ML22269A407

Attachment 4 - Clinton Power Station-Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

ML22269A407
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/18/2022
From:	Constellation Energy Generation, KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML22269A403	List: ML22269A404 ML22269A407 ML22269A408 ML22269A409 ML22269A410 ML22269A411 ML22269A412 ML22269A413 ML22269A414 ML22269A415 ML22269A416 NMP1L3481, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, 10 CFR 50, Appendix E - Development of Evacuation Time Estimates
References
NMP1L3481, RS-22-105
Download: ML22269A407 (364)

Text

Clinton Power Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Constellation, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com July 18, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1248

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Clinton Power Station Location........................................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data 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 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Special Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 34 3.5.1 Medical Facilities ................................................................................................................ 34 3.5.2 Correctional Facilities ......................................................................................................... 35 3.6 School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Population Demand ........................................... 35 3.7 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 36 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 38 3.9 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 38 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................... 310 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 CLN Study Area ............................................................................................. 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 56 5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation ................................................................................... 58 5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas ................................................. 510 Clinton Power Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Day Cares, and Day Camps, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities ................................................................................ 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ................................................................. 88 8.3 Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................................... 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 .................................................................................................................... 102 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 ....................................................................................................... F5 Clinton Power Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations ................................................................................................. G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES .................................................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ................................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate .................................................................................................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Clinton Power Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. CLN Site Location ................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 12. CLN LinkNode Analysis Network........................................................................................... 114 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 31. SubAreas Comprising the CLN EPZ ....................................................................................... 317 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 318 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 319 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 320 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 321 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 322 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 323 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 324 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 325 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 516 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 517 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 518 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2Mile Radius to 5Mile Region ................................................................................ 520 Figure 61. SubAreas Comprising the CLN EPZ ......................................................................................... 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. CLN Shadow Region ............................................................................................................... 715 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ..................................... 716 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 717 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ......................... 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate ........................................... 719 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate .......................................... 720 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R02 ....................................................... 721 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R02 ....................................................... 721 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R02 ..................................................... 722 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R02 ..................................................... 722 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R02 ..................................................... 723 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R02 ..................................................... 723 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R02 ..................................................... 724 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R02 ..................................................... 724 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R02 ..................................................... 725 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R02 ................................................... 725 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R02 ................................................... 726 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R02 ................................................... 726 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R02 ................................................... 727 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R02 ................................................... 727 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 819 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes ..................................................................................................... 106 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 107 Figure 103. Reception Communities and Reception Centers ................................................................. 108 Clinton Power Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the CLN EPZ...................................................................................................... E6 Figure E2. Preschools/Day Cares within the CLN EPZ .............................................................................. E7 Figure E3. Day Camps within the CLN EPZ ................................................................................................ E8 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the CLN EPZ ...................................................................................... E9 Figure E5. Major Employers within the CLN EPZ .................................................................................... E10 Figure E6. Recreational Areas within the CLN EPZ ................................................................................. E11 Figure E7. Lodging Facilities within the CLN EPZ .................................................................................... E12 Figure E8. Correctional Facilities within the CLN EPZ ............................................................................. E13 Figure F1. Household Size in the Study Area ............................................................................................ F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................. F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 8+ Person Households ..................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the Study Area .......................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the Study Area ........................................................................................ F10 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ......................................................... F10 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F11 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................ F11 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating .................................................................................................................. F12 Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F12 Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals .......................................................................... F13 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work ........................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work ................................................................................... F14 Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F14 Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway ............................................................................... F15 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Posts for the CLN EPZ .................................................................. G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H16 Clinton Power Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J7 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ....................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ........................................................................................................................................ J8 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) ........................................................................................................................................ J9 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................................................................... J10 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ..................................................................................................................... J10 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8).......................................................................................................................... J11 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ..................................................................................................................... J12 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ................................................................................................................. J12 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) ....................................................................................................................... J13 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) .................................................................................................... J13 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................. J14 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ...................................................................................... J14 Figure K1. CLN 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 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 Clinton Power Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ................................................................................ K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ................................................................................ K33 Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 ................................................................................ K34 Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 ................................................................................ K35 Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ................................................................................ K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ................................................................................ K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ................................................................................ K45 Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 ................................................................................ K46 Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 ................................................................................ K47 Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 ................................................................................ K48 Clinton Power Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................. 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by SubArea ................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 312 Table 36. Medical Facility Population Estimates ................................................................................... 312 Table 37. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates ....................... 313 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 314 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary .............................................................. 314 Table 310. CLN EPZ External Traffic ....................................................................................................... 314 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand ......................................................................................... 314 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 316 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 511 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 511 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ..................................................... 512 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 512 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 513 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation .................... 514 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 515 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 .......................... 710 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 Radius within the Indicated Region.......................... 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Radius within the Indicated Region........................ 712 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 713 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 811 Table 82. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ........................................................................................... 812 Table 83. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ........................................................................................ 813 Table 84. School and Preschool/Day Care Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ........................ 814 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 815 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 815 Clinton Power Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 816 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 816 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ............................................ 817 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................. 817 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ............................ 818 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 104 Table 103. Reception Centers for Schools, Preschools/Day Cares, and Day Camps ............................ 105 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Preschools/Day Cares within the EPZ ...................................................................................... E2 Table E3. Day Camps within the EPZ ........................................................................................................ E3 Table E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E3 Table E5. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E3 Table E6. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E4 Table E7. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table E8. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ........................................................................................ E5 Table F1. Clinton Power Station Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results .................................. F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of SubArea Population Evacuating for Each Region ................................................. H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J3 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02) ....................................................................................................................... J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 ......................................................................................................................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control .............................................................................. K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change ....................................... M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 Clinton Power Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM LIST Table 1. Acronym List ACRONYM DEFINITION AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic ANS Alert and Notification systems ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CLN Clinton Power Station CMAS Commercial Mobile Alert System CR County Route COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETA Estimated Time of Arrival ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household I Interstate IPAWS Integrated Public Awareness System IL Illinois State Route ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MTC Manual Traffic Control Clinton Power Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM DEFINITION NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization PAR Protective Action Recommendation pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center SB Southbound SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TACP Traffic and Access Control Post TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation US US Highway vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WB Westbound Clinton Power Station AL2 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 Clinton Power Station (CLN) site located in Clinton, DeWitt County, Illinois. The ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Constellation 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 October, 2020 and extended over a period of approximately 21 months.

The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Constellation personnel and the state and county emergency management agencies.

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

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) and commute to work within the EPZ from Constellation and the counties within the EPZ.

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the CLN, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2014.

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

Designed and conducted an online demographic survey of residents within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region), 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 1

All references to EPZ refer to the plume exposure pathway EPZ.

Clinton Power Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the survey. In addition, responses received outside of the study area was reviewed and utilized, as the number of responses received during the CLN survey was significantly less than the sampling plan (see Section F.2 in Appendix F).

A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Constellation and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, and special facilities (schools, preschools/day cares/day camps, medical facilities, correctional facilities) were obtained from Constellation, the county emergency management agencies, the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), and the old data from the previous study (confirmed still accurate for this study), supplemented by internet searches 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 the study area residents.

Following federal guidelines, the existing 8 SubAreas within the EPZ were grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 16 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R16)

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/Light Snow, Heavy Snow). One special event scenario, Apple and Pork Festival, was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on US 51 South from US 51 Business to County Route 18 (CR 18) for the duration of the evacuation.

Staged evacuation was considered the 2Mile Radius evacuates immediately, while population extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace .

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

A rapidly escalating accident at the CLN 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/day cares/day camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the school/preschool/day care/day camp children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers (host schools) located outside the EPZ and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at Clinton Power Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

these facilities will be picked up by parents or relatives prior to the arrival of the buses.

The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

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

Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated by bus, vans, wheelchair vans, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for homebound (noninstitutional) access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from medical facilities. Inmates at Dewitt County Correctional Center shelters in place, so no evacuees are considered for this facility.

Attended final virtual meeting with Constellation personnel and the state and county OROs to present final results of the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 224 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 16 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (16 x 14 = 224). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including the children at schools/preschools/day cares/day camps for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R02, 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.

The entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region for CLN is comprised of a single SubArea - Sub Area 1. In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, SubArea 1 was divided into two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and the remainder of the SubArea excluding the 2Mile Radius - as shown in Appendix H, Figure H16. This postulated division of SubArea 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETE impact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Constellation or the offsite agencies to divide the SubArea in the public information or in their emergency plans. In the staged evacuation analysis, the population within the 2Mile Radius will evacuate immediately. The population within the remainder of SubArea 1 will shelterinplace until 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Radius evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile Radius boundary.

Clinton Power Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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

Traffic Management This study reviewed, modeled and analyzed the existing comprehensive traffic management plans provided in the sitespecific volume for CLN Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) and ClintonTraffic and Access Control Map (IPRAMap A). Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic and access control posts (TACPs) have been identified as a result of this study. Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G.

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

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

Table 61 defines each of the 16 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of SubArea.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 71 and Table 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90% and 100% of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region. These tables also include ETE results for staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Radius, the ETE for Region R01, is compared to Region R16, in Table 71 and Table 72.

Clinton Power Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE for the 2Mile Radius, when evacuating the remainder of SubArea 1 downwind to 5 miles for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, respectively.

Table 82 presents the ETE for the children at schools and preschools/day cares/day camps in good weather.

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

Table 88 presents ETE for the medical facility population 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 CLN EPZ showing the layout of the 8 SubAreas that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Figure H3 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R03) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. Maps of all regions are provided in Appendix H.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 224 unique cases - a combination of 16 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Tables 71 and 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. The 90th percentile ETE ranges between 1:35 (hr: min) and 3:25 for all scenarios except for special event scenarios. The 90th percentile ETE for the special event scenarios (scenario 13) ranges between 2:00 and 5:50. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 3:45 to 3:50 for good weather, rain, and rain/light snow cases, and from 5:00 to 5:05 for heavy snow cases and is dictated by the trip mobilization of permanent residents (i.e., the time it takes to prepare to evacuate plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary), except for the special event. The 100th percentile ETE for the special event scenarios ranges between 3:45 to 7:30.

The comparison of Table 71 and 72 indicate that the 100th percentile ETE are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile ETE. This is the result of the long trip generation tail of the evacuation curve caused by those evacuees who take longer to mobilize and not congestion within the EPZ for all Regions and scenarios except for regions that contains SubArea 7 for the special event scenario, which is dictated by the congestion caused by the additional transient vehicles from the Apple and Pork Festival.

See Figures 78 through 721.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicate that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Radius and has no impact or unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those located in the remainder of SubArea 1 beyond the 2 Mile Radius (compare Region R01 with Region R16 in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation is not recommended for the CLN EPZ.

Clinton Power Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The comparison of Scenarios 9 (winter, weekend, midday with good weather) and 13 (winter, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the Special Event - Apple and Pork Festival - does have a significant impact on ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles for those Regions that include the evacuation of Clinton and the rest of SubArea 7 (Regions R02 and R05 through R09). See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the roadway impact (a single lane closure on US 51 South) does not impact the 90th percentile or 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional information.

The population center of Clinton, located in SubArea 7, experiences the most congestion within the EPZ. Illinois State Route 54 (IL 54) westbound servicing the City of Clinton exhibits the last of the traffic congestion (LOS C or worse) within the EPZ (See Figure 76). All congestion (LOS or worse) within the EPZ clears after 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes following the ATE for Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday with good weather conditions). See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools/day cares/day camps, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, and access and/or functional needs persons. The average (singlewave) ETE for schools, preschools/day cares and day camps, and medical facilities are less than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population. While the average (singlewave) ETE for transitdependent and access and/or functional needs population is longer than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient buses, vans, wheelchair vans, and ambulances available to evacuate the school, preschool/day care, day camp, transit dependent people, and medical facility patients in a single wave. There is a shortfall of two (2) wheelchair vans to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population in a single wave. Mutual aid agreements with neighboring counties and assistance from the state should be considered to address the shortfall in transportation resources. See Section 8.

A reduction in the base trip generation time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> reduces the general population ETE at the 90th percentile by 20 minutes 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 /> - a significant change. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> increases the 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes (a significant change) 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 /> - a significant change. See Appendix M and Table M1.

An increase or decrease in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region has no impact to minimal increases (5 minutes) on the general population ETE. See Appendix M and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 100% or greater result in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE by 30 minutes for the full EPZ (Regions R02), which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Appendix M and Table M3.

Clinton Power Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population SubArea 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 1,649 1,513 2 207 173 3 488 454 4 158 154 5 170 168 6 964 1,058 7 8,095 7,506 8 944 905 EPZ TOTAL 12,675 11,931 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 5.87%

Clinton Power Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Degrees From SubArea Region Description North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region 0º359º X N/A 5Mile Region 0º359º Refer To Region R01 R02 Full EPZ 0º359º X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A All Directions 0º359º Refer To Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R03 N 350º11º X X R04 NNE 12º34º X X X R05 NE 35º56º X X X X R06 ENE 57º79º X X X R07 E 80º101º X X X X R08 ESE 102º124º X X X R09 SE 125º146º X X X X R10 SSE 147º169º X X X R11 S 170º191º X X R12 SSW, SW 192º237º X X X R13 WSW, W 238º281º X X X R14 WNW 282º304º X X X X R15 NW,NNW 305º349º X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From Region Description North 2Mile Radius Remainder of SubArea 1 R16 2Mile/5Mile Region N/A X X Remainder of SubArea 1 ShelterinPlace until SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for 2mile radius, then Evacuate Clinton Power Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of 2

Scenario 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 Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Apple 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good and Pork Festival Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on US 51 South3 2

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).

3 A single lane on US Highway 51 (US 51) South from US 51 Business to County Road 18.

Clinton Power Station 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2 and 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:05 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:05 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 5:40 2:20 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R03 2:05 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:10 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:05 R04 2:25 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:35 3:15 2:20 2:20 3:00 2:25 2:20 2:25 R05 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R06 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R07 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:45 2:35 R08 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:45 2:35 R09 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R10 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:15 2:30 2:30 3:10 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:20 2:15 2:15 R11 2:05 2:10 1:40 1:40 2:10 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:05 R12 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R13 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R14 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R15 2:10 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 2:05 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:05 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:05 2:05 Clinton Power Station ES10 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2 and 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R03 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R10 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R11 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R12 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R13 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R14 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R15 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Clinton Power Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 73. Staged Evacuation Results Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Radius 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius 2Mile Radius 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile and 5Mile Region R01 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R16 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Table 74. Staged Evacuation Results Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Radius 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius 2Mile Radius 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile and 5Mile Region R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R16 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Clinton Power Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School and Preschool/Daycare Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Driver Travel Mobilization Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ Bdry Travel Time ETA to Time Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE to RC from EPZ Bdry RC School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to RC (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS DEWITT COUNTY Douglas Elementary School 90 15 9.8 51.9 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Lincoln Elementary School 90 15 9.7 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Christian Academy 90 15 10.0 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Elementary School 90 15 10.3 55.0 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Senior High School 90 15 10.7 55.0 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Junior High School 90 15 11.1 53.9 13 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 PIATT COUNTY DeLandWeldon Elementary School 90 15 2.4 55.0 3 1:50 21.4 24 2:15 DelandWeldon Middle School 90 15 2.4 55.0 3 1:50 21.5 24 2:15 DeLandWeldon High School 90 15 2.6 53.6 3 1:50 21.4 24 2:15 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 School Maximum: 2:20 School Average for EPZ: 2:00 School Average: 2:20 PRESCHOOLS/DAY CARES & DAY CAMPS DEWITT COUNTY Head Start 90 15 9.9 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Bright Beginnings 90 15 10.0 51.6 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 90 15 11.2 55.0 13 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp 90 15 4.8 55.0 6 1:55 12.7 14 2:10 Illinois District Camp 90 15 10.0 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Preschool/Day Care and Day Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 2:20 Camp Maximum:

Preschool/Day Care and Day Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:00 2:20 Camp Average:

Clinton Power Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather SingleWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Sub Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Area(s) Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to RC to RC Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 135 11.3 55.0 12 30 3:00 21.4 23 5 10 48 30 5:00 3 and 4 2 1 135 6.6 55.0 7 30 2:55 21.4 23 5 10 37 30 4:40 5 and 6 3 1 135 6.6 55.0 7 30 2:55 12.6 14 5 10 28 30 4:25 7 4 2 135 9.3 55.0 10 30 2:55 16.5 18 5 10 38 30 4:40 8 and 2 5 1 135 4.7 55.0 5 30 2:50 16.5 18 5 10 28 30 4:25 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Maximum ETE: 5:00 Average ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 4:40 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Loading Rate Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization (min per Loading EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry. ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

DEWITT COUNTY Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 8.1 46.9 10 1:45 Allen Court Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 8.1 48.9 10 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 2 2 6.8 52.5 8 1:40 Warner Hospital & Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 4 20 6.8 55.0 7 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 13.9 55.0 15 2:10 Hawthorne Inn Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 13.9 55.0 15 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 13.9 55.0 15 2:15 Liberty Village of Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 90 20 13.9 55.0 15 2:05 Maximum ETE: 2:15 Average ETE: 2:00 Clinton Power Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Base Shadow Permanent 98% 99% 100%

Resident Population 15,121 29,940 30,091 30,242 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 98% 99% 100%

2MILE/5MILE (R01) 3:05 3:15 3:15 3:15 FULL EPZ 3:05 3:30 3:30 3:35 th ETE for the 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 98% 99% 100%

2MILE/5MILE (R01) 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 FULL EPZ 5:05 5:10 5:10 5:10 Clinton Power Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. SubAreas Comprising the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Clinton Power Station ES17 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 Clinton Power Station (CLN), located approximately 6 miles east of Clinton, Illinois, in DeWitt County in Central Illinois. This ETE study provides Constellation, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

1, February 2021.

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

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

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Constellation, the emergency planners of the Counties of DeWitt and Macon and the State of Illinois (Illinois Emergency Management Agency, IEMA) to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of the area traffic conditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) and Shadow Region.

d. Reviewed existing county and state Emergency Operations Plans.

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

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

1 All references to EPZ refer to the plume exposure pathway EPZ.

Clinton Power Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

g. Obtained data (to the extent available) to update the database of schools/pre schools/day cares/day camps and special facilities (medical facilities, and correctional facilities), major employers, homebound (noninstitutional) access and/or functional needs populations, transportation resources available, the special event, and other important information.

