213.8° 236.3° X X X X X X R15 WSW 236.3° 258.8° X X X X X X R16 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X X X R17 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X X X R18 NNW 326.3° 348.8° X X X X X X R19 N 348.8° 11.3° X X X X X X R20 NNE 11.3° 33.8° X X X X X R21 NE 33.8° 56.3° X X X X X R22 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X X X R23 ESE 101.3° 123.8° X X X X R24 SE, SSE 123.8° 168.8° X X X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R25 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R26 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R27 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R28 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R29 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R30 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R31 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R32 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R33 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenarios Season1 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Ice None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Ice None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Labor Day 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Parade in Chapin Roadway Impact: Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on I26 Eastbound 1

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special School Medical Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Buses Facility Buses Traffic 1 35% 65% 96% 70% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

2 35% 65% 96% 70% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

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

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

5 3% 97% 10% 75% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 40%

6 35% 65% 100% 15% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 35% 65% 100% 15% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 35% 65% 100% 15% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

10 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

11 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

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

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

14 35% 65% 96% 70% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

School, Medical, and Transit Buses ............ Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, licensed day care centers (except those evacuated in personal passenger vehicles), medical facility, and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic ............................ Traffic passing through the EPZ on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately two (2) hours after the evacuation begins.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Residents Residents Total with without Special School Medical Transit External Scenario Scenarios Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Buses3 Facility Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 3,337 6,258 666 298 7,612 0 31 6 12 11,944 30,164 2 3,337 6,258 666 298 7,612 0 31 6 12 11,944 30,164 3 334 9,261 69 425 7,250 0 0 6 12 11,944 29,301 4 334 9,261 69 425 7,250 0 0 6 12 11,944 29,301 5 334 9,261 69 319 7,250 0 0 6 12 4,778 22,029 6 3,337 6,258 694 64 7,612 0 308 6 12 11,944 30,235 7 3,337 6,258 694 64 7,612 0 308 6 12 11,944 30,235 8 3,337 6,258 694 64 7,612 0 308 6 12 11,944 30,235 9 334 9,261 69 128 7,250 0 0 6 12 11,944 29,004 10 334 9,261 69 128 7,250 0 0 6 12 11,944 29,004 11 334 9,261 69 128 7,250 0 0 6 12 11,944 29,004 12 334 9,261 69 85 7,250 0 0 6 12 4,778 21,795 13 334 9,261 69 425 7,250 1,984 0 6 12 11,944 31,285 14 3,337 6,258 666 298 7,612 0 31 6 12 11,944 30,164 2

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

3 The school bus estimates do not include the personal passenger vehicles from Jacqueline Wylie ,Jackie Chappell, and Sally Becker day care centers, as they are already considered in the general population.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 61. Protective Action Zones Comprising the VCSNS EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C, and D. These results cover 33 Evacuation Regions within the VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

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

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

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Protective Action Zones (PAZs) for which an Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate.

Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some permanent residents from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.

The ETE for the VCSNS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20% of permanent residents located in PAZs outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.

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

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

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 60,006 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, including externalexternal traffic (see Section 3.10), traveling away from the plant location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

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

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

VC Summer Nuclear Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

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

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

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

5. The population between the 5Mile Region boundary to EPZ boundary shelters in place.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

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

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

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

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

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

Spatial extent measures describe the areas affected by LOS F conditions. These include measures such as the back of queue and the identification of the specific intersection approaches or system elements experiencing LOS F conditions.

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

At 35 minutes after the ATE, Figure 73 displays the developing congestion within the population centers of Chapin (PAZ D2), White Rock and Irmo in the Shadow Region. In addition, minimal delays (LOS B and LOS C) are located on Highway US (US) 76 and Interstate VC Summer Nuclear Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 (I)26 as external traffic continues before Traffic and Access Control Points (TACP) are established. A stop sign exists at the intersection of Bradham Avenue and County Road (CR) 215, causing minimal delays (LOS B) within the 2Mile Region, as plant employees and some permanent residents without commuters access CR 215, which clears 15 minutes later at 50 minutes after the ATE. At this time, approximately 41% of employees/transients and 2% of permanent residents without commuters have mobilized and 14% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 displays significant congestion (LOS F) along US 76 eastbound within White Rock, and north of Irmo, as additional evacuees from PAZ D2 and the Shadow Region begin evacuating. Significant congestion also occurs on State Road S 40286 southbound as evacuees approach a signalized intersection to gain access to US 76 eastbound. Minimal congestion (LOS C) exists on US 176 as vehicles access onramps (which acts as bottlenecks) to I26. Congestion (LOS D) is now visible on State Route (SR) 6 as evacuees on US 76 choose SR 6 as an alternate evacuation route. I26 within the EPZ operates at LOS B and LOS C except at the onramp locations. US 76 westbound displays some delays (LOS B) as the speed limits reduce from 55 mph to 35 mph, when entering the population center of Prosperity. At this time, approximately 66% of evacuees have mobilized and 55% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE, the congestion within the EPZ area clears and is now operating at a LOS A, as shown in Figure 75. Therefore, any evacuees who depart after this time encounters no traffic congestion or delays within the EPZ. Congestion has cleared on I26 but delays exist as vehicles try to access I26 from US 176 and SR 60/Lake Murray Road.

Significant congestion (LOS F) persists within the Shadow Region on portions of US 76 southeast of White Rock and US 176 northwest of Irmo, as more permanent residents begin to evacuate and are further delayed by approaching a signalized intersection with N Woodrow Street. Minor delays continue on US 76 westbound within Prosperity. At this time, approximately 92% of evacuees have mobilized and 89% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 50 minutes after the ATE, approximately 99% of evacuees have mobilized and 98% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ. This indicates that the trip generation plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary (5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months and 10 minutes) is dictating the 100th percentile ETE. Figure 76 displays the last of the congestion (LOS B) which exists only on US 76 just north of Irmo (within the Shadow Region), which clears 15 minutes later at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 5 minutes after the ATE.

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

As indicated in Figure 77 through Figure 720, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to the mobilization and not congestion (low population demand). Vehicles VC Summer Nuclear Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 33 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

The animation snapshots described in Section 7.3 reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure

76. There is no traffic congestion within the EPZ except along US 76 located in PAZ D2, northwest of Irma and on Bradham Avenue within PAZ A0, which results in ETE values which parallel the mobilization time; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

VC Summer Nuclear Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The 2Mile Region (Region R01) consists of mostly plant employee vehicles and a small percentage (1.1%) of permanent resident vehicles. The congestion within this region is mostly based on the plant employees and some permanent residents evacuating on Bradham Boulevard, to gain access to CR 215. Even though employees mobilize quickly (within 105 minutes), the permanent residents with commuters take much longer to mobilize (300 minutes), as shown in Figure 54. As such, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region (R01) ranges between 2:05 (hours:minutes) and 2:35 for all scenarios, which mimics the combination of the quick mobilizing employees and the slow mobilizing permanent residents with commuters.

The 5Mile Region (Region R02) has no congestion within the Region (except the delays within the 2Mile Region, already discussed above). Region R02 consists of 26.7%

transient/employee vehicles and 7.3% permanent resident vehicles (i.e., higher than Region R01), which increases the mobilization time (see Figure 54 - mobilization time is longer for permanent residents than for employees/transients). As a result, the 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 ranges between 2:35 and 2:50.

The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (Region R03) are up to 25 minutes longer than for Region R02. The 90th percentile ETE ranges between 2:35 and 3:15 for all scenarios.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and Scenarios parallel mobilization time, as the minimal congestion within the EPZ dissipates (no speed and capacity reductions exist) after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE, as displayed in Figure 76 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 5:00 to 5:10 (mobilization time plus 10 minutes to travel out of the EPZ).

Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the Special Event -

Labor Day Parade in Chapin - has no impact to the 90th percentile ETEs. The additional 1,984 transient vehicles considered for the special event will increase congestion and the number of transients locally in Chapin, Lexington County, but due to the excess capacity to service the additional evacuating demand, traffic congestion within the EPZ still clears before the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary). As a result, the 100th percentile ETE are not impacted by the special event.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the roadway impact

- a single lane closure on I26 eastbound from the interchange with Columbia Avenue (Exit 91) to the interchange with SR 60 (Exit 102A/B) has no impact on the 90th percentile ETE for all Regions except for Region R03 and Regions R18 through R22. During an evacuation of Region R03 and Regions R18 through R22, the 90th percentile ETE increases at most by 40 minutes.

Minor congestion is visible on I26 eastbound or from roads accessing I26 within PAZ D2 and/or PAZ E1 as well as outside of the EPZ. As such, the closure of a single lane on I26 eastbound reduces the roadway capacity, prolonging traffic congestion. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R25 through R33 are geographically identical to Regions R02 and Regions R04 through R11, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile Region can be significantly reduced (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) without significantly impacting people beyond the regions between 2 miles and 5 miles. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region remains the same or increases by at most 30 minutes when a staged evacuation is implemented for all Scenarios. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, there is little to no congestion between the 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region. For the 2Mile Region, the 100th percentile ETE remains the same, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R02 and R04 through R11 are compared to Regions R25 through R33, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 30 minutes (see Table 71) for the 90th percentile and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization tripgeneration rate or evacuating vehicles.

This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2 miles from the plant.

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

Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

Day of Week Midweek Weekend

Time of Day Midday Evening VC Summer Nuclear Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

Weather Condition Good Weather Rain Ice

Special Event Labor Day Parade in Chapin

Roadway Impact A single lane closure on I26 eastbound from Columbia Avenue (Exit 91) to SR 60 (Exit 102A/B).

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

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

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

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

The seasons are defined as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Regions R02, R04 through R11)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R12 through R24)

Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the VC Summer Nuclear Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 distance that the selected Region extends from the plant. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the table.

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, August 10th at 10:00 PM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).

