ML22269A409

Attachment 9 - Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station-Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

ML22269A409
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	09/07/2022
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: ML22269A409 (418)

Text

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC 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 September 7, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1277

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.................................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Location ................................................................... 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Previous ETE Study ........................................................................................ 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 23 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 25 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 25 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.1.1 Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) Population ............................................................................ 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 34 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 35 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.7 School, PreSchool, Day Care and Day Camp Population Demand ............................................ 37 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 38 3.9 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 39 3.10 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.12 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 310 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the PBAPS 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 6 EVACUATION CASES ........................................................................................................................... 61 7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 ETE Results ................................................................................................................................. 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, PreSchools, Daycares, Day Camps, TransitDependent People, and Medical Facilities ................................................................................ 82 8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................... 810 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .................................................................................................. 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS/Host Schools ................................................. 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers, Host Schools and Host Facilities ............................................................... 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 .............................................................. B2 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ...................................................................................................................... E1 F. Demographic SURVEY ........................................................................................................................ F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 F.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ F5 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Manual Traffic Control .............................................................................................................. G1 G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP Locations ........................................................................................... G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. ZONE BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................ L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in the Permanent Resident Population ....................................................... M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. PBAPS Location ..................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 12. PBAPS LinkNode Analysis Network....................................................................................... 114 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Zones Comprising the PBAPS EPZ .......................................................................................... 323 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 324 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 325 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 326 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 327 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 328 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 329 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 330 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 331 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 517 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 518 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution....................................................... 519 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 520 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................................................... 521 Figure 61. Zones Comprising the PBAPS EPZ .......................................................................................... 610 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 718 Figure 72. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Shadow Region .......................................................... 719 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the ATE ........................................................................ 720 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the ATE ....................................................................... 721 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 55 Minutes after the ATE............................................. 722 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the ATE ....................................................................... 723 Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 1 for Region R03....................................................... 724 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03....................................................... 724 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 3 for Region R03....................................................... 725 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03..................................................... 725 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03..................................................... 726 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03..................................................... 726 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03..................................................... 727 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03..................................................... 727 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03..................................................... 728 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03................................................... 728 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03................................................... 729 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03................................................... 729 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03................................................... 730 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03................................................... 730 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 826 Figure 101. Evacuation Routes ............................................................................................................... 109 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes within Pennsylvania ......................................................... 1010 Figure 103. TransitDependent Bus Routes within Maryland .............................................................. 1011 Figure 104. General Population Reception Centers/Host Schools/Host Facilities ............................... 1012 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 PBAPS Study Area ...................................................................................... E9 Figure E2. Preschools/Daycares within the PBAPS EPZ .......................................................................... E10 Figure E3. Day Camps within the PBAPS EPZ .......................................................................................... E11 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the PBAPS EPZ ................................................................................ E12 Figure E5. Major Employers within the PBAPS EPZ ................................................................................ E13 Figure E6. Boat Ramps/Marinas, Farms, Golf Courses and Hunting Areas within the PBAPS EPZ ......... E14 Figure E7. Campgrounds and Parks within the PBAPS EPZ ..................................................................... E15 Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the PBAPS EPZ ................................................................................ E16 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F8 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F8 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 3 Person Households ..................................................................... F9 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability - 4 to 6+ Person Households ................................................................... F9 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference....................................................................................... F10 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ................................................................................... F10 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ................................................................................................... F11 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ........................................................ F11 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transpiration Needs............................................................ F12 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ........................................................................... F12 Figure F11. Households evacuating with Pets/Animals to Shelters ...................................................... F13 Figure F12. Types of Pets/Animals ......................................................................................................... F13 Figure F13. Shelter Locations ................................................................................................................. F14 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F14 Figure F15. Work/College to Home Travel Time.................................................................................... F15 Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation................................................................................ F15 Figure F17. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow ........................................................................... F16 Figure G1. Traffic Control Points and Access Control Points for the PBAPS EPZ ..................................... G4 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H6. Region R06 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H15. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H19 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H28. Region R28 ......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H29. Region R29 ......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H30. Region R30 ......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure H31. Region R31 ......................................................................................................................... H35 Figure H32. Region R32 ......................................................................................................................... H36 Figure H33. Region R33 ......................................................................................................................... H37 Figure H34. Region R34 ......................................................................................................................... H38 Figure H35. Region R35 ......................................................................................................................... H39 Figure H36. Region R36 ......................................................................................................................... H40 Figure H37. Region R37 ......................................................................................................................... H41 Figure H38. Region R38 ......................................................................................................................... H42 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, 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. PBAPS 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 ................................................................................ K49 Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 ................................................................................ K50 Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 ................................................................................ K51 Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 ................................................................................ K52 Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 ................................................................................ K53 Peach Bottom Atomic 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............................................................................................... 27 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone .......................................................... 312 Table 33. Total Amish Population within the Study Area by Zone ......................................................... 313 Table 34 Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 314 Table 35. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 315 Table 36. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 316 Table 37. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 317 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 317 Table 39. School, PreSchool/Daycare, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates .......................... 318 Table 310. Access and/or Functional Needs Estimates .......................................................................... 320 Table 311. External Traffic Traveling through the Study Area................................................................ 320 Table 312. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 321 Table 313. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 322 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/School ..................................... 512 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home ................................................ 513 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 513 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 514 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 514 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation.................... 515 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 516 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 67 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 68 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 69 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ............................ 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................ 711 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region.......................... 713 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ....................... 714 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R01R12) ........................................................... 715 Table 76. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13R28) ........................................................... 716 Table 77. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R29R38) ........................................................... 717 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 812 Table 82. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................................. 813 Table 83. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow........................................................... 815 Table 84. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................................. 817 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ......................................... 819 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 820 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 821 Table 88. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................ 822 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ............................................ 823 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................. 824 Table 811. Homebound Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ....... 825 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 104 Table 103. School, PreSchool, Daycare and Day Camp Host Schools/Reception Centers .................... 107 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the Study Area .................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ ......................................................................................... E3 Table E3. Day Camps within the EPZ ........................................................................................................ E4 Table E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E5 Table E5. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table E6. Boat Ramps/Marinas, Farms, Golf Courses and Hunting Areas within the EPZ ....................... E6 Table E7. Campgrounds and Parks within the EPZ ................................................................................... E7 Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E8 Table F1. Peach Bottom Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ................................................................. F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R01R12) .......................... H2 Table H2. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R13R28) ......................... H3 Table H3. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R29R38) ......................... H4 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1) ............................................................................................................................ J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control .............................................................................. K1 Table M1. ETE for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ............................................................................. M4 Table M2. ETE for Shadow Sensitivity Study.......................................................................................... M4 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 ACP Access Control Post ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed 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 DOT Department of Transportation DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EOC Emergency Operations Center EPZ Emergency Planning Zone 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 HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MEMA Maryland Emergency Management Agency MD Maryland MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

