ML22258A040

Evacuation Time Estimate Reports, Rev. 0 (Kld TR-1276)

ML22258A040
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, Mcguire, Catawba, Brunswick, Robinson, McGuire
Issue date:	09/01/2022
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML22258A029	List: ML22258A030 ML22258A034 ML22258A038 ML22258A039 ML22258A040 RA-22-0262, Evacuation Time Estimate Report, Rev. 0 (Kld TR-1237)
References
RA-22-0262 KLD TR-1276
Download: ML22258A040 (394)

Text

Enclosure 5 RA-22-0262 ENCLOSURE 5: Robinson 2022 Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Robinson Nuclear Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Duke Energy, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 Email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com September 1, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1276

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Robinson Nuclear Plant Location ........................................................................................ 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 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 3.1.1 Coker University ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.1 Airbnb Rentals .................................................................................................................... 34 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 35 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.7 School and Childcare Population Demand................................................................................. 37 3.8 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 38 3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 38 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.12 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 310 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 RNP 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETE for Schools/Preschools/Childcare Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities.................................................................................................................................................. 82 8.2 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ........................................................................... 810 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 .................................................................................................................... 101 Robinson Nuclear Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Appendices 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 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.3.4 Emergency Communications ................................................................................................. F5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP Locations ........................................................................................... G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. Zone 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 EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Robinson Nuclear Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Robinson Nuclear Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11 RNP Location ........................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 12. RNP LinkNode Analysis Network .......................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Zones Comprising the RNP EPZ .............................................................................................. 320 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 321 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 322 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 323 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 324 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 325 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 326 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 327 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 328 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 5 Mile Region

................................................................................................................................................................. 519 Figure 61. Zones Comprising the RNP EPZ ............................................................................................... 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 716 Figure 72. RNP Shadow Region ............................................................................................................... 717 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................ 718 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 719 Figure 75: Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 15 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 720 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................ 721 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 722 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 723 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 725 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 727 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 728 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 822 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes ..................................................................................................... 108 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................................... 109 Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers ............................................................................. 1010 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Robinson Nuclear Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Study Area ................................................................................................. E8 Figure E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ .......................................................................... E9 Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E10 Figure E4. Major Employers within the EPZ............................................................................................ E11 Figure E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ ..................................................................................... E12 Figure E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E13 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F6 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ...................................................................... F7 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5+ 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. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 Pandemic ..................................................................... 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 Leaving .......................... F11 Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics ............................................................................................ F12 Figure F13. Shelter in Place Characteristics - Staged Evacuation .......................................................... F12 Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations ................................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Households with Pets .......................................................................................................... F13 Figure F16. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals ......................................................................... F14 Figure F17. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F14 Figure F18. Time to Commute Home from Work/College ..................................................................... F15 Figure F19. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F15 Figure F20. Cell Phone Signal Reliability ................................................................................................ F16 Figure F21. Likelihood to Take Action Based off Emergency Management Officials Guidelines .......... F16 Figure F22. Emergency Communication Alert ....................................................................................... F17 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the RNP ....................................................................... 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H21 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 H34. Region R34.......................................................................................................................... H37 Figure H35. Region R35.......................................................................................................................... H38 Figure H36. Region R36.......................................................................................................................... H39 Figure J1 RNP Network Sources/Origins ................................................................................................... J5 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J6 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J6 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J7 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J7 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

................................................................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J8 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ................................. J9 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8) ................ J9 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9) ............................. J10 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10)

................................................................................................................................................................. J10 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario

11) ............................................................................................................................................................ J11 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) ............................................................................................................................................ J11 Figure K1. RNP LinkNode Analysis Network ............................................................................................ K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Robinson Nuclear Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 ............................................................................... K18 Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 ............................................................................... K19 Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 ............................................................................... K20 Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 ............................................................................... K21 Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 ............................................................................... K22 Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 ............................................................................... K23 Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 ............................................................................... K24 Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 ............................................................................... K25 Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 ............................................................................... K26 Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 ............................................................................... K27 Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 ............................................................................... K28 Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 ............................................................................... K29 Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 ............................................................................... K30 Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Robinson Nuclear Plant viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ..................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone ......................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ........................................................................... 312 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ........................... 313 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 314 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 314 Table 38. School and Childcare Population Demand Estimates ............................................................ 315 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary ............................................................. 317 Table 310. RNP EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 317 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand ......................................................................................... 318 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 319 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 ................................................. 510 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 511 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ..................................................... 511 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 .................................................................................. 812 Table 82. School and Childcare Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ....................................... 813 Table 83. School and Childcare Evacuation Time Estimates Rain........................................................ 815 Table 84. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 817 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain .......................................................... 818 Table 86. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 819 Table 87. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain ............................................................... 820 Table 88. Access and/or Functional Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates ................................... 821 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 104 Robinson Nuclear Plant ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. School Relocation Centers ................................................................................................... 107 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 Study Area .................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ ........................................................................... E3 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E4 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ ........................................................................................ E6 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E7 Table F1. RNP Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ................................................................................. F6 Table G1 List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ............................................................................ G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC ..................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Zone 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) ................................................................................................................................................. J3 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J4 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 Population Sensitivity Study ............................................... M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 Robinson Nuclear Plant x KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) located in Darlington County, South Carolina. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Duke 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 18 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Duke Energy personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county agencies.

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

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the RNP, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe roadway characteristics.

Calibrated 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.

Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county were obtained from Duke Energy and by state and county OROs, the Health Resources and Services Administration database1, the South Carolina Department of Health and 1

https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Environmental Control2, National Center for Education Statistics3, National Application Center4, Private School Review5, SC Child Care6, supplemented by phone calls and previous study where data was missing.

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.

The EPZ is subdivided into 11 Zones. These Zones are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 36 Evacuation Regions.

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). One special event scenario involving a NASCAR race and related activities, at the Darlington Raceway, was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a segment of SR 151 southbound is closed for the duration of the evacuation (scenario 12).

Staged evacuation was considered for those regions wherein 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 RNP 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 siren notification.

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 preschools/childcare centers are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to Reception Centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for schoolchildren are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the 2

https://sc-dhec.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e8b4eea83cab491bb3e3663093e14656 3

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 4

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/1942/Coker_University/Coker_University5.html 5

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/

6 https://www.scchildcare.org/

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, wheelchair transport van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Conducted a final meeting with Duke Energy personnel and the state and county OROs to present final results of the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 432 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 36 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 12 Evacuation Scenarios (36 x 12 = 432). 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 voluntarily evacuate. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2Mile Region evacuate immediately, while those beyond 2 miles, but within the EPZ, shelterinplace. Once 90% of the 2Mile Region is evacuated, those people beyond 2 miles begin to evacuate. As per federal guidance, 20% of people beyond the 2Mile Region will evacuate (noncompliance) even though they are advised to shelterinplace.

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.

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plans provided by Chesterfield County and South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan (SCORERP). The TCPs in the Darlington County portion of the EPZ were maintained from the previous study since a TMP for this county could not be obtained. Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study.

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 Zone based on the 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 36 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Zones.

Table 62 lists the 12 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 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

Tables 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2Mile Region for unstaged (concurrent) and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

Table 82 presents the ETE for the children at schools and childcare centers in good weather.

Table 84 presents the ETE for the transitdependent population in good weather.

Table 86 presents ETE for the medical facilities in good weather.

Table M3 compares the results of the sensitivity study conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region).

Figure 61 displays a map of the RNP EPZ showing the layout of the 11 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Figure H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 432 unique cases - a combination of 36 unique Evacuation Regions and 12 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:25 (hrs:mins) to 2:50 at the 90th percentile for all unstaged, nonspecial scenarios. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 4:15 to 4:25 for all unstaged, nonspecial scenarios.

The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. The 100th percentile ETE generally parallel the mobilization times (4:15 for residents with returning commuters plus 5 to 10 minutes travel time to exit the EPZ). This implies that the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization.

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 R13 with Regions R26, R27 through R36, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation is not recommended for the RNP EPZ.

Comparison of Scenarios 8 and 11 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - a NASCAR Race at Darlington Raceway (see Section 3.8) - has no impact on the ETE at the 90th or 100th percentile. The results indicate there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the additional special event vehicles.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - the closure of a segment of State Route 151 southbound between US 15 (S. 5th Street) and State Route 151 Business (S. Fourth Street) - has a minimal impact (at most 5 minutes) on the 90th percentile ETE and no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, specifically for Regions that involve the evacuation of Zones B1, B2, C1 and C2 concurrently. There is sufficient capacity on neighboring routes to accommodate the evacuees who may consider rerouting from SR 151 southbound such that ETE is minimally impacted.

Most of the congestion is located to the east and southeast of the plant in Zones B1 and B2, all of the congestion is beyond the 2Mile Region, and congestion clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes after the ATE. The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is along State Route 151 (S Fourth Street) southbound (from Washington Ave to State Route 151 (E Bobo Newsom Highway)). See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.

Separate ETE were computed for schools/childcare centers, medical facilities, transit dependent persons and access and/or functional needs persons. The average single wave ETE for schools/childcare centers requiring bus transportation is less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population (good weather), the average singlewave ETE for access and/or functional populations is equal to the 90th percentile ETE for the general population, while the average singlewave ETE for transitdependent and medical facilities are longer and could impact protective action decisionmaking.

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient transportation resources available to evacuate the public schools/childcare centers within the Chesterfield County portion of Robinson Nuclear Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the EPZ in a single wave. There are also not enough transportation resources to evacuate the schools/preschools/childcare centers in Darlington County, transit dependent population, ambulatory, bedridden, and wheelchair bound patients at medical facilities, and access and/or functional needs population in a single wave. The second wave ETE for schools/childcare centers by bus, transit dependent population, ambulatory patients using buses, wheelchair bound patients using wheelchair van, bedridden patients using ambulances, and the access and/or functional needs population exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Sections 8.1 and 8.2 for further discussion.

A reduction or addition of base trip generation time by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 0 to 45 minutes (respectively) and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for both (significant changes). See Table M1 in Appendix M.

An increase or decrease in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region has no impact on the 90th percentile ETE, while quadrupling (80%) and a full evacuation (100%)

of the Shadow Region evacuation percentage increases the 100th percentile ETE by 5 minutes - not a significant change. See Appendix M and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population within the full EPZ of 57% or greater result in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes, which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses.

See Appendix M.3 and Table M3.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population A0 2,282 2,138 A1 670 795 A2 1,426 1,314 B1 16,584 15,108 B2 5,645 5,068 C1 2,578 2,665 C2 1,931 1,683 D1 1,114 997 D2 9267 954 E1 395 461 E2 2,106 1,938 EPZ TOTAL: 35,657 33,121 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 7.11%

7 The boundary of Zone D-2 has been adjusted since the previous ETE study. The 2010 population for Zone D-2 in the table reflects the new zone boundary, and therefore, will not align with the previous study.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region DESCRIPTION A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R04 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R05 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R06 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R07 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R08 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R09 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R10 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R11 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R12 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R13 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R14 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X X X X R15 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X X X R16 NE 33.75 56.25 NE 16 78 X X X X X X X R17 ENE 56.25 78.75 X X X X X X R18 E/ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X X X R19 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X X X R20 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X X X R21 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X X X X R22 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X X X R23 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X X X X R24 WNW 281.25 303.75 X X X X X R25 NW, NNW 303.75 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R26 5Mile Region X X X X X X R27 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R28 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R29 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R30 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R31 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R32 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R33 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R34 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R35 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R36 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of 8

Scenarios Season Day of 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 Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Darlington 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good NASCAR Race Roadway Impact: State 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 151 Southbound 8

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).

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R02 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R03 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R05 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R06 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R07 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R08 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R09 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R10 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R12 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R13 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R14 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:50 R15 2:45 2:50 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R16 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R17 2:40 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:40 R18 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:35 R19 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:35 R20 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:35 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R21 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R22 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R23 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 R24 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 R25 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R27 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R28 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R29 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R30 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R32 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 R33 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R34 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R35 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R36 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R13 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R14 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R17 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R18 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R19 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R27 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R02 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R05 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R06 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R07 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R08 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R09 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R10 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R12 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R13 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R27 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R28 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R29 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R31 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R32 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R33 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R34 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R35 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R36 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R05 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R06 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R07 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R08 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R09 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R10 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R11 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R13 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R27 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R28 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R29 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R30 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R31 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R32 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R33 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R34 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R35 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R36 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School and Childcare Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Elementary School 90 15 3.9 45.0 5 1:50 20.5 27 2:20 McBee High School 90 15 3.4 45.0 5 1:50 20.5 27 2:20 9

Plainview Elementary School 90 15 Located Outside EPZ 1:45 23.5 31 2:20 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Lakeview Baptist Church School 90 15 10.1 41.1 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Carolina Elementary School 90 15 9.9 42.6 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 North Hartsville Elementary School 90 15 10.2 41.3 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Hartsville High School 90 15 9.7 44.4 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Coker University 90 15 9.4 43.6 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Butler Academy 90 15 8.3 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Governor's School for Science & Math 90 15 9.5 43.8 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Southside Early Childhood Center 90 15 7.0 45.0 9 1:55 16.4 22 2:20 Emmanuel Christian School 90 15 11.5 45.0 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Forest Hills Christian School 90 15 10.2 45.0 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Bay Road Elementary 90 15 8.1 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Hartsville Middle School 90 15 9.5 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Thomas Hart Academy 90 15 5.1 39.3 8 1:55 16.8 22 2:20 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 School Maximum: 2:25 School Average for EPZ: 2:00 School Average: 2:25 9

Facility is located just outside the EPZ; however, the facility will evacuate as per county plans. ETE for this facility is not included in the average for the EPZ and is the sum of the time to mobilize drivers and load the buses.

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CHILDCARE CENTERS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Head Start 90 15 4.0 45.0 5 1:50 21.7 29 2:20 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 90 15 10.4 42.6 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Kids N Me 90 15 10.6 41.4 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 King's Kids Childrens Center 90 15 9.5 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Presbyterian Church School 90 15 9.2 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Baptist Church Preschool 90 15 9.1 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Baptist Preschool 90 15 9.1 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 YMCA After School Program 90 15 8.9 43.3 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Montessori Day Academy 90 15 9.4 43.7 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy 90 15 8.7 43.4 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Thompson Children Learning Center 90 15 8.6 43.4 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 East Christian Academy DayCare 90 15 11.1 45.0 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 A Kidz Place II, Inc 90 15 8.4 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Jeanette Pendergrass 90 15 12.7 45.0 17 2:05 16.4 22 2:30 Kelleytown Baptist Church 90 15 10.8 45.0 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Patricia Mack Philips 90 15 14.8 45.0 20 2:05 16.4 22 2:30 Childcare Centers Childcare Centers Maximum for EPZ: 2:05 2:30 Maximum:

Childcare Centers Childcare Centers Average for EPZ: 2:00 2:25 Average:

Robinson Nuclear Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 31 A0 150 13.0 45.0 17 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 57 30 5:25 32 A1 150 7.9 33.5 14 30 3:15 14.2 19 5 10 40 30 5:00 33 A2 150 4.4 22.9 11 30 3:15 14.2 19 5 10 31 30 4:50 34 B1 (1) 150 14.3 45.0 19 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 60 30 5:30 35 B1 (2) 150 10.3 45.0 14 30 3:15 16.8 22 5 10 49 30 5:15 36 B2 150 13.7 45.0 18 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 59 30 5:30 37 C1 150 12.8 45.0 17 30 3:20 16.4 22 5 10 56 30 5:25 38 C2 150 5.5 45.0 7 30 3:10 16.4 22 5 10 37 30 4:55 39 D1 150 20.1 45.0 27 30 3:30 16.8 22 5 10 76 30 5:55 40 D2 150 4.7 45.0 6 30 3:10 6.7 9 5 10 22 30 4:30 41 E1 150 7.5 45.0 10 30 3:10 19.2 26 5 10 46 30 5:10 42 E2 150 7.2 45.0 10 30 3:10 19.2 26 5 10 45 30 5:10 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 5:55 Average ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 5:15 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 34 30 10.5 14 2:15 Morningside of Hartsville Wheelchair bound 90 5 5 20 10.5 14 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 81 30 8.2 13 2:15 Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 35 20 8.2 14 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 9.4 15 1:50 Thad E. Saleeby Development Center Bedridden 90 15 80 30 9.4 15 2:15 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 10.1 15 1:50 William Bowen Community Residence Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.1 16 2:00 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.1 16 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 10.0 15 1:50 Reagan Residential Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.0 16 2:00 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.0 15 2:15 Carriage House of Hartsville Ambulatory 90 1 60 30 10.6 16 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 34 30 11.5 17 2:20 Morrell Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 113 20 11.5 18 2:10 Bedridden 90 15 7 30 11.5 17 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 8.5 11 2:05 The Retreat at Carolina Bay Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 8.5 11 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 21 21 2.5 3 1:55 Bishopville Manor Wheelchair bound 90 5 11 20 2.5 3 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 12 30 2.5 3 2:05 Maximum ETE: 2:20 Average ETE: 2:10 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Population Sensitivity Study EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 55% 56% 57%

Population 36,312 56,284 56,647 57,010 th ETE for 90 Percentile Population Change Region Base 55% 56% 57%

2MILE 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 5MILE 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 FULL EPZ 2:45 3:10 3:10 3:15 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 55% 56% 57%

2MILE 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5MILE 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 FULL EPZ 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. RNP EPZ Zones Robinson Nuclear Plant ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Robinson Nuclear Plant ES22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) located in Darlington County, South Carolina. This ETE study provides Duke 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.

• Revision 1 of the Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, 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.Development of Evacuation Time Estimates for Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR6863, January 2005.

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by Duke Energy and the 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 Duke Energy.

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Duke Energy, the emergency planners from Chesterfield, Lee, and Darlington Counties 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 area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.

d. Reviewed the existing state and county emergency plans.

e. Conducted an online demographic survey of EPZ residents (See Appendix F).

f. Obtained demographic data from the 2020 Census (See Section 3.1).

g. Conducted a data collection effort to update the database of special facilities (i.e., schools, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities), major employers, Robinson Nuclear Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

transient attractions, access and/or functional needs population, transportation providers/resources available, 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 online 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 (TCP/ACP) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 11 Zones along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Zones for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at schools, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities, transitdependent persons at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.