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

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

A staged evacuation is not desired Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the NE and read Region R21 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R21. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R21; it contains the ETE value of 2:25.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R02 2:45 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:35 2:45 R03 2:45 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:35 3:15 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 R05 2:55 2:55 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:55 R06 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:50 R07 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:40 R08 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:25 2:35 R09 2:25 2:30 2:20 2:25 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 2:25 R10 2:30 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 2:30 R11 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:40 2:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:50 3:00 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 3:00 R13 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:50 3:00 R14 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:05 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:05 R15 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 3:00 R16 2:55 2:55 2:45 2:45 2:45 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:55 R17 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:45 3:00 R18 2:30 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:40 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 3:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R19 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 3:15 R20 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:40 2:25 3:15 R21 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:40 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:20 2:25 2:25 2:40 2:20 3:10 R22 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:25 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:10 2:35 R23 2:15 2:15 2:10 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:10 2:15 R24 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:20 2:20 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:15 2:15 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R25 3:00 3:00 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 3:00 R26 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R27 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R28 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R29 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 2:55 R30 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:55 2:50 2:55 2:55 2:50 2:50 2:55 3:00 2:50 2:50 R32 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 3:00 2:55 2:55 R33 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R12 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R13 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R15 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R16 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R17 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R18 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R19 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R21 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R22 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R23 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R24 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R25 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R26 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R27 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R28 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R29 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R30 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R31 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R32 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R33 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 VC Summer Nuclear Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:20 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R05 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R06 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R07 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R08 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 2:15 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:15 R09 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R10 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 R11 2:05 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R25 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R26 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R27 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R28 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R29 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:55 2:35 R31 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R32 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 R33 2:10 2:15 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:10 VC Summer Nuclear Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Ice Rain Ice Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R06 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R07 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R08 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R09 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R10 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R11 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R25 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R26 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R27 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R28 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R29 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R30 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R31 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R32 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R33 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Wind Degree PAZ Region Description From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R01 2Mile Region 0° 359° X R02 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ 0° 359° X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R04 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R05 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R06 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R07 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R08 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R09 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R10 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R11 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R12 S 168.8° 191.3° X X X X R13 SSW 191.3° 213.8° X X X X X R14 SW 213.8° 236.3° X X X X X X R15 WSW 236.3° 258.8° X X X X X X R16 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X X X R17 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X X X R18 NNW 326.3° 348.8° X X X X X X R19 N 348.8° 11.3° X X X X X X R20 NNE 11.3° 33.8° X X X X X R21 NE 33.8° 56.3° X X X X X R22 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X X X R23 ESE 101.3° 123.8° X X X X R24 SE, SSE 123.8° 168.8° X X X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R25 5Mile Region 0° 359° X X X X X X R26 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° X X X R27 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° X X X X R28 W 258.8° 281.3° X X X R29 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° X X R30 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° X X X R31 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° X X R32 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° X X X R33 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° X X X PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology VC Summer Nuclear Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 72. VCSNS Shadow Region VC Summer Nuclear Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 50 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

18 16 14 Vehicles Evacuating 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

25 20 Vehicles Evacuating 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

18 16 14 Vehicles Evacuating 12 10 (Thousands) 8 6

4 2

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

30 25 Vehicles Evacuating 20 15 (Thousands) 10 5

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

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair transport vehicles and ambulances).

The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, licensed day care centers, and medical facility (Generations of Chapin); and access and/or functional needs population.

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

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc. An ambulance is treated as one pc.

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

Specifically:

Bus drivers must be alerted They must travel to the bus depot They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. Based on discussion with offsite agencies and as discussed in item 4ad of Section 2.4, it is estimated that bus mobilization time for schools and licensed day care centers (located within Lexington, Newberry and Richland Counties) will average approximately 90 minutes extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated. Bus mobilization time will average approximately 120 minutes after the ATE for schools and licensed day care centers located within the Fairfield County. It is assumed transit dependent buses and access and/or functional needs vehicles are mobilized when about 86% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization activities at 150 minutes after the ATE, for all counties within the EPZ except Fairfield County. In Fairfield County, transit dependent buses are mobilized in 60 minutes after the ATE, while wheelchair transport vehicles and ambulances for access and/or functional needs population are mobilized within 180 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively.

Transport vehicles for Generations of Chapin patients will mobilize within 90 minutes of the ATE.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. Reception center for schools, licensed day care centers, and for general population within each Protective Action Zone (PAZ) are based on the 2022 Emergency Planning Information Calendar (public VC Summer Nuclear Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 information calendar) disseminated to residents of the VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). As per public information calendar school children will be taken to the reception center if an evacuation were ordered, and that parents should pick school children up at the reception center. Emergency Alert System (EAS) stations will give information for changes or new instructions.

As discussed in item 2a of Section 2.2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating event. Based on the information provided by the offsite agencies, children at licensed day care centers will be transported by buses or private vehicles. For licensed day care centers that evacuate by private vehicle or staff vehicle (see Table 38) no buses are considered to avoid double counting vehicles.

This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)

Estimate time to perform all transit functions

Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

8.1 ETEs for Schools, Licensed Day Care Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Generations of Chapin (Medical Facility)

The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating school children (if schools and licensed day care centers are in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception center after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave providing transportation service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population are calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. The number of available transportation resources were provided by the offsite agencies. Table 81 summarizes the capacity of transportation resources. Also included in the table is the transportation resource capacity needed to evacuate schools, licensed day care centers, the transitdependent population, and the access and/or functional needs (discussed below in Section 8.2). There are sufficient bus resources available to evacuate the school children and transitdependent population in the EPZ in a single wave. Furthermore, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent population should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive along the transit routes.

Evacuation of Schools and Licensed Day Care Centers Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or licensed day care center to be evacuated. As previously stated, it is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers (within Lexington, Newberry and Richland County) would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools or licensed day care centers. Bus mobilization time would be 120 minutes for schools or licensed day care centers located within Fairfield County. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes in rain and 110 minutes in ice conditions. For rain and ice cases, mobilization time would be 130 and 140 minutes, respectively for Fairfield County school buses.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4 and 2.6, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain and 25 minutes for ice) for school and licensed day care center buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools and licensed day care centers (located within Lexington, Newberry and Richland County) are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the ATE - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather.

Fairfield County school and licensed day care center buses would be ready to begin evacuation trips at 135 minutes after the ATE (120 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time). The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school or licensed day care center being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school or licensed day care to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Section 10 in Table 10 2 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes or 130 to 135 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

VC Summer Nuclear Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

. . 60 .

. 1 .

60 .

1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools and licensed day care centers in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84. To comply with state bus speed regulations, the computed speeds are restricted to 45 mph, 40 mph (about 10% decrease), and 35 mph (about 20% decrease) for good weather, rain and ice, respectively. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the Reception Center was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain and ice, respectively.

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain), and Table 84 (ice) present the following ETEs (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools or day care centers in the EPZ:

(1) The elapsed time from the ATE until the bus exits the EPZ; and (2) The elapsed time until the bus reaches the Reception Center or Host School.

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 120 min.+ 15 + 11 = 2:30 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes for McCroreyListon School Of Technology in good weather).

The average ETE for schools and day care centers are 50 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for the general population during Scenario 6 conditions (2:50 - 2:00 = 0:50) in good weather. Hence, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the Reception Center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using geographic information system (GIS) software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively, are applied for this activity for buses servicing the schools and day care centers in the EPZ.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

A detailed computation of the transit dependent people is discussed in Section 3.7. The total number of transit dependent people per PAZ was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. The PAZs that were determined to have very few transitdependent person were grouped and a bus route was assigned. The six (6) bus routes utilized in this study were designed by KLD to service a single or group of PAZ. These routes are described in Table 101 and mapped in Figure 102. Those buses servicing the transit dependent evacuees will first travel along major evacuation routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. It is assumed that residents will walk to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 150minutes bus mobilization time (good weather).

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), 86%

of the evacuees will complete their mobilization when the buses begin their routes at approximately 150 minutes after the ATE. The residents taking longer to mobilize are assumed to rideshare with a friend or neighbor. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather -

160 minutes in rain and 170 minutes in ice conditions to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity. In Fairfield County, drivers mobilized 60 minutes after the ATEin good weather; 70 minutes after the ATE in rain and 80 minutes after the ATE in ice condition.

The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Each route has one bus that departs at 150 minutes (60 minutes for bus routes within Fairfield County) after the ATE. Table 85 (good weather), Table 86 (rain), and Table 87 (ice) show the ETE breakdown for each step in the transitdependent evacuation process.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

For multiple stops along a major evacuation route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point.

The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e., pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

VC Summer Nuclear Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Assigning reasonable estimates:

B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop

v = 25 miles per hour (mph) = 37 feet/second (ft/sec)

a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain resulting in 40 minutes of pickup time per bus and 50 minutes in ice.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school and licensed day care center evacuation, where they are restricted to 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETE for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively. For example, the ETE for the bus serviced PAZ D1 is computed as 150 + 9 + 30 = 3:10 for good weather (rounded to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 9 minutes is the time to travel 6.7 miles at 45.0 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 150 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 30 minutes) for the transit dependent population does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6). Hence, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

The ETE for a second wave (discussed below) is presented in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using geographic information system (GIS) software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph, 40 mph, and 35 mph for good weather, rain, and ice, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

For a secondwave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit VC Summer Nuclear Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to the start of its route and proceeds to pick up more transit dependent evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.

The second wave ETE for the bus route servicing PAZ D2 (for example) is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at reception center at 3:24 in good weather (3:10 to exit EPZ + 14minute travel time to reception center).

Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.

Bus returns to EPZ, drives to the start of the route and completes second route: 14 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 13 minutes (4.8 miles @ 45 mph

[assumed speed since bus is traveling against traffic] + 4.8 miles @ 45 mph [route specific speed output from the model at this time) = 27 minutes

Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 3:10 + 0:14 + 0:15 + 0:27 + 0:30 = 4:40 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87.

The average ETE (4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 15 minutes) for a secondwave evacuation of the transit dependent population is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 25 minutes longer than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and could impact protective action decision making.

The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the counties decide to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Generations of Chapin Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

As per Item 4c of Section 2.4, it is assumed that the mobilization time for Generations of Chapin average 90 minutes after the ATE in good weather, 100 minutes in rain and 110 minutes in ice.

Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90minute timeframe.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facility. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair buses/vans, and VC Summer Nuclear Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ambulances, respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective evacuation routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school and licensed day care center evacuation.

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for Generations of Chapin within the EPZ for good weather, rain, and ice. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain and Scenario 8 for ice) Region 3, capped at 45 mph (40 mph for rain and 35 mph for ice),

are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ.

All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes. For example, the calculation of ETE for The Generations of Chapin with 29 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 1 x 29 + 7 = 130 min. or 2:10 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes).