2. Estimated distributions of trip generation times representing the time required by various population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare (mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon the 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 Posts (TACPs) located within the study area. See Section 9 and Appendix G.

5. Used existing SubAreas to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 8 Sub Areas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous SubAreas 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/day cares/day camps, medical facilities, transit dependent people at home, and those with access and/or functional needs.

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

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

b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 20162) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

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

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

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

Clinton Power Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each origin (location of each source where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the 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/day cares/ day camps, and medical facilities), for the transitdependent population and for the access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The Clinton Power Station Location The CLN is located along the shores of Lake Clinton in Clinton, DeWitt County, Illinois. The site is approximately 135 miles southsouthwest of Chicago, Illinois and 145 miles westnorthwest of Indianapolis, Indiana. The EPZ consists of parts of the Counties of DeWitt, Macon, McLean, and Piatt. Figure 11 displays the area surrounding the CLN. This map shows the location of the plant relative to Chicago and Indianapolis, as well as the major population centers and roadways in the area.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In October 2020, 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 traffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced while Clinton Power Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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. Traffic and Access Control Posts (TACPs) at locations which have control devices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.

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

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

Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed to gather information needed for the ETE study.

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns along with discussions validating the use of the survey results in this study.

Clinton Power Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 II System, such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in on areas of congestion and query road name, town name, and other geographical information.

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

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 Clinton Power Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Comparing nonspecial scenarios, the 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increased by at most 35 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios and at most 55 minutes for heavy snow scenarios when compared with the previous ETE study. The 100th percentile ETE (dictated by the trip generation time plus 5minute travel time to EPZ boundary from 5Mile Region) for the entire EPZ (Region R02) increased by 30 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios and 45 minutes for heavy snow scenarios. For special event scenario, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE increased by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 40 minutes when compared with the previous ETE study. For Roadway impact/closure scenario, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE increased by 25 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively when compared with the previous ETE study.

Table 13 presents a comparison of this ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR632, dated April 18, 2014). The major factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study are summarized as follows:

The permanent resident population decreased by 5.9%, which should result in less evacuating vehicles, but the permanent resident occupancy per vehicle decreased by 7.3%, which resulted in an overall increase (~2%) in the number of permanent resident vehicles, which can increase ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region has decreased 3.1%, but due to the decrease in permanent resident occupancy per vehicle, this resulted in an increase (4.5%) in the number of Shadow Region permanent resident vehicles. The increase in the number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region, which reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees and can increase ETE.

Clinton Power Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased by 12.9%, due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in this quickly mobilizing population group can cause the 90th percentile ETE to increase as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles. A decrease in the number of employee vehicles can decrease the 100th percentile ETE.

There is a decrease in the school population (5.6%) and transitdependent population (58%) which decreases the number of evacuating buses within the EPZ, which can decrease the ETE.

Trip mobilization (also known as trip generation), based on the data collected from the demographic survey, for the following population groups have changed:

o The employees/transients decreased by 15 minutes.

o The permanent residents with commuters during nonheavy snow scenarios and heavy snow scenarios increased by 30 minutes and 45 minutes, respectively.

o The permanent residents without commuters increased by 30 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for nonheavy snow and heavy snow scenarios, respectively.

As the mobilization time (plus the time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE for all scenarios except for the Special Event Scenario (Scenario 13), as discussed in Section 7.3, the increases in mobilization can increase ETE, while the decreases in mobilization can decrease the ETE.

The various factors, discussed above, that can increase ETE outweigh those that can reduce ETE, thereby explaining why the 90th and 100th percentile ETE have significantly increased in this study relative to the previous study.

Clinton Power Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Provided recent CLN employee data. Reviewed and approved all Constellation project assumptions and draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results and coordinated with OROs. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Illinois Emergency Management Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key Agency (IEMA) project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided emergency plans and/or traffic management plans.

DeWitt County Office of Reviewed/confirmed and provided the special facility data, Emergency Management transient data and special event data. Reviewed and approved all study assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was Macon County Office of informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the Emergency Management ETE study results were presented.

Provided emergency plans and traffic management plans.

McLean County Office of Reviewed/confirmed and provided special facility data, transient Emergency Management data and special event data. Reviewed and approved all study assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Provided emergency plans and traffic management plans.

Reviewed/confirmed and provided special facility data, transient Piatt County Office of data and special event data. Reviewed and approved all study Emergency Management assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results.

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 capacity Intersection configuration (including (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts, where applicable)

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

Clinton Power Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Population Basis Population = 12,675 Population = 11,931 Vehicles= 7,010 Vehicles = 7,152 Resident 2.23 persons/household, 1.25 evacuating 2.44 persons/household, 1.48 evacuating Population vehicles/household yielding: 1.78 vehicles/household yielding: 1.65 Vehicle persons/vehicle. persons/vehicle.

Occupancy Employee estimates based on information Employee estimates are based on the provided by Constellation, phone calls to information provided by Constellation some employers, supplemented with US and the counties within the EPZ. The Employee values of 1.12 employees per vehicle Population Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics. based on demographic survey results.

Employees = 418 Employees = 364 Vehicles = 418 Vehicles = 325 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data, Estimates based upon U.S. Census data results of the telephone survey, and data and the results of the Demographic provided by DeWitt County. A total of 200 survey. A total of 84 people who do not Transit people who do not have access to a have access to a vehicle, requiring 6 Dependent vehicle, requiring 7 buses to evacuate. An buses to evacuate. An additional 78 Population additional 14 homebound special needs homebound special needs persons need persons needed special transportation to special transportation to evacuate (30 evacuate, all of which require a require a bus, and 48 require wheelchair wheelchairaccessible vehicle. van).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon the old information provided by Constellation, data from the previous ETE study supplemented with aerial imagery of (confirmed or updated by the counties),

Transient parking lots of some of the recreation supplemented by internet searches, and Population facilities. aerial imagery for parking spaces.

Transients = 4,867 Transients = 4,867 Vehicles = 2,722 Vehicles = 2,715 Special facility population based on Medical facility population based upon information provided by Constellation and the old data from the previous ETE study phone calls to some medical facilities. (confirmed or updated by the counties),

Current census = 248 supplemented by internet searches.

Buses Required = 5 Current Census = 240 (includes 80 people Special Facilities Wheelchair Vans Required = 26 at DeWitt County Correctional Center)

Population Ambulances Required = 0 Buses Required = 2 Current Census includes 80 Vans = 8 Individuals at DeWitt County Jail, which Wheelchair Vans = 26 sheltersinplace. Therefore, no buses are Individuals at DeWitt County Correctional required for the jail. Centers, which sheltersinplace.

Therefore, no buses are required for the jail.

Clinton Power Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study School population based on information School, preschool/day care and day provided by Constellation. camp population information was obtained from the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), counties within the EPZ, and supplemented by old School data from the previous ETE study where Population data was missing.

School enrollment = 2,153 School enrollment = 2,012 Preschool enrollment = 110 Preschool enrollment = 94 Day Camp enrollment = 540 Day Camp enrollment =540 Buses required = 62 (124 vehicles) Buses required = 60 (120 vehicles)

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

Evacuation & 20% Population = 3,292 20% Population = 3,191 Population 20% Vehicles = 1,842 20% Vehicles = 1,925 Network Size 875 links; 735 nodes 988 links; 802 nodes Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data External Through from 2013 from 2019.

Traffic Vehicles= 6,948 Vehicles= 7,268 Field surveys conducted in January 2014. Field surveys conducted in October 2020.

Roads and intersections were video Roads and intersections were video Roadway archived. archived.

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

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

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

Clinton Power Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Based on residential telephone survey of Based on residential household survey of specific pretrip mobilization activities: specific pretrip mobilization activities:

Residents with commuters returning leave Residents with commuters returning between 30 and 195 minutes (255 leave between 45 and 225 minutes (300 minutes in Heavy snow). minutes in Heavy Snow).

Trip Generation Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning for Evacuation leave between 15 and 150 minutes (195 leave between 15 and 180 minutes (255 minutes in Heavy snow). minutes in Heavy Snow).

Employees and transients leave between Employees and transients leave between 15 and 105 minutes. 15 and 90 minutes.

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

Good, Rain/Light Snow, or Heavy Snow.

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

Weather are reduced by 10% in the event of rain in the event of rain/light snow and a and 20% for snow. speed and capacity reduction of 15% and 25%, respectively, for heavy snow.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.18.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Apple and Pork Festival Apple and Pork Festival Special Event Population = 62,263 Special Event Population = 64,035 Special Events additional transients additional transients Special Event Vehicles = 27,921 Special Event Vehicles = 26,244 16 Regions (central sector wind direction 16 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector technique used) and each adjacent sector technique used)

Evacuation Cases and 14 Scenarios producing 224 unique and 14 Scenarios producing 224 unique cases. cases.

Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region Entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region for for CLN is comprised of a single SubArea CLN is comprised of a single SubArea (i.e.,

(i.e., SubArea 1). SubArea 1 was divided SubArea 1). SubArea 1 was divided into into two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and the the remainder of the SubArea 1 remainder of the SubArea 1 (excluding Staged (excluding the 2Mile Radius). Evacuation the 2Mile Radius). Evacuation of 2Mile Evacuation of 2Mile Radius with sheltering of Radius with sheltering of remainder of the remainder of the SubArea 1 followed by SubArea 1 followed by remainder of the remainder of the SubArea 1 evacuation SubArea 1 evacuation when 2Mile Radius when 2Mile Radius evacuation is 90%

evacuation is 90% complete.

complete.

Region R16 was staged evacuation. Region R16 was staged evacuation.

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

Clinton Power Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Summer Midweek, Midday Summer Midweek, Midday Good weather = 1:55 Good weather = 2:20 Evacuation Time Rain = 1:55 Rain = 2:20 Estimates for the Winter Midweek Midday Winter Midweek Midday entire EPZ, 90th Good weather = 1:55 Good weather = 2:25 percentile Rain/Light Snow = 1:55 Rain/Light Snow =2:25 Heavy Snow = 2:10 Heavy Snow = 3:05 Summer Weekday, Midday, Summer Weekday, Midday, Good Weather= 3:20 Good Weather= 3:50 Evacuation Time Rain = 3:20 Rain = 3:50 Estimates for the Winter, Weekday, Midday, Winter, Weekday, Midday, entire EPZ, 100th Good Weather= 3:20 Good Weather= 3:50 percentile Rain/Light Snow = 3:20 Rain/Light Snow = 3:50 Heavy Snow = 4:20 Heavy Snow = 5:05 Clinton Power Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. CLN Site Location Clinton Power Station 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. CLN LinkNode Analysis Network Clinton Power Station 114 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 SubArea 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 the counties within the EPZ and by Constellation (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 Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), the old data from the previous ETE study (confirmed or updated by the counties),

supplemented by internet searches, and aerial imagery for parking spaces where data was missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on 2020 Census and the results of the recent, randomsample demographic survey (see Appendix F). Average values of 2.44 persons per household (Section F.3.1, Figure F1) and 1.48 evacuating vehicles per household (Section F.3.1, 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. Campgrounds: 2.27 people per vehicle

b. Golf Courses: 2.20 people per vehicle

c. Marinas: 2.23 people per vehicle

d. Parks: 2.23 people per vehicle (NOTE: Local parks are not included; visitors to these facilities are local residents and have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1.)

e. Other Recreational Facilities (Clinton Community YMCA): 2.22 people per vehicle

f. Lodging Facilities: 1.95 people per vehicle

g. Special Events: 2.44 people per vehicle (the average household size)

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

1 www.census.gov Clinton Power Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. The value of 1.12 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 55 mph, based on Illinois state laws2 for buses and average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

8. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in October 2020 (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 following3 (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 40°10'20.16"N, 88°50'6.83"W.

3. The DYNEV II4 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

5. The existing EPZ and SubArea 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 SubAreas 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).

2 https://ilga.gov/legislation 3

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.

4 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.

Clinton Power Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8. Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, and mobilization time) was 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 includes 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 evacuation.

Rather, there is a 30minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from the start of the evacuation 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 evacuation depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 3.12).

12. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumed 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 will be 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 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 (REP) 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 77% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F6); 62% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F11). Therefore, 48% (77%

Clinton Power Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

x 62% = 47.7%, rounded up to 48%,) 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, approximately 82% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

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

a. Schools, preschools/day cares, and day camps

i. If schools/preschool/day cares/day camps are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to the designated school reception centers (RC).

ii. For the schools, preschool/day care, and day camps that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed no children at these facilities will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

iii. Children at these facilities, if schools, preschools, and day camps are in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

b. Medical Facilities

i. Buses, vans, wheelchair accessible vans, and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities (and at any senior facilities) within the EPZ, as needed.

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

c. Dewitt County Correctional Center:

i. Based on the sitespecific plan for CLNIPRA, dated March 2019, the DeWitt County Sheriffs Department will notify other Sheriffs Departments in the surrounding counties for sheltering inmates. As such, no buses or other transportation are considered for this study.

d. Transitdependent permanent residents:

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

ii. Homebound (noninstitutional) access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, bus, or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. The type of assistance breakdown was not provided, so the average breakdown of the medical facilities are utilized (see Section 3.5.1). 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.

Clinton Power Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for elementary schools and preschools/ day cares, 50 students per bus for middle/high schools, and 30 students per bus for day camps

b. Ambulatory transitdependent persons and medical facility patients = 30 persons per bus

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

d. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

e. Vans = 4 persons for persons at Allen Court or Hawthorne Inn

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

a. School buses arrive at schools/preschools/day cares/day camps to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transitdependent buses are mobilized when approximately 88% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at about 135 minutes of the ATE. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

c. Vehicles will arrive at hospitals, medical facilities, senior living facilities and for the homebound (noninstitutional) access and/or functional needs population to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. School, preschool/day care, and day camp buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

c. Buses for hospitals, medical facilities require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.

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

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

f. Buses, vans, and wheelchair transport vehicles for access and/or functional needs population are loaded in 5 minutes.

g. Concurrent loading on multiple buses/vans/transit vehicles is assumed.

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

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

Clinton Power Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. The TACP are assumed to be staffed approximately 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance. Earlier activation of TACP locations could delay returning commuters. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.

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

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. The Apple and Pork Festival located in SubArea 7, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of a single lane on US Highway 51 (US

51) South from US 51 Business to County Route 18 (CR 18) for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

2. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered. Rain may occur for either winter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that the rain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.

Thus, no weatherrelated reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed. It is assumed that snow removal equipment is available, the appropriate agencies are clearing/treating the roads as they would normally with snow, and the roads are passable albeit at lower speeds and capacities.

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 and a range of 10% to 25% for snow. In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1, this study assumes a 10% reduction in speed and capacity for rain/light snow and a speed and capacity reduction of 15% and 25%, respectively, for heavy snow. The factors are shown in Table 22.

4. Some evacuees will need additional time for heavy snow scenarios to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat the public roadway system.

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

6. Mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather. It is assumed that mobilization times are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in Clinton Power Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. It is assumed that loading times are 5 minutes and 10 minutes longer for school buses and 10 minutes to 20 minutes longer for transit buses in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Refer to Table 22.

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 and the Clinton Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) Flowchart (Constellation document # EPAA111F007). These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Sub Areas 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 SubAreas forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

8. Due to the irregular shapes of the SubAreas, there are instances where a small portion of a SubArea (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the SubArea population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the SubArea is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the PAR document.

9. 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 Radius has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Region R16 in Table 61.

Clinton Power Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenarios Season5 Day of Week Time of 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 Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow Heavy 8 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Heavy 11 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Apple 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good and Pork Festival Roadway Impact: Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on US 51 South6 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Free Mobilization Mobilization Loading Time for Highway Flow Time for General Time for Transit School/Preschool/ Loading Time for Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles Day Camp Buses Transit Buses7 Rain/Light 10minute 90% 90% No Effect 5minute increase 10minute increase Snow increase Heavy 20minute 75% 85% See Section 5.3 10minute increase 20minute increase Snow increase

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

5 Winter assumes 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).

6 A single lane on US 51 South closed from US 51 Business to CR 18.

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

Clinton Power Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Clinton Power Station 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 (e.g., resident, employee, transient, special facilities, etc.).

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

Throughout the year, visitors enter the EPZ. These nonresidents may dwell within the EPZ for a short period (e.g., a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leave within one day.

Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, so that the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the CLN 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 (camping, visit a park) and then leave the area.

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

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each SubArea and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The CLN EPZ is subdivided into 8 SubAreas. The SubAreas comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Clinton Power Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.44 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census - See Section 2.1 and Appendix F). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.48 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was computed from the demographic survey results.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the SubArea and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by SubArea, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 5.87% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size (2.44 persons/household) and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.48 vehicles/household). Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and the permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from CLN. 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, prisons, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

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

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

Clinton Power Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (shopping, recreation).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels.

Data collected for the previous ETE study was reviewed by DeWitt County and confirmed it was still accurate. This data included the number of transients and vehicles for each transient facility during peak times. In addition to the preexisting facilities, a new campground - Black Locust Campsite - was identified within the EPZ. The capacity of campers at this campground was obtained from the facility website. Assuming transients would travel to the campground as a family/household. As such, the average household size (2.44 - See Section 3.1) was used to estimate the number of transient vehicles. The transient facilities within the CLN EPZ are summarized as follow:

Campgrounds - 738 transients; 325 vehicles; 2.27 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 90 transients; 41 vehicles; 2.20 transients per vehicle Marinas - 1,672 transients; 750 vehicles; 2.23 transients per vehicle Parks - 2,125 transients; 952 vehicles; 2.23 transients per vehicle (NOTE: Local parks are not included; visitors to these facilities are local residents and have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1.)