7. Prepared the input streams for the 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, Duke Energy and from the demographic survey.

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM1 2016) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

c. Calibrated 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities), for the transitdependent population and for the access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The Robinson Nuclear Plant Location The Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) is located in northeastern South Carolina, approximately five miles westnorthwest of Hartsville. The nearest large city is Columbia, South Carolina, approximately 55 miles southwest. The site is approximately 30 miles south of the North Carolina border and 90 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. The Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) consists of parts of Darlington, Chesterfield, and Lee Counties in South Carolina. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the RNP. This map identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In February 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.

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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. TCPs/ACPs 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.

Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was undertaken in April through August 2021 to gather information needed for the ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the Robinson Nuclear Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns along with discussion validating the use of the survey results in this study.

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.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 2012 ETE study (KLD TR534, Rev.1, dated November 2012). As indicated in the final row of the table, the 90th percentile ETE values have changed minimally (up to 10 minutes) since the ETE study was conducted. The 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ remained the same.

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

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly (by 41.9%),

due to the updated NRC criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. This decrease in quickly mobilizing vehicles can increase the 90th percentile ETE as it will take longer to reach 90% of the evacuating traffic.

The number of transients has significantly by approximately 700%, which significantly increases the number of buses within the EPZ. An increase in transient vehicles can increase ETE.

Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), which is based on the data collected from the demographic survey, for the employees/transients decreased by 45 minutes.

The compression of the time vehicles mobilize can increase congestion as more vehicles are getting on the roadway system in a shorter amount of time. The roadway system becomes overwhelmed and congestion builds. An increase in congestion can increase the ETE.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the time to mobilize. The time to mobilize all population groups has remained the same (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes). As such, there is no change in the 100th percentile ETE.

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Provided recent RNP employee data. Coordinated information exchange with offsite response organizations. Reviewed and approved all project Duke Energy assumptions and draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting with Duke Energy personnel where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project Chesterfield County methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided existing emergency plans, including traffic and access control points and other information critical to the ETE study.

Darlington County Emergency Services Reviewed and approved project assumptions.

Engaged in the ETE development and informed of the study results. Provided data for special facilities in the EPZ. Attended final meeting with Lee County ORO personnel 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 geometries Control devices Lane channelization & queuing Intersection configuration (including capacity (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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

used.

Basis Population = 35,927 Population = 33,121 Vehicles = 19,189 Vehicles = 19,590 2.27 persons/household, 1.20 2.46 persons/household, 1.50 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 1.89 persons/vehicle. yielding: 1.64 persons/vehicle.

Employee estimates based on information provided about major Employee estimates based on employers in EPZ, supplemented by information provided about major telephone calls to individual employers in EPZ. 1.10 employees Employee employers. 1.05 employees per per vehicle based on demographic vehicle based on telephone survey survey results.

results. Employees = 1,696 Employees = 2,918 Vehicles = 1,543 Vehicles = 2,779 Estimates based upon U.S. Census Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone data and the results of the TransitDependent survey. A total of 1,130 people who demographic survey. A total of 114 Population do not have access to a vehicle, people who do not have access to a requiring at least 38 buses to vehicle, requiring 12 buses to evacuate. evacuate.

An additional 59 homebound special An additional 26 access and/or Access and/or needs persons needed special functional needs persons need Functional Needs transportation to evacuate (51 special transportation to evacuate Population require a bus, 8 require an (21 require a bus and 5 require an ambulance). ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient Transient estimates based upon attractions in EPZ, observations of the information provided by the county facilities during the road survey, emergency management Transient Population tourist information and internet departments.

searches. See Section 3 for details. Transients = 2,733 Transients = 380 Vehicles = 1,301 Vehicles = 301 Robinson Nuclear Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Population based on information Special facility population based on provided by counties within the EPZ, information provided by each county Health Resources and Services within the EPZ. Administration database2, South Current census = 454 Carolina Department of Health and Medical Facility Environmental Control3.

Population Buses Required = 9 Current census = 548 Wheelchair Vans Required = 31 (capacity 4 per bus) Buses Required = 14 Ambulances Required = 70 Wheelchair Bus Required =16 Ambulances Required = 52 External Traffic External traffic = 11,216 External traffic = 7,060 vehicles School, preschool/childcare center, and Coker University population School population based on based on information provided by information provided by each county counties within the EPZ, National within the EPZ. Includes Coker Center for Education Statistics4, School, Childcare College and Daycares. National Application Center5, Private Centers School enrollment = 8,918 School Review6, and SC Child Care7 Buses required = 173 School/childcare centers/Coker University enrollment = 8,004 Commuter college students 1.05 per vehicle, on average. Buses required = 138 Commuter college students 1.10 per vehicle, on average.

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

Population/Evacuation Population = 18,030 Population = 15,957 Vehicles = 9,588 Vehicles = 9,019 Network Size 487 links; 332 nodes 778 links; 545 nodes 2

https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/

3 https://sc-dhec.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e8b4eea83cab491bb3e3663093e14656 4

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 5

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/1942/Coker_University/Coker_University5.html 6

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/

7 https://www.scchildcare.org/

Robinson Nuclear Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Field surveys conducted in April 2012. Field surveys conducted in February Roadway Geometric Roads and intersections were video 2021. Roads and intersections were Data archived. video archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM. Road capacities based on 2016 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated School Evacuation Relocation Center. Reception Center.

50 percent of transitdependent 80 percent of transitdependent Ridesharing persons will evacuate with a neighbor persons will evacuate with a neighbor or friend. or friend.

Notification complete within 45 minutes Based on demographic survey of Trip generation time based on specific pretrip mobilization residential telephone survey of activities:

specific pretrip mobilization activities: Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 255 minutes.

Residents with commuters returning Trip Generation for leave between 20 and 255 minutes. Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 15 and 225 Residents without commuters minutes.

returning leave between 10 and 165 minutes. Employees and transients leave between 5 and 75 minutes.

Employees and transients leave between 5 and 120 minutes. All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

All times measured from the Advisory to Evacuate.

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

event of rain and 20% for snow.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.15.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Darlington NASCAR race Darlington NASCAR race Peak Special Event Population = Peak Special Event Population =

Special Events 60,000 (including residents) 60,000 (including residents)

Peak number transients = Peak number transients =

15,000 transient vehicles 15,000 transient vehicles 32 Regions (central sector wind 36 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and two adjacent sectors Evacuation Cases technique used) and 14 Scenarios technique used) and 12 Scenarios producing 448 unique cases. producing 432 unique cases.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Evacuation Time Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather: 2:35 Good Weather: 2:45 entire EPZ, 90th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 2:25 Good Weather: 2:30 Evacuation Time Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Estimates for the Good Weather: 4:25 Good Weather: 4:25 entire EPZ, 100th Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, percentile Good Weather: 4:25 Good Weather: 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11 RNP Location Robinson Nuclear Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. RNP LinkNode Analysis Network Robinson Nuclear Plant 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2.1 Data Estimates

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 Zone 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 Darlington County emergency management personnel for major employers in Darlington County. Estimates of employees at major employers within Chesterfield County are based upon data from the previous study since no new data was provided. Data for RNP is based upon data provided by Duke Energy (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 Statistics2, the South Carolina Division of Early Care and Education3, Health Resources and Services Administration4, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control (SC DHEC)5 and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to individual facilities where data is missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on 2020 Census and the results of the online demographic survey (see Appendix F), based on discussions with Duke Energy. Average values of 2.46 persons per household (Figure F1) and 1.50 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 3.8) are as follows:

a. Transients - Vehicle occupancy varies based upon data gathered but on average is 2.10 people per vehicle

b. Special Event - a NASCAR race at Darlington Raceway with a vehicle occupancy of 4 transients per vehicle.

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

1 www.census.gov 2

https://nces.ed.gov/

3 https://www.scchildcare.org/

4 https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/

5 https://scdhec.gov/

Robinson Nuclear Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey; 1.10 employees per vehicle is used in the study (See Figure F7). In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average.

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 45 mph South Carolina state law6 laws 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 following7 (as per NRC guidance):

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

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

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°24'10.9"N and 80°09'29.9"W.

3. The DYNEV II8 (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 traffic control devices and traffic guides. All major evacuation routes are used in the analysis.

5. The existing EPZ and Zone 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 Zones 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).

6 https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess110_1993-1994/bills/3596.htm 7

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.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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 traffic that originates its trip outside of the study area and has its destination outside of the study area) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region (see Section 3.11).

11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period. Rather, there is an 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 3.12).

12. To account for boundary conditions (roadway conditions outside the study area that are not specifically modeled due to the limited radius of the study area) beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25% 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 (main street) volume is more significant than the competing traffic (side street) 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 online 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 96% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter; 66%

of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before Robinson Nuclear Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

beginning their evacuation trip (see Appendix F). Therefore, 63 percent (96% x 66% =

63%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

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, 80 percent of the transitdependent population will rideshare (see Appendix F).

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

a. Schools and childcare centers

i. If schools, childcare centers are in session, buses will evacuate students directly to the designated reception centers.

ii. It is further assumed no school children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

iii. Buses will evacuate children at childcare centers and private schools within the EPZ to the reception center for the Zone in which the childcare center/private school is located. As such, it is assumed that parents will not pick up children at childcare facilities prior to evacuation9.

iv. Schoolchildren, if schools are in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

b. Medical Facilities I. Buses, wheelchair buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances evacuate patients at medical facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

II. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients from the previous study will be used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities wherein data was not provided.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

I. Transitdependent permanent resident population are evacuated directly 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.

9 According to the 2021 RNP Emergency Preparedness Information, for Childcare facilities, children will be transported to designated pickup facilities or the reception center for the Zone where the childcare facility is located.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for elementary schools/childcare centers and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools.

b. Ambulatory transitdependent persons and ambulatory medical facility patients

= 30 persons per bus

c. Ambulances = 2 bedridden persons and 3 medical workers (includes advanced and basic life support)

d. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

e. Wheelchair buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons

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

a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and medical facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when approximately 90% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at 150 minutes after the ATE. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

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

b. School buses will be loaded in 15 minutes.

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

d. Buses for hospitals and medical facilities will require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.

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

f. Ambulances will be loaded in 15 minutes per bedridden passenger.

6. Drivers for all transit vehicles are available.

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

2. ACP are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120minute period.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and ACPs.

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

1. A total of 12 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. Darlington Southern NASCAR Race is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 11. It is assumed the data estimate for the event that was used in the previous study has remained the same.

b. As per NRC guidance, one segment of one of the highest volume roadways will be out of service for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of a segment of State Route 151 southbound between US 15 (S. 5th Street) and State Route 151 Business (S. Fourth Street) for the roadway impact scenario -

Scenario 12.

2. One type of adverse weather scenarios is considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios. It is assumed that the rain 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.

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

Transportation research indicates capacity and speed reductions of about 10% for rain.

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

reduction in speed and capacity for rain. The factors are shown in Table 22.

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

5. Employment is reduced slightly (4% reduction) in the summer for vacations.

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 Zones 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 Zones 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 Zones, there are instances where a small portion of a Zone (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large Robinson Nuclear Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 R26 through R36 in Table 61.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of 10 Scenarios Season Day of 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 Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Darlington 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good NASCAR Race Roadway Impact: State 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 151 Southbound Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Free Mobilization Time Time for Loading Time Loading Time Highway Flow for General Transit for Transit for School Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles Buses11 Buses 10minute 5minute 5minute Rain 90% 90% No Effect increase increase increase

• Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weather conditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.

10 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).

11 Does not apply to medical facilities and those with access and/or functional needs as loading times for these people are already conservative.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Robinson Nuclear Plant 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of people and 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 within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again as an employee.

A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes fishing 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 general population characteristics of the RNP EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents people who are yearround residents of the EPZ.

Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (i.e., 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.

For this study, employees and transients have different scenario percentages (see Table 63).

For example, employees peak during the winter, weekday, midday scenarios while transients peak during summer evenings. For this reason, employees were treated separately from transients.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Zone and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).

The RNP EPZ is subdivided into 11 Zones. The Zones comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the 2020 U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.46 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census data - See Section 2.1 and Appendix F). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.50 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, SubSection F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Zone 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 summarizes the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Zone, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 7.11% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per 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 the RNP. 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, college/university student housing, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates or included as a separate vehicle group due to their differing vehicle occupancies. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

3.1.1 Coker University There is one university within the RNP EPZ - Coker University, located in Zone B1, 5.4 miles eastsoutheast of RNP. According to the National Application Center1 (NAC) database (as of December 2021), Coker University has a total of 856 fulltime students; 56% of the students live on campus. As such, 479 (856 x 56%) students live on campus and 377 (856 - 479) students live off campus. Based on the data collected for the previous ETE study, approximately 81% of the oncampus students own vehicles. Assuming this data is still applicable, 388 (479 x 81%) on campus students own private vehicles. The remaining 91 (479 - 388) oncampus students without vehicles are considered transit dependent and can be evacuated by ridesharing with 1

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

Robinson Nuclear Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

fellow classmates or by buses. The demographic survey results show approximately 80% of transitdependent people would rideshare with a neighbor or friend for evacuation (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). As such, 73 (91 x 80%) students would rideshare with fellow classmates, leaving 18 (91 - 73) students to be evacuated by buses. Using the capacity of 30 people per transitdependent bus, the total number of buses needed for this university is 1 (18

÷ 30 = 1, rounded up) or 2 vehicles (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

As indicated in the previous study, approximately 46.7% of the offcampus students live within the EPZ. These students have been included as permanent residents as discussed above. To avoid double counting vehicles, this study only considered the 202 (377 x (1 - 46.7%))

commuter students who live outside of the EPZ. Since the commuter students have similar travel patterns with commuters, the commuter vehicle occupancy rate (1.10 persons per vehicle - see Appendix F) obtained from the demographic survey was used, resulting in 184 (202 ÷ 1.10) commuter student vehicles. In total, 572 (388 + 184) vehicles and 1 bus were assigned to Coker University.

3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radially from the RNP 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% 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.

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., recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at hotels and motels. Data for transient attractions was provided by Darlington County and supplemented by data collected by phone calls and internet searches. It is assumed that transients travel to recreational areas as a family/household. As such, the average household size of 2.46 persons per household (see Section 3.1) was used to estimate the transient population for those facilities in which exact data could not be obtained. The transient attractions within the RNP EPZ are summarized as follows:

Golf Courses - 20 transients and 6 vehicles; 3.33 transients per vehicle Parks - 50 transients and 20 vehicles; 2.50 transients per vehicle Robinson Nuclear Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Other Recreational Facilities - 1,100 transients and 508 vehicles; 2.17 transients per vehicle Lodging facilities - 1,070 transients and 436 vehicles; 2.45 transients per vehicle In addition, there are three boat landings within the EPZ. Darlington County has confirmed that these boat landings are predominantly for local usage. Therefore, no transients or transient vehicles were assigned to these boat landings to avoid double counting vehicles.

3.3.1 Airbnb Rentals As per the official from Darlington County Emergency Management Agency, there are a number of Airbnb rentals within the EPZ in the City of Hartsville, SC. As shown in Airbnb website2, the locations of vacation rentals are throughout the city. To estimate the vacationers and their vehicles, 2020 Census was used. Each census block includes information regarding the number of vacant and occupied households. An average vacant household percentage was calculated for the entire EPZ (13.7%) using this data.

For the census blocks in the City of Hartsville, it is assumed that 13.7% (EPZ average) of the vacant homes are not rental homes and are in fact vacant homes, and therefore, the remaining homes were considered to be vacation homes. An average household size of 2.46 persons per household is used to determine the transient population from the number of vacant homes, and 1.50 evacuating vehicles per household is used to determine the number of transient vehicles from the number of vacant homes.

Using this methodology, it is estimated that there are additional 493 transients and 331 transient vehicles within the RNP EPZ.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E5 presents the number of transients visiting transient attractions, while Table E6 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total, there are 2,733 transients in the EPZ at peak times, evacuating in 1,301 vehicles (an average vehicle occupancy of 2.10 transients per vehicle). Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Zone. 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 vehicles, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population.

2 https://www.airbnb.com/

Robinson Nuclear Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The employment data provided by the counties within the EPZ includes the maximum shift employment and percent of employees living outside of the EPZ for a list of employers within the EPZ. The employment data for RNP was provided by Duke Energy. As per the NUREG/CR 7002, Rev. 1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered to be major employers. As such, the employers not meeting this criterion are not considered in this study.

In total, there are 1,696 employees commuting into the EPZ on a daily basis. To estimate the number of evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.10 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, SubSection F.3.1) was used for all the major employers. The detailed information of each major employer is included in Appendix E, Table E4. Table 35 presents the estimates of employees and vehicles commuting into the EPZ by Zone. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Medical Facilities Data for the medical facilities in the EPZ were obtained from the counties within the EPZ, the Health Resources and Services Administration database3, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control4, supplemented by phone calls where data was missing.

Since the average number of patients at the medical facilities fluctuates daily, the percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients was assumed to be 47%,

26%, and 27%, respectively, based on the previous ETE study, for the facilities that the breakdown was missing. Table E3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. In total, 548 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities.

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 vans up to 4 people, and ambulances up to 2 people.