The average ETE for evacuation of Generations of Chapin population is 15 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for the general population during Scenario 6 conditions (2:50

- 2:35 = 0:15) in good weather. Hence, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

It is assumed that Generations of Chapin population is directly evacuated to appropriate reception center. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population Table 811 summarizes the ETE for the access and/or functional needs population. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it is assumed that they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10%

slower in rain, 20% slower in ice). Similar to transit dependent evacuees, mobilization times of 150 minutes were used (160 minutes for rain, and 170 minutes for ice) for access and/or functional needs people within Richland, Newberry and Lexington County. As per information provided by Fairfield County, mobilization time of 60 minutes, 70 minutes, and 80 minutes are used for good weather, rain, and ice case, respectively for access and/or function needs population within Fairfield County. Loading times of 1 minute per person are assumed for ambulatory people, 5 minutes per person are assumed for wheelchair bound people, and 15 VC Summer Nuclear Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 minutes per person are assumed for bedridden people. For buses evacuating ambulatory access and/or functional needs, the last household is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 45 mph (40 mph for rain and 35 mph for ice),

is used to compute travel time after the last pickup. ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional need person per HH implies that 37 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 2 bus is needed from a capacity perspective, if 5 buses are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require 8 stops maximum. For example, the ETE for access and/or functional needs ambulatory people in good weather is computed as follows :

1. Assume 5 buses are deployed, each with about 8 stops, to service a total of 37 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 2:30

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 1 minute

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: (81) @ 9 minutes (3 miles at 20 mph) =

63 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: (81) @ 1 minutes = 7 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 5 miles @ 45.0 mph (network wide average speed at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 40 minutes after the ATE) = 7 minutes ETE: 2:30 + 1 + 63 + 7 + 7 = 3:50 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes)

It is estimated that 4 ambulances will be needed to evacuate the 8 homebound bedridden person within the EPZ. As shown in Table 81, there are 64 ambulances available within the EPZ and only 4 are required to evacuate the bedridden access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ (see Table 81).

For example, the ETE for access and/or functional needs bedridden people in good weather is computed as follows:

1. Ambulance arrives at first household: 150 minutes

2. Loading time at first household: 15 minutes

3. Ambulance travels to second household: 5 miles @ 30 mph = 10 minutes

4. Loading time at second household: 15 minutes

5. Travel time to EPZ boundary: 5 miles @ 45.0 mph (network wide average speed at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 10 minutes after the ATE) = 7 minutes ETE: 150 + 15 + 10 + 15 + 7 = 3:20 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes).

The average ETE (4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months ) for a single wave evacuation of the access and/or functional needs population exceeds the general population ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 minutes at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03), during Scenario 6 conditions and could impact protective action decision making.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Wheelchair Buses Vans Ambulances Resources Buses Vans Resources Available Chapin Transportation Office 23 0 2 0 0 Dutch Fork Transportation Office 32 0 0 0 0 Irmo Transportation Office 30 0 0 0 0 Special Needs Bus 1 0 17 0 0 Activity Bus 40 0 0 0 0 Newberry County School District 63 3 0 17 16 Kelly Miller Elementary School 0 0 0 0 0 McCroreyListon Elementary School 3 0 0 0 0 Generations of Chapin1 0 3 0 0 0 Fairfield County Transit 14 0 0 0 0 School District of Fairfield 40 0 0 0 0 Fairfield County EMS 0 0 14 0 11 Medshore Ambulance (by mutual aid)1 0 0 0 3 37 Chapin Recreation Center 0 2 0 0 0 Central Midlands Regional Transit Authority (CMRTA) 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: 248 8 33 20 64 Resources Needed Schools (Table 37): 136 0 0 0 0 Licensed Day Care Centers (Table 38): 18 0 0 0 0 Medical Facility (Table 36): 1 0 2 0 0 Homebound Access and/or Functional Needs (Section 310): 3 0 4 1 4 TransitDependent Population (Table 101): 6 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 164 0 6 1 4 1

Recent transportation resources for this facility were not provided, as such the values shown are from the previous report.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 82. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

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

FAIRFIELD COUNTY McCroreyListon School Of Technology 120 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:30 6.8 10 2:40 Kelly Miller Elementary School 120 15 1.4 44.1 2 2:20 6.9 10 2:30 McCroreyListon Child Development 120 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:30 6.8 10 2:40 Center Kelly Miller Child Development Center 120 15 1.4 44.1 2 2:20 6.9 10 2:30 Jacqueline Wylie Evacuated by Private Vehicles Jackie Chappell LEXINGTON COUNTY Chapin High School 90 15 4.8 45.0 7 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin Intermediate School 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin Elementary School 90 15 2.5 24.8 6 1:55 10.4 14 2:05 Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:05 Elaine Alewine 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:05 Abner Montessori School/Chapin 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 9.7 13 2:10 Children's Center Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 90 15 2.5 27.5 6 1:55 10.5 14 2:10 Chapin United Methodist Church 90 15 5.6 45.0 8 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 Preschool Inez's Childcare Center 90 15 5.6 45.0 8 1:55 9.8 14 2:10 NEWBERRY COUNTY Little Mountain Elementary2 90 15 8.2 45.0 11 2:00 6.0 9 2:10 Little Angels Daycare 90 15 7.1 45.0 10 1:55 6.0 9 2:05 MidCarolina High School 90 15 2.0 41.9 3 1:50 2.3 4 1:55 MidCarolina Middle School 90 15 2.0 41.9 3 1:50 2.3 4 1:55 PomariaGarmany Elementary3 90 15 4.7 45.0 7 1:55 7.3 10 2:05 2

The ETE computation represents the children at the Little Mountain Elementary school and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

3 The ETE computation represents the children at the Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

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

RICHLAND COUNTY Chapin Middle School 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Academy for Success 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Spring Hill High School 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 The Center for Advanced Technical Studies 90 15 1.5 38.0 3 1:50 34.1 46 2:40 Sally Becker Evacuated by Private Vehicles Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 Maximum: 2:40 Average for EPZ: 2:00 Average: 2:20 Table 83. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

FAIRFIELD COUNTY McCroreyListon School Of Technology 130 25 8.2 40.0 13 2:50 6.8 11 3:05 Kelly Miller Elementary School 130 25 1.4 40.0 3 2:40 6.9 11 2:55 McCroreyListon Child Development 130 25 8.2 40.0 13 2:50 6.8 11 3:05 Center Kelly Miller Child Development Center 130 25 1.4 40.0 3 2:40 6.9 11 2:55 Jacqueline Wylie Evacuated by Private Vehicles Jackie Chappell LEXINGTON COUNTY Chapin High School 100 25 4.8 40.0 8 2:15 9.8 15 2:30 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 100 25 2.5 31.6 5 2:10 10.5 16 2:30 Chapin Intermediate School 100 25 2.5 31.6 5 2:10 10.5 16 2:30 Chapin Elementary School 100 25 2.5 28.8 6 2:15 10.4 16 2:30 Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 100 25 4.7 40.0 8 2:15 9.7 15 2:30 Elaine Alewine 100 25 4.7 40.0 8 2:15 9.7 15 2:30 VC Summer Nuclear Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

Abner Montessori School/Chapin 100 25 4.7 40.0 8 2:15 9.7 15 2:30 Children's Center Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 100 25 2.5 31.6 5 2:10 10.5 16 2:30 Chapin United Methodist Church 100 25 5.6 40.0 9 2:15 9.8 15 2:30 Preschool Inez's Childcare Center 100 25 5.6 40.0 9 2:15 9.8 15 2:30 NEWBERRY COUNTY Little Mountain Elementary4 100 25 8.2 40.0 13 2:20 6.0 10 2:30 Little Angels Daycare 100 25 7.1 40.0 11 2:20 6.0 10 2:30 MidCarolina High School 100 25 2.0 38.5 4 2:10 2.3 4 2:15 MidCarolina Middle School 100 25 2.0 38.5 4 2:10 2.3 4 2:15 PomariaGarmany Elementary5 100 25 4.7 40.0 8 2:15 7.3 11 2:25 RICHLAND COUNTY Chapin Middle School 100 25 1.5 35.7 3 2:10 34.1 52 3:05 Academy for Success 100 25 1.5 35.7 3 2:10 34.1 52 3:05 Spring Hill High School 100 25 1.5 35.7 3 2:10 34.1 52 3:05 The Center for Advanced Technical Studies 100 25 1.5 35.7 3 2:10 34.1 52 3:05 Sally Becker Evacuated by Private Vehicles Maximum for EPZ: 2:50 Maximum: 3:05 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:40 4

The ETE computation represents the children at the Little Mountain Elementary school and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

5 The ETE computation represents the children at the Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 84. School and Licensed Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice Travel Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ Time from ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to EPZ Bdry to R.C.

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

FAIRFIELD COUNTY McCroreyListon School Of Technology 140 25 8.2 35.0 15 3:00 6.8 12 3:15 Kelly Miller Elementary School 140 25 1.4 35.0 3 2:50 6.9 12 3:05 McCroreyListon Child Development 140 25 8.2 35.0 15 3:00 6.8 12 3:15 Center Kelly Miller Child Development Center 140 25 1.4 35.0 3 2:50 6.9 12 3:05 Jacqueline Wylie Evacuated by Private Vehicles Jackie Chappell LEXINGTON COUNTY Chapin High School 110 25 4.8 35.0 9 2:25 9.8 17 2:45 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 110 25 2.5 25.8 6 2:25 10.5 18 2:45 Chapin Intermediate School 110 25 2.5 25.8 6 2:25 10.5 18 2:45 Chapin Elementary School 110 25 2.5 23.5 7 2:25 10.4 18 2:40 Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 110 25 4.7 35.0 9 2:25 9.7 17 2:45 Elaine Alewine 110 25 4.7 35.0 9 2:25 9.7 17 2:45 Abner Montessori School/Chapin 110 25 4.7 35.0 9 2:25 9.7 17 2:45 Children's Center Chapin Baptist Child Development 110 25 2.5 25.8 6 2:25 10.5 18 2:45 Center Chapin United Methodist Church 110 25 5.6 35.0 10 2:25 9.8 17 2:45 Preschool Inez's Childcare Center 110 25 5.6 35.0 10 2:25 9.8 17 2:45 NEWBERRY COUNTY Little Mountain Elementary6 110 25 8.2 35.0 14 2:30 6.0 11 2:45 Little Angels Daycare 110 25 7.1 35.0 13 2:30 6.0 11 2:45 MidCarolina High School 110 25 2.0 33.6 4 2:20 2.3 4 2:25 6

The ETE computation represents the children at the Little Mountain Elementary school and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Travel Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ Time from ETA to School and Licensed Day Care Center Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to EPZ Bdry to R.C.