OD OriginDestination OEM Office of Emergency Management ORO Offsite Response Organization PA Pennsylvania PAR Protective Action Recommendation PBAPS Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station pce Passenger Car Equivalent pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PEMA Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency PSL PathSizeLogit PUP Transportation Pickup Point QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center SR State Route SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TCP Traffic Control Post TD Trip Distribution UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS) located in Delta, York County, Pennsylvania. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Constellation and state and county 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.

Overview of Project Activities This project began in October 2020 and extended over a period of nearly 2 years. The major activities performed are briefly described below in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with Constellation emergency planning personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments -

collectively the Offsite Response Organizations (OROs).

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

Studied Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the PBAPS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network in the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the Shadow Region (covering the regions between the EPZ boundary and 15 miles radially from the plant) - collectively the study area.

Updated the analysis network representing the highway system topology and capacities within the study area.

Conducted a randomsample, online demographic survey of residents within the study area 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 ORO personnel prior to conducting the survey.

Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in each county were provided by Constellation and by the OROs, supplemented with internet searches and data from the previous study where data was missing.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The EPZ is subdivided into 24 Zones. Following federal guidelines, these existing Zones are grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 38 Evacuation Regions.

The timevarying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, each described in terms of the following factors: (1) Season (Summer, Winter); (2) Day of Week (Midweek, Weekend); (3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening); and (4) Weather (Good, Rain/Light Snow, Heavy Snow). One special event scenario - Fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair - was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on US1 northbound from the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line to the interchange with Pennsylvania State Route 10 for the duration of the evacuation.

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

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

A rapidly escalating accident at PBAPS 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 alert.

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, preschools/daycares, and day camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers/host schools located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at schools, preschools/daycares, or day camps prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle (including Amish women and children) will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided by the OROs. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit as needed: bus, wheelchair van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

A final meeting with Constellation emergency management personnel and the OROs will be scheduled to present final results of the study.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Computation of ETE A total of 532 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 38 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (38 x 14 = 532). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including children at schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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 simulates the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation process estimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90% and 100%, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE have been identified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longer to mobilize. This is referred to as the evacuation tail in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by the OROs within the EPZ.

No additional Traffic Control Points and/or Access Control Points (TCPs/ACPs) were recommended for 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 Zone based on 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 38 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Zones.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 71 and 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.

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

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

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the PBAPS EPZ showing the layout of the 24 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

Figure H8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 61. See Appendix H for maps of all Regions.

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 532 unique cases. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:25 (hr:min) to 4:40 at the 90th percentile for all unstaged, nonspecial scenarios. The 100th percentile ETE range from 5:45 to 5:55 for good weather and rain cases, and from 7:15 to 7:25 for heavy snow cases.

Comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the ETE for the 100th percentile are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. The 100th percentile ETE parallel Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the mobilization times (5:45 for residents with returning commuters plus 5 to 10 minutes travel time to exit the EPZ for good weather and rain/light snow and 7:15 in heavy snow). The ETE parallel the mobilization time because the traffic congestion within the EPZ dissipates at 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, well before the completion of mobilization.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond 2 miles (compare Regions R02 and R04 through R12 with Regions R29 through R38, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion. Staged evacuation is not recommended for the PBAPS EPZ.

The comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 71 and in Table 72 indicates that the Special Event - Fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair - reduces the 90th percentile ETE by at most 35 minutes due to the increase in fast mobilizing transient population and has no impact on 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the roadway closure - a single lane closure on US1 northbound from the Pennsylvania/Maryland State line to the interchange with PA10 - has a significant impact on the 90th percentile (at most 45 minutes) for Regions wherein the wind is blowing over the eastern and southeastern portion of the EPZ (Regions R24 through R27) and for the full EPZ (Region R03) as the evacuees in this portion of the EPZ rely heavily upon US1 northbound as their evacuation route. The roadway closure has no impact on 100th percentile ETE. See Section 7.5 for additional information.

The last location in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion is US1 southbound. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 7 3 through 76.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps, transit dependent persons, medical facilities and access and/or functional needs persons. The average singlewave ETE for these facilities and the access and/or functional needs persons are less than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. The singlewave ETE for transitdependent persons exceeds the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient bus resources available to evacuate the transit dependent population in a single wave (see Section 8.1).

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the ETE is reduced by 25 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, respectively. If evacuees take an additional hour to mobilize, both the 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETE increase 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). As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the 100th percentile ETE. See Table M1 in Appendix M.

The general population ETE is significantly affected by the increase in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. Full (100%) shadow evacuation increases the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 20 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes, respectively. See Table M2.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A permanent resident population increase of 41% or more results in ETE changes which meet the NRC criteria for updating ETE between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population Delta 728 707 Drumore North 984 976 Drumore South 1,576 1,585 East Drumore 3,791 3,936 Fawn 3,099 3,012 Fawn Grove 452 476 Fulton East 1,408 1,489 Fulton West 1,666 1,725 Little Britain 4,106 4,118 Lower Chanceford North 1,885 1,992 Lower Chanceford South 1,143 1,039 Martic 4,465 4,458 Peach Bottom Central 1,462 1,628 Peach Bottom East 724 754 Peach Bottom West 2,627 2,584 Providence 3,996 4,101 Quarryville 2,576 2,843 West Nottingham 2,722 2,756 Zone 1 3,718 3,741 Zone 2 3,848 3,884 Zone 3 3,467 3,319 Zone 4 907 984 Zone 5 1,208 1,166 Zone 6 7,037 6,987 EPZ TOTAL 59,595 60,260 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 1.12%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Region