3.6 Transit Dependent Population 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 37 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

3 https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/

4 https://sc-dhec.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e8b4eea83cab491bb3e3663093e14656 Robinson Nuclear Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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, Ontario5 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. We will adopt a conservative estimate that approximately 80% of transit dependent persons will ride share based on the results of the online demographic survey.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children on average (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 x10) = 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 37 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 37 indicates that transportation must be provided for 114 people. Therefore, a total of 4 buses 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 Zones picking up transit dependent people, 12 buses runs are used in the ETE calculations, (even though only 4 buses are needed from a capacity standpoint). 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 RNP EPZ:

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters 5

Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, THE MISSISSAUGA EVACUATION FINAL REPORT, June 1981. The report indicates that 6,600 people of a transit-dependent population of 8,600 people shared rides with other residents; a ride share rate of 77% (Page 5-10).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 13,464 0.101 1.20 1 0.96 0.34 0.426 2.79 2 0.96 0.34 572 1 0.8 30 4 These calculations based on the demographic survey results are explained as follows:

• The number of households (HH) is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (33,121 ÷ 2.46) and is 13,464.

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

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (10.10%), who are at home, equal (1.201).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (13,464 x 0.101 x 0.20 x 0.96 x 0.34), as 96% of EPZ households have a commuter, 34% 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 (42.6%), who are at home, equal (2.79 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 13,464 x 0.426 x 0.79 x (0.96 x 0.34)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.

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

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 37 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (discussed below in Section 3.9). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.7 School and Childcare Population Demand Table 38 presents the school and childcare population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all facilities within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year. This information was obtained from the counties within the EPZ, National Center for Education Statistics6, National Application Center7, Private School Review8, and SC Child Care9. The column in Table 38 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

6 https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 7

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/gotocollege/campustour/undergraduate/1942/Coker_University/Coker_University5.html 8

https://www.privateschoolreview.com/

9 https://www.scchildcare.org/

Robinson Nuclear Plant 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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 do not consider the use of these private vehicles.

• Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 students per bus for elementary schools/childcare centers and 50 students per bus for middle/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. 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.

3.8 Special Event One special event (Scenario 11) is considered for the ETE study - a NASCAR race at Darlington Raceway - which occurs the second weekend in May. The event occurs in Darlington, South Carolina in the Shadow Region. Transient attendance is reported at approximately 60,000 people in 15,000 vehicles (vehicle occupancy averages 4 people per vehicle). It is conservatively assumed that none of these visitors are EPZ residents or are counted at other transient facilities within the EPZ. The website http://www.darlingtonraceway.com/ also provided information for events held at the raceway and traffic patterns.

Public transportation is not provided for this event and was not considered in the special event analysis. The special event trips are generated with the same mobilization distribution of transients.

The special event (Scenario 11) is considered during the winter, weekend, midday with good weather.

3.9 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Based on data provided by the counties, there are an estimated 17 access and/or functional needs people within the Darlington County portion of the EPZ and 9 people within the Chesterfield County portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate.

Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people were not Robinson Nuclear Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

available. Since the breakdown of need was not provided the percentage of ambulatory and bedridden populations was assumed to be 85%, 15%, respectively, based on the previous ETE study. This results in 21 ambulatory persons that would require a bus to evacuate and 5 bedridden persons that would require an ambulance to evacuate. A total of 4 buses (capacity of 30 ambulatory persons per bus) and 3 ambulances (capacity 2 bedridden persons per ambulance) are estimated to be needed to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population in a reasonable amount of time.

Table 39 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 needed to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

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 study area -

US 1 and I20. 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 was obtained from the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)10 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. 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 vehicles per hour (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 310, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (access control posts - ACP - 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 7,060 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and

10) 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 59, 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, 10 https://www.scdot.org/travel/travel-trafficdata.aspx Robinson Nuclear Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 an 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 1,213 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, good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 311 and Table 312, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 109,407 people and 47,298 vehicles are considered in this study.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population A0 2,282 2,138 A1 670 795 A2 1,426 1,314 B1 16,584 15,108 B2 5,645 5,068 C1 2,578 2,665 C2 1,931 1,683 D1 1,114 997 D2 92611 954 E1 395 461 E2 2,106 1,938 EPZ TOTAL: 35,657 33,121 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 7.11%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone 2020 Zone 2020 Population Resident Vehicles A0 2,138 1,295 A1 795 483 A2 1,314 739 B1 15,108 8,805 B2 5,068 3,090 C1 2,665 1,629 C2 1,683 1,015 D1 997 608 D2 954 554 E1 461 282 E2 1,938 1,090 EPZ TOTAL: 33,121 19,590 11 The boundary of Zone D-2 has been adjusted since the previous ETE study. The 2010 population for Zone D-2 in the table reflects the new zone boundary, and therefore, will not align with the previous study.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Evacuating Sector 2020 Population Vehicles N 174 106 NNE 736 446 NE 609 372 ENE 766 466 E 1,248 760 ESE 1,304 795 SE 1,048 641 SSE 1,224 748 S 740 453 SSW 5,127 2,417 SW 668 406 WSW 387 235 W 1,305 794 WNW 357 218 NW 205 127 NNW 59 35 TOTAL: 15,957 9,019 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Zone Transients Transient Vehicles A0 0 0 A1 0 0 A2 0 0 B1 1,666 827 B2 742 390 C1 305 78 C2 20 6 D1 0 0 D2 0 0 E1 0 0 E2 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 2,733 1,301 Robinson Nuclear Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Zone Employees Employee Vehicles A0 148 135 A1 0 0 A2 0 0 B1 906 824 B2 0 0 C1 0 0 C2 0 0 D1 0 0 D2 0 0 E1 0 0 E2 642 584 EPZ TOTAL: 1,696 1,543 Robinson Nuclear Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Current Ambu Wheelchair Bed Bus Wheelchair Ambulance Zone Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Van Runs Runs Darlington County, SC B1 Morningside of Hartsville Hartsville 54 39 34 5 0 2 2 0 B1 Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center Hartsville 116 116 81 35 0 3 9 0 B1 Thad E. Saleeby Development Center Hartsville 96 85 5 0 80 1 0 40 B1 William Bowen Community Residence Hartsville 8 8 4 2 2 1 1 1 B1 Reagan Residential Home Hartsville 8 8 4 2 2 1 1 1 B1 Carriage House of Hartsville Hartsville 60 60 60 0 0 2 0 0 B2 Morrell Nursing Center Hartsville 154 154 34 113 7 2 29 4 C1 The Retreat at Carolina Bay Hartsville 60 34 24 10 0 1 3 0 Darlington County Subtotal: 556 504 246 167 91 13 45 46 Lee County, SC D2 Bishopville Manor Bishopville 44 44 21 11 12 1 3 6 Lee County Subtotal: 44 44 21 11 12 1 3 6 EPZ TOTAL: 600 548 267 178 103 14 48 52 Table 37. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ of Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 33,121 0.00 1.20 2.79 13,464 0.00% 10.1% 42.6% 96% 34% 572 80% 114 0.3%

Robinson Nuclear Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. School and Childcare Population Demand Estimates Zone School Name Enrollment Buses Required Chesterfield County E2 McBee Elementary School 436 7 E2 McBee High School 474 10 Shadow Plainview Elementary School 162 3 Region12 Darlington County, SC B1 Lakeview Baptist Church School 30 1 B1 Carolina Elementary School 271 4 B1 North Hartsville Elementary School 626 9 B1 Hartsville High School 1200 24 B1 Coker University 856 1 B1 Butler Academy 240 4 B1 Governor's School for Science & Math 281 6 B1 Southside Early Childhood Center 435 7 B2 Emmanuel Christian School 336 7 C1 Forest Hills Christian School 6 1 C1 Bay Road Elementary 496 8 C1 Hartsville Middle School 1075 22 C2 Thomas Hart Academy 140 2 School Subtotal: 7064 116 Zone Childcare Centers Enrollment Buses Required Chesterfield County E2 McBee Head Start 20 1 Darlington County, SC B1 Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 35 1 B1 Kids N Me 29 1 B1 King's Kids Childrens Center 55 1 B1 First Presbyterian Church School 196 3 B1 First Baptist Church Preschool 28 1 B1 First Baptist Preschool 97 2 B1 YMCA After School Program 160 3 B1 Montessori Day Academy 45 1 B1 True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy 99 2 B1 Thompson Children Learning Center 15 1 B1 East Christian Academy DayCare 45 1 B1 A Kidz Place II, Inc 62 1 B2 Jeanette Pendergrass 12 1 C1 Kelleytown Baptist Church 30 1 12 Facility is located just beyond the EPZ boundary; however, the facility will evacuate as per county plans.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Zone Childcare Centers Enrollment Buses Required D1 Patricia Mack Philips 12 1 Childcare Centers Subtotal: 940 22 TOTAL: 8,004 138 Robinson Nuclear Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Transportation Needed Population Vehicles deployed Buses 21 4 Ambulances 5 3 Total: 26 7 Table 310. RNP EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Hourly External 13 14 14 Node Node Road Name Direction AADT KFactor DFactor Volume Traffic 8087 87 US 1 EB 4,700 0.136 0.5 320 640 8101 101 US 1 WB 4,700 0.136 0.5 320 640 8168 168 I20 EB 27,000 0.107 0.5 1,445 2,890 8184 184 I20 WB 27,000 0.107 0.5 1,445 2,890 TOTAL 7,060 13 https://www.scdot.org/travel/travel-trafficdata.aspx 14 Highway Capacity Manual 2016 Robinson Nuclear Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 311. Summary of Population Demand15 On Off Transit Medical Special Campus Campus Shadow External 1 Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Schools Event Students Students Population16 Traffic Total A0 2,138 7 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,293 A1 795 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 798 A2 1,314 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,319 B1 15,108 52 1,666 906 316 3,949 0 479 377 0 0 22,853 B2 5,068 17 742 0 154 348 0 0 0 0 0 6,329 C1 2,665 9 305 0 34 1,607 0 0 0 0 0 4,620 C2 1,683 6 20 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 1,849 B1 997 3 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1,012 B2 954 3 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,001 E1 461 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 E2 1,938 7 0 642 0 930 0 0 0 0 0 3,517 Shadow 0 0 162 60,000 0 0 3,191 0 Region 0 0 0 63,353 TOTAL: 33,121 114 2,733 1,696 548 7,148 60,000 479 377 3,191 0 109,407 15 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, they are not included in this table.

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand17 On Off Transit Medical Special Campus Campus Shadow External Zone Residents Dependent18 Transients Employees Facilities19 Schools Event Students Students Population Traffic Total A0 1,295 2 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,432 A1 483 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 485 A2 739 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 741 B1 8,805 4 827 824 75 148 0 388 184 0 0 11,255 B2 3,090 2 390 0 37 16 0 0 0 0 0 3,535 C1 1,629 2 78 0 5 64 0 0 0 0 0 1,778 C2 1,015 2 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1,027 D1 608 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 612 D2 554 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 567 E1 282 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 E2 1,090 2 0 584 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 1,712 Shadow 6 15,000 0 0 Region 0 0 0 0 0 1,804 12,568 23,870 TOTAL: 19,590 24 1,301 1,543 128 276 15,000 388 184 1,804 12,568 47,298 17 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.

18 Buses and school buses are represented as two passenger vehicles Refer to Section 3.6, 3.7, and Section 8 for additional information.

19 Vehicles for Medical Facilities include buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances. Buses are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.5 for additional information.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. Zones Comprising the RNP EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Robinson Nuclear Plant 328 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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 1

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 20 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, conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10%. 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 25% 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%

for rain.

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

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

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, Robinson Nuclear Plant 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

Since the principal objective of 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 freeflow 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 freeflow 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 3

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity 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 RNP 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.

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 is 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 60 mph, respectively. Based Robinson Nuclear Plant 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the study area, service traffic 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, as shown in Appendix K.

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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).

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 2way and allway) and traffic signal controlled intersections. Where intersections are controlled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non evacuation) traffic conditions. Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the 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 left turns, 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier. These parameters are listed in Appendix K, for each network link.

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 two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). 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 (main street) will be more significant than the competing (side street) 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) recommends that the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study estimate the distribution 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 siren notification.

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

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 onehour elapses from the siren alert 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 EPZ will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an advisory will be broadcasted. Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in Robinson Nuclear Plant 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g., sirens, tone alerts, Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts, loudspeakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 315 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 event.

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 siren, and/or tone alert 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 a demographic survey of the EPZ permanent residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted in 2021 in support of this ETE study.

Appendix F presents the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained (including statistical confidence bounds), 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Event Number 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 (e.g., depart work, arrive home)

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

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

An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave) 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, the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that arrangements will be made to assure 100 percent coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the assumed presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of those within the EPZ will be aware of the accident within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 52 and plotted in Figure 54.

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 and outside of the EPZ who return home prior to evacuating. 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Decline to State 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 <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to return home from commuting distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. To avoid eliminating too many responses, only values more than 4.5 standard deviations were eliminated for the questions regarding employees.

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:

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled; 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 designated for each population group. 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. 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 distribution results are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYnamic Network EVacuation (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. Zone comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Zone 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, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwind continue preparation for evacuation Robinson Nuclear Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Zones beyond 5 miles will shelter in place. A noncompliance voluntary evacuation percentage of 20% is assumed for this population.

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, 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 Zones comprising the 2Mile Region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from the simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

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

i. The 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)

c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios. NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of TScen* is close to 2:30 for all scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters and employees/transients; the approximate 90th percentile 2Mile Region evacuation time is 150 minutes for all scenarios. At TScen*, 20% of the 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant, 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information, local fire, police and emergency officials will use any means necessary (e.g., boats, loudspeakers, etc.) to alert those on waterways and in recreational areas.

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. Table 58 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes. It is assumed that this 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles, pack their belongings and begin their evacuation trip.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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%

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 25 92.8%

5 36.3% 30 96.9%

10 65.0% 35 98.2%

15 85.7% 40 99.6%

20 90.1% 45 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" 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 Decline to State responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0% 25 95%

5 12.3% 30 98%

10 48.5% 35 98%

15 79.3% 40 99%

20 92.1% 45 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response.

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent (Minutes) Ready to Evacuate 0 0%

15 2%

30 19%

45 37%

60 59%

75 77%

90 81%

105 83%

120 89%

135 96%

150 97%

165 97%

180 98%

195 100%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Robinson Nuclear Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving home C

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving home D

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 58. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents with Residents Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) 1 15 7% 7% 0% 0%

2 15 37% 37% 0% 2%

3 15 41% 41% 1% 9%

4 15 13% 13% 5% 17%

5 15 2% 2% 11% 19%

6 15 0% 0% 17% 19%

7 15 0% 0% 19% 11%

8 15 0% 0% 15% 5%

9 15 0% 0% 9% 4%

10 15 0% 0% 6% 6%

11 15 0% 0% 5% 4%

12 30 0% 0% 8% 2%

13 30 0% 0% 2% 2%

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 Distributions C for good weather. Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2 15 0% 0%

3 15 0% 2%

4 15 1% 4%

5 15 2% 3%

6 15 4% 4%

7 15 4% 2%

8 15 3% 1%

9 15 1% 1%

10 15 2% 1%

11 15 71% 78%

12 30 8% 2%

13 30 2% 2%

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

80%

60%

Notification Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home 40%

Prepare Home 20%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

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

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Robinson Nuclear Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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 97.5 112.5 Center of Interval (minutes)

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Robinson Nuclear Plant 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Robinson Nuclear Plant 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 60

% of Population Evacuating 40 20 0

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Zones that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

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

A total of 36 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Zones considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The Zone configurations are identified in Figure 61.

Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and five 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 R13) as well as 2 miles to the EPZ boundary (Regions R14 through R25). Each Zone that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the PAR determination flowchart. There are instances when a small portion of a Zone is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone would not be included in the Region, unless specified in the PAR determination flowchart.

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R26, R27 through R36 are geographically identical to Regions R02, R04 through R13, respectively; however, those Zones between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 12 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 36 x 12 = 432 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 and 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, which were determined as follows:

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 63%, which is the product of 96% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 66% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for Robinson Nuclear Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters (63%)

will have a commuter at work during those times or approximately 6% (10% X 63% = 6%) of households overall.

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.

As shown in Appendix E, there are a significant number of transient attractions (e.g. race track, stadium, waterpark) (see Table E5) in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (70%) during summer weekends and is less (45%) during the week due to the number of facilities that are open and at their peak on summer weekends. As shown in Table E6, there are significant amount of lodging offering overnight accommodations, including AirBnBs, thus, transient activity during the evening hours is estimated to be 65% during the summer and 40%

during the winter. Many facilities operate during the winter months, but at lower levels. As such, transient activity during the winter is estimated to be 30% during the week and 45% on weekends.

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:

1,481 20% 1 22%

12,418 7,172 Robinson Nuclear Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

One special event - NASCAR Race at Darlington Raceway - was considered as Scenario 11 (during the winter, weekend, midday, with good weather conditions). Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 11 and 0% for all other scenarios.

As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school/childcare enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. Schools are not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for children at schools and childcare centers are needed under those circumstances. These same percentages were applied to off campus students. On campus students, however, remain on campus throughout the year. On campus students were estimated to be 100% during the winter (when most students live there) and 10% during the summer for summer school.

Transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair transport and ambulances) for the transitdependent population and vehicles for medical facilities are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent population and medical facility population are present in the EPZ at all times.