Other Recreational Facilities (Clinton Community YMCA) - 113 transients; 51 vehicles; 2.22 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 129 transients; 66 vehicles; 1.95 transients per vehicle Note there are multiple facilities within the EPZ that attract vehicle types other than passenger vehicles. These vehicles, such as vehicles with boat trailers and Recreational Vehicles (RVs), are represented as two passenger vehicles in the traffic simulation model, because of their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E6 presents the number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas; vehicles with boat trailers and RVs are represented as a single vehicle in this table. Table E7 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total, there are 4,867 transients evacuating in 2,185 vehicles (an average of 2.23 transients per vehicle), when vehicles with boat trailers and RVs are represented as a single vehicle (a total of 2,715 vehicles when vehicles with boat trailers and RVs are represented as two passenger vehicles). Table 34 summarizes the transient population and transient vehicle estimates by SubArea1. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

1 Table 3-4 and Figure 3-7 represent vehicles with boat trailers and RVs as single vehicles.

Clinton Power Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.4 Employees As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as the major employers. As such, the employers with less than 200 employees (during the maximum shift) are not considered in this study. Based on the employment data provided by the counties within the EPZ and by Constellation - Clinton Power Station is the only major employer within the EPZ, as shown in Appendix E, Table E5.

Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

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

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population. To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population. The percentage of employees commuting into the EPZ was estimated based on the data provided by Constellation.

There are a total of 364 employees commuting into the EPZ in 325 vehicles on a daily basis. To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.12 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employer. Table 35 presents the employees and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by Subarea. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Special Facilities In the CLN EPZ, there are two types of special facilities that will require transit vehicles:

Medical Facilities (which includes senior living facilities)

Correctional Facility - DeWitt County Correctional Center Section 3.5.1 and Section 3.5.2 below discuss the data in detail at each facility.

3.5.1 Medical Facilities Data for medical facilities are obtained from the previous ETE study (reviewed and confirmed accurate by the counties), supplemented by internet searches where data was missing. One medical facility name changed from Manor Court to Liberty Village of Clinton. Table E4 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered for medical facilities. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. As shown in these tables, a total of 160 people have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. This data includes the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound, and bedridden patients at each facility. (Note there were no bedridden patients provided at 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 Clinton Power Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

vans up to 4 people; and vans (for Allen Court and Hawthorne Inn patients) up to 4 people. Two buses, eight vans, and 26 wheelchair vans are required to evacuate the medical facility population, as shown in Table 36. Ambulances are not needed to evacuate the medical facilities within the CLN EPZ since there are no bedridden patients at these facilities. Buses are represented as two passenger vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics 3.5.2 Correctional Facilities As shown in Table E8, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - DeWitt County Correctional Center. The total inmate population at this correctional facility is estimated to be 80 persons. Based on the 2019 sitespecific plan for CLN Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), the DeWitt County Sheriffs Department will notify other Sheriffs Departments in the surrounding counties for sheltering inmates. As such, no buses or other transportation are considered for this study.

3.6 School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Population Demand School, preschool/day care and day camp population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all facilities within the EPZ are presented Table 37. This information was obtained from the CLNIPRA, counties within the EPZ, and supplemented by old data (confirmed still accurate) from the previous ETE study where data was missing. The column in Table 37 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

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

• While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation does not consider the use of these private vehicles, since the intent of schools/preschools/day cares/day camps is to evacuate all students by bus.

• Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 for primary schools and pre schools, 50 for middle and high schools, and 30 for day camps.

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

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

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

Clinton Power Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3.7 Transit Dependent Population 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 38 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario2 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.

Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 82% of the transit dependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimated average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (roughly equivalent to 40 adults). If transit vehicle evacuees are two thirds adults and one third children, then the number of adult seats taken by 30 persons is 20 + (2/3 x 10) = 27. On this basis, the average load factor anticipated is (27/40) x 100 = 68 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 38 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 38 indicates that transportation must be provided for 84 people. Therefore, a total of 3 bus runs are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drive through each of the SubAreas to pick up 2

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).

Clinton Power Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

transit dependent people, 6 bus runs are used in the ETE calculations, see Sections 8.1 and 10 for further discussion. These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

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

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 4,890 0.009 1.0 0.155 1.64 1 0.77 0.38 0.586 3.16 2 0.77 0.38 471 1 0.82 30 0.18 471 30 84 30 3 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 (11,931 ÷ 2.44) and is 4,890.

• All members (1.00 avg.) of households (HH) with no vehicles (0.9%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 4,890 x 0.009 x 1.00, accounts for these people.

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (15.5%), who are at home, equal (1.641). The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (4,890 x 0.155 x 0.64 x 0.77 x 0.38), as 77% of EPZ households have a commuter, 38% 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 (58.6%), who are at home, equal (3.16

- 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 4,890 x 0.586 x 1.16 x (0.77 x 0.38)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 38 exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (discussed below in Section 3.8). 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.

Clinton Power Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) have an annual registration for access and/or functional needs population. Based on 20202021 data provided by the IEMA, there are an estimated 59 registered access and/or functional needs people within the DeWitt County portion of the EPZ, 8 people within the Macon County portion of the EPZ, 6 people within the McLean County portion of the EPZ, and 5 people within the Piatt County portion of the EPZ who require transportation assistance to evacuate. Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden people were not available. It is assumed that the percentage of ambulatory (38%), wheelchairbound (68%) and bedridden populations (0%) are similar to the percentages used for medical facilities within the EPZ. This results in 30 ambulatory persons that would require a bus to evacuate and 48 wheelchairbound persons that would require a wheelchair van to evacuate. A total of 12 wheelchair vans (capacity of 4 wheelchair bound persons per van) and three (3) bus (capacity of 30 ambulatory persons per bus for a total number of 30 vehicles 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 special needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.9 Special Event A special event can attract large numbers of transients to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The county and state emergency management agencies were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ. The only potential special event identified by the county and state agencies that attracts largest number of transients from outside the EPZ is the Apple and Pork Festival.

The Apple and Pork Festival occurs annually the last full weekend in September. The event occurs in Clinton on the grounds of the C.H. Moore Homestead. The event is one of the biggest and most popular fall festivals in the state and can draw upwards of ten times the population of Clinton into the area.

A local news reported3 that over 100,000 people attended (over two days) the Apple and Pork Festival event in 2021. Based on the data from the previous study, the peak attendance for the event occurs during the day on Saturday, accounting for approximately 70% of the total weekend attendance and approximately half of the local residents in the surrounding area attend the event (11,931 total EPZ residents from Table 31).

It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle (2.44 people per household). Thus, the total attendance during the Saturday peak is 100,000 x 70% =

70,000 people, subtracting out half of local permanent residents results in 70,000 - (0.5 x 3

https://dewittdailynews.com/local-news/595577 Clinton Power Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

11,931) = 64,035 transients, evacuating in 26,244 vehicles. Note that this does not exclude vehicles for people who would use rideshare service (Uber/Lyft etc.) to attend the festival.

Vehicles were assigned on a link in the linknode analysis network within the festival site. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions as transients.

Temporary road closures (for pedestrian activity) on Center Street in downtown Clinton occur during the festival, but that the road could be quickly reopened in the event of an emergency.

It is assumed that Center Street would be reopened by the time transients at the event gather their belongings and return to their vehicles to begin their evacuation trip. Vehicles were loaded on local streets near the event for this scenario. There are shuttle buses which transport attendees to parking lots in the area; however, these buses would not be used to evacuate any of the attendees. It is assumed that the time to take the shuttle bus to the parking lot is included in the mobilization time for transients.

3.10 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (externalexternal trips which have their origins and destination outside the study area) 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 - Interstate 72 (I

72) and I74. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 120 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from 2019 was obtained from Illinois Department of Transportations website4 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The 2021 AADT data was available, but it was not used in this study due to the significant decrease in traffic on these highways caused by the COVID19 pandemic. The 2019 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 /> (Traffic and access control Posts -

TACP - 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 7,268 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the TACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

4 https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/Traffic%20Counts/index.html Clinton Power Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, 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 the evacuation. Rather, there is a 30minute initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from the start of the evacuation is 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 1,242 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, with 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 87,357 people and 45,799 vehicles are considered in this study.

Clinton Power Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population SubArea 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 1,649 1,513 2 207 173 3 488 454 4 158 154 5 170 168 6 964 1,058 7 8,095 7,506 8 944 905 EPZ TOTAL 12,675 11,931 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 5.87%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by SubArea SubArea 2020 Population 2020 Resident Vehicles 1 1,513 915 2 173 105 3 454 275 4 154 95 5 168 104 6 1,058 640 7 7,506 4,470 8 905 548 EPZ TOTAL 11,931 7,152 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 326 197 NNE 3,836 2,320 NE 106 65 ENE 2,090 1,237 E 132 81 ESE 638 382 SE 306 186 SSE 471 288 S 1,242 749 SSW 568 343 SW 1,357 819 WSW 641 391 W 296 179 WNW 143 88 NW 2,935 1,775 NNW 865 523 TOTAL 15,952 9,623 Clinton Power Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles SubArea Transients Transient Vehicles 1 3,748 1,674 2 0 0 3 67 30 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 810 364 7 242 117 8 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 4,867 2,185 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ SubArea Employees Employee Vehicles 1 364 325 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 364 325 Table 36. Medical Facility Population Estimates Wheel Wheel chair Sub Cap Current Ambu chair Bed Bus Van Van Area Facility Name Municipality acity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs DEWITT COUNTY MEDICAL FACILITIES 7 Allen Court Clinton 8 8 5 3 0 0 2 1 Warner Hospital &

7 Clinton 25 6 2 4 0 1 0 1 Health Services 7 Hawthorne Inn Clinton 27 26 24 2 0 0 6 1 Liberty Village of 7 Clinton 131 120 30 90 0 1 0 23 Clinton DeWitt County Subtotal: 191 160 61 99 0 2 8 26 TOTAL: 191 160 61 99 0 2 8 26 Clinton Power Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates SubArea Facility Name Enrollment Buses Required Schools 7 Douglas Elementary School 175 3 7 Lincoln Elementary School 175 3 7 Clinton Christian Academy 35 1 7 Clinton Elementary School 500 8 7 Clinton Senior High School 530 11 7 Clinton Junior High School 380 8 4 DeLandWeldon Elementary School 115 2 4 DelandWeldon Middle School 35 1 4 DeLandWeldon High School 67 2 SCHOOL TOTAL: 2,012 39 Preschools/Day Care 7 Head Start 34 1 7 Bright Beginnings 40 1 7 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 20 1 PRESCHOOL/DAY CARE TOTAL: 94 3 Day Camps 6 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp 120 4 8 Illinois District Camp 420 14 DAY CAMP TOTAL: 540 18 EPZ TOTAL: 2,646 60 Clinton Power Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. 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 11,931 1.00 1.64 3.16 4,890 0.9% 15.5% 58.6% 77% 38% 471 82% 84 0.7%

Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Population Group Type of Vehicle Population Vehicles Deployed Ambulatory Bus 30 3 Wheelchair Bound Wheelchair Vans 48 12 Bedridden Ambulances 0 0 Total: 78 15 Table 310. CLN EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction IDOT AADT5 KFactor6 DFactor6 Volume Traffic 8408 677 I72 Eastbound (EB) 12,600 0.116 0.5 731 1,462 8394 394 I72 Westbound (EB) 12,600 0.116 0.5 731 1,462 8003 3 I74 Eastbound (EB) 20,300 0.107 0.5 1,086 2,172 8028 28 I74 Westbound (EB) 20,300 0.107 0.5 1,086 2,172 TOTAL: 7,268 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand7 5

www.gettingaroundillinois.com/Traffic%20Counts/index.html 6

Highway Capacity Manual 2016 Clinton Power Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Transit Special Schools and Day Special Shadow External SubArea Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities8 Preschools Camps Event Population9 Traffic Total 1 1,513 11 3,748 364 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,636 2 173 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 3 454 3 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 524 4 154 1 0 0 0 217 0 0 0 0 372 5 168 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 6 1,058 8 810 0 0 0 120 0 0 0 1,996 7 7,506 53 242 0 240 1,889 0 64,035 0 0 73,965 8 905 6 0 0 0 0 420 0 0 0 1,331 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,190 0 3,190 Total: 11,931 84 4,867 364 240 2,106 540 64,035 3,190 0 87,357 7

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

8 Special Facilities include medical facilities and the 80 inmates located at the DeWitt County Correctional Center.

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

Clinton Power Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand10 Schools Transit Special and Pre Day Special Shadow External 12 14 SubArea Residents Dependent11 Transients Employees Facilities13 schools11 Camps11 Event Population Traffic Total 1 915 2 2,12615 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,368 2 105 With SubArea 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 3 275 2 6016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 4 95 With SubArea 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 105 5 104 With SubArea 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 6 640 2 41217 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1,062 7 4,470 4 117 0 38 74 0 26,244 0 0 30,947 8 548 2 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 578 Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,925 7,268 9,193 Region Total 7,152 12 2,715 325 38 84 36 26,244 1,925 7,268 45,799 10 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table.

11 Buses (including transit-dependent buses, school/pre-school/day care/day camp buses) represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Sections 3.6 and 3.7 for additional information.

12 Vehicles with boat trailers and RVs at some transient locations are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.3 for additional information.

13 Vehicles for special facilities include wheelchair vans, ambulances and buses. Buses represented as two passenger vehicles. No vehicles are considered for the DeWitt County correctional center, as inmates shelter in place (see Sub-section 3.5.2).

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

15 Vehicle (1,674) breakdown: 1,222 passenger vehicles, 276 recreational vehicles, 176 vehicles with trailers, counted as 2,126 vehicles in simulation (See Appendix E, Table E-6) 16 Vehicle (15) breakdown: 30 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 60 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

17 Vehicle (364) breakdown: 316 passenger vehicles, 48 recreational vehicles, counted as 412 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

Clinton Power Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. SubAreas Comprising the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Clinton Power Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Clinton Power Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Clinton Power Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Clinton Power Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Clinton Power Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Clinton Power Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Clinton Power Station 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Clinton Power Station 325 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, snow, 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).

Clinton Power Station 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 15 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 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 25 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6, we employ, a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10 percent for rain/light snow. During heavy snow conditions, the free speed and highway capacity reductions are 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

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

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

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections 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.

Clinton Power Station 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, Clinton Power Station 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.

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

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

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

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

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower 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 model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its 3

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

Clinton Power Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 CLN 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 are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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

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

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

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

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

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

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

Clinton Power Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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 Clinton Power Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

4.5 Boundary Conditions As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.

Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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 distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

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

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 one hour 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 Emergency Planning Zone (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 EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this Clinton Power Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert and notification systems (ANS) available within the EPZ (e.g. sirens, tone alerts, Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts on local radios (WEZCFM 95.9, WBWNFM 104.1, WJBCAM 1230, WBNQFM 101.5, WHOWFM 92.3, WHOWAM 1520) and TV station, and Integrated Public Awareness System (IPAWS)/Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) message).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 337 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 4.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of the study area permanent residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted from December 2020 through March 2022, in support of this ETE study for this site. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained, documents the survey instrument utilized and provides the survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the ETE to extend well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

estimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt the conservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

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

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

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

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

Clinton Power Station 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.

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snowplowing equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours. (Note - evacuation may not be a prudent protective action under such blizzard conditions).

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of snow conditions. Nevertheless, for the vehicles to gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parking lots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways. These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions. These data are provided by those households which responded to the demographic survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 56.

Note that those respondents (12.9%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

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 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 58 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after the summing process is completed.

Clinton Power Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.1 Statistical Outliers As discussed in the footnote to Table 53, some portion of the survey respondents answer dont know to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but three people say four hours and four people 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.

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, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 57, Table 58);

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

those with access and/or functional needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate trip generation patterns for personal vehicles; Clinton Power Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

In general, only flagged values more than 3 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. Values more than 3.30 standard deviations from the mean were removed for Distribution 2 (Prepare to Leave Work). In addition, values more than 2.70 standard deviations from the mean were removed for Distribution 4 (Prepare to Leave Home) and Distribution 5 (Snow Clearance).

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:

a) Most of the real data is to the left of the normal curve above, indicating that the network loads faster for the first 8085% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (and earlier) congestion than otherwise modeled.

b) The last 1015% of the real data tails off slower than the comparable normal curve, indicating that there is significant traffic still loading at later times.

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). 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 considered. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - travel home from work follows preparation to leave work; preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for Clinton Power Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 59 (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. SubAreas comprising the 2Mile Radius are advised to evacuate immediately.

2. Population extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Radius is cleared.

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

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

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

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

Assumptions

1. The entire 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region for CLN is comprised of a single SubArea SubArea 1. In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR 7002, Rev.1, SubArea 1 was divided into two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and the remainder of the SubArea excluding the 2Mile Radius - as shown in Appendix H, Figure H16. This postulated division of SubArea 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETE impact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Constellation or the offsite agencies to divide the SubArea in the public information or in their emergency plans. In the staged evacuation analysis, the population within the 2Mile Radius will evacuate immediately. The population within the balance of SubArea 1 will shelterin place until 90% of those in the 2Mile Radius have evacuated across the 2Mile Radius.

Clinton Power Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. The EPZ population in SubAreas beyond 5 miles will shelterinplace. A noncompliance voluntary evacuation percentage of 20% is assumed for this population.

3. 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.

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

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2Mile Radius 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 SubAreas comprising the 2 Mile Radius. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results is scenario specific. 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 1:00 for nonsnow scenarios and 1:30 for snow scenarios.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile 2Mile Radius evacuation time is approximately 60 minutes for good weather and rain, and 90 minutes for heavy snow scenarios. At TScen*,

Clinton Power Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

approximately, 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 510 provide the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas The 2019 sitespecific plan for CLNIllinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), Chapter 2 (State of Illinois Procedures) indicates the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) will warn and/or evacuate visitors at the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area and Weldon Springs State Park. Personnel from the IDNR Division of Law Enforcement Region 3, augmented by other law enforcement personnel, will provide traffic and access control for the Clinton Lake and Weldon Springs State Park in the Clinton Station EPZ and support law enforcement.

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes which is consistent with the FEMA REP Manual. Table 59 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 30 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles or campground facilities, pack their belongings and begin their evacuation trip.

Clinton Power Station 510 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 N/A Snow Clearance 5 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 Elapsed Time Percent Employees Elapsed Time Percent Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 30 91.2%

5 33.7% 35 94.2%

10 63.3% 40 96.3%

15 75.2% 45 99.7%

20 81.6% 50 100%

25 85.0%

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

Clinton Power Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Returning Elapsed Time Percent Returning (Minutes) Home (Minutes) Home 0 0 35 87.3%

5 7.2% 40 92.5%

10 23.5% 45 95.8%

15 51.5% 50 98.0%

20 64.8% 55 98.4%

25 71.0% 60 100.0%

30 78.8%

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

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0% 75 78.2%

15 5.3% 90 81.1%

30 20.9% 105 84.0%

45 39.3% 120 90.8%

60 63.1% 135 100.0%

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

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Elapsed Cumulative Cumulative Percent Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Removal 0 12.9% 75 94.1%

15 32.2% 90 96.5%

30 53.5% 105 97.0%

45 67.3% 120 100.0%

60 84.2%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Clinton Power Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 57. 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 Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5 Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event 5 Table 58. 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).