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

MidCarolina Middle School 110 25 2.0 33.6 4 2:20 2.3 4 2:25 PomariaGarmany Elementary7 110 25 4.7 35.0 9 2:25 7.3 13 2:40 RICHLAND COUNTY Chapin Middle School 110 25 1.5 31.8 3 2:20 34.1 59 3:20 Academy for Success 110 25 1.5 31.8 3 2:20 34.1 59 3:20 Spring Hill High School 110 25 1.5 31.8 3 2:20 34.1 59 3:20 The Center for Advanced Technical 110 25 1.5 31.8 3 2:20 34.1 59 3:20 Studies Sally Becker Evacuated by Private Vehicles Maximum for EPZ: 3:00 Maximum: 3:20 Average for EPZ: 2:30 Average: 2:55 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup PAZ of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

A0, B1, B2 1 60 10.0 45.0 13 30 1:45 6.9 9 5 10 36 30 3:15 A1, A2 1 60 13.0 45.0 17 30 1:50 6.9 9 5 10 44 30 3:30 C1, C2 1 60 14.3 45.0 19 30 1:50 6.9 9 5 10 47 30 3:35 D1 1 150 6.7 45.0 9 30 3:10 30.9 41 5 10 59 30 5:35 D2 1 150 4.8 45.0 6 30 3:10 10.5 14 5 10 27 30 4:40 E1, E2, F1, F2 1 150 11.4 45.0 15 30 3:15 5.2 7 5 10 37 30 4:45 Maximum ETE: 3:15 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Average ETE: 2:30 Average ETE: 4:15 7

The ETE computation represents the children at the Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain OneWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup PAZ Number Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced of Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

A0, B1, B2 1 70 10.0 40.0 15 40 2:05 6.9 10 5 10 40 40 3:50 A1, A2 1 70 13.0 40.0 20 40 2:10 6.9 10 5 10 49 40 4:05 C1, C2 1 70 14.3 40.0 21 40 2:15 6.9 10 5 10 53 40 4:15 D1 1 160 6.7 40.0 10 40 3:30 30.9 46 5 10 66 40 6:20 D2 1 160 4.8 40.0 7 40 3:30 10.5 16 5 10 30 40 5:15 E1, E2, F1, F2 1 160 11.4 40.0 17 40 3:40 5.2 8 5 10 42 40 5:25 Maximum ETE: 3:40 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 4:55 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice OneWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Number Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE PAZ Serviced of Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

A0, B1, B2 1 80 10.0 35.0 17 50 2:30 6.9 12 5 10 46 50 4:35 A1, A2 1 80 13.0 35.0 22 50 2:35 6.9 12 5 10 57 50 4:50 C1, C2 1 80 14.3 35.0 25 50 2:35 6.9 12 5 10 61 50 4:55 D1 1 170 6.7 35.0 11 50 3:55 30.9 53 5 10 76 50 7:10 D2 1 170 4.8 35.0 8 50 3:50 10.5 18 5 10 34 50 5:50 E1, E2, F1, F2 1 170 11.4 35.0 20 50 4:00 5.2 9 5 10 48 50 6:05 Maximum ETE: 4:00 Maximum ETE: 7:10 Average ETE: 3:15 Average ETE: 5:35 VC Summer Nuclear Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 88. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Loading EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

LEXINGTON COUNTY Generations of Ambulatory 90 1 29 29 5.3 45.0 7 2:10 Chapin Wheelchair bound Bus 90 5 25 25 5.3 45.0 7 2:55 Maximum ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 2:35 Table 89. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Loading EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

LEXINGTON COUNTY Generations of Ambulatory 100 1 29 29 5.3 40.0 8 2:20 Chapin Wheelchair bound Bus 100 5 25 25 5.3 40.0 8 3:05 Maximum ETE: 3:05 Average ETE: 2:45 Table 810. Generations of Chapin Evacuation Time Estimates - Ice Loading Total Dist. To Travel Time to Mobilization Rate Loading EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) (min per person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

LEXINGTON COUNTY Generations of Ambulatory 110 1 29 29 5.3 35.0 9 2:30 Chapin Wheelchair bound Bus 110 5 25 25 5.3 35.0 9 3:15 Maximum ETE: 3:15 Average ETE: 2:55 VC Summer Nuclear Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Evacuation Time Estimates Total Travel Loading Loading Time to People Mobiliza Time at Travel to Time at EPZ Requiring Vehicles Stops per Weather tion 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Vehicle Conditions Time (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) ETE (hr:min)

RICHLAND, NEWBERRY, AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES Normal 150 63 7 3:50 Buses 37 5 8 Rain 160 1 70 7 7 4:05 Ice 170 77 8 4:25 Normal 150 54 7 4:10 Wheelchair 35 5 7 Rain 160 5 60 30 7 4:25 Buses Ice 170 66 8 4:40 Normal 150 18 7 3:10 Wheelchair 3 1 3 Rain 160 5 20 10 9 3:25 Vans Ice 170 22 10 3:40 Normal 150 10 7 3:20 Ambulances 8 4 2 Rain 160 15 11 15 8 3:30 Ice 170 13 9 3:45 FAIRFIELD COUNTY Normal 60 54 7 4:10 Wheelchair 8 1 8 Rain 70 5 60 35 10 4:25 Buses Ice 80 66 10 4:45 Maximum ETE: 4:45 Average ETE: 4:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 (Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations VC Summer Nuclear Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This section discusses the suggested Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that is designed to expedite the movement of evacuating traffic. The resources required to implement this TMP include:

Personnel with the capabilities of performing the planned control functions of traffic guides (preferably, not necessarily, law enforcement officers).

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. provides guidance for Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.

A written plan that defines all Traffic and Access Control Point (TACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.

For example:

A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

The driver may be an emergency worker entering the area being evacuated to perform an important emergency service.

The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The TMP is the outcome of the following process:

1. The detailed traffic and access control tactics discussed in the state and county existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR 7002, Rev. 1.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5

2. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix G, Table G 1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TACPs.

3. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 76). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite agency plans are examined. No additional TACPs were identified as part of this study.

4. Prioritization of TACPs.

a. Application of traffic and access control at some TACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TACPs. For example, TACPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TACPs located farther from the power plant.

Key locations for manual traffic control (MTC) were analyzed and their impact to ETE was quantified, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. See Appendix G for more detail.

Appendix G documents the existing TMP and list of priority TACPs using the process enumerated above.

9.1 Assumptions The following are TMP assumptions made for this study:

The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumptions that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE).

All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning TACPs.

Study assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 discuss TACP staffing schedules and operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can also be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to VC Summer Nuclear Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the onboard navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

These are only several examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process.

Consideration should be given that ITS technologies can be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

Routing from a Protective Action Zone (PAZ) being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, licensed day care centers, medical facilities, employees, transients, or permanent residents who do not own or have access to a private vehicle) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.

Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles, and by the transit dependent population evacuating in buses. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed to reception centers. General population may evacuate to either a general reception center or some alternate destination (e.g., lodging facility, relatives home, campground) outside the EPZ.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The six (6) bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD, as no preestablished transitdependent bus routes exist within the EPZ or identified within the county emergency plans, in order to compute ETE. The routes were designed to service the transitdependent population within each PAZ along major evacuation routes and then proceed to the reception center assigned in the VC Summer Nuclear Station 2022 Emergency Planning Information Calendar (public information calendar).

This does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk along to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus.

Schools, licensed day care centers, and the Generations of Chapin medical facility were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center or host facility.

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to alternate reception centers or congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 10.2 Reception Centers According to the current public information calendar to EPZ residents, evacuees from the Counties of Fairfield, Richland, Lexington, and Newberry County will be directed to Fairfield Magnet School for Math and Science, Muller Road Middle School, Crossroads Middle School, and Newberry High School, respectively. Figure 103 presents a map showing the general population reception centers. As per 2020 Fairfield County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Annex Q), Fairfield Central High School is an alternative reception center for Fairfield County evacuees/residents. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the appropriate reception center for each county. It is assumed that all special facility evacuees will be taken to the appropriate Reception Centers or host facility.

Table 103 presents a list of the school reception centers for each school and day care centers in the EPZ. Reception centers for schools and day care centers are based on the public information calendar. Any day care centers not listed in the public information calendar, was designated based on the county the day care center is located in. It is assumed that all school/day care center evacuees will be taken to the appropriate school reception center and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at these facilities will be picked up by parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes Bus Route No. of PAZ (s) Serviced Route Description Length (mi.)

Number Buses A0, B1, and B2 Head north on State Highway 215 (SH 215), next turn right onto SH 213 northeast 1 1 10.0 bound, then out of the EPZ.

A1 and A2 Head north on Cole Trestle Road, turn left onto Pearson Road northbound, turn 2 1 right onto Ladds Road northeast bound, then turn left onto SH 215 northbound, 13.0 next turn right onto County Route 34 (CR 34) eastbound, then out of the EPZ.

C1 and C2 Head east on State Road S20 60, then turn right onto Estes Lane southeast bound, 3 1 14.3 next turn left into SH 269 northbound, then out of the EPZ.

4 1 D1 Head southeast on US Highway 176 (US 176), then out of the EPZ. 6.7 5 1 D2 Head southeast onto US 76, then out of the EPZ. 4.8 E1, E2, F1, and F2 Head northwest on US 176, next turn left onto SH 219 west bound, then out of the 6 1 11.4 EPZ.

Total: 6 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number 1 PAZ (A0, B1, B2) 4, 5, 1067, 1, 3, 33, 34, 1053, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 PAZ (A1, A2) 514, 513, 512, 511, 516, 517, 518, 510, 509, 498, 499, 519, 500, 505, 506, 507, 2

508, 96, 97, 98, 99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 2 PAZ (C1, C2) 1019, 1020, 475, 1031, 476, 497, 669, 670, 671, 1016, 80, 79, 78, 86, 77, 76, 3

652, 75 4 PAZ (D1) 1046, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 1146, 605, 211, 212 5 PAZ (D2) 235, 857, 234, 684, 233, 855, 232, 231, 230, 229, 228, 686 PAZ (E1, E2, F1, F2) 996, 201, 200, 199, 198, 197, 175, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 307, 308, 309, 317, 6

332, 318, 333, 319, 320 McCroreyListon School of Technology 958, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 7

McCroreyListon Child Development Center 125, 2 8 Kelly Miller Elementary School 654, 652, 75, 74 VC Summer Nuclear Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number Kelly Miller Child Development Center 9 Chapin High School 278, 277, 276, 273, 274, 376, 377 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 10 Chapin Intermediate School 701, 702, 1094, 703, 1096, 1097, 1099, 228, 686 Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 11 Chapin Elementary School 1095, 1094, 703, 1096, 1097, 1099, 228, 686 12 Little Mountain Elementary 767, 239, 284, 283, 876, 298, 877, 282, 1035, 301, 371, 370, 305, 304, 369, 368 MidCarolina High School 13 859, 858, 243, 244, 245 MidCarolina Middle School 14 PomariaGarmany Elementary 307, 308, 309, 317, 332, 318, 333, 319, 320 Chapin Middle School Academy for Success 15 210, 1146, 605, 211, 212 Spring Hill High School The Center for Advanced Technical Studies Mt Horeb Lutheran Church Elaine Alewine 16 267, 278, 277, 276, 273, 274, 376, 377 Abner Montessori School/Chapin Children's Center Chapin United Methodist Church Preschool 17 698, 233, 855, 267, 278, 277, 276, 273, 274, 376, 377 Inez's Childcare Center 18 Little Angels Daycare 284, 283, 876, 298, 877, 282, 1035, 301, 371, 370, 305, 304, 369, 368 19 Generations of Chapin 267, 278, 277, 276, 273, 274, 376, 377 VC Summer Nuclear Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table 103. School/Licensed Day Care Center Reception Centers Schools/Licensed Day Care Centers School Reception Centers FAIRFIELD COUNTY McCroreyListon School of Technology Kelly Miller Elementary School Fairfield Magnet School for Math and Science McCroreyListon Child Development Center Kelly Miller Child Development Center Jacqueline Wylie1 White Oak Conference Center Jackie Chappell1 LEXINGTON COUNTY Chapin High School Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program Chapin Intermediate School Chapin Elementary School Mt Horeb Lutheran Church Crossroads Middle School Elaine Alewine Abner Montessori School/Chapin Children's Center Chapin Baptist Child Development Center Chapin United Methodist Church Preschool Inez's Childcare Center NEWBERRY COUNTY Little Angels Daycare Newberry High School MidCarolina High School MidCarolina Middle School Wightman United Methodist Church 2

Little Mountain Elementary PomariaGarmany Elementary3 Central United Methodist Church RICHLAND COUNTY Chapin Middle School Academy for Success Spring Hill High School Muller Road Middle School The Center for Advanced Technical Studies Sally Becker1 1

Children from Jacqueline Wylie ,Jackie Chappell, and Sally Becker daycare centers will be transported by personal vehicles.