External traffic is estimated to be 100% for all midday scenarios, while it is significantly less (40%) during the evening scenarios 5 and 10.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region DESCRIPTION A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R04 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R05 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R06 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R07 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R08 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R09 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R10 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R11 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R12 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R13 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R14 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X X X X R15 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X X X R16 NE 33.75 56.25 NE 16 78 X X X X X X X R17 ENE 56.25 78.75 X X X X X X R18 E/ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X X X R19 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X X X R20 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X X X R21 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X X X X R22 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X X X R23 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X X X X R24 WNW 281.25 303.75 X X X X X R25 NW, NNW 303.75 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R26 5Mile Region X X X X X X R27 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R28 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R29 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R30 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R31 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R32 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R33 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R34 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R35 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R36 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of 1

Scenarios Season Day of 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 Weekend Midday Good None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 10 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Darlington 11 Winter Weekend Midday Good NASCAR Race Roadway Impact: State 12 Summer Midweek Midday Good Route 151 Southbound 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).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Residents Residents On Off External with without Special Medical Campus Campus School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Students Students Buses Buses Traffic 1 63% 37% 96% 45% 22% 0% 100% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100%

2 63% 37% 96% 45% 22% 0% 100% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100%

3 6% 94% 10% 70% 20% 0% 100% 10% 0% 0% 100% 100%

4 6% 94% 10% 70% 20% 0% 100% 10% 0% 0% 100% 100%

5 6% 94% 10% 65% 20% 0% 100% 10% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 63% 37% 100% 30% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 63% 37% 100% 30% 22% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

9 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 6% 94% 10% 40% 20% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%

11 6% 94% 10% 45% 20% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 63% 37% 96% 45% 22% 0% 100% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

On/Off Campus Students ................................................ College student vehicles at Coker University School Buses, Medical Facilities, Transit Buses. Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, childcare centers, medical facilities, and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic ................................................. Traffic passing through the EPZ on major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Residents Residents On Off External Total with without Special Medical Campus Campus School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Students Students Buses3 Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 12,418 7,172 1,481 585 1,940 0 128 39 18 28 24 7,060 30,893 2 12,418 7,172 1,481 585 1,940 0 128 39 18 28 24 7,060 30,893 3 1,242 18,348 154 911 1,818 0 128 39 0 0 24 7,060 29,724 4 1,242 18,348 154 911 1,818 0 128 39 0 0 24 7,060 29,724 5 1,242 18,348 154 846 1,818 0 128 39 0 0 24 2,824 25,423 6 12,418 7,172 1,543 390 1,946 0 128 388 184 276 24 7,060 31,529 7 12,418 7,172 1,543 390 1,946 0 128 388 184 276 24 7,060 31,529 8 1,242 18,348 154 585 1,818 0 128 388 0 0 24 7,060 29,747 9 1,242 18,348 154 585 1,818 0 128 388 0 0 24 7,060 29,747 10 1,242 18,348 154 520 1,818 0 128 388 0 0 24 2,824 25,446 11 1,242 18,348 154 585 1,818 15,000 128 388 0 0 24 7,060 44,747 12 12,418 7,172 1,481 585 1,940 0 128 39 18 28 24 7,060 30,893 2

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

Robinson Nuclear Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Zones Comprising the RNP EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 36 Evacuation Regions within the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) EPZ, and the 12 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 Zones 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 RNP EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of permanent residents located in Zones outside of the evacuation region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20 percent of 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 15,957 people reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent 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. Zones comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Zones 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 in the 2Mile Region evacuate the 2Mile Region boundary.

5. 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 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

Traffic congestion, as the term is used here, is defined as Level of Service (LOS) F. LOS F is defined as follows (HCM 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 to describe 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. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, Figure 73 displays the developing congestion in and around Hartsville to the southeast of RNP. Congestion (LOS D) is exhibited on State Route 151 (S Fourth Street) southbound from Washington Ave to State Route 151 (E Bobo Newsom Highway) as evacuees leaving Hartsville to try to access State Route 151 (E Bobo Newsom Highway) towards Darlington. There is congestion (mostly LOS B/C) on State Route 151 eastbound (E Bobo Robinson Nuclear Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Newsom Highway) from State Route 151 (S Fourth Street) to Lamar Highway beyond the Shadow Region. LOS C or better conditions are exhibited along US 15 and US 15 Business toward Dovesville. All roadways in the 2Mile Region (A0) are operating at LOS A. At this time, about 22% of evacuees have mobilized and 19% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

Figure 73 displays peak traffic congestion within the EPZ at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes after the ATE. Congestion has intensified throughout the EPZ. LOS F now occurs on Hartsville Ruby Highway northbound from Scott Pond Road to US1 as evacuees encounter a stop sign at US1.

US1 westbound exhibits slight congestion with LOS C or better in the study area and LOS B or better in the EPZ. Vehicles exiting the EPZ via E Old Camden Road meet a stop sign at SR 102 (Patrick Highway), hence that approach is LOS F at this time. Congestion persists on US 15 Business from Hilton Ave to US 15 (Hartsville Highway) and Dovesville Highway, now operating mostly at LOS D/F. Congestion also persists on State Route 151 (S Fourth Street) southbound from Washington Ave to State Route 151 (E Bobo Newsom Highway), now mostly operating at LOS D/E. Congestion on State Route 151 eastbound (E Bobo Newsom Highway) has elongated beginning from US15 to Lamar Highway beyond the Shadow Region; the highway is mostly operating at LOS D or worse inside the EPZ from starting in the heart of Hartsville and LOS C or better in the Shadow Region. Some congestion can be seen in North Hartsville as well; this congestion clears 25 minutes later at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE. LOS F conditions can also be seen on County Road 13 at the stopcontrolled intersection with US 15. In the Shadow Region, congestion can be seen in Bishopville, Patrick, Darlington, and along Leavensworth Rd and Floyd Rd. There is still no congestion within the 2Mile Region (A0). At this time, about 66% of evacuees have mobilized and 56% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes after the ATE, congestion has dissipated, as shown in Figure 74. US 1 is clear of congestion within the EPZ. E Old Camden Rd, US 15/US 15 Business, State Route 151, and County Road 13 all operate at LOS C or better, except for a small portion of State Route 151 from State Route 34 to S Center Road. The 5Mile Region is clear of congestion at this time. Congestion persists on Hartsville Ruby Highway northbound from Scott Pond Road to US1. Congestion persists in the town of Patrick, Bishopville, Darlington and along Leavensworth Rd in the Shadow Region. At this time, about 82% of evacuees have mobilized and 78% of vehicles have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 75 shows the last of the traffic congestion in the EPZ along State Route 151 (S Fourth Street) southbound (from Washington Ave to State Route 151 (E Bobo Newsom Highway)) operating at LOS B, which clears 5 minutes later at 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes. This does not imply that there are no vehicles on the other roads in the EPZ; rather, traffic volume is low, and vehicles are experiencing no delay in their evacuation trip. At this time, about 92% vehicles have mobilized and successfully evacuated the EPZ.

Figure 77 shows the last remnant of congestion on the network (outside of the study area) at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE along Lamar Highway southbound as evacuees try to access I20. This congestion clears 5 minutes later at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 719. 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 78 through Figure 719, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 36 Evacuation Regions and all 12 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 percent of the 71 population 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 percent of the 72 population 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 percent of the 73 population within the 2Mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100 percent of the 74 population within the 2Mile Region, to evacuate from that Region with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

77. Most of the congestion is located to the east and southeast of the plant in Zones B1 and B 2, all of the congestion is beyond the 2Mile Region, and congestion clears by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes after the ATE. This is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2Mile Region) range from 2:30 (hr:min) to 2:40 for all scenarios.

The 90th percentile ETE for Regions R02 and R03 (5Mile Region and full EPZ) are up to 5 minutes longer than the ETE for Region R01 for all scenarios and range between 2:30 (hr:min) to 2:45 for all scenarios.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and Scenarios (range from 4:15 to 4:25) parallel the mobilization time of residents with commuters (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes) plus a 5 or 10 minute travel time to the EPZ boundary, as the congestion within the EPZ dissipates prior to the end of mobilization, as discussed in section 7.3.

Comparison of Scenarios 8 and 11 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - a NASCAR Race at Darlington Raceway (see Section 3.8) - has no impact on the ETE at the 90th or 100th percentile. The results indicate there is sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the additional special event vehicles.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 12 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - the closure of a segment of State Route 151 southbound between US 15 (S. 5th Street) and State Route 151 Business (S. Fourth Street) - has a minimal impact (at most 5 minutes) on the 90th percentile ETE and no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, specifically for Regions that involve the evacuation of Zones B1, B2, C1 and C2 concurrently. There is sufficient capacity on neighboring routes to accommodate the evacuees who may consider rerouting from SR 151 southbound such that ETE is minimally impacted.

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 R26 and R27 through R37 are geographically identical to Regions R02 and R04 through R13, 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 strategy is to ensure the ETE for the 2Mile Region is not significantly increased (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) when evacuating areas beyond the 2Mile Region. Additional staged evacuation should not significantly increase the ETE for people evacuating beyond 2Miles. In all cases, as shown in Table 73, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE remain the same when a staged evacuation is implemented. These results indicate that there is no congestion within the 2Mile Region and when an evacuation out to 5 Mile Region occurs, the congestion beyond the 2Mile Region does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within 2 miles of the plant. Evacuees from within the 2Mile Region are not impacted by those evacuating beyond 2 miles out to 5 miles. Therefore, staging the evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R02 and R04 through R13 are compared to Regions R26 and R27 through R36, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging significantly increases (of at most 50 minutes) the 90th percentile ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area. The 100th percentile ETE remains the same since it is dictated by trip generation time and not congestion. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the large number of 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) of evacuating vehicles. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2Mile Region. Based on the guidance in NUREG0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain

• Special Event Darlington NASCAR Race

• Roadway Impact A segment of SR 151 SB is closed

• 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:

Robinson Nuclear Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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 (9) for rain apply.

• The seasons are defined as follows:

Summer assumes that 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.

2. 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 (Region R02, R04 through R13)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R14 through R25)

• Enter Table 75 and identify the applicable group of candidate Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the RNP. Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that row, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the first column of the Table.

3. Determine the ETE Table based on the percentile selected. Then, for the Scenario identified in Step 1 and the 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 14th at 4:00 AM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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 R16 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 R16. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R16; it contains the ETE value of 2:30.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R02 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R03 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R05 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R06 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R07 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R08 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R09 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 R10 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R12 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R13 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R14 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:50 R15 2:45 2:50 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R16 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R17 2:40 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:40 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:40 R18 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:35 R19 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:30 2:25 2:25 2:35 R20 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:25 2:35 Robinson Nuclear Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R21 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R22 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:40 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:45 R23 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 R24 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 R25 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:35 2:30 2:30 2:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R27 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R28 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R29 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 R30 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R31 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 2:50 R32 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 2:50 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:50 R33 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R34 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R35 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 R36 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:15 3:15 3:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R03 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R05 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R06 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R07 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R08 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R09 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R10 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R11 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R12 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R13 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R14 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R15 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R16 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R17 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R18 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R19 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R20 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R21 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R22 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R23 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Robinson Nuclear Plant 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact R24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 R25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R27 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R28 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R29 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R30 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R31 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R32 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R33 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R34 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R35 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 R36 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R02 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R05 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R06 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R07 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R08 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R09 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R10 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R12 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R13 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R27 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R28 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R29 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R31 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R32 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R33 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R34 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R35 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 R36 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 2:40 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:40 Robinson Nuclear Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Good Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region R01 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R02 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R05 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R06 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R07 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R08 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R09 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R10 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R11 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R12 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R13 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R26 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R27 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R28 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R29 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R30 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R31 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R32 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R33 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R34 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R35 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 R36 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 Robinson Nuclear Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region DESCRIPTION A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R04 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R05 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R06 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R07 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R08 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R09 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R10 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R11 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R12 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R13 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R14 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X X X X R15 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X X X R16 NE 33.75 56.25 NE 16 78 X X X X X X X R17 ENE 56.25 78.75 X X X X X X R18 E/ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X X X R19 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X X X R20 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X X X R21 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X X X X R22 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X X X R23 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X X X X R24 WNW 281.25 303.75 X X X X X R25 NW, NNW 303.75 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR DEGREES PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R26 5Mile Region X X X X X X R27 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R28 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R29 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R30 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R31 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R32 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R33 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R34 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R35 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R36 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Robinson Nuclear Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. RNP Shadow Region Robinson Nuclear Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the Advisory to Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75: Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 15 minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 5 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 78. 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 710. 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%

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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 8) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 10) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (Scenario 11) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12) 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 (ETEs) for transit vehicles. The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available, residents of special facilities such as schools, childcare centers, and medical facilities; and the access and/or functional needs population.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each transit vehicle 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. Ambulances are 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. As discussed in Item 4 of Section 2.4, it is estimated that vehicle mobilization time will average approximately 90 minutes for schools and medical facilities, and 150 minutes for transit dependent buses extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated.

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. The current public information disseminated to residents of the RNP EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to reception centers, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at the reception centers.

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. 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. This study assumes that children at childcare centers are also evacuated to reception centers and parents will pick up these children at the reception centers. Picking up children at school or childcare centers could add to traffic congestion at these facilities, 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 8.1 ETE for Schools/Preschools/Childcare Centers, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if schools and preschools/childcare 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 of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, 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.

Transportation resources available were provided by Chesterfield County. The remaining transportation resources were preserved from the previous study. The transportation resources available, as well as the number of vehicles needed to evacuate schools, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities, the transitdependent population, and the access and/or functional needs population (discussed below in Section 8.2) are summarized in Table 81. As shown in the table, there are insufficient transportation resources to evacuate the entire transit dependent and special facility population in the EPZ in a single wave. There are sufficient buses, however in Chesterfield County to evacuate students at schools/preschools/childcare facilities in a single wave.

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 bus transit route.

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.

Evacuation of Schools and Preschools/Childcare Centers Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or preschool/childcare centers to be evacuated. It is assumed that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency accident with no observable indication before the fact, bus drivers would likely require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel Robinson Nuclear Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

to the schools/childcare centers to be evacuated. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather, 100 minutes when raining.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4 and 2.6, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain) for school/childcare center buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools and preschools/childcare centers 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. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate school reception center.

This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool/childcare center 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 102 (refer to the maps of the link node 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., 105 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

. . 60 .

. 1 .

60 .

1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools and childcare in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 and Table 83 for school/preschool/childcare center evacuation. 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 and 41 mph (10%

decrease) for good weather and rain, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 and Table 83 and to 45 mph (41 mph for rain - 10% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 45 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in South Carolina is 45 mph.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain) present the following ETE (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools 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 (Estimated Time of Arrival

- ETA - to R.C.).

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 minutes + 15 + 5 = 1:50 for McBee Elementary School with good weather).

The average singlewave ETE of schools (2:00 - good weather) is 45 minutes (2:45 - 2:00 = 0:45) less than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population for the full EPZ (R03) under a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) conditions. Thus, the evacuation of schools and preschools/childcare centers should not affect 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 evacua on me.

Activity: Travel to Reception School (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the Reception Centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the nearest appropriate Reception Center. The Reception Centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a single wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph and 41 mph for good weather and rain, respectively, are applied for this activity for the buses servicing the school and childcare center population. The estimated times of arrival to the Reception Center for each facility is also shown in Table 82 and Table 83.

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 (GC DE)

As shown in Table 81, there is a shortfall of buses in Darlington County for evacuation of children in a single wave, if the entire EPZ is evacuated at once (a highly unlikely event). As such, a secondwave evacuation may be needed for some schools and preschools/childcare centers. Second wave ETEs were not computed for each school/preschool/childcare center; rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation of schools in Darlington County. The travel time from the Reception Center back to the EPZ boundary and then back to the school was computed assuming an average speed of 45 mph (good weather) and 41 mph (rain) as buses will be traveling counter to evacuating traffic. Times and distances are based on averages for all schools or preschools/childcare centers in the EPZ for good weather:

• School buses arrive at the R.C. at 2:25 (see ETA to R.C. average value in Table 82)

• Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes Robinson Nuclear Plant 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Bus returns to facility within EPZ: 35 minutes (average time to R.C. (average distance to R.C - 16.4 miles at 45 mph) + average time to EPZ boundary (average distance to EPZ boundary - 9.6 miles at 45 mph))

• Loading Time: 15 minutes

• Bus completes second wave of service along route: 12 minutes (average distance to EPZ boundary (9.6 miles) at network wide average speed (48.52 mph))

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:25 + 0:15 + 0:35 + 0:15 + 0:12 = 3:45 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The average second wave ETE of schools and day care centers (3:45 - good weather) is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> longer than the 90th percentile ETE (2:45) for an evacuation of the general population for the full EPZ (R03) under a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) conditions and could impact protective action decision making.

Evacuation of TransitDependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle)

A detailed computation of transit dependent people was done and is discussed in Section 3.6.

The total number of transit dependent people per Zone was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. As discussed in Section 3.6, the number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. KLD designed 12 routes (as discussed in Section 10) to service the major evacuation routes in each Zone (note that two routes were designed for Zone B1), for the purposes of this study. 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.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time 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 a majority of their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 90% of the evacuees will have completed their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 150 minutes after the ATE for good weather.

Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 160 minutes in rain.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

For multiple stops along a pickup 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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:

Assigning reasonable estimates:

• B = 50 seconds: a generous value for a single passenger, carrying personal items, to board per stop

• v = 25 mph = 37 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, total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain.

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 childcare center evacuation.

Table 84 and Table 85 present the transitdependent population evacuation time estimates for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather and rain.

For example, the ETE for the route servicing Zone A0 (in Table 84) is computed as 150 + 17 +

30 = 3:20 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 17 minutes is the time to travel 13 miles at 45 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 150 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (3:20 - good weather) for a singlewave evacuation of transit dependent people is 35 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE (2:45) of the entire EPZ for the general population for winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), which could impact the 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, as previously discussed.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the Reception Centers are measured using 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. For a secondwave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population.

Assumed bus speeds of 45 mph and 41 mph for good weather and rain respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people departs the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to 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 route servicing Zone A0 (in Table 84), is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 3:42 in good weather (3:20 to exit EPZ + 22minute travel time to Reception Center).

• Bus discharges passengers (5 minutes) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 15 minutes.

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 22 minutes (equal to travel time to Reception Center) + 17.3 minutes (13 miles @ 45 mph - assumed speed to start of route) + 17.3 minutes (13 miles @ 45 mph - network wide speed at time bus starts route for the second time) = 57 minutes.

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 3:42 + 0:15 + 0:57 + 0:30 = 5:25 (rounded 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 84 through Table 85. The average ETE (5:15 in good weather) for a second wave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the 90th percentile ETE and 100th percentile ETE of the entire EPZ for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), which could impact the protective action decision making.