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

to begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving to F

begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).

Clinton Power Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents with Residents with without Commuters Residents without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 33% 33% 0% 4% 0% 1%

3 15 38% 38% 1% 9% 0% 2%

4 15 16% 16% 3% 17% 1% 6%

5 30 6% 6% 22% 38% 7% 22%

6 30 0% 0% 34% 15% 20% 26%

7 15 0% 0% 12% 5% 12% 11%

8 15 0% 0% 7% 7% 12% 9%

9 30 0% 0% 13% 5% 21% 13%

10 15 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 4%

11 30 0% 0% 4% 0% 11% 5%

12 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 1%

13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

14 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Clinton Power Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period2 Residents with Residents Without Residents With Residents Without Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Time Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%

3 15 0% 2% 0% 1%

4 15 1% 3% 0% 1%

5 30 25% 62% 2% 4%

6 30 34% 15% 26% 51%

7 15 12% 5% 12% 11%

8 15 7% 7% 12% 9%

9 30 13% 5% 21% 13%

10 15 4% 0% 8% 4%

11 30 4% 0% 11% 5%

12 30 0% 0% 6% 1%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

14 15 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Clinton Power Station 515 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 Clinton Power Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities Notification Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home Prepare Home Time to Clear Snow 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

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

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Clinton Power Station 517 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 Clinton Power Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Clinton Power Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Residents with Commuters and Snow Residents no Commuters with Snow Staged Residents with Commuters Staged Residents with no Commuters Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80 60 40 Percentage of Population Evacuating 20 0

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2Mile Radius to 5Mile Region Clinton Power Station 520 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 SubAreas, that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ),

that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

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

A total of 16 Regions were identified which encompass all the groupings of SubAreas considered. These Regions are defined in Table 61. The SubArea configurations are identified in Figure 61. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR 7002, Rev. 1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to the EPZ boundary (Regions R03 through R15).

Region R01 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2 and 5 miles. Region R02 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 10 miles. The entire 2Mile Radius and 5 Mile Radius for CLN is comprised of a single SubArea (i.e., SubArea 1). In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, SubArea 1 was divided into two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and the remainder of the SubArea excluding the 2Mile Radius - as shown in Figure H16. This postulated division of SubArea 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETE impact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Constellation or the offsite agencies to divide the SubArea in the public information or in their emergency plans. Region R16 is identical to Region R01; however, the portion of SubArea 1 between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Radius has evacuated.

Each SubArea that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the Clinton Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) Flowchart (Constellation document #

EPAA111F007). There are instances when a small portion of a SubArea is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of SubArea population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the SubArea would not be included in the Region.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 14 x 16 = 224 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 in 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 Clinton Power Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 R02 - the entire EPZ, based on the Scenario percentages in Table 63. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The percentage of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is approximately equal to 48%, which is the product of 77% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F6) and 62% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Figure F11). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters (48%) will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 5% (10% x 48% = 4.8%, rounded up to 5%) 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.

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer weekends due to the number of recreational facilities on Clinton Lake, Weldon Springs State Park, and campgrounds.

Transient activity during the week in the summertime is estimated to be 60%. With only a few lodging facilities and campgrounds within the EPZ that offer overnight accommodations, transient activity during the evening is estimated to be 30% in the summer (see Appendix E, Table E6 and Table E7). The recreational areas in the EPZ (shown in Table E6 and Table E7) are predominantly outdoors and will be frequented more often during the summer than the winter. As a result, transient activity during winter weekends is estimated to be 30% and less Clinton Power Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

during the week (20%). Since nearly all parks, campgrounds, and marinas are closed during the evenings in the winter, transient activity is estimated to be 10%.

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:

312 20% 1 21%

3,412 3,740 One special event - Apple and Pork Festival - was considered as Scenario 13, during the winter, weekend, midday, with good weather. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13 and 0% for all other scenarios.

As discussed in the footnote to Table 21 and Section 7, schools and preschools/day cares are in session during the winter season, midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances. It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School is not in session during weekends and evening, thus no buses to evacuate school/preschool/day care children are needed under those scenarios.

Day Camps are only open during summer weekdays; 100% of buses will be needed under summer weekday scenarios and 0% for all other scenarios.

Transit buses for the transitdependent population and medical facilities are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transitdependent 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 12.

Clinton Power Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Degrees From SubArea Region Description North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region 0º359º X N/A 5Mile Region 0º359º Refer To Region R01 R02 Full EPZ 0º359º X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A All Directions 0º359º Refer To Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R03 N 350º11º X X R04 NNE 12º34º X X X R05 NE 35º56º X X X X R06 ENE 57º79º X X X R07 E 80º101º X X X X R08 ESE 102º124º X X X R09 SE 125º146º X X X X R10 SSE 147º169º X X X R11 S 170º191º X X R12 SSW, SW 192º237º X X X R13 WSW, W 238º281º X X X R14 WNW 282º304º X X X X R15 NW,NNW 305º349º X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From Region Description North 2Mile Radius Remainder of SubArea 1 R16 2Mile/5Mile Region N/A X X Remainder of SubArea 1 ShelterinPlace until SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for 2mile radius, then Evacuate Clinton Power Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season1 Day of Week Time of 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/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Apple and 13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Pork Festival Roadway Impact: Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on US 51 South2 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).

2 A single lane on US Highway 51 (US 51) South from US-51 Business to County Road 18.

Clinton Power Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special Day School Medical Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Camp Buses Facility Buses Traffic 1 48% 52% 96% 60% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100% 100%

2 48% 52% 96% 60% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100% 100%

3 5% 95% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

4 5% 95% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

5 5% 95% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 40%

6 48% 52% 100% 20% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 48% 52% 100% 20% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 48% 52% 100% 20% 21% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 5% 95% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

10 5% 95% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

11 5% 95% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

12 5% 95% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 40%

13 5% 95% 10% 30% 20% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

14 48% 52% 96% 60% 21% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100% 100%

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

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

Employees .................................................EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients ..................................................People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes (1 boat trailer or RV at marinas and campgrounds is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles)

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. These values are rounded to the nearest whole number for this table. The actual values computed by the formula shown on page 63 are used to compute the values shown in Table 64.

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

School, Day Camp, Medical, and Transit Buses ..............................................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, medical facility, and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

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

Clinton Power Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario3 Residents Residents Total with without Special Day School Medical Transit External Scenario Scenarios Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Camp Buses Facility Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 3,412 3,740 312 1,629 2,021 0 36 8 38 12 7,268 18,476 2 3,412 3,740 312 1,629 2,021 0 36 8 38 12 7,268 18,476 3 341 6,811 33 2,715 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 7,268 19,143 4 341 6,811 33 2,715 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 7,268 19,143 5 341 6,811 33 815 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 2,907 12,882 6 3,412 3,740 325 543 2,021 0 0 84 38 12 7,268 17,443 7 3,412 3,740 325 543 2,021 0 0 84 38 12 7,268 17,443 8 3,412 3,740 325 543 2,021 0 0 84 38 12 7,268 17,443 9 341 6,811 33 815 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 7,268 17,243 10 341 6,811 33 815 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 7,268 17,243 11 341 6,811 33 815 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 7,268 17,243 12 341 6,811 33 272 1,925 0 0 0 38 12 2,907 12,339 13 341 6,811 33 815 1,925 26,244 0 0 38 12 7,268 43,487 14 3,412 3,740 312 1,629 2,021 0 36 8 38 12 7,268 18,476 3

Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02).

Clinton Power Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. SubAreas Comprising the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station 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 the 16 Evacuation Regions within the Clinton Power Station (CLN) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2Mile Radius 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 SubAreas 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 CLN EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure

71. Within the EPZ, 20% of permanent residents located in SubAreas outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate. Similarly, it is assumed that 20% of the permanent residents in the Shadow Region will also choose to leave the area.

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

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 15,952 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

Traffic generated within this Shadow Region, including externalexternal traffic (see Section 3:10), traveling away from the plant location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

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

1. SubAreas comprising the 2Mile Radius are advised to evacuate immediately.

Clinton Power Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Population extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised to shelter inplace while the 2Mile Radius is cleared.

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

4. The population sheltering from 2 to 5 miles is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Radius evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile Radius boundary.

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

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R02) is advised to evacuate during the summer, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 1).

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

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

Several measures are available for describing individually, or in combination, the severity of a LOS F condition:

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

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

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

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

At 35 minutes after the ATE, Figure 73 displays the traffic congestion within the EPZ. Transients leaving Clinton Lake State Recreation Area experience major congestion (LOS D) on Mascoutin Road as they approach a stop sign to access Friends Creek Road, due to congestion (LOS C) on Friends Creek Road and the traffic volume (LOS B) on Illinois State Route 10 (IL 10) eastbound.

Clinton Power Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Some congestion is starting to develop within the City of Clinton along IL 54 westbound. All other roadways within the EPZ, including the Interstate (I)74 and I72 are exhibiting no congestion (LOS A) within the study area. At this time, about 23% of evacuees (i.e., about 53% of transients/employees and about 7% of the EPZ permanent residents without commuters) have begun their evacuation trips and 15% of evacuees have successfully evacuated 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 15 minutes after the ATE, the roadways within the 2 and 5Mile Region is now operating at LOS A, as shown in Figure 74, which cleared 10 minutes earlier (at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE). Congestion worsened along IL 54 westbound (LOS C or worse) and now extends to the Shadow Region towards the population center of Kenney, as more evacuees begin their evacuation trip from Clinton. Traffic volumes are now visible on IL 10 westbound from IL 54 and along US 51 Business (BUS) North, from evacuees leaving Clinton. All other roadways within the EPZ is now operating at a LOS A. At this time, approximately 55% of the evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and about 47% of evacuees have successfully evacuated 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 35 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 75, congestion within Clinton has lessened along IL 54 westbound and no longer exists on US 51 BUS northbound. Congestion (LOS C) is visible on US 51 southbound as evacuees are now choosing this as an alternate route to IL 54 westbound, which is still showing congestion (LOS C or worse). IL 10 westbound within Sub Area 7 and the Shadow Region continues to operate at LOS B. At this time, approximately 66% of the evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and about 58% of evacuees 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 /> after the ATE, Figure 76 shows the last of the congestion (LOS C or worse) continues in Clinton. US 51 southbound is now clear of congestion. Note that at this time, about 34% of residents with a commuter and 15% residents without a commuter have mobilized. This results in congestion (LOS C or worse) on IL 54 westbound from traffic traveling towards the population center of Kenney, which clears 30 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 30 minutes after the ATE. A small portion of IL 10 westbound in the Shadow Region continues to operate at LOS B. At this time, approximately 88% of the evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and about 80% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE, Figure 77 shows only a very small portion of IL 54 near Clinton still operating at LOS B which 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 5 minutes after the ATE. At this time, approximately 98% of the evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and about 97% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ. Therefore, this indicates the trip generation time is dictating the 100th percentile ETE, as evidenced by the close agreement between the number of vehicles that have begun their evacuation trip and those that have evacuated the EPZ (98%

versus 97%).

The traffic congestion on roadways in the study area is minimal [except evacuation routes (IL 10 westbound, IL 54 westbound, and US 51 South) leaving Clinton] due to the presence of several serviceable evacuation routes and the low population density within the EPZ.

Clinton Power Station 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 721. 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 R02) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 78 through Figure 721, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to the mobilization and not congestion (low population demand). 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, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 16 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Radius for both staged and unstaged evacuation of SubArea 1, which encompasses the entire 2Mile Radius and 5Mile Radius, as discussed in Section 6.

The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 90% of the population within the 73 2Mile Radius, to evacuate from the 2Mile Radius with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of the balance of population in SubArea 1.

The ETE represents the elapsed time required for 100% of the population within 74 the 2Mile Radius, to evacuate from the 2Mile Radius with both Concurrent and Staged Evacuations of the balance of population in SubArea 1.

Clinton Power Station 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 (un staged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 77.

There is no congestion within the 2Mile Radius for the entire evacuation. The congestion (LOS D or worse) are in areas between the 2Mile Radius and 5Mile Region is located along IL 10 and Friends Creek Rd (due to transient leaving Clinton Lake State Recreation Area) which clears 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE. Beyond the 2 and 5Mile Region, significant congestion exists only on evacuation routes leaving the City of Clinton (in SubArea 7). This is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 2Mile/5Mile Region (Region R01) consists of mostly transient and plant employee vehicles and a small percentage of permanent resident vehicles. Even though employees and transients mobilize quickly (within 90 minutes), the permanent residents with commuters take much longer to mobilize (225 minutes), as shown in Figure 54. As such, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile/5Mile Region (R01) are ranging from 1:35 (hr:min) and 2:20 for good weather, rain and rain/light snow scenarios and are at most 3:05 for heavy snow scenarios. This mimics the combination of the quick mobilizing employees/transients and the slow mobilizing permanent residents with commuters.

The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (Region R02) are up to 30 minutes longer (except the special event scenario - discussed below) than for Region R01 due to the congestion on roadways leaving the City of Clinton. The 90th percentile ETE for the special event scenario for Region R02 is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 35 minutes longer than Region R01 as a result of the large number of transients present in the City of Clinton for the event (See Section 3.9) and the pronounced traffic congestion that develops. The 90th percentile ETE for Region 02 ranges between 2:05 and 3:05 for all nonspecial event scenarios.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and all Scenarios except the special event scenario (Scenario 13) in Regions that contain SubArea 7 parallels the mobilization time, plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary, due to the minimal congestion within the EPZ, which disappears after 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, as displayed in Figure 77 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 3:45 to 3:50 (mobilization time plus 5 minutes to travel out of the EPZ from the 5Mile Region) for good weather, rain, and rain/light snow cases, and from 5:00 to 5:05 for heavy snow cases. The 100th percentile ETE for the special event scenario for Region R02 are as much as 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes longer than for Region R01, due to the increased congestion within SubArea 7.

Comparison of Scenarios 9 and 13 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicate that the Special Event-Apple and Pork Festival - does have a significant impact on ETE at the 90th and 100th percentiles for those Regions that include the evacuation of Clinton and the rest of SubArea 7 (Regions R02 and R05 through R09). The additional 26,244 transient vehicles present for the event drastically increase local congestion in Clinton and saturate all evacuation routes (IL 10 westbound, IL 54 westbound, and US 51 South) leaving the area. The 90th percentile ETE increases by up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes and the 100th percentile increases by up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes.

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

- single lane closure on US 51 South from US 51 Business to County Route 18 (CR 18) - has no impacts on the 90th percentile ETE. Sufficient capacity exists (with the one lane open on US 51 Clinton Power Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

South and the other routes - IL 54 and IL 10 - servicing Clinton) to handle all evacuating vehicles despite the loss of a lane on US 51 South. The single lane closure has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

Despite the results of the roadway impact scenario, events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which close a lane on a major evacuation route, could impact ETE. State and local police could consider traffic management tactics such as using the shoulder of the roadway as a travel lane or rerouting of traffic along other evacuation routes to avoid overwhelming any of the major evacuation routes. All efforts should be made to remove the blockage, particularly within the first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the evacuation when most people begin their evacuation trip.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (unstaged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Region R16 is the same geographic area as Region R01.

The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Radius 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 2 Miles. Additionally staged evacuation should not significantly increase the ETE for people evacuating beyond 2Miles. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Radius are unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented. The reason for this is that the nearest traffic congestion to the plant is in the City of Clinton (well beyond the 5mile Region) and near the Clinton Lake State Recreation Area. This congestion does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates to within the 2Mile Radius (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 77). The 100th percentile ETE remains the same, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the reminder of the residents in SubArea 1 beyond the 2Mile Radius, the ETE for Region R01 is compared to Region R16 in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging has no impact on the 90th and 100th percentile ETE.

The 2Mile Radius was used for this analysis rather than the 2Mile/5Mile Region (SubArea 1).

As shown in Figure 72, SubArea 1 extends from the plant to the 2Mile and 5Mile Radius. The objective of staged evacuation is to evacuate those people within 2 miles of the plant as expeditiously as possible. The use of the 2Mile Radius rather than the 2 and 5Mile Region is necessary to accurately gauge the impact of staged evacuation.

Therefore, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Radius or within those located in the remainder of SubArea 1 beyond the 2Mile Radius. Based on the guidance in NUREG0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.

Clinton Power Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow

• Special Event

• Apple and Pork Festival

• Roadway Impact A single lane closure on US 51 South from US 51 Business to CR 18.

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

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

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

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

• The seasons are defined as follows:

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

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

Clinton Power Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

• 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 and 5 Miles (Region R01)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R02 through R15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Sunday, August 10th at 10:00 PM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the north (N).

• Wind speed is such that the distance to be evacuated is judged to be a 5Mile 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.

Clinton Power Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the N and read Region R03 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 R03. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R03; it contains the ETE value of 1:40.