2 This represents the children at the Little Mountain Elementary school and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

3 This represents the children Pomaria-Garmany Elementary School and the licensed day care center provided at this facility.

VC Summer Nuclear Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes within the VCSNS EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes VC Summer Nuclear Station 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure 103. General Population Reception and School Reception Centers VC Summer Nuclear Station 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

EP100 Appendix 5 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS This appendix provides a glossary of traffic engineering terms that are used throughout this report.

Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vph.

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

VC Summer Nuclear Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

VC Summer Nuclear Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

EP100 Appendix 5 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified VC Summer Nuclear Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

DTRAD executes the traffic assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

VC Summer Nuclear Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where is the generalized cost for link and , , and, are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 12 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

VC Summer Nuclear Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

VC Summer Nuclear Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface VC Summer Nuclear Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

EP100 Appendix 5 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVacuation ANimator (EVAN)

Calculates ETE statistics All traffic simulation models are data intensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

VC Summer Nuclear Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

VC Summer Nuclear Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then VC Summer Nuclear Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

End if VC Summer Nuclear Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .

E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, Q v Q M E Cap can be extended to Q by L3 traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

VC Summer Nuclear Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The VC Summer Nuclear Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

VC Summer Nuclear Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network VC Summer Nuclear Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic and access control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links VC Summer Nuclear Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

VC Summer Nuclear Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of Q

link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

VC Summer Nuclear Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network VC Summer Nuclear Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 VC Summer Nuclear Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

VC Summer Nuclear Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

EP100 Appendix 5 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D

1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a Geographic Information System (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and Protective Action Zone (PAZ) boundaries.

Step 2 The 2020 Census block population information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Data for employees, transients, schools, and other facilities were obtained from Dominion Energy, county emergency management agencies, the National Center for Education Statistics website1 and personnel at the South Carolina Department of Social Services, and the old data from the previous study, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to specific facilities where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available during the emergency were also provided by the counties within the EPZ.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials, and onsite and offsite Dominion Energy personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials and the Dominion Energy utility managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

1 https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp VC Summer Nuclear Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population for this study. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 13 PAZs. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of PAZs that may be advised to evacuate) were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II System, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II model was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the VC Summer Nuclear Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software see Section 1.3) and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding minor routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II model is again executed.

VC Summer Nuclear Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, vans, wheelchair buses and wheelchair vans, and ambulances are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II model to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures are used to assure the results are consistent, dynamic routing is reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks are addressed properly.

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, licensed day care centers, Generations of Chapin medical facility, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated, and graphed. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) is completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

VC Summer Nuclear Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 A

Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Study Results Satisfactory Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Routes Update and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Evacuation Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities VC Summer Nuclear Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

EP100 Appendix 5 E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of February 2022, for special facilities that are located within the VCSNS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, licensed day care centers, and medical facilities. Transient population data is included in the table for recreational areas (campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, and parks). Employment data are included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles), direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant, and by its PAZ. Maps identifying the location of each special facility, recreational area (campground, golf course, marina, and park), and major employer are also provided.

VC Summer Nuclear Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll PAZ (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment FAIRFIELD COUNTY A2 6.4 NNE McCroreyListon School Of Technology 1978 SC215 S Blair 135 C2 11.1 E Kelly Miller Elementary School 255 Kelly Miller Rd Winnsboro 221 Fairfield County Subtotal: 356 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 9.2 S Chapin High School 300 Columbia Ave Chapin 1,552 D2 10.8 S Crooked Creek Park Afterschool Program 1098 Old Lexington Hwy Chapin 45 D2 11.1 S Chapin Intermediate School 1130 Old Lexington Hwy Chapin 811 D2 11.2 S Chapin Elementary School 940 Old Bush River Rd Chapin 874 Lexington County Subtotal: 3,282 NEWBERRY COUNTY E2 9.1 SW Little Mountain Elementary 692 Mill St Little Mountain 428 E2 10.9 WSW MidCarolina High School 6794 US 76 Prosperity 738 E2 10.9 WSW MidCarolina Middle School 6834 US 76 Prosperity 557 F2 6.7 WSW PomariaGarmany Elementary 7288 US 176 Pomaria 347 Newberry County Subtotal: 2,070 RICHLAND COUNTY D1 9.2 SSE Chapin Middle School 11661 Broad River Rd Chapin 976 D1 9.4 SSE Academy for Success 11629 Broad River Rd Chapin 125 D1 9.4 SSE Spring Hill High School 11629 Broad River Rd Chapin 1,135 D1 9.5 SSE The Center for Advanced Technical Studies 916 Mt Vernon Church Rd Chapin 313 Richland County Subtotal: 2,549 EPZ TOTAL: 8,257 VC Summer Nuclear Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table E2. Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll PAZ (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment FAIRFIELD COUNTY A2 6.4 NNE McCroreyListon Child Development Center 1978 SC215 S Blair 20 B2 7.9 ENE Jacqueline Wylie 302 Guess Dr Winnsboro 6 B2 8.0 ENE Jackie Chappell 4303 Jackson Creek Rd Winnsboro 6 C2 11.1 E Kelly Miller Child Development Center 255 Kelly Miller Rd Winnsboro 40 Fairfield County Subtotal: 72 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 9.2 S Mt Horeb Lutheran Church 101 E Boundary St Chapin 70 D2 9.3 S Elaine Alewine 108 E Boundary St Chapin 6 D2 9.5 S Abner Montessori School/Chapin Children's Center 432 E Boundary St Chapin 246 D2 9.6 S Chapin Baptist Child Development Center 950 Old Lexington Hwy Chapin 332 D2 9.6 SSW Chapin United Methodist Church Preschool 415 Lexington Ave Chapin 50 D2 9.6 SSW Inez's Childcare Center 411 Lexington Ave Chapin 52 Lexington County Subtotal: 756 NEWBERRY COUNTY E2 8.5 SW Little Angels Daycare 753 SC202 Little Mountain 44 E2 9.1 SW Little Mountain Elementary 692 Mill St Little Mountain 20 F2 6.7 WSW PomariaGarmany Elementary 7288 US 176 Pomaria 40 Newberry County Subtotal: 104 RICHLAND COUNTY D1 8.9 SSE Sally Becker 2273 Harvestwood Ln Chapin 6 Richland County Subtotal: 6 EPZ TOTAL: 938 VC Summer Nuclear Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden PAZ (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 9.5 S Generations of Chapin 431 E Boundary St Chapin 64 54 29 25 0 Lexington County Subtotal: 64 54 29 25 0 EPZ TOTAL: 64 54 29 25 0 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting PAZ (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ FAIRFIELD COUNTY A0 VC Summer Nuclear Station 576 Stairway Rd Jenkinsville 318 90% 286 262 Fairfield County Subtotal: 318 286 262 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 9.5 S General Information Services 917 Chapin Rd Chapin 600 78.5% 471 432 Lexington County Subtotal: 600 471 432 EPZ TOTAL: 918 757 694 VC Summer Nuclear Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire PAZ (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles FAIRFIELD COUNTY A1 2.4 NE Lake Monticello Park Baltic Cir Jenkinsville Park 13 5 A1 2.6 NE Monticello Boat Ramp 6773 SC215 Jenkinsville Marina 13 5 A1 5.3 N 99 Boat Ramp Meadow Lake Rd Jenkinsville Marina 5 2 A1 5.4 N Unnamed Boat Ramp Meadow Lake Rd Jenkinsville Marina 13 5 A2 5.7 N Monticello Recreational Lake Beach Hemlock Ln Jenkinsville Park 27 10 B1 3.3 NNE Stonewall RV Park 5693 SC215 Jenkinsville Campground 12 20 C2 8.1 SE Broad River Campground 16842 SC215 Winnsboro Campground 350 240 Fairfield County Subtotal: 433 287 LEXINGTON COUNTY D2 11 S Lake Murray Golf Center 2032 Old Hilton Rd Chapin Golf Course 12 10 Lexington County Subtotal: 12 10 NEWBERRY COUNTY E1 3.6 SSW River Road Family Campground 1061 Broad River Rd Pomaria Campground 40 60 E1 5.5 WSW Gateway Motorhome and RV Park 2688 Peak Rd Pomaria Campground 25 40 E2 9 SW Rocky Branch Natural Area State Rd S3673 Little Mountain Park 10 8 E2 9.2 WSW Mid Carolina Club Inc 3593 Kibler Bridge Rd Prosperity Golf Course 15 10 F1 2.7 WSW Cannon's Creek Public Access Broad River Rd Pomaria Marina 13 5 F1 3.6 WNW Heller's Creek Boat Ramp 6316 County Rd S3628 Pomaria Marina 13 5 Newberry County Subtotal: 116 128 EPZ TOTAL: 561 425 VC Summer Nuclear Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure E2. Licensed Day Care Centers within the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure E4. Major Employers within the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

EP100 Appendix 5 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data; The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning.

First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein began in February 2021 and the 2020 Census data had not been released, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of approximately 437 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.50% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using geographic information system (GIS) software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each zip code was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The results of the survey exceeded the sampling plan. A total of 481 completed samples were obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-4.27% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census Data. The number of samples obtained within each zip code is also shown in Table F1.