The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the Reception Centers to congregate care centers, if the county decides to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities Activity: Mobilization (ABC)

As discussed in Section 2.4, it is assumed that the mobilization time for medical facilities average 90 minutes in good weather, 100 minutes in rain.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times of 1 minute, 5 minutes, and 15 minutes per patient are assumed for ambulatory patients, wheelchair bound patients, and bedridden patients, respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 Robinson Nuclear Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type assuming concurrent loading of multiple vehicles.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Transit vehicle travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school and childcare center evacuation.

Table 86 and Table 87 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather and rain. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain)

Region 3, capped at 45 mph (41 mph for rain), 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. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for the Morningside of Hartsville with 34 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 30 + 14 = 2:15 (rounded to the nearest 5 minutes).

It is assumed that medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities. 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.

The average singlewave ETE (2:10 - good weather) for all medical facilities in the EPZ does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE (2:45) for the evacuation of the general population from the entire EPZ (R03) during winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), and will not impact protective action decision making.

Activity: Vehicles Travel to Reception Centers (EF), Passengers Leave (FG), Vehicle Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)

As shown in Table 81, there are insufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory, bedridden, and wheelchair bound patients at medical facilities in a single wave. Thus, the second wave ETE was considered. A representative second wave ETE for medical facilities is computed as follows for good weather assuming the host medial facilities for these facilities are in Florence, SC (16.1 miles from the EPZ boundary following the most probable route):

Ambulatory patients (buses):

o On average, buses for ambulatory patients leave the EPZ at 2:04 after the ATE.

o Buses travels to host facility: 21 minutes (16.1 miles at 45 mph).

o Bus discharges passengers 20 minutes (average loading time for ambulatory patients from Table 86) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 30 minutes.

o Bus returns to facility: 21 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to Robinson Nuclear Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the average travel time to host facility) + 12 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 9 miles from Table 86 @ 45 mph) = 33 minutes.

o Remaining ambulatory patients loaded on bus: 18 minutes (average from Table 86 capped at 30 passengers per bus).

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 12 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (9 miles) at 44.9 mph (network wide average speed at 3:50).

o Bus exits EPZ at time 2:04 + 0:21 + 0:30 + 0:33 + 0:18 + 0:12 = 4:00 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

• Wheelchair bound patients (Vans):

o On average, vans for wheelchair bound patients leave the EPZ at 2:02 after the ATE.

o Buses travels to host facility: 21 minutes (16.1 miles at 45 mph).

o Bus discharges passengers 17 minutes (average loading time from Table 86) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 27 minutes.

o Bus returns to facility: 21 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to the average travel time to host facility) + 12 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 8.8 miles from Table 86 @ 45 mph) = 33 minutes.

o Remaining wheelchair bound patients loaded on bus: 17 minutes (average from Table 86 capped at 4 passengers per van).

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 12 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (8.8 miles) at 44.9 mph (network wide average speed at this time).

o Bus exits EPZ at time 2:02 + 0:21 + 0:27 + 0:33 + 0:17 + 0:12 = 3:55 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

• Bedridden patients (ambulances):

o On average, ambulances for bedridden patients leave the EPZ at 2:15 after the ATE.

o Buses travels to host facility: 21 minutes (16.1 miles at 45 mph).

o Bus discharges passengers 30 minutes (average loading time from Table 86) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 40 minutes.

o Bus returns to facility: 21 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to the average travel time to host facility for good weather from Table 82) + 12 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 8.7 miles from Table 86 @ 45 mph) = 33 minutes.

o Remaining wheelchair bound patients loaded on bus: 30 minutes (average from Table 86 capped at 2 passengers per ambulance).

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 12 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (8.7 miles) at 44.9 mph (network wide average speed).

o Bus exits EPZ at time 2:15 + 0:21 + 0:40 + 0:33 + 0:30 + 0:12 = 4:35 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The average ETE for a secondwave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the 90th percentile ETE of the entire EPZ for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), which could impact the protective action decision making.

8.2 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Table 88 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs people. 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 to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. It is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10% slower in rain). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain). The last household is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the network wide average speed, capped at 45 mph (41 mph for rain), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time. 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 to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per HH implies that 21 ambulatory and 7 bedridden households need to be serviced. If 4 buses are deployed to service these special needs HH, then each would require about 6 stops. The following outlines the ETE calculations for a bus:

1. Assume 4 buses are deployed, each with about 6 stops, to service a total of 21 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 1 minute

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 5 @ 9 minutes = 45 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 5 @ 1 minutes = 5 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 9 minutes (5 miles @ 32.7 mph).

ETE: 90 + 1 + 45 + 5 + 9 = 2:30 rounded to the nearest 5 minutes The average good weather singlewave ETE (2:25) for access and/or functional needs population is 20 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE (2:45) for the evacuation of the general population from the entire EPZ (R03) during winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), and would likely not affect protective action decision making. impact protective action decision making.

The following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed for those who need buses and ambulances after the medical facilities have been evacuated:

• Ambulatory patients (buses):

o School buses arrive at reception center at 2:25 (average travel time to Reception Centers Table 82).

o Unload students at reception center: 5 minutes.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

o Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.

o Travel time back to EPZ: 22 minutes (average time of Travel Time from EPZ boundary to Reception Center from Table 82).

o Travel to first household: 15 minutes (5 miles x 20 mph).

o Loading time at first household: 1 minutes.

o Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 5 @ 9 minutes = 45 minutes o Loading time at subsequent households: 5 stop @ 5 minutes = 25 minutes o Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5 miles @ 45 mph = 7 minutes Bus exits EPZ at time: 2:25 + 5 + 10 + 22 + 15 + 1 + 45 + 25 + 7 = 4:35 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE (4:35 - good weather) for a secondwave evacuation of households with ambulatory members exceeds the 90th percentile ETE of the entire EPZ for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), which could impact the protective action decision making.

• Bedridden patients (ambulances):

o Ambulances arrive at host facility: 2:46 (average ETE for bedridden patients from Table 86 + 21minute travel time to host facility [16.1 miles at 45 mph]).

o Unload patients at pickup point: 30 minutes.

o Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.

o Travel time back to EPZ: 21 minutes (average time to host facility) o Travel to first household: 10 minutes (5 miles x 30 mph).

o Loading time at first household: 15 minutes.

o Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 1 @ 10 minutes = 10 minutes o Loading time at subsequent households: 1 stop @ 15 minutes = 15 minutes o Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5 miles @ 45 mph = 7 minutes Bus exits EPZ at time: 2:46 + 30 + 10 + 21 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 15 + 7 = 4:45 after the ATE.

The ETE (4:45 - good weather) for a secondwave evacuation of households with bedridden members exceeds the 90th percentile ETE of the entire EPZ for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6), which could impact the protective action decision making.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Resource Buses Vans Vans Ambulances Resources Available Lee County EMS 0 0 0 7 McBee EMS (Chesterfield County) 0 0 0 5 Sandhills Ambulance 0 0 5 5 First Health Ambulance 0 0 0 5 Darlington County 135 0 0 0 Darlington County EMS 0 0 0 9 Volunteer Rescue Squads (Darlington County) 0 0 0 5 Governor's School for Math & Science 1 5 0 0 McBee School District 21 0 0 0 Chesterfield County EMS 0 0 0 4 Rescue Squad (Chesterfield County) 0 0 0 3 1

Coker University 0 7 0 0 TOTAL: 157 12 5 43 Resources Needed Schools, Childcare Centers (Table 38): 138 0 0 0 Medical Facilities (Table 36): 14 0 48 52 TransitDependent Population (Section 3.6): 12 0 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs Population (Table 39): 4 0 0 3 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 168 0 48 55 1

Coker College reports 2 small vans and 4 -15 passenger vans Robinson Nuclear Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School and Childcare Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to Bdry to R.C. R.C.

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Elementary School 90 15 3.9 45.0 5 1:50 20.5 27 2:20 McBee High School 90 15 3.4 45.0 5 1:50 20.5 27 2:20 Plainview Elementary School 90 15 Located Outside EPZ2 1:45 23.5 31 2:20 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Lakeview Baptist Church School 90 15 10.1 41.1 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Carolina Elementary School 90 15 9.9 42.6 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 North Hartsville Elementary School 90 15 10.2 41.3 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Hartsville High School 90 15 9.7 44.4 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Coker University 90 15 9.4 43.6 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Butler Academy 90 15 8.3 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Governor's School for Science & Math 90 15 9.5 43.8 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Southside Early Childhood Center 90 15 7.0 45.0 9 1:55 16.4 22 2:20 Emmanuel Christian School 90 15 11.5 45.0 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Forest Hills Christian School 90 15 10.2 45.0 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Bay Road Elementary 90 15 8.1 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Hartsville Middle School 90 15 9.5 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Thomas Hart Academy 90 15 5.1 39.3 8 1:55 16.8 22 2:20 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 School Maximum: 2:25 School Average for EPZ: 2:00 School Average: 2:25 2

Facility is located just outside the EPZ; however, the facility will evacuate as per county plans. ETE for this facility is not included in the average for the EPZ and is the sum of the time to mobilize drivers and load the buses.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CHILDCARE CENTERS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Head Start 90 15 4.0 45.0 5 1:50 21.7 29 2:20 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 90 15 10.4 42.6 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Kids N Me 90 15 10.6 41.4 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 King's Kids Childrens Center 90 15 9.5 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Presbyterian Church School 90 15 9.2 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Baptist Church Preschool 90 15 9.1 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 First Baptist Preschool 90 15 9.1 42.9 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 YMCA After School Program 90 15 8.9 43.3 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Montessori Day Academy 90 15 9.4 43.7 13 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy 90 15 8.7 43.4 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Thompson Children Learning Center 90 15 8.6 43.4 12 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 East Christian Academy DayCare 90 15 11.1 45.0 15 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 A Kidz Place II, Inc 90 15 8.4 45.0 11 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Jeanette Pendergrass 90 15 12.7 45.0 17 2:05 16.4 22 2:30 Kelleytown Baptist Church 90 15 10.8 45.0 14 2:00 16.4 22 2:25 Patricia Mack Philips 90 15 14.8 45.0 20 2:05 16.4 22 2:30 Childcare Centers Childcare Centers Maximum for EPZ: 2:05 2:30 Maximum:

Childcare Centers Childcare Centers Average for EPZ: 2:00 2:25 Average:

Robinson Nuclear Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 83. School and Childcare Evacuation Time Estimates Rain Driver Loading Dist. To Average Travel Time Dist. EPZ Travel Time ETA to Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to R.C. from EPZ Bdry R.C.

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to R.C. (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Elementary School 100 20 3.9 41.0 6 2:10 20.5 30 2:40 McBee High School 100 20 3.4 41.0 5 2:05 20.5 30 2:35 Plainview Elementary School 100 20 Located Outside EPZ 2:00 23.5 34 2:35 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Lakeview Baptist Church School 100 20 10.1 32.9 18 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Carolina Elementary School 100 20 9.9 34.0 17 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 North Hartsville Elementary School 100 20 10.2 33.0 19 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Hartsville High School 100 20 9.7 34.1 17 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Coker University 100 20 9.4 34.9 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Butler Academy 100 20 8.3 34.5 14 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 Governor's School for Science & Math 100 20 9.5 35.0 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Southside Early Childhood Center 100 20 7.0 41.0 10 2:10 16.4 24 2:35 Emmanuel Christian School 100 20 11.5 37.7 18 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Forest Hills Christian School 100 20 10.2 41.0 15 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 Bay Road Elementary 100 20 8.1 41.0 12 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 Hartsville Middle School 100 20 9.5 34.2 17 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Thomas Hart Academy 100 20 5.1 26.1 12 2:15 16.8 25 2:40 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:20 School Maximum: 2:45 School Average for EPZ: 2:15 School Average: 2:45 Robinson Nuclear Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to R.C. (min) (hr:min)

CHILDCARE CENTERS CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, SC McBee Head Start 100 20 4.0 41.0 6 2:10 21.7 32 2:45 DARLINGTON COUNTY, SC Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 100 20 10.4 34.0 18 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Kids N Me 100 20 10.6 32.9 19 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 King's Kids Childrens Center 100 20 9.5 34.2 17 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 First Presbyterian Church School 100 20 9.2 33.9 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 First Baptist Church Preschool 100 20 9.1 33.9 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 First Baptist Preschool 100 20 9.1 33.9 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 YMCA After School Program 100 20 8.9 34.4 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Montessori Day Academy 100 20 9.4 35.0 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy 100 20 8.7 34.5 15 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 Thompson Children Learning Center 100 20 8.6 34.5 15 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 East Christian Academy DayCare 100 20 11.1 37.5 18 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 A Kidz Place II, Inc 100 20 8.4 34.3 15 2:15 16.4 24 2:40 Jeanette Pendergrass 100 20 12.7 37.9 20 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Kelleytown Baptist Church 100 20 10.8 41.0 16 2:20 16.4 24 2:45 Patricia Mack Philips 100 20 14.8 41.0 22 2:25 16.4 24 2:50 Childcare Centers Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 Childcare Centers Maximum: 2:50 Childcare Centers Average for EPZ: 2:20 Childcare Centers Average: 2:45 Robinson Nuclear Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 31 A0 150 13.0 45.0 17 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 57 30 5:25 32 A1 150 7.9 33.5 14 30 3:15 14.2 19 5 10 40 30 5:00 33 A2 150 4.4 22.9 11 30 3:15 14.2 19 5 10 31 30 4:50 34 B1 (1) 150 14.3 45.0 19 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 60 30 5:30 35 B1 (2) 150 10.3 45.0 14 30 3:15 16.8 22 5 10 49 30 5:15 36 B2 150 13.7 45.0 18 30 3:20 16.8 22 5 10 59 30 5:30 37 C1 150 12.8 45.0 17 30 3:20 16.4 22 5 10 56 30 5:25 38 C2 150 5.5 45.0 7 30 3:10 16.4 22 5 10 37 30 4:55 39 D1 150 20.1 45.0 27 30 3:30 16.8 22 5 10 76 30 5:55 40 D2 150 4.7 45.0 6 30 3:10 6.7 9 5 10 22 30 4:30 41 E1 150 7.5 45.0 10 30 3:10 19.2 26 5 10 46 30 5:10 42 E2 150 7.2 45.0 10 30 3:10 19.2 26 5 10 45 30 5:10 Maximum ETE: 3:30 Maximum ETE: 5:55 Average ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 5:15 Robinson Nuclear Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 31 A0 160 13.0 41.0 19 40 3:40 16.8 25 5 10 61 40 6:05 32 A1 160 7.9 38.4 12 40 3:35 14.2 21 5 10 43 40 5:35 33 A2 160 4.4 33.8 8 40 3:30 14.2 21 5 10 33 40 5:20 34 B1 (1) 160 14.3 41.0 21 40 3:45 16.8 25 5 10 65 40 6:10 35 B1 (2) 160 10.3 41.0 15 40 3:35 16.8 25 5 10 54 40 5:50 36 B2 160 13.7 40.7 20 40 3:40 16.8 25 5 10 63 40 6:05 37 C1 160 12.8 41.0 19 40 3:40 16.4 24 5 10 60 40 6:00 38 C2 160 5.5 41.0 8 40 3:30 16.4 24 5 10 39 40 5:30 39 D1 160 20.1 41.0 29 40 3:50 16.8 25 5 10 81 40 6:35 40 D2 160 4.7 41.0 7 40 3:30 6.7 10 5 10 23 40 5:00 41 E1 160 7.5 41.0 11 40 3:35 19.2 28 5 10 49 40 5:50 42 E2 160 7.2 39.2 11 40 3:35 19.2 28 5 10 48 40 5:50 Maximum ETE: 3:50 Maximum ETE: 6:35 Average ETE: 3:40 Average ETE: 5:50 Robinson Nuclear Plant 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 34 30 10.5 14 2:15 Morningside of Hartsville Wheelchair bound 90 5 5 20 10.5 14 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 81 30 8.2 13 2:15 Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 35 20 8.2 14 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 9.4 15 1:50 Thad E. Saleeby Development Center Bedridden 90 15 80 30 9.4 15 2:15 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 10.1 15 1:50 William Bowen Community Residence Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.1 16 2:00 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.1 16 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 10.0 15 1:50 Reagan Residential Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 10.0 16 2:00 Bedridden 90 15 2 30 10.0 15 2:15 Carriage House of Hartsville Ambulatory 90 1 60 30 10.6 16 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 34 30 11.5 17 2:20 Morrell Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 113 20 11.5 18 2:10 Bedridden 90 15 7 30 11.5 17 2:20 Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 8.5 11 2:05 The Retreat at Carolina Bay Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 8.5 11 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 21 21 2.5 3 1:55 Bishopville Manor Wheelchair bound 90 5 11 20 2.5 3 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 12 30 2.5 3 2:05 Maximum ETE: 2:20 Average ETE: 2:10 Robinson Nuclear Plant 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 100 1 34 30 10.5 15 2:25 Morningside of Hartsville Wheelchair bound 100 5 5 20 10.5 15 2:15 Ambulatory 100 1 81 30 8.2 16 2:30 Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 35 20 8.2 17 2:20 Ambulatory 100 1 5 5 9.4 19 2:05 Thad E. Saleeby Development Center Bedridden 100 15 80 30 9.4 19 2:30 Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 10.1 24 2:10 William Bowen Community Residence Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 10.1 23 2:15 Bedridden 100 15 2 30 10.1 19 2:30 Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 10.0 24 2:10 Reagan Residential Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 10.0 23 2:15 Bedridden 100 15 2 30 10.0 19 2:30 Carriage House of Hartsville Ambulatory 100 1 60 30 10.6 19 2:30 Ambulatory 100 1 34 30 11.5 21 2:35 Morrell Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 113 20 11.5 23 2:25 Bedridden 100 15 7 30 11.5 21 2:35 Ambulatory 100 1 24 24 8.5 12 2:20 The Retreat at Carolina Bay Wheelchair bound 100 5 10 20 8.5 12 2:15 Ambulatory 100 1 21 21 2.5 4 2:05 Bishopville Manor Wheelchair bound 100 5 11 20 2.5 4 2:05 Bedridden 100 15 12 30 2.5 4 2:15 Maximum ETE: 2:35 Average ETE: 2:20 Robinson Nuclear Plant 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Access and/or Functional Needs Persons Evacuation Time Estimates Loading Total Loading Travel Time People Time at Travel to Time at to EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather Mobilization 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions Time (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 45 8 2:55 Buses 21 4 6 5 25 Rain 100 50 9 3:10 Good 90 10 8 2:20 Ambulances 5 3 2 15 15 Rain 100 11 10 2:35 Maximum ETE: 3:10 Average ETE: 2:45 Robinson Nuclear Plant 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(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/Host Facility 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 (TCP/ACP) 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 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 existing TCPs and ACPs identified in the state/county emergency plans serve as the basis of the TMP, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 77).