Clinton Power Station 79 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2 and 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:05 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:05 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:05 2:05 R02 2:20 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:50 2:20 5:40 2:20 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R03 2:05 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:10 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:05 R04 2:25 2:25 2:00 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:35 3:15 2:20 2:20 3:00 2:25 2:20 2:25 R05 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R06 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R07 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:45 2:35 R08 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:45 2:35 R09 2:35 2:35 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:40 2:40 3:25 2:25 2:25 3:05 2:25 5:50 2:35 R10 2:15 2:15 1:55 1:55 2:15 2:30 2:30 3:10 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:20 2:15 2:15 R11 2:05 2:10 1:40 1:40 2:10 2:20 2:25 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:05 R12 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R13 2:00 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R14 2:00 2:00 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:05 2:05 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:10 2:05 2:00 2:00 R15 2:10 2:10 1:45 1:45 2:10 2:25 2:25 3:10 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:20 2:10 2:10 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 2:05 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:05 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:05 2:10 2:50 2:20 2:05 2:05 Clinton Power Station 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2 and 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 R02 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R03 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R04 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R05 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R06 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R07 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R08 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R09 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 7:30 3:50 R10 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R11 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R12 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R13 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R14 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 R15 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 5:05 3:50 3:50 3:50 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Clinton Power Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Radius 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius 2Mile Radius 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile and 5Mile Region R01 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R16 1:05 1:10 1:05 1:05 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:50 1:25 1:05 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Radius 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) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Radius 2Mile Radius 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile and 5Mile Region R01 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R16 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 5:00 3:45 3:45 3:45 Clinton Power Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Degrees From SubArea Region Description North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region 0º359º X N/A 5Mile Region 0º359º Refer To Region R01 R02 Full EPZ 0º359º X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A All Directions 0º359º Refer To Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Degrees From SubArea Wind Direction From Region North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R03 N 350º11º X X R04 NNE 12º34º X X X R05 NE 35º56º X X X X R06 ENE 57º79º X X X R07 E 80º101º X X X X R08 ESE 102º124º X X X R09 SE 125º146º X X X X R10 SSE 147º169º X X X R11 S 170º191º X X R12 SSW, SW 192º237º X X X R13 WSW, W 238º281º X X X R14 WNW 282º304º X X X X R15 NW,NNW 305º349º X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Degrees From Region Description North 2Mile Radius Remainder of SubArea 1 R16 2Mile/5Mile Region N/A X X Remainder of SubArea 1 ShelterinPlace until SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 90% ETE for 2mile radius, then Evacuate Clinton Power Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Clinton Power Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. CLN Shadow Region Clinton Power Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Clinton Power Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 15 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Clinton Power Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Clinton Power Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Clinton Power Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours after the Advisory to Evacuate Clinton Power Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

18 16 14 Vehicles Evacuating 12 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

18 16 14 Vehicles Evacuating 12 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

12 10 Vehicles Evacuating 8

6 (Thousands) 4 2

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

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 20 (Thousands) 15 10 5

0 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R02 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2 and 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

16 14 12 Vehicles Evacuating 10 8

(Thousands) 6 4

2 0

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

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R02 Clinton Power Station 727 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 (ETE) for transit vehicles, buses, vans, ambulances, and wheelchair transport 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, preschools/day cares, and day camps, and medical facilities, and correctional facilities1; and 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 and vans are considered 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. The location of bus depots impacts the time to travel from the bus depots to the facilities being evacuated. Locations of bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, the offsite agencies were asked to factor the location of the depots and the distance to the EPZ into the estimate of mobilization time.

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 CLN EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to reception centers (RC) if an evacuation were ordered, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at the reception centers.

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. Therefore, children are evacuated to designated (school) reception centers. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population. 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. As stated in the 2019 sitespecific plan for 1

Dewitt County Correctional Center shelters in place, so no vehicles are considered for this facility.

Clinton Power Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Clinton Power Station (CLN)Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), for SubArea 4 and 7, all school and day care facilities will be relocated to Parkland College and Horton Field House in Normal, respectively. All other day care facilities in the EPZ not listed in the CLNIPRA will be moved to the reception center for the SubArea in which that facility is located. See Section 10 for further discussion.

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 The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Day Cares, and Day Camps, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the Advisory to Evacuate [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.

The number of available transportation resources were based on data provided by the counties during the previous ETE study. Table 81 summarizes the capacity of transportation resources.

Also included in the table is the transportation resource capacity needed to evacuate schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, medical facilities, transitdependent population, access and/or functional needs (discussed below in Section 8.2) and correctional facilities (discussed in Section 8.3). There are sufficient bus resources available to evacuate the school and pre school/day care and day camp children, ambulatory patients, the transitdependent population and the ambulatory access and/or functional needs population in the EPZ in a single wave. There are not enough resources to evacuate the wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs population in the EPZ in a single wave, so a second wave ETE is computed. Furthermore, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R02 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent 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.

Clinton Power Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation of Schools, Preschools/Day Cares, and Day Camps Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or pre school/day care and day camp to be evacuated. As discussed in item 4 of Section 2.4, it is estimated that for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, drivers would likely require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools, preschools/day cares and day camps that will be evacuated. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes in rain/light snow and 110 minutes in heavy snow conditions.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4 and 2.6, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school, preschool/daycare, and day camp buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools, preschools/day cares and day camps 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 or preschool/day care and day camp being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate reception center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool/day care /day camp 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 Table 10 2 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes 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, preschools/day cares, and day camps in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table

84. To comply with state bus speed regulations, the computed speeds are restricted to 55 mph, 50 mph (10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph), and 45 mph (15% decrease, rounded to Clinton Power Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the nearest 5 mph) for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph (10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph), and 45 mph (15% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph) for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively.

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools, pre schools/day cares and day camps 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.

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 + 12 = 2:00, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes, for Douglas Elementary School, in good weather).

The average singlewave ETE, for schools is 25 minutes (2:25 - 2:00 = 0:25) less than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R02) under a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the reception center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacuation time.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using geographic information system (GIS) software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, are applied for this activity, for the buses servicing the schools, preschools/day cares, and day camps in the EPZ.

Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

A detailed computation of transit dependent population was done and is discussed in Section 3.7. The total number of transit dependent people per SubArea was determined using a weighted distribution based on population. The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus. The SubAreas that were determined to have very few transitdependent person were grouped and a bus route was assigned. The five (5) bus routes utilized in this study were designed by KLD to service a single or group of SubArea. Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along major evacuation routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Transitdependent staging areas are defined in the CLNIPRA. The exact route traveled is not specified; therefore, routes were developed via the shortest path from the staging area to the respective reception center. Routes Clinton Power Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

from these staging areas to the EPZ boundary are described in Table 101 and mapped in Figure 102. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate at these staging locations, and that they can arrive at the staging locations within the 135minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated staging location. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transit dependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective staging locations after majority of their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 88% of the evacuees will have completed their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 135 minutes after the ATE for good weather. The residents taking longer to mobilize are assumed to rideshare with a friend or neighbor. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 145 minutes in rain/light snow and 155 minutes in heavy snow conditions.

The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Each route has one or more buses that departs at 135 minutes after the ATE. Table 85 (good weather), Table 86 (rain/light snow) and Table 87 (heavy snow) show the ETE breakdown for each step in the transitdependent evacuation process.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

For multiple stops along a route, estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a.

Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e., pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

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. As per Item 6 of Section 2.6, it is assumed that bus acceleration and speed Clinton Power Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

will be less in rain/light snow resulting in 40 minutes of pickup time per bus and 50 minutes in heavy snow.

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, preschool/day care and day camp evacuation.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETEs for each bus route calculated using the above procedures (as discussed under Evacuation of Schools, Pre schools/Day Cares, and Day Camps, Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary) for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow respectively.

For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing SubArea 7 is computed as 135 + 10 + 30 = 2:55 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 10 minutes is the time to travel 9.3 miles at 55 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route at 135 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes) for the transit dependent population exceeds the 90th percentile ETE for the general population by 30 minutes (2:552:25=0:30) for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6). The 30minute difference is significant to potentially 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.

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. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph (10% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph), and 45 mph (15% decrease, rounded to the nearest 5 mph) for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10minute break.

Activity: Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GCDE)

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to the staging locations and proceeds to pick up more transit dependent evacuees. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center.

Clinton Power Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The secondwave ETE for the bus route servicing SubArea 7 is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 3:15 in good weather (2:55 to exit EPZ + 18minute 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: 18 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 20 minutes to travel to the staging location and to rerun the route a second time (9.3 miles @ 55 mph [assumed speed since bus is traveling against traffic] + 9.3 miles @ 55 mph [route specific speed output from the model at this time]) = 38 minutes

• Bus completes pickups at staging location: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:55 + 0:18 + 0:15 + 0:38 + 0:30 = 4:40 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87.

The average ETE (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes) for a secondwave evacuation of the transitdependent population is 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes longer than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under winter, midweek, midday, with good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and could impact protective action decision making.

The relocation of transitdependent evacuees from the reception centers to congregate care centers, if the counties decide to do so, is not considered in this study.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

As per Item 4c in Section 2.4, it is assumed that the mobilization time for medical facilities average 90 minutes in good weather, 100 minutes in rain/light snow and 110 minutes in heavy snow.

Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90minute timeframe.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances, respectively. Based on data provided by the counties, there are no bedridden patients at medical facilities. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type. Concurrent loading on multiple vehicles is also assumed, as stated in item 5g of Section 2.4.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective evacuation routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed Clinton Power Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school, preschool/day care and day camp evacuation.

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow. Average speeds output by the model for Scenario 6 (Scenario 7 for rain/light snow and Scenario 8 for heavy snow) Region 2, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow and 45 mph for heavy snow)2, 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, vans, and wheelchair vans at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for the Allen Court with 5 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + (1 x 5) + 10 = 105 min. or 1:45 It is assumed that the population at medical facilities 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 single wave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) for medical facilities in the EPZ does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario and will not impact protective action decision making.

A second wave ETE was not computed for the shortfall of wheelchair vans (as shown in Table 81) as it is assumed that for the medical facilities there are ample wheelchair vans that could be used to evacuate the wheelchair bound population at the medical facilities in the EPZ.

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population The special needs population registered within the EPZ was provided by offsite agencies. There is a total of 59 registered access and/or functional needs population, see Section 3.8 and Table

39. Table 811 summarizes the ETE for homebound (noninstitutional) access and/or functional needs people who would need transportation assistance in the event of an emergency. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart. No bedridden households exist within the EPZ. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households in good weather (10% slower in rain/light snow, 20%

slower in heavy snow). Mobilization times of 135 minutes were used (145 minutes for rain/light snow, and 155 minutes for heavy snow). The last household (HH) is assumed to be 5 miles from 2

Speeds computed for adverse weather is based on 10% decrease for rain/light snow and 15% for heavy snow rounded to the nearest 5 mph.

Clinton Power Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow and 45 mph for heavy snow)2, after the last pickup is used to compute travel time.

The 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 household (HH) implies that 30 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only one (1) bus is needed from a capacity perspective, if three (3) buses are deployed to service these HH, then each would require at most 10 stops, otherwise it would be 30 stops if we only deploy one (1) bus. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume three (3) buses are deployed, each with about 10 stops, to service a total of 30 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Buses arrive at the first pickup location: 135 minutes

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 1 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 9 @ 9 minutes = 81minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 9 @ 1 minutes = 9 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 6 minutes (5 miles at 51.4 mph).

ETE: 135 + 1 + 81 + 9 + 6 = 232 minutes or 3:55 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes)

The average ETE of a singlewave evacuation of the ambulatory access and/or functional needs population exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes (3:552:25 = 1:30) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02), during Scenario 6 condition and could impact protective action decision making.

Table 81 shows shortfall of two (2) wheelchair vans for wheelchair bound population. The following represents the ETE to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation using wheelchair vans after the medical facilities have evacuated, since there is a shortfall of wheelchair vans.

The following outlines the ETE calculations of a second wave needed using wheelchair vans after the medical facilities have been evacuated assuming host reception center is located in Stephen Decatur Middle School:

a. Ambulances arrive at host reception center: 2:21 [2:00 Average ETE for wheelchair vans to exit the EPZ plus 21 minutes to travel 19miles (average distance to host reception center from EPZ boundary at 55 mph)] on average.

b. Unload patient at host reception center: 5 minutes.

c. Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.

d. Travel time back to EPZ: 21 minutes (19miles at 55 mph).

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

f. Loading time at first household: 5 minutes.

g. Travel to subsequent pickup location: 1 @ 9 minutes = 9 minutes Clinton Power Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

h. Loading time at subsequent household: 3 stop @ 5 minutes = 15 minutes

i. Travel time to EPZ boundary: 5 miles @ 55 mph = 6 minutes Bus exits EPZ at time: 2:21 + 5 + 10 + 21 + 15 + 5 + 9 + 15 + 6 = 227 minutes or 3:50 (rounded to the nearest 5 minutes)

The average ETE of a secondwave evacuation of the wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the Full EPZ (Region R02) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and could impact protective action decision making.

8.3 Correctional Facilities There is one correctional facility within the EPZ - DeWitt County Correctional Center. As discussed in Item 2c of Section 2.4, the 80 inmates at DeWitt County Correctional Center located within the 10mile EPZ will shelterinplace according to CLNIPRA. As such no transportation (buses) were considered for this study. For further information, see Subsection 3.5.2 and Appendix E.

Clinton Power Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Buses Vans Ambulances Provider Vans Resources Available3 DeWitt County 23 9 1 4 City of Decatur 86 0 6 12 City of Champaign 0 0 0 10 City of Bloomington 185 0 27 7 Allen Court 0 1 0 0 Hawthorne Inn 0 1 2 0 TOTAL: 294 11 36 33 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 36): 2 8 26 0 Schools, Preschools/Day Cares and Day Camps 60 0 0 0 (Table 37):

TransitDependent Transportation (Section 3.7): 6 0 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs Population 3 0 12 0 (Section 3.8, Table 39):

DeWitt County Correctional Center4 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 71 8 38 0 3

Transportation resources were retained from the previous ETE study with no objections from the counties within the EPZ.

4 Dewitt County Correctional Center is assumed to shelter in place (see Section 3.5.2), no buses are considered.

Clinton Power Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Driver Travel Mobilization Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ Bdry Travel Time ETA to Time Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE to RC from EPZ Bdry RC School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) to RC (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS DEWITT COUNTY Douglas Elementary School 90 15 9.8 51.9 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Lincoln Elementary School 90 15 9.7 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Christian Academy 90 15 10.0 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Elementary School 90 15 10.3 55.0 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Senior High School 90 15 10.7 55.0 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Clinton Junior High School 90 15 11.1 53.9 13 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 PIATT COUNTY DeLandWeldon Elementary School 90 15 2.4 55.0 3 1:50 21.4 24 2:15 DelandWeldon Middle School 90 15 2.4 55.0 3 1:50 21.5 24 2:15 DeLandWeldon High School 90 15 2.6 53.6 3 1:50 21.4 24 2:15 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 School Maximum: 2:20 School Average for EPZ: 2:00 School Average: 2:20 PRESCHOOLS/DAY CARES & DAY CAMPS DEWITT COUNTY Head Start 90 15 9.9 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Bright Beginnings 90 15 10.0 51.6 12 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 90 15 11.2 55.0 13 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church 90 15 4.8 55.0 6 1:55 12.7 14 2:10 Camp Illinois District Camp 90 15 10.0 55.0 11 2:00 16.5 19 2:20 Preschool/Day Care and Day Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:00 2:20 Camp Maximum:

Preschool/Day Care and Day Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:00 2:20 Camp Average:

Clinton Power Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 83. School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to RC Bdry to RC ETA to RC School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS DEWITT COUNTY Douglas Elementary School 100 20 9.8 47.2 13 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Lincoln Elementary School 100 20 9.7 50.0 12 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Clinton Christian Academy 100 20 10.0 50.0 13 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Clinton Elementary School 100 20 10.3 50.0 13 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Clinton Senior High School 100 20 10.7 50.0 13 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Clinton Junior High School 100 20 11.1 47.3 15 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 PIATT COUNTY DeLandWeldon Elementary School 100 20 2.4 50.0 3 2:05 21.4 26 2:35 DelandWeldon Middle School 100 20 2.4 50.0 3 2:05 21.5 26 2:35 DeLandWeldon High School 100 20 2.6 48.6 4 2:05 21.4 26 2:35 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:15 School Maximum: 2:35 School Average for EPZ: 2:15 School Average: 2:35 PRESCHOOLS/DAY CARES & DAY CAMPS DEWITT COUNTY Head Start 100 20 9.9 50.0 12 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Bright Beginnings 100 20 10.0 46.9 13 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 100 20 11.2 50.0 14 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp 100 20 4.8 50.0 6 2:10 12.7 16 2:30 Illinois District Camp 100 20 10.0 50.0 12 2:15 16.5 20 2:35 Preschool/Day Care and Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:15 2:35 Day Camp Maximum:

Preschool/Day Care and Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:15 2:35 Day Camp Average:

Clinton Power Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. School and Preschool/Day Care Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Travel Travel Time Driver Loading Dist. To Average Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ Mobilization Time EPZ Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE Bdry to RC Bdry to RC ETA to RC School, Preschool/Day Care, and Day Camp Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS DEWITT COUNTY Douglas Elementary School 110 25 9.8 44.4 14 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Lincoln Elementary School 110 25 9.7 45.0 13 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Clinton Christian Academy 110 25 10.0 45.0 14 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Clinton Elementary School 110 25 10.3 45.0 14 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Clinton Senior High School 110 25 10.7 45.0 15 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Clinton Junior High School 110 25 11.1 45.0 15 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 PIATT COUNTY DeLandWeldon Elementary School 110 25 2.4 45.0 4 2:20 21.4 29 2:50 DelandWeldon Middle School 110 25 2.4 45.0 4 2:20 21.5 29 2:50 DeLandWeldon High School 110 25 2.6 45.0 4 2:20 21.4 29 2:50 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 School Maximum: 2:55 School Average for EPZ: 2:30 School Average: 2:55 PRESCHOOLS/DAY CARES/DAY CAMP DEWITT COUNTY Head Start 110 25 9.9 45.0 14 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Bright Beginnings 110 25 10.0 44.2 14 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 110 25 11.2 45.0 15 2:30 16.5 23 2:55 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp Opened During Summer Only Illinois District Camp Opened During Summer Only Preschool/Day Care Preschool/Day Care Maximum for EPZ: 2:30 2:55 Maximum:

Preschool/Day Care Preschool/Day Care Average for EPZ: 2:30 2:55 Average:

Clinton Power Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather SingleWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Sub Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Area(s) Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to RC to RC Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 135 11.3 55.0 12 30 3:00 21.4 23 5 10 48 30 5:00 3 and 4 2 1 135 6.6 55.0 7 30 2:55 21.4 23 5 10 37 30 4:40 5 and 6 3 1 135 6.6 55.0 7 30 2:55 12.6 14 5 10 28 30 4:25 7 4 2 135 9.3 55.0 10 30 2:55 16.5 18 5 10 38 30 4:40 8 and 2 5 1 135 4.7 55.0 5 30 2:50 16.5 18 5 10 28 30 4:25 Maximum ETE: 3:00 Maximum ETE: 5:00 Average ETE: 2:55 Average ETE: 4:40 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow SingleWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Sub Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Area(s) Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to RC to RC Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 145 11.3 49.7 14 40 3:20 21.4 26 5 10 53 40 5:35 3 and 4 2 1 145 6.6 50.0 8 40 3:15 21.4 26 5 10 42 40 5:20 5 and 6 3 1 145 6.6 50.0 8 40 3:15 12.6 15 5 10 31 40 5:00 7 4 2 145 9.3 50.0 11 40 3:20 16.5 20 5 10 42 40 5:20 8 and 2 5 1 145 4.7 50.0 6 40 3:15 16.5 20 5 10 31 40 5:05 Maximum ETE: 3:20 Maximum ETE: 5:35 Average ETE: 3:20 Average ETE: 5:20 Clinton Power Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow SingleWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Sub Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Area(s) Route of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to RC to RC Unload Rest Time Time ETE Serviced Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 155 11.3 45.0 15 50 3:40 21.4 29 5 10 59 50 6:15 3 and 4 2 1 155 6.6 45.0 9 50 3:35 21.4 29 5 10 47 50 6:00 5 and 6 3 1 155 6.6 44.3 9 50 3:35 12.6 17 5 10 35 50 5:35 7 4 2 155 9.3 45.0 12 50 3:40 16.5 22 5 10 47 50 5:55 8 and 2 5 1 155 4.7 45.0 6 50 3:35 16.5 22 5 10 35 50 5:40 Maximum ETE: 3:40 Maximum ETE: 6:15 Average ETE: 3:40 Average ETE: 5:55 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Rate Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization (min per Loading EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry. ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

DEWITT COUNTY Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 8.1 46.9 10 1:45 Allen Court Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 8.1 48.9 10 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 2 2 6.8 52.5 8 1:40 Warner Hospital & Health Services Wheelchair bound 90 5 4 20 6.8 55.0 7 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 13.9 55.0 15 2:10 Hawthorne Inn Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 13.9 55.0 15 1:55 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 13.9 55.0 15 2:15 Liberty Village of Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 90 20 13.9 55.0 15 2:05 Maximum ETE: 2:15 Average ETE: 2:00 Clinton Power Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Loading Rate Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization (min per Loading EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry. ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

DEWITT COUNTY Ambulatory 100 1 5 5 8.1 43.2 11 2:00 Allen Court Wheelchair bound 100 5 3 15 8.1 41.7 12 2:10 Ambulatory 100 1 2 2 6.8 48.9 8 1:50 Warner Hospital & Health Services Wheelchair bound 100 5 4 20 6.8 46.1 9 2:10 Ambulatory 100 1 24 24 13.9 48.6 17 2:25 Hawthorne Inn Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 13.9 46.6 18 2:10 Ambulatory 100 1 30 30 13.9 50.0 17 2:30 Liberty Village of Clinton Wheelchair bound 100 5 90 20 13.9 47.9 17 2:20 Maximum ETE: 2:30 Average ETE: 2:15 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Loading Rate Total Dist. To Travel Time Mobilization (min per Loading EPZ Bdry Speed to EPZ Bdry. ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min)

DEWITT COUNTY Ambulatory 110 1 5 5 8.1 40.4 12 2:10 Allen Court Wheelchair bound 110 5 3 15 8.1 39.9 12 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 2 2 6.8 45.0 9 2:05 Warner Hospital & Health Services Wheelchair bound 110 5 4 20 6.8 44.2 9 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 24 24 13.9 45.0 18 2:35 Hawthorne Inn Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 13.9 43.3 19 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 30 30 13.9 44.3 19 2:40 Liberty Village of Clinton Wheelchair bound 110 5 90 20 13.9 44.9 19 2:30 Maximum ETE: 2:40 Average ETE: 2:25 Clinton Power Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Loading Total Loading Travel Time People Mobiliza Time at Travel to Time at to EPZ Requiring Vehicles Weather tion 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary Vehicle Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions Time (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) ETE (hr:min)

Good 135 81 6 3:55 Buses 30 3 10 Rain/Light Snow 145 1 90 9 7 4:15 Heavy Snow 155 99 7 4:35 Good 135 27 6 3:10 Wheelchair 48 12 4 Rain/Light Snow 145 5 30 15 6 3:25 Vans Heavy Snow 155 33 7 3:35 Maximum ETE (Good weather): 3:55 Average ETE (Good weather): 3:35 Clinton Power Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate (ATE)

B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Staging Location D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Staging Location 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 Clinton Power Station 819 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 Post (TACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

2. Discourage traffic movements that move evacuating vehicles in a direction which takes them significantly closer to the power plant, or which interferes with the efficient flow of other evacuees.

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer a direction other than that indicated.

For example:

• A driver may be traveling home from work or from another location, to join other family members prior to evacuating.

• An evacuating driver may be travelling to pick up a relative, or other evacuees.

• The driver may be an emergency worker entering the area being evacuated to perform an important emergency service.

The implementation of a TMP must also be flexible enough for the application of sound judgment by the traffic guide.

The TMP is the outcome of the following process:

1. The detailed traffic and access control tactics discussed in the sitespecific volume for Clinton Power Station (CLN)Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), and Clinton Traffic and Access Control Map (IPRAMap A) serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Clinton Power Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TACP locations in the CLNIPRA as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix K, Table K1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TACPs.

3. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 77). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced traffic congestion during an evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite plans are examined. No additional TACPs were identified which would benefit the evacuation time estimate (ETE), as part of this study.

4. Prioritization of TACPs.

a. Application of traffic and access control at some TACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TACPs. For example, TACPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TACPs located farther from the power plant.

Key locations for manual traffic control (MTC) were analyzed and their impact to ETE was quantified, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. See Appendix G for more detail.

Appendix G documents the existing TMP and list of priority TACPs using the process enumerated above.

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

The ETE calculations documented in 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 TACPs along the major highways traversing the EPZ.

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

Study assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 further discuss TACP 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 Clinton Power Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 board navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

These are only some examples of how ITS technologies can benefit the evacuation process.

Consideration should be given that ITS technologies be used to facilitate the evacuation process, and any additional signage placed should consider evacuation needs.

Clinton Power Station 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 SubArea being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, medical facilities, employees, transients, or permanent residents who do not own or have access to private vehicles) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers located within reception communities.

Evacuees will select routes within the EPZ in such a way as to minimize their exposure to risk.

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles and by the transitdependent population evacuating in buses. Transitdependent evacuees will be routed towards a reception center located within the appropriate reception community. General population may evacuate to either a reception center or some alternate destination (i.e., lodging facility, relatives home, campground) outside the EPZ.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary.

Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along their pickup routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Transitdependent staging areas are defined in the 2019 site specific plan for Clinton Power Station (CLN)Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA). The 5 bus routes originating from these staging areas are shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 102 were designed by KLD, as no preestablished transitdependent bus routes exist within the EPZ or identified within the county emergency plans, in order to compute ETE. The routes were designed to service the transitdependent population within each SubArea along major evacuation routes and then proceed to the reception communities towards reception centers assigned in the CLNIPRA. This does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk along to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus.

Schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate reception community and then to the designated school reception center.

Clinton Power Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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). The CLN IPRA indicates that the evacuees can receive congregate care at reception centers. As such, this study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers.

10.2 Reception Centers According to the current public information for EPZ residents, evacuees will be directed to reception communities located in the Cities of Decatur, Champaign, and Normal, based on the SubArea being evacuated. The CLNIPRA lists the specific reception centers within these reception communities. Figure 103 presents a map displaying the reception centers (including those used for schools). Note that the reception centers are designated for both the general population and special facilities1 (medical facilities and schools). Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the reception center within the reception community for each SubArea. It is assumed that all medical facility evacuees will be taken to the appropriate reception centers.

Schools will be taken to the appropriate school reception centers. As stated in the CLNIPRA, for SubArea 4 and 7, all school and day care facilities will be relocated to Parkland College and Horton Field House in Normal, respectively. All other day care facilities in the EPZ will be moved to the reception center for the SubArea in which that facility is located.

Figure 103 presents a list of the reception centers for each school, preschool/day care, and day camp in the EPZ. School reception centers (also used for preschools/day cares and day camps) are based on the CLNIPRA. Any school/preschool/day care/day camp not listed in the CLNIPRA, a reception center was designated based on the SubArea the school/preschool/day care/day camp is located in. It is assumed that all school/preschool/day care/day camp evacuees will be taken to the appropriate (school) reception center and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at these facilities will be picked up by parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

1 Dewitt County Correctional Center, as per IPRA, the DeWitt County Sheriffs Department will notify other Sheriffs Departments in the surrounding counties for sheltering inmates. As such, the study assumes inmates will shelter in place and will not evacuate to a reception center.

Clinton Power Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes Bus No. Sub Route of Area Length

1. Buses Staging Areas Serviced Route Description (mi.)

Picks up evacuees at DeWitt City Park. Head southbound on County 1 1 DeWitt City Park 1 Road 14 (CR 14), turn left onto Illinois State Route 10 (IL 10) eastbound, 11.3 then out of the EPZ.

Picks up evacuees at the Weldon Fire House. Head northbound on West 2 1 Weldon Fire House 3 and 4 6.6 St., turn right into IL 10 eastbound, then out of the EPZ.

Picks up evacuees at the Clinton Assembly of God, head southbound on 3 1 Clinton Assembly of God 5 and 6 US Highway 51 Business (US 51 BUS), turn left onto US 51 South, then 6.6 out of the EPZ.

Picks up evacuees at the Clinton First Christian Church. Head north on 4 2 Clinton First Christian Church 7 Jackson St toward W Washington St, turn right into US 51 BUS 9.3 northbound, next turn right onto US 51 North, then out of the EPZ.

Picks up evacuees at the Wapella Fire House. Head northbound on US 5 1 Wapella Fire House 8 and 2 4.7 51, then out of the EPZ.

Total: 6 Clinton Power Station 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 Transit Dependent -DeWitt City Park 574, 573, 572, 571, 570, 569, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 469, 421, 422, 213, 1

Staging Area 417, 416, 415, 414, 363, 361, 360 Transit Dependent Weldon Fire 2 422, 213, 417, 416, 415, 414, 363, 361, 360 House Staging Area Transit Dependent Clinton Assembly 3 256, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 302, 303, 304, 305, 797, 306 of God Staging Area Transit Dependent Clinton First 798, 799, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 4

Christian Church Staging Area 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 Transit Dependent Wapella Fire 5 317, 327, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 House Staging Area 670, 800, 801, 782, 802, 781, 798, 799, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 282, 6 Douglas Elementary School 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 267, 791, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 7 Lincoln Elementary School 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 474, 473, 256, 255, 257, 267, 791, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 8 Clinton Christian Academy 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 672, 780, 779, 783, 278, 279, 280, 276, 315, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 9 Clinton Elementary School 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 Crooked Creek Park Afterschool 766, 278, 279, 280, 276, 315, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 10 Program 504, 505, 506, 676 733, 260, 261, 491, 672, 780, 779, 783, 278, 279, 280, 276, 315, 281, 282, 11 Clinton Junior High School 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 12 DeLandWeldon Elementary School 415, 414, 363, 361, 360 13 DelandWeldon Middle School 415, 414, 363, 361, 360 14 DeLandWeldon High School 561, 415, 414, 363, 361, 360 474, 473, 256, 255, 257, 267, 791, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 15 Head Start 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 255, 258, 259, 491, 672, 780, 779, 783, 278, 279, 280, 276, 315, 281, 282, 17 Christ Lutheran PreSchool 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 Little Galilee Christian Assembly 18 305, 797, 306 Church Camp 787, 670, 800, 801, 782, 802, 781, 798, 799, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 16 Bright Beginnings 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 669, 671, 269, 270, 267, 791, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 316, 315, 281, 282, 19 Illinois District Camp 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 504, 505, 506, 676 784, 250, 786, 788, 251, 264, 255, 256, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 302, 303, 20 Allen Court 304, 305, 797, 306 21 Warner Hospital & Health Services 257, 255, 256, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 302, 303, 304, 305, 797, 306 Hawthorne Inn 22 733, 262, 731, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 797, 306 Liberty Village of Clinton Clinton Power Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. Reception Centers for Schools, Preschools/Day Cares, and Day Camps Facility Name Reception Center Schools Douglas Elementary School Lincoln Elementary School Clinton Christian Academy Horton Field House in Normal Clinton Elementary School Clinton Senior High School Clinton Junior High School DeLandWeldon Elementary School DelandWeldon Middle School Parkland College DeLandWeldon High School Preschools/Day Care Head Start Bright Beginnings Horton Field House in Normal Christ Lutheran PreSchool Day Camps2 Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp Stephen Decatur Middle School Illinois District Camp Horton Field House in Normal 2

Reception centers for day camps were not specified. As such, the reception centers assumed are based on the Sub-Area the Day Camp is located in.

Clinton Power Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes Clinton Power Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Clinton Power Station 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. Reception Communities and Reception Centers Clinton Power Station 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS This appendix provides a glossary of traffic engineering terms that are used throughout this report.

Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms Term Definition Analysis Network A graphical representation of the geometric topology of a physical roadway system, which is comprised of directional links and nodes.

Link A network link represents a specific, onedirectional section of roadway. A link has both physical (length, number of lanes, topology, etc.) and operational (turn movement percentages, service rate, freeflow speed) characteristics.

Measures of Effectiveness Statistics describing traffic operations on a roadway network.

Node A network node generally represents an intersection of network links. A node has control characteristics, i.e., the allocation of service time to each approach link.

Origin A location attached to a network link, within the EPZ or Shadow Region, where trips are generated at a specified rate in vehicles per hour (vph). These trips enter the roadway system to travel to their respective destinations.

Prevailing Roadway and Relates to the physical features of the roadway, the nature (e.g.,

Traffic Conditions composition) of traffic on the roadway and the ambient conditions (weather, visibility, pavement conditions, etc.).

Service Rate Maximum rate at which vehicles, executing a specific turn maneuver, can be discharged from a section of roadway at the prevailing conditions, expressed in vehicles per second (vps) or vehicles per hour (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 vehicles per hour (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.

Clinton Power Station 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 vehicles per hour (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 vehicles per hour (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.

Clinton Power Station 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 Model. 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 Model, 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 model 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 Clinton Power Station 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 Model.

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.

Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator)

Calculates ETE statistics All traffic simulation models are data intensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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 t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O Clinton Power Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Else Q 0, M E End if Else t 0 O M and O 0 M M O E; Q 0 End if

9. Else M O 0 If t 0 , then O RCap , Q M O E Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

O RCap Q M O Apply Algorithm A to calculate Q and M Else O M M M O E and Q 0 End if End if End if End if

11. Calculate a new estimate of average density, k k 2k k ,

where k = density at the beginning of the TI k = density at the end of the TI k = density at the midpoint of the TI All values of density apply only to the moving vehicles.

If k k and n N where N max number of iterations, and is a convergence criterion, then

12. set n n 1 , and return to step 2 to perform iteration, n, using k k .

End if Clinton Power Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

13. If Q M , then The number of excess vehicles that cause spillback is: SB Q M ,

where W is the width of the upstream intersection. To prevent spillback, meter the outflow from the feeder approaches and from the source flow, S, during this TI by the amount, SB. That is, set SB M 1 0 , where M is the metering factor over all movements .

E S This metering factor is assigned appropriately to all feeder links and to the source flow, to be applied during the next network sweep, discussed later.

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Qe Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could v not discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Mb Q M E . This queue length, Q v Q M E Cap can be extended to Q by L3 traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the t1 t3 queue within the TI. A portion of the entering TI vehicles, E E , will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

L L Define: L Q . From the sketch, L v TI t t L Q E .

LN LN Substituting E E yields: vt E L v TI t L . Recognizing that the first two terms on the right hand side cancel, solve for t to obtain:

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN If the denominator, v 0, set t TI t .

Clinton Power Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

t t t Then, Q Q E , M E 1 TI TI The complete Algorithm A considers all flow scenarios; space limitation precludes its inclusion, here.

C.1.3 Lane Assignment The unit problem is solved for each turn movement on each link. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate a value, LN , of allocated lanes for each movement, x. If in fact all lanes are specified by, say, arrows painted on the pavement, either as full lanes or as lanes within a turn bay, then the problem is fully defined. If however there remain unchannelized lanes on a link, then an analysis is undertaken to subdivide the number of these physical lanes into turn movement specific virtual lanes, LNx.

C.2 Implementation C.2.1 Computational Procedure The computational procedure for this model is shown in the form of a flow diagram as Figure C4. As discussed earlier, the simulation model processes traffic flow for each link independently over TI that the analyst specifies; it is usually 60 seconds or longer. The first step is to execute an algorithm to define the sequence in which the network links are processed so that as many links as possible are processed after their feeder links are processed, within the same network sweep. Since a general network will have many closed loops, it is not possible to guarantee that every link processed will have all of its feeder links processed earlier.

The processing then continues as a succession of time steps of duration, TI, until the simulation is completed. Within each time step, the processing performs a series of sweeps over all network links; this is necessary to ensure that the traffic flow is synchronous over the entire network. Specifically, the sweep ensures continuity of flow among all the network links; in the context of this model, this means that the values of E, M, and S are all defined for each link such that they represent the synchronous movement of traffic from each link to all of its outbound links. These sweeps also serve to compute the metering rates that control spillback.

Within each sweep, processing solves the unit problem for each turn movement on each link.

With the turn movement percentages for each link provided by the DTRAD model, an algorithm allocates the number of lanes to each movement serviced on each link. The timing at a signal, if any, applied at the downstream end of the link, is expressed as a G/C ratio, the signal timing needed to define this ratio is an input requirement for the model. The model also has the capability of representing, with macroscopic fidelity, the actions of actuated signals responding to the timevarying competing demands on the approaches to the intersection.

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The Clinton Power Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

The procedure then performs the unit problem solutions for all network links during the following sweep.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness 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.

Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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 Clinton Power Station 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)

Clinton Power Station 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 in 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 the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a geographic information system (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ boundary.

Step 2 The 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Data for employees, transients, schools, preschools, day camps, and other facilities were obtained from Constellation, the county emergency management agencies, the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), and the old data from the previous study (confirmed still accurate for this study), supplemented by internet searches where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available during an emergency were from the previous ETE study confirmed still accurate for this study.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials, onsite and offsite Constellation personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study. Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials and Constellation utility managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of 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.