VC Summer Nuclear Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know or decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a dont know/decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional dont know/decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the dont know/decline to state responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses, the average household contains 2.52 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.58 people, which is in good agreement with the demographic survey. The percent difference between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 2.33%, which is within the sampling error of 4.27%, as discussed in Section F.2.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.43. It should be noted that all households within the EPZ have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Ridesharing Approximately 82% of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work on a daily basis. The data shows an VC Summer Nuclear Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 average of 1.06 commuters per household in the EPZ, and approximately 60% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority (89%) of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.09 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows an average of 0.55 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 32% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The survey result shows that approximately 7% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, about 21% require a bus, about 29% require a medical bus/van, about 32% require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, 15%

require an ambulance, and the remaining 3% indicated that they would require other transportation needs.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.53 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, 58.4% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 41.6% indicated they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating, as shown in Figure F11.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace (stay at home, work or current location) in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelterinplace. The results indicate that nearly 89% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 11% would choose to evacuate the area.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the compliance rate obtained above is relatively higher than the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to VC Summer Nuclear Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelterinplace now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that about 73% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 27% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Results show that 48.3% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 4.9% to a reception center, 16.5% to a hotel, motel or campground, 7.2% to a second or seasonal home, 0.2% of households would not evacuate, and the remaining 22.9% responded other/dont know to this question. The response is shown in Figure F12.

If you had a pet and/or animal, would you take your pet and/or animal with you if you were asked to evacuate? Based on the responses to the survey, about 67% of households have a pet and/or animal. Of the households with pets and/or animals, 22.4% of them indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 68.4% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else, and 9.2% would leave their pet at home. The response is shown in Figure F13.

Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, approximately 89% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pets/animals and 7% would use a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, nearly 83% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, or fish), about 14% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, or pig), 2% have other small pets/animals, and 1% have other large pets/animals.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

As discussed in Section F.3.1 and shown in Figure F8, the majority (68%) of respondents indicated no commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; therefore the results for the time distribution of commuters (time to prepare to leave work/college and time to travel home from work/college) were used, as is, in this study.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

VC Summer Nuclear Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 75 minutes (1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes). Approximately 89% can leave within 35 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home ? Figure F15 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 90% of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 90 minutes (1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 30 minutes).

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F16 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

About 92% of households can be ready to leave home within 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ; the remaining households require up to an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes .

F.4 Conclusions The demographic survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the EPZ population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the EPZ, and mobilization time which can influence evacuation time estimates.

VC Summer Nuclear Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table F1. VC Summer Demographic Survey Sampling Plan EPZ EPZ Households Desired Samples Zip Code Population Within Zip Code Samples Obtained (2010) (2010) 29015 1,186 415 33 5 29036 4,653 1,814 144 189 29063 747 282 22 48 29065 675 286 23 11 29075 2,098 830 66 50 29108 24 9 1 16 29122 54 27 2 1 29126 1,980 778 62 111 29127 737 296 24 23 29180 2,021 755 60 27 EPZ Total 14,175 5,492 437 481 Average HH Size1: 2.58 Household Size 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ 1

It is an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

VC Summer Nuclear Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Vehicle Availability 50%

46%

40%

Percent of Households 30% 26%

20%

15%

10%

3%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Vehicle Availability Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 14 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households VC Summer Nuclear Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 59+ Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference VC Summer Nuclear Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Commuters Per Household 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters per Households in the EPZ Travel Mode to Work 100%

88.8%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

9.3%

0.2% 1.1% 0.6%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 COVID19 Impact to Commuters 80%

70%

60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Commuter Impacted by COVID19 Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 40%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

10%

0%

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs VC Summer Nuclear Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60% 56.6%

40%

34.8%

20%

8.4%

0.2%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating VC Summer Nuclear Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Shelter Locations 60%

50% 48.3%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

22.9%

20%

16.5%

10%

4.9% 7.2%

0.2%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Hotel, Motel, Second/Seasonal Would not Other/Don't Know Home Center or Campground Home Evacuate Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals VC Summer Nuclear Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work Time to Commute Home From Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Work to Home Travel Time VC Summer Nuclear Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Preparation Time to Leave Home VC Summer Nuclear Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument VC Summer Nuclear Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Kÿ;%LM/&%N 0123425617859 1225624 27 2 5 425101234232 2235 25 4251 723 45 512 859 122 24 27

ÿÿÿ!

()*%

+%,)*%

-%.*/0%ÿ#2ÿ3#)#%

4

5

ÿÿÿ!

"67 89" 8:;77

+"<;

+=>7 3=?

37>76 7=@:8 6=67ÿ";ÿ(";7 A7;"ÿB6"67C

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87 G

ÿÿÿ!

H73 6"

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87 I

ÿÿÿ!

"67 89" 8:;77

+"<;

+=>7 3=?

37>76 7=@:8 6=67ÿ";ÿ(";7 A7;"ÿB6"67C

=ÿ9"<E-ÿ7>FD<F87ÿJHÿJ=DHDE7

=ÿ9"<E-ÿ7>FD<F87ÿJHÿJ<3

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87

01 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿ

ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ)

1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

+

ÿÿ

ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ,

-1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

+ "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ./

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ0

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ12

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ11

ÿÿ "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ13

ÿÿ! "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ./

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ0 41 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ$ 4ÿ475

678 9:; 68<=97>?>8@ A7B@ÿ!8CD@ 6AECC8FGÿCAÿHCA@ÿE@CE8@ CDIJÿ<DCK CHH:J@AÿL "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ1/

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ+

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿ !"#$%ÿ&'ÿ($%%

)*01ÿ !"#$%

00*0ÿ !"#$%

0)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)*+1ÿ !"#$%

+0*+ÿ !"#$%

+)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)ÿ*ÿ0ÿ,&"'

&-$'ÿ0ÿ,&"'.ÿ/"#ÿ($%%ÿ#,0!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0)ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ1ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ+ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ+)ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿÿ,&"'%

&-$'ÿÿ,&"'%

2$3(!$ÿ#&ÿ%#0#$

0+2 7>5@>ÿH75B:ÿ6Iÿ=A8?ÿ5B9G>?ÿIA?ÿJ8>9F6ABÿK*0.ÿ69ÿ8BL>?ÿÿMA8?92

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ44

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿD0"ÿ:@ÿ>8E4?ÿÿF=>?@2 0(2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿD"ÿ:@ÿ>8E4?ÿÿF=>?@2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ10#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ1#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿB1"ÿ8>ÿ<6C2=ÿ0ÿD;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿB"ÿ8>ÿ<6C2=ÿ0ÿD;<=>2

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ*0#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿ0ÿ=56782 0*2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ*#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿ0ÿ=56782

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 23453ÿ62478ÿ9:ÿ;<=>ÿ47?@3>ÿ:<>ÿA=3?B9<7ÿC"ÿ9?ÿ=7D3>ÿÿE<=>?2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 23453ÿ62478ÿ9:ÿ;<=>ÿ47?@3>ÿ:<>ÿA=3?B9<7ÿ11"ÿ9?ÿ=7D3>ÿÿE<=>?2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ01

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿ"ÿ:@ÿ>8D4?ÿÿE=>?@2 0(2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿ"ÿ:@ÿ>8D4?ÿÿE=>?@2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

002 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ1"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782 0*2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

1110ÿ

1ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

0ÿ

0100ÿ

0ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ1"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿ $ÿ10ÿ

10ÿ

ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

0ÿÿÿ0ÿÿÿ

0ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ

%ÿÿ!$'$

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ11"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2

001 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ 4ÿ47

G H J K =ÿÿK E!

=%ÿE!@6

A%ÿ4%%!!#ÿ6%

4"#%

8

01 01 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ""#!ÿÿ$%ÿ&1

ÿÿ$%ÿ'(ÿÿ"ÿÿ!ÿ""#!ÿ1

)%ÿÿ*

0+1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

,-./-01213.45-

-64574/-

)-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-

091 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

,-./-01213.45-

-64574/-

)-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-

:1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

4ÿ0-.4/6-;*ÿ80ÿ<0-2);*ÿ,8=-

4ÿ0-5-3/82ÿ5-2/-0 4ÿ,8/-.>ÿ=8/-.ÿ80ÿ54=3?0872) 4ÿ*-582)@*-4*824.ÿ,8=-

A87.)ÿ28/ÿ-64574/-

)82B/ÿC28A 8/,-0ÿD*'%(ÿEF

)-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-

G1

H1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

I-*

28

)-5.2-ÿ/8ÿ*/4/-

012 9 ÿÿÿ

3

3!

"!

#$

3

3 ÿ!&ÿ!'$&!ÿ(!)6*+,-ÿ6./01 3 ÿÿ!'$&!ÿ(!)6*+,-ÿ6./01 345678 022 34ÿ56ÿ56ÿ57

$ÿ3ÿ!

082 34ÿ56ÿ56ÿ57

#ÿÿ9 ÿ&ÿ3ÿÿ!

#ÿÿ9 ÿ&ÿ!3&9 ÿ!

:ÿÿÿ3&

$ÿ3ÿ!

002 34ÿ56ÿ56ÿ57

!

$3 9ÿ<!ÿÿ

$ÿ3ÿ!

345678

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

EP100 Appendix 5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic and Access Control Points (TACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by the offsite response organizations within the EPZ.

The VC Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Site Specific plan (December 2020), Part 3 of the South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan (SCORERP) states that upon declaration of a Site Area Emergency Alert, ESF16 (Emergency Traffic Management), led by the South Carolina Highway Patrol (SCHP), will coordinate the occupation of designated TACPs with the County Sheriff or chief law enforcement officer within the EPZ.

These Site Specific Plan and countylevel emergency plans were reviewed, and the TACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) simulations with existing TACPs that were provided in the approved county and state emergency plans, with no additional TACPs recommended.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone. Table K1 provides the control type and node number for those nodes which are controlled. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TACP, the control type is indicated as TACP in Table K1. The MTC points within the study area are mapped as aqua dots in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that the TACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ.

As discussed in Section 3.10, external traffic was considered on Interstate (I)26, US Highway (US) 76, US 176, and US 321 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMP) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed VC Summer Nuclear Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the traffic management plans.

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a summer, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile, 5Mile and entire EPZ (Region R01, R02, R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results are shown in Table G2. The ETE remained unchanged when compared to the cases wherein these controlled intersections were modeled as actuated signals (with MTC) presented in Section 7 for Scenario 1, Regions R01, R02, and R03. Although localized congestion worsened, there is no change in ETE at both the 90th and 100th percentile when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, the only area in the EPZ that experiences minimal congestion is Chapin, located within Protective Action Zone (PAZ) D2. The congestion in Chapin/PAZ D2 clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE. As a result, the TACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the 90th percentile ETE as there is very little congestion in the EPZ as a whole.