Description:

2Mile Region 5Mile Region Full EPZ Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 N, NE, SSW, SW, WNW, Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N/A E ESE SE SSE, S NNW NNE ENE WSW, W NW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X Drumore South X X X X X East Drumore X Fawn X Fawn Grove X Fulton East X Fulton West X X X X X Little Britain X Lower Chanceford North X Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X X Martic X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X Providence X Quarryville X West Nottingham X Zone 1 X Zone 2 X Zone 3 X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X Zone 6 X Zone not within plume, but evacuates because it is surrounded by other Zone(s) Evacuate Zones which are Evacuating Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 Wind Direction From: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X X X X X X Drumore South X X X X X X X East Drumore X X X X X X Fawn X X X X X X X Fawn Grove X X X X X X X Fulton East X X X X X X Fulton West X X X X X X X Little Britain X X X X X X Lower Chanceford X X X X X X Lower Chanceford X X X X X X X Martic X X X X X X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X X X X X X Providence X X X X X X Quarryville X X X X X West Nottingham X X X X X Zone 1 X X X X X X X Zone 2 X X X X X X X Zone 3 X X X X X X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X X Zone 6 X X X X X X Zone not within plume, but Evacuates because it is Zone(s) Evacuate surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 5Mile SSW, SW, Wind Direction From: N, NNE NE, ENE E ESE SE SSE, S WNW, NW NNW Region WSW, W Zone Delta X X X X X X Drumore North Drumore South X X X X East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West X X X X Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X Martic Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X Zone 6 Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Zone(s) Evacuate Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES10 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 Midweek, Fireworks at the Mason 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Dixon Fair Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US1 Northbound 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).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES11 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 Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R02 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:25 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:50 3:25 R03 3:25 3:25 3:05 3:10 3:05 3:25 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:45 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R05 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:25 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R06 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:00 3:00 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R07 3:15 3:15 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 3:00 3:00 4:15 3:00 2:25 3:15 R08 3:20 3:20 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:15 3:05 2:35 3:20 R09 3:10 3:10 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 3:00 3:00 4:15 3:05 3:00 3:10 R10 3:15 3:15 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:25 3:05 3:05 4:15 3:05 3:05 3:15 R11 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 3:05 3:15 R12 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:55 3:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R13 3:15 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:30 2:55 3:00 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R14 3:15 3:20 2:55 3:15 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R15 3:15 3:20 2:55 3:15 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:05 3:05 3:15 R16 3:15 3:20 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:50 2:55 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R17 3:10 3:20 2:50 2:55 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:30 2:50 2:55 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:10 R18 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:55 3:25 R19 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:05 3:10 4:20 3:10 2:55 3:25 R20 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:25 R21 3:25 3:25 2:55 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:25 R22 3:30 3:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:30 3:30 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:10 3:30 R23 3:30 3:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:10 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:10 3:30 R24 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:15 3:05 3:05 3:50 R25 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:25 4:25 3:00 3:10 4:10 3:05 3:05 3:55 R26 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:10 3:05 3:00 4:00 R27 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:15 3:05 3:00 3:55 R28 3:15 3:15 3:00 3:10 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 3:35 3:35 3:25 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:35 4:55 3:30 3:30 4:55 3:30 3:20 3:35 R30 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:25 3:35 R31 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:30 5:00 3:30 3:25 3:35 R32 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:50 3:30 3:20 3:30 R33 3:15 3:15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:15 3:15 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:30 3:10 3:05 3:15 R34 3:20 3:20 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:30 3:10 3:05 3:20 R35 3:10 3:10 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:15 4:35 3:05 3:10 4:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 R36 3:15 3:15 3:05 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:15 R37 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:20 R38 3:20 3:20 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:25 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:20 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES13 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 Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R02 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R03 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R05 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R06 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R07 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R08 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R09 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R10 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R11 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R12 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R13 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R14 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R15 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R16 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R17 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R18 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R19 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R20 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R21 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R22 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R23 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R24 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R25 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R26 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R27 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R28 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R30 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R31 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R32 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R33 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R34 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R35 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R36 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R37 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R38 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R02 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R05 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R06 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R07 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R08 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R09 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R12 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R30 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R31 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R32 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R33 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R34 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R36 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R37 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R38 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Region and 5Mile Region R01 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R02 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R05 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R06 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R07 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R08 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R09 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R10 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R11 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R12 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R30 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R31 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R32 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R33 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R34 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R35 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R36 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R37 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R38 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School, PreSchool/Daycare, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Travel Time Dist. Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading To EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S/R.C. H.S./R.C H.S./R.C.