Clinton Power Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the study area (EPZ and shadow region) was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuation related demographic information of the EPZ population for this study. In addition, responses received outside of the study area was reviewed and utilized, as the number of responses received during the CLN survey was significantly less than the sampling plan (see Section F.2 in Appendix F). 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 8 SubAreas. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of SubAreas) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

The need for evacuation can occur over a range of timeofday, dayofweek, seasonal and weatherrelated conditions. Scenarios were developed to capture the variation in evacuation demand, highway capacity and mobilization time, for different time of day, day of the week, time of year, and weather conditions.

Step 8 The input stream for the DYNEV II System, which integrates the dynamic traffic assignment and distribution model, DTRAD, with the evacuation simulation model, was created for a prototype evacuation case - the evacuation of the entire EPZ for a representative scenario.

Step 9 After creating this input stream, the DYNEV II model was executed on the prototype evacuation case to compute evacuating traffic routing patterns consistent with the appropriate NRC guidelines. DYNEV II contains an extensive suite of data diagnostics which check the completeness and consistency of the input data specified. The analyst reviews all warning and error messages produced by the model and then corrects the database to create an input stream that properly executes to completion.

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or Clinton Power Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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.

Clinton Power Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses, and/or school buses, vans, wheelchair vans, and ambulances are introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II generates routespecific speeds over time for use in the estimation of evacuation times for the transit dependent and special facility population groups.

Step 14 The prototype evacuation case was used as the basis for generating all region and scenario specific evacuation cases to be simulated. This process was automated through the UNITES user interface. For each specific case, the population to be evacuated, the trip generation distributions, the highway capacity and speeds, and other factors are adjusted to produce a customized casespecific data set.

Step 15 All evacuation cases 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, preschools, day camps, medical facilities, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated, and graphed. The results are then documented, as required by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Step 18 Following the completion of documentation activities, the ETE criteria checklist (see Appendix N) is completed. An appropriate report reference is provided for each criterion provided in the checklist.

Clinton Power Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for 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 Update 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 Use DYNEVII to Simulate All Evacuation Cases and Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream 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 Clinton Power Station 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 May 2022, for facilities, that are located within the CLN EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, medical facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas (campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, parks, other recreational facilities) and lodging facilities. Note vehicles with boat trailers and RVs discussed in Section 3 are represented as single vehicles in this appendix. 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/day care, day camp, medical facility, major employer, recreational area (campground, golf course, marina, park, and other recreational facility),

lodging facility, and correctional facility are also provided.

Clinton Power Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment DEWITT COUNTY 7 6.3 WSW Douglas Elementary School 905 E Main St Clinton 175 7 7.0 WSW Lincoln Elementary School 407 S Jackson St Clinton 175 7 7.2 WSW Clinton Christian Academy 801 S Mulberry St Clinton 35 7 7.6 WSW Clinton Elementary School 680 Illini Dr Clinton 500 7 7.8 WSW Clinton Senior High School 1200 IL 54 Clinton 530 7 7.8 WSW Clinton Junior High School 701 Illini Dr Clinton 380 DeWitt County Subtotal: 1,795 PIATT COUNTY 4 8.3 ESE DeLandWeldon Elementary School 2311 N 300 East Rd DeLand 115 4 8.3 ESE DelandWeldon Middle School 2311 N 300 East Rd DeLand 35 4 8.4 ESE DeLandWeldon High School 304 IL 10 DeLand 67 Piatt County Subtotal: 217 EPZ TOTAL: 2,012 Table E2. Preschools/Day Cares within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment DEWITT COUNTY 7 5.8 WSW Head Start 1700 E Main St Clinton 34 7 6.4 WSW Bright Beginnings 811 IL 54 Clinton 40 7 7.2 WSW Christ Lutheran PreSchool 701 S Mulberry St Clinton 20 DeWitt County Subtotal: 94 EPZ TOTAL: 94 Clinton Power Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Day Camps within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality ment DEWITT COUNTY 6 10.5 WSW Little Galilee Christian Assembly Church Camp 7539 Little Galilee Rd Clinton 120 8 9.6 NW Illinois District Camp 14131 US Route 51 Wapella 420 DeWitt County Subtotal: 540 EPZ TOTAL: 540 Table E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Sub Distance Dire Capa Current atory chair ridden Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality city Census Patients Patients Patients DEWITT COUNTY 7 6.3 W Allen Court 1650 E Main St Clinton 8 8 5 3 0 7 7.1 WSW Warner Hospital & Health Services 422 W White St Clinton 25 6 2 4 0 7 7.6 WSW Hawthorne Inn 1 Park Ln Clinton 27 26 24 2 0 7 7.6 WSW Liberty Village of Clinton 1 Park Ln Clinton 131 120 30 90 0 DeWitt County Subtotal: 191 160 61 99 0 EPZ TOTAL: 191 160 61 99 0 Table E5. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Sub Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ DEWITT COUNTY 1 Clinton Power Station 8401 Power Rd Clinton 450 80.9% 364 325 DeWitt County Subtotal: 450 364 325 EPZ TOTAL: 450 364 325 Clinton Power Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E6. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles DEWITT COUNTY 1 1.2 NNW Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Northfork Boat Access Northfork Rd Clinton Marina 87 391 1 1.8 SSE Barefoot Cove Marina at Clinton Lake 6599 Sailboat Rd Weldon Marina 1,080 485 1 1.9 W Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Camp Quest IL 54 Clinton Campground 75 33 1 2.5 ESE Clinton Lake State Recreation Area (Mascoutin) 7251 Ranger Rd DeWitt Park 1,597 7162 1 2.7 WSW Clinton Lake State Recreation Area West Side Day Use 670 N Clinton Park 92 41 1 2.8 SW Clinton Lake State Recreation Area West Side Boat Access 670 N Clinton Marina 63 28 1 2.9 SSW Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Peninsula Day Use Overlook Point Rd Clinton Marina 49 22 1 3.1 S Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Lane Day Use IL 10 Clinton Park 16 7 1 3.2 SSW South Shores Campground 15531 IL 10 Lane Campground 63 283 1 3.2 SSW Green Acres Campground 15283 IL 10 Clinton Campground 150 68 1 3.6 N Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Northfork Canoe Access 16958 Swisher Hill Rd Clinton Marina 15 7 1 3.7 SW Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Spillway Access 13625 IL 10 Clinton Marina 103 46 1 4.5 E Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Weldon Boat Access 885 Rd N Weldon Marina 143 644 1 4.6 E Clinton Lake State Recreation Area Weldon Day Use 885 Rd N Weldon Marina 65 29 1 5.8 SW Black Locust Campsite Clinton Campground 150 61 3 6.2 ENE Clinton Lake Stata Recreation Area Parnell Boat Access 2225 E Clinton Marina 67 305 6 6.0 SW Weldon Springs State Park 4734 Weldon Springs Rd Clinton Park 420 1886 6 6.6 SW Arrowhead Acres 3315 Weldon Springs Rd Clinton Campground 300 135 6 8.4 SW Clinton Country Club 9530 Texas Church Rd Clinton Golf Course 90 41 Other, Not 7 6.4 WSW Clinton Community YMCA 417 South Alexander St Clinton Listed 113 51 DeWitt County Subtotal: 4,738 2,119 EPZ TOTAL: 4,738 2,119 1

Vehicle breakdown:15 passenger vehicles and 24 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 63 vehicles in the traffic simulation model.

2 Vehicle breakdown: 380 passenger vehicles, 276 RVs, 60 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 1,052 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

3 Vehicle breakdown: 28 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 56 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

4 Vehicle breakdown: 64 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 128 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

5 Vehicle breakdown: 30 vehicles with boat trailers, counted as 60 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

6 Vehicle breakdown: 140 passenger vehicles, 48 RVs, counted as 236 vehicles in traffic simulation model.

Clinton Power Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E7. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles DEWITT COUNTY 7 6.5 WSW Wye Motel 721 IL 54 Clinton 7 4 7 7.6 WSW Town & Country Motel 1151 IL 54 Clinton 31 16 7 7.9 WSW Sunset Inn & Suites 1251 Kleeman Rd Clinton 91 46 DeWitt County Subtotal: 129 66 EPZ TOTAL: 129 66 Table E8. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Sub Distance Dire Cap Current Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census DEWITT COUNTY 7 6.8 W Dewitt County Correctional Center 101 W Washington St Clinton 86 80 DeWitt County Subtotal: 86 80 EPZ TOTAL: 86 80 Clinton Power Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Preschools/Day Cares within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Day Camps within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Major Employers within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E6. Recreational Areas within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E7. Lodging Facilities within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E8. Correctional Facilities within the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station 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 for the Clinton Power Station (CLN) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data; The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area.

Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein began was performed prior to the release of the 2020 Census data had not been released, the 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 +/-4.50% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each zip code was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the evacuation time estimate (ETE) study.

A total of 88 completed samples within the EPZ were obtained, corresponding to a sampling error of approximately +/-10.41% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census. The number of samples obtained was significantly less than the sampling plan. Due to the sparse population within the EPZ, the zip codes considered was expanded into the Shadow Region, as the Clinton Power Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

demographics are similar. This increased the number of completed surveys to 105 and reduced the sampling error to +/-9.52%, which is still considerably more than the 4.5% sampling error.

To ensure an appropriate sample size for the CLN study, responses received outside of the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region) was also considered. The additional 128 survey samples were received from zip codes outside of the study area, mostly within in the cities of Normal and Bloomington. Assuming that some of these responses come from population groups entering the EPZ, like Constellation employees, the use of the responses could be considered in the analysis.

This was discussed with Constellation personnel and it was determined that using the additional survey responses from outside the study area was acceptable to reduce the sampling error. As such, as shown in Table F1, a total of 233 completed samples were obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-6.36% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census Data, which was deemed acceptable for this study.

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know or decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a dont know/decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional dont know/decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the dont know/decline to state responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region) based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses, the average household contains 3.04 people. The estimated average household size within the study area from the 2020 Census data is 2.44 people (27883/11426 = 2.44). The percent difference between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 24.6%, which exceeds the sampling error of

+/-6.36%, as discussed in Section F.2. This discrepancy was discussed with Constellation, and it was decided that the Census estimate of average household size (i.e., 2.44 people per household) should be used for this study. This results in a more conservative estimate when determining the number of households and evacuating vehicles.

Clinton Power Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the study area is 2.24. It should be noted that approximately 1% of the households within the study area does not have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Ridesharing Approximately 82% of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 1.37 commuters per household in the study area, and approximately 77% 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 majority (82.3%)

of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.12 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows an average of 1.32 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 63% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The survey result shows that approximately 5% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, about 65% require a bus, about 10% require a medical bus/van, about 15% require a wheelchair accessible vehicle, 5%

require an ambulance, and the remaining 5% indicated that they would require other type of transportation needs.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

Clinton Power Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.48 vehicles.

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

Of the survey participants who responded, about 62% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and the remaining 38% indicated they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating, as shown in Figure F11.

Emergency officials advise you to shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelterinplace. The results indicate that nearly 80% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 20% would choose to evacuate the area.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the compliance rate obtained above is consistent with the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see 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 shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. The results indicate that nearly 63% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 37% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Results show that 53.8% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 1.3% to a reception center, 12.9% to a hotel, motel or campground, 4.0% to a second or seasonal home, 0.4% of households would not evacuate, and the remaining 27.6% responded dont know or other to this question. The response is shown in Figure F12.

If you had a pet and/or animal, would you take your pet and/or animal with you if you were asked to evacuate? Based on the responses to the survey, about 80% of households have a pet and/or animal. Of the households with pets and/or animals, 29.6% of them indicated that they would take their pets/animals with them to a shelter, 68.8% indicated that they would take their pets/animals somewhere else, and 1.7% would leave their pet/animals at home, as shown in Figure F13. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets/animals, approximately 98%

indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pets/animals and remaining 2% said they did not.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, of the households with pet and/or animal, 90% have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, fish, hedgehog, guinea pig, hamster, aquatic turtles), 8% have farm animals or livestock (horse, chicken, goat, pig, rabbit, ducks, or cow), and 2% have other small pets/animals.

Clinton Power Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 50 minutes.

Approximately 91% can leave within 30 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home ? Figure F15 presents the work to home travel time for the study area. About 96% of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 60 minutes (1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />).

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F16 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

About 91% of households can be ready to leave home within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; the remaining households require up to an additional 15 minutes.

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street.

Figure F17 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

About 84% of driveways are passable within 60 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional hour. Note, that those respondents (about 13%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

Clinton Power Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. Clinton Power Station Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results1 2010 Population 2010 HH in Zip Desired Sample Location Zip Code in Zip Code Code Sample Obtained 61727 9,436 3,923 345 47 61735 420 180 16 5 61745 102 42 4 6 61750 133 56 5 0 61752 119 40 4 17 61756 137 52 5 2 61777 952 391 34 4 EPZ 61778 4 2 0 0 61830 34 12 1 0 61839 34 12 1 1 61842 571 222 20 2 61856 8 3 0 1 61882 713 277 24 3 62501 12 6 1 0 EPZ Total: 12,675 5,218 460 88 61705 36 15 9 Shadow Region (SR) 61736 112 41 2 61749 430 198 0 61854 68 30 0 NA 62554 48 19 0 61722 3 1 1 62526 2 1 2 61754 0 0 3 Shadow Region Total: 699 305 17 61701 27 61704 38 61723 2 61724 2 61726 2 61728 1 61732 5 61738 1 Outside Study Area2 61744 1 61748 2 61753 NA NA NA 1 61755 1 61761 31 61774 2 61776 2 61853 1 61873 1 61880 1 62513 2 62521 4 62535 1 Outside Study Area: 128 Study Area (SR+EPZ) Total: 13,374 5,523 460 105 Average HH Size: 2.42 1

Average HH Size is an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

2 The 2010 population was not computed for the Outside Study Area, as it was not included in the original sampling plan.

Clinton Power Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Household Size 40%

Percent of Households 20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

People Figure F1. Household Size in the Study Area Vehicle Availability 59%

60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

15% 14%

10%

6%

1% 5%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Clinton Power Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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%

1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 4 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 58 Person Households 5 People 6 People 7 People 8People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 8+ Person Households Clinton Power Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 40%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the Study Area Clinton Power Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Mode to Work 100%

82.3%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

11.7%

4.6%

1.4%

0%

Drive Alone Carpool (2+) Bus/Rail Walk/Bicycle Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the Study Area Commuters Per Household 40%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Clinton Power Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 70%

60%

Percent of Households 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 58.8%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

34.3%

20%

6.0%

0.0% 0.9%

0%

0 1 2 3+ Evacuate by Bus Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Clinton Power Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating Shelter Locations 60%

53.8%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30% 27.6%

20%

12.9%

10%

4.0%

1.3% 0.4%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Hotel, Motel, A Would Don't Home Center or Campground Second/Seasonal not evacuate know/Other Home Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Clinton Power Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

68.8%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

29.6%

20%

1.7%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work Clinton Power Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Clinton Power Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Remove Snow from Driveway Clinton Power Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Clinton Power Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Clinton Power Station 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 local emergency planners 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 gender?

Mark only one oval.

Male Female Decline to State Other:

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

3. 3A. 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

4. 3B. 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

5. 4. 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

6. 5. 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 7 COVID-19

7. 6. 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 AND MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 8 Commuters

8. 7. How many people in the household commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis?

• Mark only one oval.

ZERO Skip to question 53 ONE Skip to question 9 TWO Skip to question 10 THREE Skip to question 11 FOUR OR MORE Skip to question 12 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 53 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Skip to question 13 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Skip to question 15 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Skip to question 19 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Commuter 4 Skip to question 25 Travel Home From Work/College

13. 9-1. 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

14. 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 33 Travel Home From Work/College

15. 9-1. 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

16. 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 />.

17. 9-2. 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

18. 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 35 Travel Home From Work/College

19. 9-1. 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

20. 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 />.

21. 9-2. 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

22. 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 />.

23. 9-3. 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

24. 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 39 Travel Home From Work/College

25. 9-1. 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

26. 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 />.

27. 9-2. 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

28. 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 />.

29. 9-3. 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

30. 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 />.

31. 9-4. 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

32. 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 45 Preparation to leave Work/College

33. 10-1. 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

34. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, 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 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

35. 10-1. 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

36. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

37. 10-2. 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

38. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, 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 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

39. 10-1. 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

40. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

41. 10-2. 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

42. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

43. 10-3. 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

44. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, 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 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

45. 10-1. 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

46. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

47. 10-2. 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

48. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

49. 10-3. 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

50. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

51. 10-4. 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

52. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-4, 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 53 Additional Questions

53. 11. 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

54. If Over 6 Hours for Question 11, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11, is under 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

55. 12. If there are 6-8 inches of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 6-8 inches of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable.

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 NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT OVER 3 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

56. If Over 3 Hours for Question 12, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 12, is under 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

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

Mark only one oval per row.

0 1 2 3 4 More than 4 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Other

58. Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below

59. 14. 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

60. 15A. 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

61. 15B. 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

62. 15C. 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

63. Fill in OTHER answers for question 15C Pet Questions

64.

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE 65.

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:

66.

Mark only one oval.

DECLINE TO STATE 67.

Mark only one oval.

TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE LEAVE PET AT HOME DECLINE TO STATE 68.

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE Other:

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 Posts (TACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided in the sitespecific volume for Clinton Power Station (CLN)Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), and ClintonTraffic and Access Control Map (IPRAMap A).

These plans were reviewed and the TACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing TACPs that were provided in the approved county and state emergency plans, with no additional TACPs recommended.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a traffic control point (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. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the control type and number of nodes with each control type in the analysis network. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TACP, the control type is indicated as TACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the state emergency plan, are mapped as blue dots in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that the TACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ.

As discussed in Section 3.10, external traffic was considered on Interstate (I)74 and I72 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMPs) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMPs.

The majority of the TACPs 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 in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists Clinton Power Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 and 5Mile Region (Region R01) and the entire EPZ (Region R02) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7.