In addition, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary, dictates the 100th percentile ETE); as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

VC Summer Nuclear Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations TACP Location Node Number Type of Control Source (Description) (See Appendix K) (Prior to being a TACP)

ST03: S215 & Glenns Bridge Road (Rd) 17 Stop Control ST04: Pearson Rd & Cole Trestle Rd 510 Stop Control ST05: SC213 & Broad River Rd 172 Stop Control FA01: SC34 & SC215 99 Stop Control FA02: SC34 & US321 Bypass 138 PreTimed Signal FA03: SC269 & US321 Bypass 64 Stop Control FA04: SC213 & US321 57 PreTimed Signal LE01: I26 & Columbia Avenue 273 Stop Control SCORERP Part 3 LE02: US76 & Crooked Creek Rd 230 Stop Control and Countylevel LE03: Old Lexington Hwy & Murray Lindler Rd 954, 955 Yield Control (Roundabout)

Emergency Plans LE04: Amicks Ferry Rd & Sandbar Rd 680 Stop Control LE05: Saint Peters Church Rd & Westwoods Dr 781 Stop Control NE01: US176 & SC213 175 Stop Control NE04: SC34 & Broad River Rd 159 Stop Control NE05: US176 & SC34 167 Stop Control RI01: Broad River Rd & Mt. Vernon Church Rd 605 PreTimed Signal RI02: Broad River Rd & W. Shady Grove Rd 213 Stop Control RI03: Broad River Rd & Shady Grove Rd 612 PreTimed Signal RI04: Broad River Rd & Koon Rd 630 PreTimed Signal Table G2. The ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 th Region 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 2:05 2:05 0:00 5:00 5:00 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 2:45 2:45 0:00 5:05 5:05 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 2:45 2:45 0:00 5:10 5:10 0:00 VC Summer Nuclear Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points (TACPs) for the VCSNS EPZ VC Summer Nuclear Station G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

EP100 Appendix 5 H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H33). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

VC Summer Nuclear Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table H1. Percent of PAZ Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Wind Degree PAZ Region Description From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R01 2Mile Region 0° 359° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 0° 359° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R03 Full EPZ 0° 359° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From: From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R04 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R05 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R06 W 258.8° 281.3° 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R07 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R08 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R09 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R10 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R11 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From: From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R12 S 168.8° 191.3° 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R13 SSW 191.3° 213.8° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R14 SW 213.8° 236.3° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R15 WSW 236.3° 258.8° 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R16 W 258.8° 281.3° 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R17 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R18 NNW 326.3° 348.8° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R19 N 348.8° 11.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R20 NNE 11.3° 33.8° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R21 NE 33.8° 56.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R22 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100%

R23 ESE 101.3° 123.8° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R24 SE, SSE 123.8° 168.8° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

VC Summer Nuclear Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Wind Degree PAZ Region From: From A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 F1 F2 R25 5Mile Region 0° 359° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R26 S, SSW 168.8° 213.8° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R27 SW, WSW 213.8° 258.8° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R28 W 258.8° 281.3° 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R29 WNW, NW 281.3° 326.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R30 NNW, N 326.3° 11.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R31 NNE, NE 11.3° 56.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R32 ENE, E 56.3° 101.3° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R33 ESE, SE, SSE 101.3° 168.8° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

PAZ(s) Evacuate PAZ(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate VC Summer Nuclear Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H1. Region R01 VC Summer Nuclear Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H2. Region R02 VC Summer Nuclear Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H3. Region R03 VC Summer Nuclear Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H4. Region R04 VC Summer Nuclear Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H5. Region R05 VC Summer Nuclear Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H6. Region R06 VC Summer Nuclear Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H7. Region R07 VC Summer Nuclear Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H8. Region R08 VC Summer Nuclear Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H9. Region R09 VC Summer Nuclear Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H10. Region R10 VC Summer Nuclear Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H11. Region R11 VC Summer Nuclear Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H12. Region R12 VC Summer Nuclear Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H13. Region R13 VC Summer Nuclear Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H14. Region R14 VC Summer Nuclear Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H15. Region R15 VC Summer Nuclear Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H16. Region R16 VC Summer Nuclear Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H17. Region R17 VC Summer Nuclear Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H18. Region R18 VC Summer Nuclear Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H19. Region R19 VC Summer Nuclear Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H20. Region R20 VC Summer Nuclear Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H21. Region R21 VC Summer Nuclear Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H22. Region R22 VC Summer Nuclear Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H23. Region R23 VC Summer Nuclear Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H24. Region R24 VC Summer Nuclear Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H25. Region R25 VC Summer Nuclear Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H26. Region R26 VC Summer Nuclear Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H27. Region R27 VC Summer Nuclear Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H28. Region R28 VC Summer Nuclear Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H29. Region R29 VC Summer Nuclear Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H30. Region R30 VC Summer Nuclear Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H31. Region R31 VC Summer Nuclear Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H32. Region R32 VC Summer Nuclear Station H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure H33. Region R33 VC Summer Nuclear Station H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

EP100 Appendix 5 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are a total of 347 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 3.21 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)

(Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, Scenarios 8 and 11, which are ice scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speeds, higher delays, and longer average travel times when compared to good weather and rain scenarios.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Interstate (I) 26, US Highway (US) 176, US 76, and US 321 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, there is minimal to no congestion on I26, US 321, and US 176 westbound throughout the evacuation, therefore the travel times and speeds are minimally affected. As such, the speeds shown in this table are relatively close to the freeflow speeds. As shown in Figures 73 through 76, US 76 eastbound and US 176 eastbound are the last two major evacuation routes to clear. As such, the average speeds along these routes are comparably slower (and travel times longer) than I26, US 321 and US 176 westbound.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time.

Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are close together as a result of the limited traffic congestion in the EPZ, which clears at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes, as discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

VC Summer Nuclear Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8664 1,700 729 484 485 83 E 8061 1,700 8141 1,700 8391 1,275 854 608 977 206 SE 8395 2,850 8824 6,750 8401 1,700 222 175 192 11 SW 8363 4,500 8813 2,850 8401 1,700 471 309 313 27 W 8363 4,500 8813 2,850 8401 1,700 207 164 165 17 W 8363 4,500 8813 2,850 8141 1,700 670 449 447 44 E 8470 1,700 8664 1,700 909 653 652 31 E 8061 1,700 8141 1,700 8391 1,275 1044 758 759 8 SW 8395 2,850 8363 4,500 8395 2,850 1329 985 984 141 SE 8824 6,750 8827 1,275 VC Summer Nuclear Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 1.11 1.25 1.11 1.25 1.14 1.11 1.29 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 54.2 48.1 54.2 48.1 52.5 54.0 46.6 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 32,774 33,042 31,888 32,156 23,099 32,842 33,107 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 1.48 1.09 1.22 1.41 1.14 1.13 1.70 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 1.50 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 40.5 54.8 49.4 42.6 52.5 53.0 34.7 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 33,403 31,577 31,842 32,154 22,866 34,024 32,838 Exiting Network VC Summer Nuclear Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Length Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Route Name (miles) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min)

I26 EB 29.1 70.5 24.7 69.7 25 71.2 24.5 72 24.2 71.7 24.3 68.7 25.4 I26 WB 29.1 70.4 24.8 70.4 24.8 71.9 24.3 72 24.2 71.9 24.3 72.1 24.2 US 176 EB 34 53 38.5 45.8 44.6 48 42.5 52.9 38.6 53.4 38.2 54.1 37.7 US 176 WB 34.1 53.7 38 53.8 38 54 37.8 53.8 38 55.4 36.9 55.7 36.7 US 76 EB 29.3 45.8 38.3 39.6 44.4 47.2 37.2 46.5 37.8 45.9 38.3 47.7 36.8 US 321 NB 17.8 52.1 20.5 51.8 20.6 52.3 20.4 52.8 20.2 54.9 19.4 55 19.4 US 321 SB 17.8 51.7 20.6 51.3 20.8 52.2 20.4 53.6 19.9 54.6 19.5 55.2 19.3 VC Summer Nuclear Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Down Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Upstream stream Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Roadway Name Node Node Time Interval 207 430 564 623 637 637 State Route (SR) 215 31 32 2.90% 2.20% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.90%

87 362 468 487 494 495 SR 34 60 61 1.20% 1.80% 1.60% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%

239 674 964 1,081 1,117 1,118 US 321 71 664 3.30% 3.40% 3.40% 3.40% 3.40% 3.40%

36 166 225 247 251 251 SR 215 113 111 0.50% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80% 0.80%

2,535 5,339 6,572 6,647 6,672 6,673 I26 361 363 35.20% 27.00% 22.90% 20.90% 20.40% 20.40%

68 273 415 469 484 484 US 176/SR 121 400 401 1.00% 1.40% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%

4 33 48 53 55 55 Tyger River Rd 422 423 0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.2%

7 54 77 85 87 87 SR S3645 425 426 0.10% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30%

87 470 920 1,114 1,187 1,189 SR 391 719 720 1.20% 2.40% 3.20% 3.50% 3.60% 3.60%

77 521 909 1,043 1,086 1,088 SR 34 812 814 1.10% 2.60% 3.20% 3.30% 3.30% 3.30%

226 713 1,173 1,429 1,529 1,532 US 76 848 957 3.10% 3.60% 4.10% 4.50% 4.70% 4.70%

231 688 1,027 1,179 1,228 1,228 US 321 939 470 3.20% 3.50% 3.60% 3.70% 3.80% 3.80%

58 406 616 674 694 694 SR 200 966 141 0.80% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10%

239 882 1,623 2,185 2,354 2,357 US 176 1043 827 3.30% 4.50% 5.70% 6.90% 7.20% 7.20%

2,801 7,369 10,565 11,431 11,636 11,644 I26 1111 824 38.90% 37.20% 36.80% 36.00% 35.50% 35.50%

79 420 800 975 1,070 1,071 St. Andrews Rd 1143 395 1.10% 2.10% 2.80% 3.10% 3.30% 3.30%

219 990 1,748 2,029 2,167 2,172 SR 6 1156 391 3.00% 5.00% 6.10% 6.40% 6.60% 6.60%

VC Summer Nuclear Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins VC Summer Nuclear Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Ice (Scenario 8)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Ice (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

VC Summer Nuclear Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

EP100 Appendix 5 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 31 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K32) which show each of the links and nodes in the network.