Robinson Nuclear Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3. The existing TCPs and ACPs defined in the existing TMP, and how they were applied in this study, are discussed in Appendix G.

4. These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced traffic congestion during evacuation. No additional TCPs and ACPs were identified which would benefit the ETE as part of this study. See Appendix G for more detail.

5. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs.

Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs 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 TCPs located farther from the power plant. These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.

Appendix G documents the existing TMP and list of priority TCPs and/or ACPs using the process enumerated above.

9.1 Assumptions The following are TMP assumptions made for this study:

The ETE calculations documented in Section 7 and Section 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 <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) by ACPs along the major highways traversing the study area.

All transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are assumed to be unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and ACPs.

Study Assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 further discuss TCP and ACP 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 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 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 on Robinson Nuclear Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

board 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS 10.1 Evacuation Routes Evacuation routes are comprised of two distinct components:

• Routing from a Zone being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools/childcare centers, medical facilities, and 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 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 transitdependent population evacuating in buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed to Reception Centers. General population may evacuate to either Reception Center or some alternate destination (e.g., lodging facilities, relatives home, campgrounds) 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 12 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD to service the major evacuation routes through each Zone for this study, in order to compute ETE. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along the major evacuation routes to flag down a bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 150 minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Schools, preschools/childcare centers and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the Reception Center, in order to compute ETE.

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).

10.2 Reception Centers Figure 103 present a map showing the Reception Centers for evacuees. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 102.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103 presents a list of the reception centers for each school in the EPZ. It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate Reception Center and subsequently be picked up by parents or guardians. Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception community.

Robinson Nuclear Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes No. of Route Buses Route Description Length (mi.)

Servicing communities along Hwy 151 and E Bobo Newsome Highway from W Old 31 1 13.0 Camden Road south towards the EPZ boundary.

Servicing communities along SC145 towards Chesterfield from the intersection 32 1 7.9 with County Line Rd / W. L. Johnson Rd.

Servicing communities along SC145 towards Chesterfield from the intersection 33 1 4.4 of Scott Pond Road.

Bus route servicing the City of Hartsville along Lakeview Blvd, N 5th St., and E 34 1 14.3 Bobo Newsome Highway.

Bus route servicing the City of Hartsville along E Bobo Newsome Highway south 35 1 10.3 towards the EPZ boundary.

Bus route servicing communities along Patrick Highway south to N. Fifth Street to 36 1 13.7 E Bobo Newsome Highway.

Bus Route servicing the community of Kellytown along Kellytown Rd to E Bobo 37 1 12.8 Newsome Highway.

Bus Route servicing the areas of Lee's Crossroads, Registrar Crossroads and 38 1 5.5 portions of Lydia along US 15.

Servicing communities along W Old Camden Road towards Ashland Road south to 39 1 Kellytown Road east bound to E bobo Newsom Highway south to the EPZ 20.1 boundary.

Bus route servicing communities along US 15 south from Una Road south 40 1 4.7 towards Bishopville.

Servicing communities along W Bobo Newsom Highway from McLeod Farms 41 1 7.5 Roadside Market to N 7th Street to State Route 145 north to the EPZ boundary.

Bus Route servicing the areas of Leland and portions of McBee along US 1 north 42 1 7.2 towards SC145 and the EPZ Boundary.

Total: 12 Robinson Nuclear Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number McBee Elementary School, McBee 1 82, 1, 383, 88, 382, 92 Head Start 2 McBee High School 1, 383, 88, 382, 92 Lakeview Baptist Church School, Kids N 523, 231, 394, 396, 39, 264, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 3

Me 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 Carolina Elementary School, Carolina 37, 260, 449, 261, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 4

Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 231, 394, 396, 39, 264, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 5 North Hartsville Elementary School 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 271, 455, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 6 Hartsville High School 65, 478, 190, 66 266, 150, 452, 40, 402, 41, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 7 Coker University 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 8 Butler Academy 190, 66 452, 40, 402, 41, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 9 Governor's School for Science & Math 478, 190, 66 10 Southside Early Childhood Center 526, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 47, 457, 46, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 11 Emmanuel Christian School 65, 478, 190, 66 Forest Hills Christian School, 23, 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 12 Morningside of Hartsville 478, 190, 66 13 Bay Road Elementary 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 260, 449, 261, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 14 Hartsville Middle School 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 15 Thomas Hart Academy 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 260, 449, 261, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 16 King's Kids Childrens Center 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 First Presbyterian Church School, First 39, 264, 38, 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 17 Baptist Church Preschool, First Baptist 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 Preschool 150, 452, 40, 402, 41, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 18 Montessori Day Academy 65, 478, 190, 66 Robinson Nuclear Plant 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number True Saints Christian Daycare and 453, 151, 451, 450, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 19 Academy, Thompson Children Learning 478, 190, 66 Center 401, 45, 456, 46, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 20 East Christian Academy DayCare 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 40, 402, 41, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 21 A Kidz Place II, Inc 190, 66 46, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 22 Jeanette Pendergrass 190, 66 Kelleytown Baptist Church, Patricia 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 23 Mack Philips 190, 66 24 Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 25 Thad E. Saleeby Development Center 315, 25, 27, 525, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 William Bowen Community Residence, 26 327, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 Reagan Residential Home 45, 456, 46, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 27 Carriage House of Hartsville 551, 33 47, 457, 46, 328, 233, 42, 50, 404, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 28 Morrell Nursing Center 551, 33 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 29 The Retreat at Carolina Bay 190, 66 30 Bishopville Manor 56, 57, 292, 409, 293 4, 21, 309, 23, 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 31 Transit Dependent Route A0 413, 551, 33 32 Transit Dependent Route A1 218, 306, 217, 216, 215, 207, 208, 209 33 Transit Dependent Route A2 216, 215, 207, 208, 209 139, 529, 220, 221, 222, 102, 231, 394, 396, 39, 264, 38, 150, 452, 40, 402, 34 Transit Dependent Route B1 (1) 41, 43, 435, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 35 Transit Dependent Route B1 (2) 23, 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 104, 390, 389, 392, 103, 393, 102, 231, 394, 396, 39, 264, 38, 150, 452, 40, 36 Transit Dependent Route B2 402, 41, 43, 435, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 407, 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 37 Transit Dependent Route C1 190 Robinson Nuclear Plant 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Number 38 Transit Dependent Route C2 196, 405, 406, 437, 53, 439, 458, 65, 478, 190, 66 39 Transit Dependent Route D1 24, 411, 314, 25, 27, 525, 28, 313, 466, 29, 30, 31, 467, 32, 413, 551, 33 40 Transit Dependent Route D2 55, 490, 489, 56, 57, 292, 409, 293 41 Transit Dependent Route E1 10, 11, 12, 1, 383, 88, 382, 92 42 Transit Dependent Route E2 83, 380, 82, 1, 383, 88, 382, 92 Robinson Nuclear Plant 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. School Relocation Centers School/Childcare Center Reception Center McBee Elementary School McBee High School ChesterfieldRuby Middle School Plainview Elementary School McBee Head Start Pageland Headstart Center Lakeview Baptist Church School Carolina Elementary School North Hartsville Elementary School Hartsville High School Coker University Butler Academy Governor's School for Science & Math Southside Early Childhood Center Emmanuel Christian School Forest Hills Christian School Bay Road Elementary Hartsville Middle School Thomas Hart Academy Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center Florence Center Kids N Me King's Kids Childrens Center First Presbyterian Church School First Baptist Church Preschool First Baptist Preschool YMCA After School Program Montessori Day Academy True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy Thompson Children Learning Center East Christian Academy DayCare A Kidz Place II, Inc Jeanette Pendergrass Kelleytown Baptist Church Patricia Mack Philips Robinson Nuclear Plant 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes Robinson Nuclear Plant 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Robinson Nuclear Plant 109 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers Robinson Nuclear Plant 1010 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 = 13 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Robinson Nuclear Plant C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Computation of unit problem is now complete. Check for excessive inflow causing spillback.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 .

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Robinson Nuclear Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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)

Robinson Nuclear Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

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 Figure D1.

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 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 Zone 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. Employee data is obtained from Darlington County emergency management personnel for major employers in Darlington County. Estimates of employees at major employers within Chesterfield County are based upon data from the previous study since no new data was provided. Data for RNP is based upon data provided by Duke Energy. Information concerning transients, schools/childcare centers, access and/or functional needs population, medical facilities within the EPZ are based on the data received from the counties within the EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics1, the South Carolina Division of Early Care and Education2, Health Resources and Services Administration3, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environment Control (SC DHEC)4 and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to individual facilities where data is missing.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency management officials, and Duke Energy). 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, county emergency management officials and Duke Energy managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 1

https://nces.ed.gov/

2 https://www.scchildcare.org/

3 https://data.hrsa.gov/maps/map-tool/

4 https://scdhec.gov/

Robinson Nuclear Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Step 5 An online demographic survey of the 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 11 Zones. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Zones) 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 System 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a labor intensive 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses, and/or school/childcare center buses, vans, wheelchair transport vehicles, 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 were executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable.

Additional analysis is conducted to identify the sensitivity of the ETE to change in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions.

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, childcare centers, and medical 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Results of Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study 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 Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes 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 Simulate All Evacuation Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Cases and Compute ETE 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of June 2022, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the RNP study area. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools/childcare centers, and medical facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for transient attractions (boat landings, golf courses, parks, other recreational facilities) and lodging facilities. Employment data is 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) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, preschool/childcare center, medical facility, transient attraction (boat landing, golf course, park, other recreational facility), lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Robinson Nuclear Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the Study Area Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment Chesterfield County, SC E2 6.8 NW McBee Elementary School 284 E Maple St McBee 436 E2 6.9 NW McBee High School 264 E Pine Ave McBee 474 S.R. 10.1 NE Plainview Elementary School1 16002 SC102 Patrick 162 Chesterfield County Subtotal: 1,072 Darlington County, SC B1 4.6 E Lakeview Baptist Church School 202 Lakeview Blvd Hartsville 30 B1 4.7 ESE Carolina Elementary School 719 W Carolina Ave Hartsville 271 B1 4.7 E North Hartsville Elementary School 110 School Dr Hartsville 626 B1 5.1 SE Hartsville High School 701 Lewellen Ave Hartsville 1,200 B1 5.4 ESE Coker University 300 E College Ave Hartsville 856 B1 5.6 ESE Butler Academy 710 S 5th St Hartsville 240 B1 5.7 ESE Governor's School for Science & Math 401 Railroad Ave Hartsville 281 B1 5.9 SE Southside Early Childhood Center 1615 Blanding Dr Hartsville 435 B2 7.7 E Emmanuel Christian School 1001 N Marquis Hwy Hartsville 336 C1 3.3 SSE Forest Hills Christian School 317 Forrest Hills Dr Hartsville 6 C1 5.1 SE Bay Road Elementary 1251 Bay Rd Hartsville 496 C1 5.5 SE Hartsville Middle School 1427 14th St Hartsville 1,075 C2 8.5 SE Thomas Hart Academy 852 Flinns Rd Hartsville 140 Darlington County Subtotal: 5,992 STUDY AREA2 TOTAL: 7,064 1

Plainview Elementary School is located in the Shadow Region (S.R.) but near the EPZ boundary. According to the 2022 Emergency Preparedness Information for RNP, students in this school will be evacuated to Chesterfield-Ruby Middle School in the event of an emergency.

2 Only those schools in the EPZ or listed in the public emergency preparedness information are presented.

Robinson Nuclear Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment Chesterfield County, SC E2 7.0 WNW McBee Head Start 168 E Union Church Rd McBee 20 Chesterfield County Subtotal: 20 Darlington County, SC B1 4.3 SE Carolina Girls & Barefoot Boys Daycare Center 943 W Carolina Ave Hartsville 35 B1 4.4 E Kids N Me 521 Johnson St Hartsville 29 B1 4.8 ESE King's Kids Childrens Center 513 W Carolina Ave Hartsville 55 B1 5.0 ESE First Presbyterian Church School 213 W Home Ave Hartsville 196 B1 5.1 ESE First Baptist Church Preschool 104 E Home Ave Hartsville 28 B1 5.1 ESE First Baptist Preschool 104 E Home Ave Hartsville 97 B1 5.3 ESE YMCA After School Program Hartsville 160 B1 5.4 ESE Montessori Day Academy 103 Campus Dr Hartsville 45 B1 5.4 ESE True Saints Christian Daycare and Academy 428 Poole St Hartsville 99 B1 5.5 ESE Thompson Children Learning Center 516 Elm St Hartsville 15 B1 6.0 ESE East Christian Academy DayCare 911 E Home Ave Hartsville 45 B1 6.1 ESE A Kidz Place II, Inc 900 S 4th St Hartsville 62 B2 9.2 E Jeanette Pendergrass 509 Centerville Rd Hartsville 12 C1 3.8 SSE Kelleytown Baptist Church 2609 Kelleytown Rd Hartsville 30 D1 2.5 SW Patricia Mack Philips 3012 W Old Camden Rd Hartsville 12 Darlington County Subtotal: 920 EPZ TOTAL: 940 Robinson Nuclear Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Capa Current atory chair ridden Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality city Census Patients Patients Patients Darlington County, SC B1 3.3 SE Morningside of Hartsville 1901 W Carolina Ave Hartsville 54 39 34 5 0 B1 4.8 SE Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center 1304 W Bobo Newsome Hwy Hartsville 116 116 81 35 0 B1 5.0 SE Thad E. Saleeby Development Center 714 Lewellen Ave Hartsville 96 85 5 0 80 B1 6.4 ESE William Bowen Community Residence 1045 Stoneridge Ave Hartsville 8 8 4 2 2 B1 6.4 ESE Reagan Residential Home 1100 E Carolina Ave Hartsville 8 8 4 2 2 B1 6.6 ESE Carriage House of Hartsville 1131 E Home Ave Hartsville 60 60 60 0 0 B2 7.6 E Morrell Nursing Center 900 N Marquis Hwy Hartsville 154 154 34 113 7 C1 4.7 SE The Retreat at Carolina Bay 1340 Carolina Bay Blvd Hartsville 60 34 24 10 0 Darlington County Subtotal: 556 504 246 167 91 Lee County, SC D2 9.9 S Bishopville Manor 2779 US15 Bishopville 44 44 21 11 12 Lee County Subtotal: 44 44 21 11 12 EPZ TOTAL: 600 548 267 178 103 Robinson Nuclear Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ Chesterfield County, SC E2 7.0 WNW Mar Mac Manufacturing 884 S Seventh St McBee 295 53.5% 158 144 E2 7.2 NW A O Smith Water Products 25589 US 1 McBee 450 90.0% 315 286 E2 7.4 NW Mar Mac Construction 334 N 7th St McBee 275 53.5% 147 134 E2 7.8 NW McLeod Farms 25455 US 1 McBee 220 10.0% 22 20 Chesterfield County Subtotal: 1,240 642 584 Darlington County, SC A0 Robinson Nuclear Plant 3581 W Entrance Rd Hartsville 400 37.0% 148 135 B1 4.8 SE Carolina Pines Regional Medical Center 1304 W Bobo Newsome Hwy Hartsville 600 53.5% 321 292 B1 5.4 ESE Sonoco Products Company 1 N 2nd St Hartsville 625 53.5% 334 304 B1 5.4 ESE Coker College 300 E College Ave Hartsville 230 53.5% 123 112 B1 6.0 ESE Stingray Boats 625 Railroad Ave Hartsville 240 53.5% 128 116 Darlington County Subtotal: 2,095 1,054 959 EPZ TOTAL: 3,335 1,696 1,543 Robinson Nuclear Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles Darlington County, SC A0 0.8 E Johnson's Landing3 Hillview Dr Hartsville Boat Landing Local Residents Only A0 1.7 NNE Easterling's Landing2 Easterling Landing Rd Hartsville Boat Landing Local Residents Only B1 4.2 ESE Hartsville Country Club2 116 Golf Course Rd Hartsville Golf Course Local Residents Only B1 5.0 SE Hewitt Thomas Gym 728 Lewellen Dr Hartsville Other, Not Listed 175 71 B1 5.1 SE T. B. Thomas Gym 701 Washington St Hartsville Other, Not Listed 5 2 The Center Theater (Hartsville B1 5.1 ESE Community Center) 212 N 5th St Hartsville Other, Not Listed 25 25 B1 5.2 E Sonovista Landing2 Sonovista Dr Hartsville Boat Landing Local Residents Only B1 5.2 SE Neptune Island Waterpark 1109 14th St Hartsville Other, Not Listed 120 35 B1 5.4 SE Byerly Park 700 Russell Rd Hartsville Park 50 20 B1 5.5 ESE Deloach Center (Coker University) 451 E Carolina Ave Hartsville Other, Not Listed 75 50 B2 11.5 SE Darlington Dragway 2056 E Bobo Newsom Hwy Hartsville Other, Not Listed 400 250 C1 3.4 SSE Kellytown Stadium 216 Clyde Rd Hartsville Other, Not Listed 300 75 C2 9.1 SSE Fox Creek Golf Club 2433 Tomahawk Rd Lamar Golf Course 20 6 Darlington County Subtotal: 1,170 534 EPZ TOTAL: 1,170 534 3

According to Darlington County Emergency Management Agency, these transient facilities are mainly used by local residents who have been counted as permanent residents as discussed in Section 3.1. Therefore, no transients or transient vehicles were assigned to these facilities.