Although localized congestion worsened, as shown in Table G2, the ETE did not change at both the 90th and 100th percentile when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 77, there is no congestion (LOS B or better) within the 2 Mile Radius. The congestion (LOS D or worse) in areas between 2Mile Radius and 5Mile Region is located along Illinois State Route 10 (IL 10) eastbound and Friends Creek Rd southbound (due to transient leaving Clinton Lake State Recreation Area) which clears 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE. There is also congestion (LOS D or worse) beyond the 5Mile Region along the routes leaving Clinton. The congestion (LOS C or worse) within the EPZ and Shadow Region clears about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE. As a result, the TACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the ETE. In addition, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary, dictates the 100th percentile ETE); as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, blocking vehicles from entering the EPZ or specific SubArea, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

Clinton Power Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations TACP Location Node Previous Control Number1 (Description) Number (Prior to being a TACP)

S12/C 1200N and 2100E. 199 Stop Sign S13/D IL 54 and IL 48 197 Stop Sign S17/F IL 48 and 600N . 212 Stop Sign S18/F IL 48 and IL 10 213 Stop Sign S110/G IL 48 and 300N. 217 Stop Sign S112/H 300N and 1900E. 463 Stop Sign S114/J 300N and 1700E. 443 Stop Sign S119/L 300N and 1200E. 668 Stop Sign S123/Q 1200N and 1200E. 322 Stop Sign S27/A US 136 and 2100E. 138 Stop Sign McL212/B US 136 and 2700E. 41 Stop Sign S36/D DeWitt Co. Hwy. 4 and 1235N. 354 Stop Sign S43/F IL 10 and Piatt Co. Hwy. 5. 360 Stop Sign Macon Co. Hwy 38 at Stop Sign MC53/H 660 Friends Creek Park Rd.

Macon Co. Hwy 25 (Argenta Rd.) Stop Sign S55/J 447 and Macon Co. Hwy. 38.

S61/L US 51 and 000N. 306 Stop Sign S71/N IL 54 and 1150E. 247 Stop Sign 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 and 5Mile) 2:05 2:05 0:00 3:45 3:45 0:00 R02 (Full EPZ) 2:20 2:20 0:00 3:55 3:55 0:00 1

Source: Site-specific volume for CLN-IPRA, and Clinton -Traffic & Access Control Map (IPRA-Map A).

Clinton Power Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Posts for the CLN EPZ Clinton Power Station 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 H16). 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.

Section 1.4.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev 1, recommends the consideration of a staged keyhole evacuation - see Section 5.4.2 of this report for additional information on staged evacuation.

The entire 2mile radius and 5mile radius for CLN is comprised of a single SubArea - SubArea

1. In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, SubArea 1 was divided into two pieces - the 2Mile Radius and the remainder of the SubArea excluding the 2Mile Radius - as shown in Figure H16. This postulated division of Sub Area 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETE impact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Constellation or the offsite agencies to divide the SubArea in the public information or in their emergency plans.

Clinton Power Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of SubArea Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Degrees SubArea Region Description From North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region 0º359º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A 5Mile Region 0º359º Refer To Region R01 R02 Full EPZ 0º359º 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Degrees SubArea Region From From North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A All Directions 0º359º Refer To Region R01 Evacuate 2Mile Region/5Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Degrees SubArea Region From From North 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R03 N 350º11º 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R04 NNE 12º34º 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R05 NE 35º56º 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R06 ENE 57º79º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20%

R07 E 80º101º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

R08 ESE 102º124º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R09 SE 125º146º 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R10 SSE 147º169º 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R11 S 170º191º 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R12 SSW, SW 192º237º 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R13 WSW, W 238º281º 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R14 WNW 282º304º 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R15 NW,NNW 305º349º 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Radius Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Degrees 2Mile Radius Remainder of SubArea 1 Region From From North 2Mile Region/5 R16 N/A 100% 100%

Mile Region Remainder of SubArea 1 ShelterinPlace SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for 2mile radius, then Evacuate Clinton Power Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Clinton Power Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Clinton Power Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Clinton Power Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Clinton Power Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Clinton Power Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Clinton Power Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Clinton Power Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Clinton Power Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Clinton Power Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Clinton Power Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Clinton Power Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Clinton Power Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Clinton Power Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Clinton Power Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Clinton Power Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Clinton Power Station H18 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 252 source links (origins) in the model.

The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straight line distance of 6.52 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)

(Region R02) for each scenario. Heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 8 and 11), exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays, and longer average travel times when compared to good weather and rain/light snow scenarios. The special event scenario (Scenario 13) exhibit the lowest average speed compared to the remaining scenarios since the number of transient vehicles significantly increased due to the Apple and Pork Festival, increasing the congestion within the City of Clinton.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Interstate (I)-72, I74, US Highway (US) 51 North, US 51 South, Illinois State Route 54 (IL 54), IL 10, IL 48, and County Route 8 (CR 8) - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under Scenario 1 conditions. The study area has ample roadway capacity to service all evacuating vehicles within the EPZ and Shadow Region. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 77, there is minimal to no congestion (LOS B or better) on the major evacuation routes, except for IL 54 Westbound and US 51 South. Congestion (LOS C or worse) on these routes clear at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes following the ATE. Therefore, the speeds are relatively close to the free flow speed on the aforementioned evacuation routes for the entirety of the evacuation.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time.

Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are mostly close together as a result of the limited traffic congestion in the EPZ, as discussed in Section 7.3, for all scenarios except for the heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 8 and 11) and the special event scenario (Scenario 13). For heavy snow cases, the curves are spatially apart by 20 to 35 minutes; this is due to the reduction in roadway capacity and vehicle speed for heavy snow cases (see Figure J9 and Figure J12). For the special event scenario, the curves are farther apart by about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes, as the 1

Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Clinton Power Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

congestion exists within the City of Clinton (SubArea 7) due to the large number of additional transient vehicles within the city during the Apple and Pork Festival, as seen in Figure J14.

Clinton Power Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network on Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8497 1,700 820 672 491 59 W 8301 1,700 8640 1,700 8490 1,700 548 423 424 157 S 8314 2,850 8028 4,500 258 201 202 19 NE 8522 1,700 8523 1,700 615 476 477 104 W 8314 2,850 635 492 493 19 W 8497 1,700 648 506 676 41 NW 8705 3,800 8518 1,700 160 111 110 27 N 8511 1,700 8512 1,700 8518 1,700 240 186 36 18 N 8511 1,700 8512 1,700 465 365 366 15 E 8394 4,500 667 530 531 8 SE 8688 1,700 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 60.0 57.2 60.0 54.3 59.5 60.0 58.3 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 20,185 20,308 20,966 21,089 13,683 19,025 19,136 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.0 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 52.3 60.0 57.2 51.8 59.7 27.5 60.0 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 19,295 18,822 18,933 19,085 13,080 47,588 20,183 Exiting Network Clinton Power Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R02, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 Travel Travel Travel Travel Major Evacuation Length Speed Time Time Time Time Route Name (miles) (mph) (min) Speed (min) Speed (min) Speed (min)

US 51 North 17.5 68.5 15.3 68.1 15.4 68.5 15.3 69.2 15.1 US 51 South 15.5 61.0 15.3 61.3 15.2 64.0 14.5 67.6 13.8 IL 48 South 18.5 55.8 19.9 56.5 19.6 57.0 19.5 57.9 19.2 IL 10 East 15.6 56.7 16.5 59.1 15.8 59.1 15.8 59.7 15.6 IL 10 West 16.1 52.8 18.3 53.6 18.0 54.0 17.9 56.9 17.0 IL 54 East 18.4 55.2 20.0 55.7 19.9 56.2 19.7 58.4 18.9 IL 54 West 16.1 46.4 20.9 44.5 21.7 49.9 19.4 50.5 19.1 I74 East 23.1 75.0 18.5 75.0 18.5 75.0 18.5 75.0 18.5 I74 West 23.1 74.9 18.5 75.0 18.5 75.0 18.5 75.0 18.5 I72 East 18.6 74.5 14.9 74.6 14.9 74.6 14.9 74.6 14.9 I72 West 18.6 74.7 14.9 74.8 14.9 74.8 14.9 74.8 14.9 CR 8 North 6.0 59.5 6.1 59.0 6.1 59.2 6.1 60.0 6.0 Clinton Power Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours)

Up Down Road 1 2 3 4 Stream Stream Name Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 1,202 2,493 2,951 2,978 I74 4 3 20.0% 16.3% 15.1% 14.8%

1,211 2,476 2,918 2,945 I74 27 28 20.2% 16.1% 15.0% 14.6%

75 256 334 351 US 150 54 55 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7%

97 322 432 456 CR 40 83 518 1.6% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3%

2 45 77 85 CR 36 90 511 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

5 53 87 97 CR 21 90 512 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%

40 134 186 198 US 150 105 516 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0%

2 19 29 30 CR 29 163 519 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

37 79 100 105 IL 48 236 237 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

287 1,100 1,801 1,931 IL 54 299 300 4.8% 7.2% 9.2% 9.6%

380 1,609 1,994 2,074 US 51 313 314 6.3% 10.5% 10.2% 10.3%

149 873 1,243 1,321 IL 10 496 497 2.5% 5.7% 6.4% 6.5%

5 110 187 211 US 136 502 503 0.1% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0%

2 14 18 19 US 136 521 522 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

33 66 72 72 IL 54 521 523 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

126 419 674 741 CR 21 525 526 2.1% 2.7% 3.5% 3.7%

71 257 421 481 CR 18 525 640 1.2% 1.7% 2.2% 2.4%

39 352 546 594 US 51 621 705 0.6% 2.3% 2.8% 2.9%

14 69 102 107 IL 32 687 688 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

300 435 460 462 IL 10 747 413 5.0% 2.8% 2.4% 2.3%

Clinton Power Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Elapsed Time (hours)

Up Down Road 1 2 3 4 Stream Stream Name Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 54 105 127 135 CR 25 750 460 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

36 243 363 386 CR 6 760 703 0.6% 1.6% 1.9% 1.9%

930 1,976 2,300 2,327 I72 762 394 15.5% 12.9% 11.8% 11.5%

912 1,835 2,066 2,081 I72 763 677 15.2% 12.0% 10.6% 10.3%

Clinton Power Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Clinton Power Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Clinton Power Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Clinton Power Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Clinton Power Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Clinton Power Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Clinton Power Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Clinton Power Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

80%

Percent of Total Vehicles 60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:25 0:50 1:15 1:40 2:05 2:30 2:55 3:20 3:45 4:10 4:35 5:00 5:25 5:50 6:15 6:40 7:05 7:30 7:55 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Clinton Power Station J14 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 46 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K47) 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 October 2020.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic and access control post [TACP], or uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 620 Pretimed 0 Actuated 7 Stop 112 TACP 58 Yield 5 Total: 802 Clinton Power Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. CLN LinkNode Analysis Network Clinton Power Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Clinton Power Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Clinton Power Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Clinton Power Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Clinton Power Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Clinton Power Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Clinton Power Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Clinton Power Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Clinton Power Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Clinton Power Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Clinton Power Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Clinton Power Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Clinton Power Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Clinton Power Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Clinton Power Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Clinton Power Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Clinton Power Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Clinton Power Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Clinton Power Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Clinton Power Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Clinton Power Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Clinton Power Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Clinton Power Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Clinton Power Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Clinton Power Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Clinton Power Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Clinton Power Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Clinton Power Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Clinton Power Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Clinton Power Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Clinton Power Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Clinton Power Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Clinton Power Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Clinton Power Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Clinton Power Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Clinton Power Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Clinton Power Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Clinton Power Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Clinton Power Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Clinton Power Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Clinton Power Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Clinton Power Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Clinton Power Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 Clinton Power Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 Clinton Power Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 Clinton Power Station K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 Clinton Power Station K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L SubArea Boundaries

L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES SubArea 1 County: DeWitt Defined as the area within the following boundary:

Harp Township; Creek Township North of County Highway 15 (State Aid Road); DeWitt Township West of Illinois State Route 48 (IL 48) (DeWitt);

Nixon Township West of IL 48 and North of County Highway 15 (State Aid Road) (Weldon); Rutledge Township South of 1400N (Solomon Road/Old Depot Road) and West of County Highway 8 (LeRoy Blacktop); Wilson Township South of 1400N (Solomon Road/Old Depot Road)

SubArea 2 Counties: DeWitt and McLean Defined as the area within the following boundary:

In DeWitt County: Wilson Township North of 1400N (Solomon Road/Old Depot Road); Rutledge Township North of 1400N (Solomon Road/Old Depot Road) and West of County Highway 8 (LeRoy Blacktop)

In McLean County: Downs Township South of US 136; Empire Township South of US 136 and West of County Highway 21 (LeRoy Blacktop)

SubArea 3 Counties: DeWitt, Piatt, and McLean Defined as the area within the following boundary:

In DeWitt County: Rutledge Township East of County Highway 8 (LeRoy Blacktop), DeWitt Township East of IL 48 and North of 900N; Santa Anna Township West of County Highway 4 (Farmer City/DeLand Blacktops) and South of the Salt Creek, and West of 2500E, North of the Salt Creek and South of Interstate 74 In Piatt County: Blue Ridge Township West of County Highway 5.

In McLean County: Empire Township South of US 136 and Interstate 74 (I74) and East of County Highway 21 (LeRoy Blacktop)

SubArea 4 Counties: DeWitt and Piatt Defined as the area within the following boundary:

In DeWitt County: Nixon Township East of IL 48; DeWitt Township East of IL 48 and South of 900N In Piatt County: Goose Creek Township North of IL 10 and West of County Highway 5 (Farmer City/DeLand Blacktop) and South of IL 10 and West of 400E and 425E Clinton Power Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

SubArea 5 Counties: DeWitt and Macon Defined as the area within the following boundary:

In DeWitt County: Nixon Township South of County Highway 15 (State Aid Road); Creek Township South of County Highway 15 (State Aid Road)

In Macon County: Friends Creek Township North of County Highway 38 (Washington Street Road)

SubArea 6 County: DeWitt Defined as the area within the following boundary:

Texas Township North of County Highway 11 and East of US 51 except the corporate areas of the City of Clinton SubArea 7 County: DeWitt Defined as the area within the following boundary:

Clintonia Township including the entire corporate areas of the City of Clinton SubArea 8 County: DeWitt Defined as the area within the following boundary:

Wapella Township (Wapella)

Clinton Power Station 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 1, Region 2; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 20 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE are reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (a significant change), respectively. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 30 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <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 (LOS C or worse) persists within the EPZ for about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and minutes 30 minutes after the ATE, before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 90th and 100th percentile ETE until about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 5minute travel time to the EPZ boundary),

dictates the 100th percentile ETE. See Table M1.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region R02; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%)

or doubling (40%) or tripling (60%) the shadow evacuation does not impact the 90th or 100th percentile ETEs. A full shadow evacuation (100%) increases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes -

not a significant change - and does not impact the 100th percentile ETE since it is dictated by the trip generation.

Clinton Power Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 20% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which is consistent with the base assumption of 20%

noncompliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

The Shadow Region for CLN is sparsely populated. As shown in Figures 73 through 77, congestion (LOS C or worse) or traffic volume in the Shadow Region does not propagate into the EPZ after about two (2) hours and 30 minutes following the ATE, such that EPZ evacuees would be delayed.

Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate are easily accommodated by the excess capacity available in the study area such that ETE are not impacted.

M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013 001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25%

or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

The sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 100%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents 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 and 5Mile Region (R01) and the entire EPZ (R02).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday with Heavy Snow).

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 and 5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. All base ETE values for the 2Mile and 5Mile Region (R01), and for the entire EPZ (R02) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25% of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.

Clinton Power Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 100% or greater increase in the full EPZ permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). Constellation will have to estimate the full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 100% 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 20 to 30 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 55 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 the shadow evacuation percent has minimal to no material impact on 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 in more evacuating vehicles, which could increase ETE (Section M.3). 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.

Clinton Power Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 2 Hours 45 Minutes 2:00 2:50 3 Hours 45 Minutes (Base) 2:20 3:50 4 Hours 45 Minutes 2:50 4:50 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:20 3:50 20 (Base and/or Survey) 2,021 2:20 3:50 40 4,042 2:20 3:50 60 6,063 2:20 3:50 80 8,084 2:25 3:50 100 10,105 2:25 3:50 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Population Change Base Shadow Permanent 98% 99% 100%

Resident Population 15,121 29,940 30,091 30,242 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 98% 99% 100%

2MILE/5MILE (R01) 3:05 3:15 3:15 3:15 FULL EPZ 3:05 3:30 3:30 3:35 th ETE for the 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 98% 99% 100%

2MILE/5MILE (R01) 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 FULL EPZ 5:05 5:10 5:10 5:10 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

Clinton Power Station 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.

Clinton Power Station 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).

Clinton Power Station 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 N/A 2020 Census used as the base year of to reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. the 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 E6, Table E7 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 E5 Clinton Power Station 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 itemized and totaled for each scenario. the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employee 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 3.7 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.

Clinton Power Station 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 3.8 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 3.7, Table 38Table 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 E4 lists all medical facilities by facility and average population, are listed. Special facility staff is name, location, and average population. Staff included in the total special facility population. estimates were not provided.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Table 36 assumed available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

Clinton Power Station 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. Section 8.3 Inmates at DeWitt County Correctional Center will shelter in place.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 37, Table E1, Table E2, Table E3, population, and transportation resources required to Section 3.6 support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Section 3.6 schools are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use Yes Section 3.6 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 no return trips are needed.

2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

Clinton Power Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the Yes Section 3.9 event is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and Figure 7 with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow 1, 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 59 (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 and 11 traffic is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote Clinton Power Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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.

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.

Clinton Power Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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.

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 Clinton Power Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is Yes Item 6 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.

Clinton Power Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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.

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 developing trip generation times are discussed, if trip 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 Clinton Power Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are There are shuttle buses which transport expected is considered. attendees to parking lots in the area; however, these buses would not be used to evacuate any of the attendees.

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.

Bus routes originate from the given staging locations.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (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 People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

Clinton Power Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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 People (Residents without access the expected means of travel to the pickup point, is to a vehicle) described.

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 return trips are needed trips, if necessary. for wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs population.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through times is provided. Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810 residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

Clinton Power Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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.

4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through times is provided. Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A 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 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

Clinton Power Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation averages average results is discussed. or 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 random seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under flow distribution. This is different from Summer, Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo conditions. random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

Clinton Power Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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 J15 (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.

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.

Clinton Power Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or 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.

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.

Clinton Power Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

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. Comments on the draft report were provided and were addressed in the final report. 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.

Clinton Power Station N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0