The analysis network was calibrated using the observations made during the field surveys conducted in February 2021.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic and access control point [TACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 942 Pretimed 2 Actuated 52 Stop 123 TACP 24 Yield 12 Total: 1,155 VC Summer Nuclear Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K1. Overview of Link Node Analysis VC Summer Nuclear Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K2. Grid 1 VC Summer Nuclear Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K3. Grid 2 VC Summer Nuclear Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K4. Grid 3 VC Summer Nuclear Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K5. Grid 4 VC Summer Nuclear Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K6. Grid 5 VC Summer Nuclear Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K7. Grid 6 VC Summer Nuclear Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K8. Grid 7 VC Summer Nuclear Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K9. Grid 8 VC Summer Nuclear Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K10. Grid 9 VC Summer Nuclear Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K11. Grid 10 VC Summer Nuclear Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K12. Grid 11 VC Summer Nuclear Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K13. Grid 12 VC Summer Nuclear Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K14. Grid 13 VC Summer Nuclear Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K15. Grid 14 VC Summer Nuclear Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K16. Grid 15 VC Summer Nuclear Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K17. Grid 16 VC Summer Nuclear Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K18. Grid 17 VC Summer Nuclear Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K19. Grid 18 VC Summer Nuclear Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K20. Grid 19 VC Summer Nuclear Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K21. Grid 20 VC Summer Nuclear Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K22. Grid 21 VC Summer Nuclear Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K23. Grid 22 VC Summer Nuclear Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K24. Grid 23 VC Summer Nuclear Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K25. Grid 24 VC Summer Nuclear Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K26. Grid 25 VC Summer Nuclear Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K27. Grid 26 VC Summer Nuclear Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K28. Grid 27 VC Summer Nuclear Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K29. Grid 28 VC Summer Nuclear Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K30. Grid 29 VC Summer Nuclear Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K31. Grid 30 VC Summer Nuclear Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Figure K32. Grid 31 VC Summer Nuclear Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Protective Action Zone Boundaries

EP100 Appendix 5 PROTECTIVE ACTION ZONE (PAZ) BOUNDARIES PAZ A0 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Within a 2mile radius of the VCSNS. Bounded on the north by a line from Friendship Church on Cole Trestle Road east across Monticello Reservoir to the northern junction of S213 and S215. Bounded on the east by both sides of S215 back to the Parr Road.

Bounded on the south by both sides of Parr Road. Bounded on the west by Broad River, from the Broad River (at a 2mile radius from VCSNS) along the south side of the dirt extension of Cole Trestle Road, and along the east side of Cole Trestle Road to Friendship Church.

PAZ A1 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north along the Broad River to Dawkins Road to Meadow Lake Road. Bounded on the east by S215 to the line south of the town of Monticello. Bounded on the south by a line from south of the Town of Monticello on S215, due west to Friendship Church; south along Cole Trestle Road. Bounded on the west along dirt road to the Broad River.

PAZ A2 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by Buckhead Road. Bounded on the east by Possum Branch Road to S34, then S 34 east to the junction of S34 and Clark Bridge Road. Bounded on the south by both sides of Dawkins Road, Meadow Lake Road, and Clark Bridge Road.

Bounded on the west by the Broad River.

PAZ B1 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of Clark Bridge Road. Bounded on the east by the Little River.

Bounded on the south by both sides of S213. Bounded on the west by both sides of S215.

PAZ B2 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of Clark Bridge Road and S34. Bounded on the east by both sides of Jackson Creek Road. Bounded on the south by both sides of Reservoir Road, Landis Road, and S213. Bounded on the west by the Little River.

VC Summer Nuclear Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 PAZ C1 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of S213 and Landis Road. Bounded on the east by both sides of Koon Store Road, Glenns Bridge Road, S215, and Wallaceville Road. Bounded on the south by the Broad River. Bounded on the west by Parr Road and both sides of S213 and S215.

PAZ C2 County: Fairfield Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of Reservoir Road, Rion Road, and Keller Miller Road to include both Kelly Miller and Greenbriar Schools. Bounded on the east by both sides of S 269 and Bookmans Mill Road, then along the Fairfield County line to the Broad River. Bounded on the south by the Broad River. Bounded on the west by both sides of Wallaceville Road, S215, Glenns Bridge Road, Koon Store Road and Landis Road.

PAZ D1 County: Richland Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north and east by the Broad River. Bounded on the south by both sides of Kennerly Road, Mt. Vernon Church Road, and I26. Bounded on the west by the Richland County line.

PAZ D2 County: Lexington Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north, west, and east by the Lexington County line. Bounded on the south by US76 (Chapin Road), Sid Bickley Road, Old Lexington Road including Chapin Elementary School, Old Bush River Road until it ends, across the water to Bear Creek Road, Amicks Ferry Road, Lester Frick Road, and St. Peters Church Road to the Lexington/Newberry County line.

PAZ E1 County: Newberry Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by Cannons Creek. Bounded on the east by the Broad River. Bounded on the south from Peak (by the Newberry County line) and both sides of Capers Chapel Road. Bounded on the west by both sides of US 176 and the Town of Pomaria and New Hope Road.

VC Summer Nuclear Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 PAZ E2 County: Newberry Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of US176. Bounded on the east by the Newberry County line.

Bounded on the south by both sides of Nursery Road, US76, the Town of Little Mountain, and US76 including MidCarolina School. Bounded on the west by both sides of Old Jolly Street Road to I26 then east to S773 and then north on US 176 to Pomaria.

PAZ F1 County: Newberry Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north and east by the Broad River; Bounded on the south by Cannons Creek; Bounded on the west by both sides of New Hope Road.

PAZ F2 County: Newberry Defined as the area within the following boundaries: Bounded on the north by both sides of Mt. Pleasant Road, Broad River Road, and S34. Bounded on the east by the Broad River, both sides of New Hope Road, S773, and US176.

Bounded on the south by both sides of I26. Bounded on the west by both sides of Bachman Chapel Road, Mud Creek Road, Livingston Road, and Ringer Road.

VC Summer Nuclear Station L3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

EP100 Appendix 5 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e. spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th ETE is reduced by 15 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE are reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months (a significant change), respectively. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 30 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , respectively - a significant change.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the EPZ clears (i.e., all highways within EPZ operates at a Level of Service A) at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 100th percentile until 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 40 minutes after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE. See Table M1.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating shadow evacuation (0%) decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes while the 100th percentile ETE remain unchanged. Tripling the shadow percentage from 20% to 60% increases the ETE by 40 minutes for the 90th percentile - a significant change, but the 100th percentile ETE remains unchanged. A full evacuation (100%) of the Shadow Region increases the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 30 minutes and 1 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes, respectively.

VC Summer Nuclear Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 11% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs significantly from the base assumption of 20% noncompliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 11% shadow and the ETE decreases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE remains the same.

The Shadow Region for VCSNS is significantly populated within population centers like Prosperity, and Winnsboro, southwest and northeast of the plant, respectively. In addition, Irmo is also significantly populated (which includes the area of Lake Murray of Richland) and is within close proximity of the EPZ boundary (PAZ D1 and PAZ D2). As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, congestion exists within the Shadow Region near Irmo, especially along US Highway (US) 76 eastbound, such that the EPZ evacuees would be delayed during an evacuation trip. Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate increase this congestion, delay the egress of EPZ evacuees and prolong ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013 001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25%

or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 62%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area and the Shadow Region.

2. The transportation infrastructure (as presented in Appendix K) remained fixed; the presence of future proposed roadway changes and/or highway capacity improvements were not considered.

3. The study was performed for the 2Mile Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02)and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday with Ice).

VC Summer Nuclear Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table M3 presents the results of the sensitivity study.Section IV of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, Section 5.4, require licensees to provide an updated ETE analysis to the NRC when a population increase within the EPZ causes the longest 90th percentile ETE values (for the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. All base ETE values for the 2Mile Region (R01), 5Mile Region (R02), and for the entire (EPZ) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; 25% of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted red in Table M3 - a 62% or greater increase in the entire EPZ permanent resident population. Dominion Energy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 62% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.

Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 15 to 30 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.1). Thus, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly will decrease ETE.

Increasing the percent shadow evacuation has significant impacts on ETE (Section M.2). As such, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results (Section M.3) in more evacuating vehicles, which could significantly increase ETE. Public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

VC Summer Nuclear Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 4 Hours 2:30 4:10 5 Hours (Base) 2:45 5:10 6 Hours 3:15 6:10 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:35 5:10 11 (survey) 4,187 2:40 5:10 20 (Base) 7,612 2:45 5:10 40 15,224 3:00 5:10 60 22,836 3:25 5:10 80 30,448 3:50 5:45 100 38,060 4:15 6:25 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Base Shadow Permanent 60% 61% 62%

Resident Population 27,855 44,568 44,847 45,125 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 60% 61% 62%

2MILE 2:05 2:25 2:25 2:25 5MILE 2:50 3:00 3:00 3:00 FULL EPZ 2:50 3:15 3:15 3:20 th ETE (hrs:mins) for the 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 60% 61% 62%

2MILE 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5MILE 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 FULL EPZ 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

VC Summer Nuclear Station M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

EP100 Appendix 5 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1.2 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D in Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1, Table 73, Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying Table 74 the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1 VC Summer Nuclear Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to N/A N/A 2020 used as the base year of the reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis

d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1, Appendix F justification is provided for other values.

2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E5 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E4

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35 and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population by scenario - see Table 64.

d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the population (employees) distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.7 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.8 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.7, Table 39, Table 310 VC Summer Nuclear Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 310, Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E3 lists all medical facilities by average population, are listed. Special facility staff is facility name, location, and average included in the total special facility population. population. Staff estimates were not provided.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed Yes Table 36 available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Generations of Chapin other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 37, Table 38, Table E1, Table E2, population, and transportation resources required to Section 3.6 support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.6 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.6 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 no return trips are needed.

2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.9 is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Figure 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 58 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Item 10 and 11 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.11 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 312, Table 313, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of Yes Appendix K the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Item 2 and 3 of Section 2.6 VC Summer Nuclear Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table Yes Table 22 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. adverse weather conditions.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Item 5 of Section 2.6, Table 22; ice, not and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways snow is considered for this site.

are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Section 2, Appendix J set of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time VC Summer Nuclear Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing N/A There was no uncertainty when trip generation times are discussed, if applicable. developing trip generation times.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage commuters.

of residents will need to return home before evacuating.

Table 63 presents the percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

Item 3 of Section 2.3 VC Summer Nuclear Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method Yes Section 5 to notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are expected is considered.

4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist. Basic used in the ETE analysis. bus routes were developed for the ETE analysis.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent People (Residents without expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described. access to a vehicle)

VC Summer Nuclear Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 necessary.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through provided. Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810 residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1 are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

g. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through provided. Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical VC Summer Nuclear Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses dynamic percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random traffic assignment model to obtain the seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, "average" (stable) network work flow Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is monte carlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last vehicle

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not exits the evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one plot

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and for each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage 6. Table J3 of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 76 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation last vehicle exits the evacuation zone.

zone.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar Yes Table 73 and Table 74 to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EP100 Appendix 5 Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes Results of the ETE study were formally affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. There were no comments on the draft report and no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario the availability of US Census Bureau variations. decennial census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.

VC Summer Nuclear Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ML22215A271

Text

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

Search