Robinson Nuclear Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles Darlington County, SC B1 4.9 ESE Hartsville Motel 806 N 5th St Hartsville 74 30 B1 5.1 E Lakeview Motel 942 N 5th St Hartsville 30 12 B1 5.3 ESE The Mantissa Hotel 130 E Carolina Ave Hartsville 42 17 B1 5.3 ESE Oak Manor Inn 314 E Home Ave Hartsville 10 5 B1 5.4 ESE Hampton Inn & Suites Hartsville 203 E Carolina Ave Hartsville 221 90 B1 5.4 ESE Fairfield Inn by Marriott Hartsville 200 S 4th St Hartsville 194 79 B1 5.9 ESE Quality Inn 903 S 5th St Hartsville 162 66 B2 6.6 ESE The Landmark Inn 1301 S 4th St Hartsville 337 137 Airbnb rentals throughout Hartsville4 Hartsville 493 331 Darlington County Subtotal: 1,563 767 EPZ TOTAL: 1,563 767 4

Refer to Section 3 for detailed discussion of the data and methodology used to estimate the transients and vehicles for Airbnb rentals in Hartsville, SC.

Robinson Nuclear Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the Study Area Robinson Nuclear Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Preschools/Childcare Centers within the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Major Employers within the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Transient Attractions within the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates (ETE) for the Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP)

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 was performed in April 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 460 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% 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 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area 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 number of samples obtained was less than the sampling plan despite a good faith effort put forward by the offsite response organizations (OROs) and Duke Energy. A total of 148 completed samples were obtained from zip codes within 15 miles of RNP corresponding to a sampling error of +/-8% at the 95th percent confidence level. Table F1 shows the number of samples obtained within each zip code. Despite not reaching the desired sample size, the Robinson Nuclear Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

distribution of samples aligns with the sampling plan with the majority of samples coming from Zip Codes 29101 and 29550.

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 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 decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional 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 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 received, the average household contains 2.90 people. The estimated average household size (2.46 persons) used to determine the survey sample (Table F1) was drawn from the 2020 Census data. The percent difference between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 17.9%, which exceeds the sampling error of 8.02%. To minimize uncertainty, this average household size from the Cenus was utilized in this study.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.59. It should be noted that all households in the EPZ have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey results. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size.

Ridesharing Approximately 80% 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household.

Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis.

The data shows an average of 1.60 commuters per household in the EPZ, and 96% 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 (about 89%) of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work or college. The data shows an average of 1.10 commuters per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average -

for carpools.

Impact of 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 0.64 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. In total, 57% of households indicated that no commuter 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 by type of need. The responses indicate that 4% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 30%

require a bus, 60% require a medical bus/van, and 10% require a wheelchair accessible van.

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 1.50 vehicles.

Would your family await the return of other family members prior to evacuating the area?

Of the survey participants who responded, 66% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 34% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members, as shown in Figure F11.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace 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 approximately 85% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 15% would choose to evacuate the area, as shown in Figure F12.

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 data obtained above is Robinson Nuclear Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

considerably lower than the federal guidance recommendation. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance to a shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home 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 shelterinplace now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. As shown in Figure F13, results indicate that 71% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 29%

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. About 51% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 5% to a reception center, 20% to a hotel, motel or campground, 7% to a second or seasonal home, about 1% would not evacuate and the remaining 16% answered other/dont know to this question, as shown in Figure F14.

If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on responses from the survey, 77% of households have a family pet, as shown in Figure F15. Of the households with pets, about 22% indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 72% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else, and about 6% would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F16. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, 99% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s) and 1% need a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, 90% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, guinea pig, rabbit, or fish), 10%

of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, pig, or donkey).

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.

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.

Approximately how much time would it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home? Figure F17 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 45 minutes. Approximately 90% can leave within 20 minutes.

Robinson Nuclear Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

How much time on average, would it take the commuter to travel home from work or college? Figure F18 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 92% of commuters can arrive home within about 20 minutes of leaving work; all within 45 minutes.

If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area? Figure F19 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. Approximately 90% of households can be ready to leave home within 120 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes.

F.3.4 Emergency Communications At your place of residence, how reliable is your cell phone signal? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the ability to be notified in case of an evacuation.

About 89% of households indicated that they have very reliable signal to receive texts and phone calls, 5% indicated that their signal is reliable for text messages only, 5% indicated that they do not always receive cell communications at their residence, and 1% indicated that they do not have cell service at their residence, as shown in Figure F20.

Emergency management officials in your state may send text messages, similar to AMBER Alerts, with emergency directions for the public during a radiological emergency at the Robinson Nuclear Plant. How likely would you be to take action on these directions, if you received the message? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the likelihood of an individual to take action based on emergency management officials guidelines.

About 76% of households indicated that they are highly likely to take action on these directions, 20% indicated likely, 2% indicated neither likely nor unlikely, 1% indicated unlikely, and 1%

indicated highly unlikely, as shown in Figure F21.

Which of the following emergency communication methods do you think is most likely to alert you at your residence? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the most efficient way to alert residents within the EPZ.

About 23% indicated that a siren sounding near their home would be the most likely method, 65% of households indicated that a text message from emergency officials would be most likely to alert them at their residence, 3% indicated an alert broadcast on radio, 6% indicated an alert broadcast on the TV, 2% indicated that a phone call/text message from a family member, friend or neighbor would be the most likely way to alert them at their residence, and about 1%

indicated that information on Twitter or Facebook would be the most likely to alert those at their residence, as shown in Figure F22.

Robinson Nuclear Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. RNP Demographic Survey Sampling Plan EPZ EPZ EPZ EPZ Population Households Population Households Desired Sample Zip Code in Zip Code in Zip Code in Zip Code in Zip Code Sample Obtained (2010) (2010) (2020) (2020) 29009 116 51 125 44 1 1 29010 1,065 454 774 357 12 1 29069 546 229 478 211 6 3 29079 151 61 142 40 2 0 29101 2,914 1,090 2,838 1,058 30 12 29550 30,978 11,987 28,645 11,704 327 131 29584 157 55 119 54 2 0 Total 35,927 13,927 33,121 13,468 380 148 Average HH Size: 2.58 2.46 Household Size 40%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Vehicle Availability 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 5+ Person Households 5 People 6 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+ Person Households Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Robinson Nuclear Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Per Household 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters per Households in the EPZ Travel Mode to Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

Bus Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Robinson Nuclear Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

COVID19 Impact to Commuters 70%

60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 Pandemic Functional or Transportation Needs 7

6 5

Number of People 4

3 2

1 0

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Robinson Nuclear Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

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 Leaving Robinson Nuclear Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter in Place Characteristics 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter Evacuate Figure F12. Shelter in Place Characteristics Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter, then Evacuate Evacuate Immediately Figure F13. Shelter in Place Characteristics - Staged Evacuation Robinson Nuclear Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Destinations 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Households with Pets 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F15. Households with Pets Robinson Nuclear Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 F16. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F17. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Robinson Nuclear Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Travel Time (min)

Figure F18. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F19. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Robinson Nuclear Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Cell Phone Signal Reliability 100%

90%

80%

Percent of Households 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Very reliable to Reliable for text I do not always I do not have cell receive texts and messages only receive cell service at my phone calls communications at residence my residence Figure F20. Cell Phone Signal Reliability Likelihood to Take Action Based off Guidelines 80%

70%

60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Highly Likely Likely Neither Likely nor Unlikely Highly Unlikely unlikely Figure F21. Likelihood to Take Action Based off Emergency Management Officials Guidelines Robinson Nuclear Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Emergency Communication Method 70%

60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

A siren A text Alert Alert Information Phone sounding near message from Broadcast on Broadcast on on Twitter or call/Text your home Emergency Radio TV Facebook message from Officials family, friend, or neighbor Figure F22. Emergency Communication Alert Robinson Nuclear Plant F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Robinson Nuclear Plant F18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Robinson Nuclear Plant Demographic Survey

• Required Purpose The purpose of this survey is to identify local behavior during emergency situations. The information gathered in this survey will be shared with Duke Energy and local emergency agencies to enhance emergency response plans in your area. Your responses will greatly contribute to local emergency preparedness.
            .
         

(   )      . Please do not provide your name or any personal information, and the survey will take less than 5 minutes to complete.

1. 1. What is your home zip code? *

2. 2A. In total, how many running cars, or other vehicles are usually available to the household?

Mark only one oval.

ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE OR MORE ZERO (NONE)

DECLINE TO STATE

3. 2B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE

4. 3. How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation?

Mark only one oval.

ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE OR MORE ZERO (NONE)

I WOULD EVACUATE BY BICYCLE I WOULD EVACUATE BY BUS DECLINE TO STATE

5. 4. How many people usually live in this household?

Mark only one oval.

ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN FOURTEEN FIFTEEN SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 6 COVID-19

6. 5. How many people in your household have a work and/or school commute that has been temporarily impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Mark only one oval.

ZERO ONE TWO THREE FOUR OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 7 Commuters

7. 6. How many people in the household normally (during non-COVID conditions) commute to a

• job, or to college on a daily basis?

Mark only one oval.

ZERO Skip to question 52 ONE Skip to question 8 TWO Skip to question 9 THREE Skip to question 10 FOUR OR MORE Skip to question 11 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 52 Mode of Travel

8. 7. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Mark only one oval per row.

Carpool-2 Drive Dont Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle or more Alone know people Commuter 1

Skip to question 12 Mode of Travel

9. 7. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Mark only one oval per row.

Carpool-2 Drive Dont Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle or more Alone know people Commuter 1

Commuter 2

Skip to question 14 Mode of Travel

10. 7. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Mark only one oval per row.

Carpool-2 Drive Dont Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle or more Alone know people Commuter 1

Commuter 2

Commuter 3

Skip to question 18 Mode of Travel

11. 7. Thinking about each commuter, how does each person usually travel to work or college?

Mark only one oval per row.

Carpool-2 Drive Dont Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle or more Alone know people Commuter 1

Commuter 2

Commuter 3

Commuter 4

Skip to question 24 Travel Home From Work/College

12. 8-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

13. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 32 Travel Home From Work/College

14. 8-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

15. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

16. 8-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

17. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 34 Travel Home From Work/College

18. 8-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

19. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

20. 8-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

21. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

22. 8-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

23. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 38 Travel Home From Work/College

24. 8-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

25. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

26. 8-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

27. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

28. 8-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

29. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

30. 8-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

31. If Over 2 Hours for Question 8-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 8-4, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 44 Preparation to leave Work/College

32. 9-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

33. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 52 Preparation to leave Work/College

34. 9-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

35. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

36. 9-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

37. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 52 Preparation to leave Work/College

38. 9-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

39. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

40. 9-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

41. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

42. 9-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

43. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 52 Preparation to leave Work/College

44. 9-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

45. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

46. 9-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

47. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

48. 9-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

49. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

50. 9-4. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

5 MINUTES OR LESS 6-10 MINUTES 11-15 MINUTES 16-20 MINUTES 21-25 MINUTES 26-30 MINUTES 31-35 MINUTES 36-40 MINUTES 41-45 MINUTES 46-50 MINUTES 51-55 MINUTES 56 - 1 HOUR OVER 1 HOUR, BUT LESS THAN 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES AND 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES BETWEEN 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES AND 2 HOURS OVER 2 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

51. If Over 2 Hours for Question 9-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 9-4, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 52 Additional Questions

52. 10. If you were advised by local authorities to evacuate, how much time would it take the household to pack clothing, medications, secure the house, load the car, and complete preparations prior to evacuating the area?

Mark only one oval.

LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 15-30 MINUTES 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 3 HOURS TO 3 HOURS 15 MINUTES 3 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 30 MINUTES 3 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS 45 MINUTES 3 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 4 HOURS TO 4 HOURS 15 MINUTES 4 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 30 MINUTES 4 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 4 HOURS 45 MINUTES 4 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 5 HOURS 5 HOURS TO 5 HOURS 30 MINUTES 5 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 6 HOURS OVER 6 HOURS WILL NOT EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE

53. If Over 6 Hours for Question 10, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10, is under 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

54. 11. Please specify the number of people in your household who require Functional or Transportation needs in an evacuation:

Mark only one oval per row.

More 0 1 2 3 4 than 4 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Other

55. Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below

56. 12. Please choose one of the following:

Mark only one oval.

I would await the return of household members to evacuate together.

I would evacuate independently and meet other household members later.

Decline to State

57. 13A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you:

Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE

58. 13B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:

Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE

59. 13C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?

Mark only one oval.

A RELATIVES OR FRIENDS HOME A RECEPTION CENTER A HOTEL, MOTEL OR CAMPGROUND A SECOND/SEASONAL HOME WOULD NOT EVACUATE DON'T KNOW OTHER (Specify Below)

DECLINE TO STATE

60. Fill in OTHER answers for question 13C Pet Questions

61. 14A. Do you have any pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO Skip to question 66 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 66 Skip to question 66

Pet Questions

62. 14B. What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have?

Check all that apply.

DOG CAT BIRD REPTILE HORSE FISH CHICKEN GOAT PIG OTHER SMALL PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

OTHER LARGE PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

Other:

63.

Mark only one oval.

DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions

64. 14C. What would you do with your pet(s) and/or animal(s) if you had to evacuate?

Mark only one oval.

TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE LEAVE PET AT HOME Skip to question 66 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 66 Pet Questions

65. 14D. Do you have sufficient room in your vehicle(s) to evacuate with your pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE Other:

Emergency Communications

66. 15A. At your place of residence, how reliable is your cell phone signal?

Mark only one oval.

VERY RELIABLE TO RECEIVE TEXTS AND PHONE CALLS RELIABLE FOR TEXT MESSAGES ONLY I DO NOT ALWAYS RECEIVE CELL COMMUNICATIONS AT MY RESIDENCE I DO NOT HAVE CELL SERVICE AT MY RESIDENCE

67. 15B. Emergency management officials in your state may send text messages, similar to AMBER Alerts, with emergency directions for the public during a radiological emergency at Robinson Nuclear Plant. How likely would you be to take action on these directions, if you received the message?

Mark only one oval.

HIGHLY LIKELY LIKELY NEITHER LIKELY NOR UNLIKELY UNLIKELY HIGHLY UNLIKELY

68. 15C. Which of the following emergency communication methods do you think is most likely to alert you at your residence?

Mark only one oval.

A SIREN SOUNDING NEAR YOUR HOME A TEXT MESSAGE FROM EMERGENCY OFFICIALS ALERT BROADCAST ON RADIO ALERT BROADCAST ON TV INFORMATION ON TWITTER OR FACEBOOK PHONE CALL/TEXT MESSAGE FROM FAMILY, FRIEND, OR NEIGHBOR OTHER

69. Fill in OTHER answers for question 15C

70. 15D. Have you opted into your local Emergency Alert and Warning Systems?

Check all that apply.

With Residential Phone With Cellular Phone With Email With Text Message Did not opt in Decline to State This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Forms

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic and Access Control Points (TCP/ACP) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the EPZ were provided by Chesterfield County and South Carolina Operational Radiological Emergency Response Plan (SCORERP). The TCPs in the Darlington County portion of the EPZ were maintained from the previous study since a TMP for this county could not be obtained.

These plans were reviewed, and the TCPs and ACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TCP and ACP was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing TCPs and ACPs that were provided in the state and county radiological emergency plans, with no additional TCPs or ACPs needed.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TCPs and ACPs 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 TCP or ACP, 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. MTC at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the number of nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP or ACP, the control type is indicated as TCP/ACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the state/county emergency plans, are mapped in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 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 the major routes that traverse the study area - US 1 and I20 - in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP 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 plan (TMP) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and could 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 signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMP.

The majority of the TCPs/ACPs identified in the TMP were located at intersections with stop control. Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points Robinson Nuclear Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, with good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region and the entire EPZ (Regions R01, R02, and R03, respectively) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7. As shown in Table G2, the ETE did not change at the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TCPs and ACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact on ETE.

As discussed in Section 7, congestion in the EPZ is minimal and clears prior to the completion of trip generation. As a result, the removal of MTC does not impact the ETE. Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized traffic congestion and driver confusion, can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, the prevention of vehicles entering various Zones that may be at risk, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TCPs or ACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP, as the existing control at these intersections is not as efficient as an actuated signal or MTC.

Robinson Nuclear Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1 List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations TCP/ACP UNITES Node Type of Control Name Number Intersection (Prior to being a TCP/ACP)

CH2 88 US 1 & SR 145 Stop CH3 213 SR 109 & SR 145 Stop CH4 110 US 1 & SR 102 Stop S3/16F 77 US 52 & Dovesville Hwy Stop Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 Region 90th Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile Region) 2:40 2:40 0:00 4:15 4:15 0:00 R02 (5Mile Region) 2:45 2:45 0:00 4:20 4:20 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 2:45 2:45 0:00 4:25 4:25 0:00 Robinson Nuclear Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the RNP Robinson Nuclear Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

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 H36). 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Zone Region DESCRIPTION A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM DEGREES FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R04 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R05 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R06 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R07 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R08 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R09 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R10 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R11 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R12 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R13 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary WIND SECTOR PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM DEGREES FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R14 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X X X X R15 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X X X R16 NE 33.75 56.25 NE 16 78 X X X X X X X R17 ENE 56.25 78.75 X X X X X X R18 E/ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X X X R19 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X X X R20 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X X X R21 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X X X X R22 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X X X R23 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X X X X R24 WNW 281.25 303.75 X X X X X R25 NW, NNW 303.75 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X X X X Robinson Nuclear Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles WIND SECTOR PAR WIND PAR Zone Region FROM DEGREES FROM SECTOR DEGREES A0 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 E1 E2 R26 5Mile Region X X X X X X R27 N 348.75 11.25 N 329 15 X X X X R28 NNE 11.25 33.75 X X X R29 NE, ENE 33.75 78.75 NE 16 78 X X X X R30 E, ESE 78.75 123.75 E 79 112 X X X R31 SE 123.75 146.25 SE 113 157 X X X X R32 SSE 146.25 168.75 X X X R33 S, SSW, SW 167.75 236.25 S, SW 158 247 X X X X R34 WSW 236.25 258.75 X X X R35 W 258.75 281.25 W 248 292 X X X X R36 WNW, NW, NNW 281.25 348.75 NW 293 328 X X X Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Zone(s) Evacuate Robinson Nuclear Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Robinson Nuclear Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Robinson Nuclear Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Robinson Nuclear Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Robinson Nuclear Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Robinson Nuclear Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Robinson Nuclear Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Robinson Nuclear Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Robinson Nuclear Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Robinson Nuclear Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Robinson Nuclear Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Robinson Nuclear Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Robinson Nuclear Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Robinson Nuclear Plant H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Robinson Nuclear Plant H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Robinson Nuclear Plant H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Robinson Nuclear Plant H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Robinson Nuclear Plant H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Robinson Nuclear Plant H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Robinson Nuclear Plant H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H20. Region R20 Robinson Nuclear Plant H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H21. Region R21 Robinson Nuclear Plant H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H22. Region R22 Robinson Nuclear Plant H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H23. Region R23 Robinson Nuclear Plant H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H24. Region R24 Robinson Nuclear Plant H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H25. Region R25 Robinson Nuclear Plant H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H26. Region R26 Robinson Nuclear Plant H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H27. Region R27 Robinson Nuclear Plant H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H28. Region R28 Robinson Nuclear Plant H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H29. Region R29 Robinson Nuclear Plant H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H30. Region R30 Robinson Nuclear Plant H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H31. Region R31 Robinson Nuclear Plant H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H32. Region R32 Robinson Nuclear Plant H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H33. Region R33 Robinson Nuclear Plant H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H34. Region R34 Robinson Nuclear Plant H37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H35. Region R35 Robinson Nuclear Plant H38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H36. Region R36 Robinson Nuclear Plant H39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

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 206 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 7.37 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides networkwide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed, and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. Scenarios 2, 4, 7, and 9, which are rain scenarios, exhibit the slowest average speed and longest average travel times. Scenario 11 (special event) has a lower networkwide average speed and higher networkwide average travel time when compared with Scenario 8 (winter, weekend, midday, good weather). Scenario 12 (roadway impact) has a lower networkwide average speed and higher networkwide average travel time when compared with Scenario 1 (summer, weekday, midday, good weather).

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

State Route 151, Old Camden Road, Hartsville Ruby Highway, Carolina Ave, US 1, and State Route 403 - 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 Figures 77, there is localized traffic congestion in the EPZ for the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the evacuation. As such, the average speeds on the major evacuation routes are only moderately affected, except few routes that experience congestion. Old Camden Road eastbound and Hartsville Ruby Highway northbound exhibit lower average speeds in the second hour after the ATE due to congestion displayed in Figure 7 4 and Figure 74. By about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE, all routes are operating at freeflow conditions since all congestion is clear at this time.

Table J4 provides the cumulative 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 J13 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 12 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation time 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 1

Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow condition.

Robinson Nuclear Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J2 through Figure J13, the curves are somewhat separated due to the presence of moderate traffic congestion within the EPZ for the first two hours and 45 minutes. After this congestion clears, the two curves are close together indicating ETE mimics trip generation time.

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 9 4 6 220 SW 8087 1,700 8168 4,500 62 35 36 365 SE 8206 2,850 8184 4,500 8061 1,700 428 309 23 6 SE 8184 4,500 8102 1,700 8184 4,500 631 453 151 34 SE 8102 1,700 8068 1,700 8074 1,700 533 388 105 213 NE 8101 1,700 8113 1,700 8061 1,700 562 406 437 81 SE 8184 4,500 8102 1,700 8125 1,700 136 82 380 353 NW 8128 1,700 8087 1,700 8101 1,700 157 97 98 12 N 8113 1,700 8184 4,500 339 237 238 23 E 8195 2,850 8206 2,850 8184 4,500 750 552 502 46 SE 8195 2,850 8206 2,850 Robinson Nuclear Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NetworkWide Average 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.5 1.3 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.1 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 47.5 42.2 43.6 37.7 41.8 44.9 39.7 43.8 37.7 41.5 24.0 46.4 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 32,422 32,541 31,222 31,350 26,300 33,116 33,231 31,237 31,370 26,322 47,743 32,125 Exiting Network Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:25 Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Length Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Major Evacuation Route (miles) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min) (mph) (min)

State Route 151 Northbound 7.2 50.5 8.5 50.2 8.6 51.2 8.4 51.4 8.4 52.7 8.2 State Route 151 Southbound 15.4 54.5 17.0 41.7 22.2 55.0 16.8 55.1 16.8 52.7 17.6 Old Camden Road Eastbound 9.4 47.9 11.8 28.9 19.6 50.1 11.3 53.2 10.6 55.0 10.3 Old Camden Road Westbound 7.3 56.3 7.7 55.8 7.8 57.3 7.6 57.4 7.6 60.0 7.3 Hartsville Ruby Highway Northbound 11.1 57.0 11.7 9.9 66.9 56.5 11.8 56.8 11.7 58.7 11.3 Carolina Ave Westbound 7.5 41.1 10.9 41.1 10.9 41.2 10.9 42.2 10.7 46.4 9.7 US 1 Eastbound 8.6 57.0 9.1 56.5 9.2 55.5 9.3 56.9 9.1 57.8 9.0 SR 403 Southbound 4.3 54.9 4.7 55.0 4.7 54.9 4.7 55.0 4.7 55.0 4.7 Robinson Nuclear Plant J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours:minutes) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 4:25 Up Down Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Roadway Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time SR 403 38 171 228 244 247 68 223 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

US 15 142 1,388 2,254 2,461 2,490 74 345 2.3% 6.7% 7.4% 7.7% 7.7%

US 1 437 1,309 1,807 1,910 1,923 86 87 7.0% 6.3% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9%

US 1 341 1,055 1,843 1,995 2,015 100 101 5.4% 5.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2%

SR 102 32 370 676 720 726 112 113 0.5% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Timrod Rd 10 115 176 189 190 124 125 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

SR 341 84 321 431 455 458 127 128 1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

I20 1,501 3,588 4,400 4,514 4,530 173 168 23.9% 17.3% 14.5% 14.0% 14.0%

I20 1,657 4,281 5,878 6,107 6,132 198 184 26.3% 20.6% 19.4% 19.0% 18.9%

SR 145 48 308 497 523 525 213 95 0.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

52 306 487 511 513 SR 109 213 214 0.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

952 3,438 5,475 5,974 6,034 US 52 225 195 15.1% 16.5% 18.1% 18.6% 18.6%

28 305 443 480 485 Old Stagecoach Rd 229 230 0.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

500 2,077 3,206 3,429 3,454 SR 151 344 346 8.0% 10.0% 10.6% 10.7% 10.7%

64 679 1,067 1,169 1,181 US 15 347 61 1.0% 3.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6%

23 332 516 568 573 Sandy Grove Church Rd 509 528 0.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.8%

382 758 909 944 947 SR 151 527 18 6.1% 3.6% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9%

Robinson Nuclear Plant J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1 RNP Network Sources/Origins Robinson Nuclear Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (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 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (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 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (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 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 (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 8)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 10)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good, Special Event (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 12)

Robinson Nuclear Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

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 29 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K30) 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/or access control point [TCP/ACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 410 Pretimed 0 Actuated 35 Stop 70 TCP/ACP 14 Yield 16 Total: 545 Robinson Nuclear Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. RNP LinkNode Analysis Network Robinson Nuclear Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Robinson Nuclear Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Robinson Nuclear Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Robinson Nuclear Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Robinson Nuclear Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Robinson Nuclear Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Robinson Nuclear Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Robinson Nuclear Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Robinson Nuclear Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Robinson Nuclear Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Robinson Nuclear Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Robinson Nuclear Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Robinson Nuclear Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Robinson Nuclear Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Robinson Nuclear Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Robinson Nuclear Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Robinson Nuclear Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Robinson Nuclear Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Robinson Nuclear Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Robinson Nuclear Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Robinson Nuclear Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Robinson Nuclear Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Robinson Nuclear Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Robinson Nuclear Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Robinson Nuclear Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Robinson Nuclear Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Robinson Nuclear Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Robinson Nuclear Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Robinson Nuclear Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Robinson Nuclear Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Zone Boundaries

L. ZONE BOUNDARIES Zone A0 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by the Darlington Chesterfield County line; East by Lakeview Boulevard, West Old Camden Road Whipporwill Road; New Market Road; West Bobo Newsome Hwy (SC 151);

South by Westover Drive; West by Clyde Road; West along Rancho Road to Chesterfield County line.

Zone A1 County: Chesterfield Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by SR346 (Morrison Bridge Road); East by SR29 (RubyHartsville Road); South by Chesterfield Darlington County line West by Lake Robinson to include the lake.

Zone A2 County: Chesterfield Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by both sides Wire Road (unnumbered county road); East by both sides SR29 (RubyHartsville Road); both sides SR404, both sides SC102; South by ChesterfieldDarlington County line; West by SR29 (RubyHartsville Road), SR346 (Morrison Bridge Road), SR46 and SR63.

Zone B1 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by Darlington County line; Chesterfield East by Ousleydale Road, Patrick Highway; East Home Avenue; US15 Bypass (Marquis Hwy); to South Fourth Street; West Bobo Newsome Hwy to New Market Road; Lakeview Boulevard to Chesterfield County line.

Zone B2 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by Darlington Chesterfield County line; East by Bethlehem Road, US15N(Hartsville Hwy); to North Center Road; to East Bobo Newsome Highway; to Flinns Crossroads, to South Fourth Street; to US15 Bypass (Marquis Highway); to East Home Ave, to Patrick Hwy; Ousleydale Road; to the Chesterfield County line.

Robinson Nuclear Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Zone C1 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North and east by Clyde Road; Westover Drive; east by W. Bobo Newsome Hwy; South Fifth Street; Highpoint Road; West by DarlingtonLee County line, Stuckey Bottom Road, Hillcrest Road to Clyde Road.

Zone C2 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by Highpoint Road; to South Fifth Street; east by East Bobo Newsome Highway; to Faith Road; to west on East Lydia Hwy; to Bethel Road; to Indian Branch Road, to Oates Highway (Hwy 403); to West Seven Pines Road; to Una Road to the Darlington Lee County line.

Zone D1 County: Darlington Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by Darlington Chesterfield County line; East by Rancho Road, to west Old Camden Road; to Clyde Road; to Hillcrest Road; to Stuckey Bottom, Road; to south by the DarlingtonLee County line, to the west by DarlingtonLeeKershaw County lines (Lynches River).

Zone D2 County: Lee Defined as the area within the following boundary: North and East by Lee Darlington County line; South by BS US15; West by Lynches River, BS SR26, BS SC341, BS SR339, BS SR188, SR50 to LeeKershaw County line.

Zone E1 County: Chesterfield Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by BS SR172 (Kings Mill Pond Road); SR711 (Shady Grove Church Road); SC151; SR346 (Morrison Bridge Road); east by Lake Robinson; south by ChesterfieldDarlington County line; west by SR31 (Union Church Road).

Zone E2 County: Chesterfield Defined as the area within the following boundary: North by BS Wire Road (Unnumbered county road); east by SR63, SR46 (Middendorf Road); south by SR346 (Morrison Bridge Road), SC151, SR711 (Shady Grove Church; Road),

SR172 (Kings Mill Pond Road); SR31 (Union Church Road) and Chesterfield Darlington County line.

Robinson Nuclear Plant L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

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 6, Region R03; a winter, 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 percentile ETE remains the same and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 45 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively - a significant change.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the full EPZ clears (i.e., all highways within EPZ operate at Level of Service A) at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes after the ATE, well before the completion of the trip generation time. After 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes, 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 6, Region R03; winter, 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 (0%), doubling (40%), tripling (60%), quadrupling (80%), or full evacuation (100%) of the Shadow Region evacuation percentage does not impact the 90th percentile ETEs. Eliminating (0%), doubling (40%) and tripling (60%) of the Shadow Region evacuation percentage does not impact the 100th percentile ETEs. While quadrupling (80%) and a full evacuation (100%) of the Shadow Region evacuation percentage increases the 100th percentile ETE by 5 minutes - not a significant change.

Note that the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that approximately 15% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which is lower than the base assumption of 20% noncompliance as suggested in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study Robinson Nuclear Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

was considered using a 15% shadow evacuation and the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs remained the same.

The Shadow Region is sparsely populated with Bishopville and Darlington (beyond the Shadow Region) being the only major population centers. While shadow evacuation in Bishopville and Darlington does reduce travel speeds on US 52 and State Route 151 eastbound, an increase or decrease in the percentage of evacuees from the Shadow Region has little to no impact on the ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ 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) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the longest 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 the permanent resident population within the study area was increased by up to 57%. Changes in population were applied to the permanent resident population only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ 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 2 Summer, Midweek, Midday, with Rain).

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 are at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes; thus, 25%

of these base ETE is always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating.

Robinson Nuclear Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in 90th percentile ETE changes greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 57% or greater increase in the EPZ permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow Region permanent resident population). Duke Energy will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 57% 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 by an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 45 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 10 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.1). Public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner will decrease ETE.

Increasing or decreasing the percent shadow evacuation has no impact on the 90th percentile ETE and minimal impact (5 minutes increase) on the 100th percentile ETE (Section M.2). Nonetheless, 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Trip Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 15 minutes 2:45 3:25 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 15 minutes (Base) 2:45 4:25 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 15 minutes 3:30 5:25 Table M2 Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Vehicles1 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:45 4:25 15 (Demographic Survey) 1,460 2:45 4:25 20 (Base) 1,946 2:45 4:25 40 3,892 2:45 4:25 60 5,838 2:45 4:25 80 7,784 2:45 4:30 100 9,730 2:45 4:30 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Population Sensitivity Study EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 55% 56% 57%

Population 36,312 56,284 56,647 57,010 ETE for 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 55% 56% 57%

2MILE 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 5MILE 2:45 2:45 2:45 2:45 FULL EPZ 2:45 3:10 3:10 3:15 ETE for 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 55% 56% 57%

2MILE 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 5MILE 4:20 4:20 4:20 4:20 FULL EPZ 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:25 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

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 Yes Section 1.2 is described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 site 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 1 1, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D outlined 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.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 areas (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Keyhole 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 Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 evacuation is discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Staged Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying 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).

Robinson Nuclear Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth N/A 2020 Census used as the base year of the to 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 Robinson Nuclear Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The average population during the season is used, Yes Table 34, Table 35, and Appendix E itemize the itemized and totaled for each scenario. peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employees 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.

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 may 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 (employees) population distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) Yes Section 3.6 used to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit Yes Section 8.1 dependent residents are used in the analysis.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 3.9 people 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 Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table 311 provided.

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes 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, Yes Table E3 lists all medical facilities by facility and average population, are listed. Special facility staff is name, location, and average population.

included in the total special facility population.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 3.5, Table 36 assumed available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of Medical medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 38, Table E1, Table E2, Section 3.7 population, and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Section 3.7 schools are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use Yes Section 3.7 personal 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 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 3.8 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.8 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the Yes Section 3.8 event is estimated.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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 Figure 71, with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow 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.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 traffic is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough Yes Section 2.2 - Item 10, 11 and 12 traffic 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 Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.10 the EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, 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 Yes Section 4 discussed.

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.

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links Yes Appendix K of 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 Yes Section 4 the 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 Yes Appendix B and Appendix C and traffic volumes.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to N/A Static route choices are not used to assign assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described Yes Appendix B and Appendix C including 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

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 Table 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 N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse for adverse weather conditions are described, if weather conditions.

applicable.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is Yes Item 4 of Section 2.6, Table 22 considered and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, Appendix C used in the analysis is provided.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation model ETE calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate was used.

the analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a Yes Section 2, Appendix J representative 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

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 Yes Appendix F the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are Yes Appendix F, Section 5 summarized.

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 N/A There was no uncertainty when developing trip developing trip generation times are discussed, if generation times.

applicable.

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. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters.

percentage of residents will need to return home before Table 63 presents the percentage of evacuating. 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

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and Yes Section 5 method to notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels before evacuating.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.8 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided for the expected is considered. special event and was therefore not considered.

4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes N/A Established bus routes do not exist. Basic bus are used in the ETE analysis. routes were developed for the ETE analysis.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and non Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit ambulatory residents are discussed. Dependent Population (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 Dependent Population (Residents without the expected means of travel to the pickup point, is access to a vehicle) described.

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 84, Table 85 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102 Robinson Nuclear Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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 Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 return trips are needed.

trips, if necessary.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 86 and Table 87 times is provided. (medical facility)

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 86, Table 87, and Table 88

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 Yes Section 8.1 residents are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82, Table 83 times is provided.

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82, Table 83

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 Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 discussion 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, Table 83 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 N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation averages or average results is discussed. random seeds for statistical confidence. For

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce N/A DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a mesoscopic simulation each ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on and uses dynamic traffic assignment model to the 90 percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different obtain the "average" (stable) network work flow random seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under distribution. This is different from microscopic Summer, Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather simulation, which is montecarlo random conditions. sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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.

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 the 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 based

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. on the time the last vehicle exits the

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J13 (one plot for

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative 6. Table J3 percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various Yes Figure 73 through Figure 77 times (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 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 100 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the last discussed, if not based on the time the last vehicle exits vehicle exits the evacuation zone.

the evacuation zone.

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 eliminate statistical outliers truncated data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Table 73 and Table 74 similar 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 Yes Section 8 special facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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.

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that Yes Results of the ETE study were formally may affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. There are no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to 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 the conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario availability of US Census Bureau decennial variations. census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 103 is provided.

Robinson Nuclear Plant N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0