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS Conowingo Elementary School 90 15 4.8 19.7 15 2:00 5.7 9 2:10 HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS North Harford High School 90 15 4.0 18.2 13 2:00 7.9 12 2:15 North Harford Elementary School 90 15 2.8 16.4 10 1:55 3.9 6 2:05 North Harford Middle School 90 15 3.7 29.8 7 1:55 6.0 9 2:05 Harford Christian School 90 15 5.0 40.0 8 1:55 15.9 24 2:20 Dublin Elementary School 90 15 3.5 40.0 5 1:50 3.4 5 1:55 Darlington Elementary School 90 15 1.8 40.0 3 1:50 7.9 12 2:05 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Solanco High School 90 15 2.9 37.0 5 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Clermont Elementary School 90 15 7.2 40.0 11 2:00 9.4 14 2:15 Swift Middle School 90 15 7.2 40.0 11 2:00 9.4 14 2:15 Martic Elementary School 90 15 2.7 24.7 7 1:55 1.6 2 2:00 Quarryville Elementary School 90 15 1.4 34.3 2 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Smith Middle School 90 15 Located Outside the EPZ* 1:45 9.4 14 2:00 YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS South Eastern Middle School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 South Eastern Intermediate School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Fawn Area Elementary School 90 15 3.3 7.5 26 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 KennardDale High School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Cherry Ridge Amish School 90 15 15.3 35.0 26 2:15 13.9 21 2:40 DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 90 15 12.7 19.1 40 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 Cypress School 90 15 10.7 17.5 37 2:25 13.9 21 2:50 Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 90 15 10.7 17.5 37 2:25 13.9 21 2:50 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 School Maximum: 2:50 School Average for EPZ: 2:05 School Average: 2:25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS Christian Childcare Center 90 15 7.1 26.1 16 2:05 12.4 19 2:25 Childrens Center of North Harford 90 15 4.9 39.8 7 1:55 7.9 12 2:10 Wilson Ministry Center 90 15 1.5 40.0 2 1:50 9.2 14 2:05 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Mechanic Grove CLASP 90 15 4.9 40.0 7 1:55 8.3 12 2:10 Barnsley Academy 90 15 2.9 37.0 5 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Busy Hands Daycare 90 15 0.9 40.0 1 1:50 5.6 8 2:00 Shining Stars Daycare 90 15 1.2 34.3 2 1:50 8.3 12 2:05 YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Kidsville Junction Childcare 90 15 3.4 7.5 27 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Delta Christian Academy 90 15 11.5 18.6 37 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 PreSchool Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 PreSchool Maximum: 2:50 PreSchool Average for EPZ: 2:00 PreSchool Average: 2:20 CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Camp Conowingo GSA 90 15 7.8 21.5 22 2:10 6.7 10 2:20 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout 90 15 4.1 29.6 8 1:55 6.7 10 2:05 Reservation HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 90 15 2.2 26.9 5 1:50 12.4 19 2:10 Indian Lake Christian Camp 90 15 8.5 40.0 13 2:00 5.2 8 2:10 Camp Ramblewood 90 15 3.5 40.0 5 1:50 9.2 14 2:05 Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 90 15 8.1 40.0 12 2:00 5.2 8 2:10 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Camp Andrews 90 15 7.4 40.0 11 2:00 4.8 7 2:10 Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 90 15 10.6 27.5 23 2:10 3.9 6 2:20 YORK COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Guppy Gulch Park 90 15 12.7 19.1 40 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 Day Camp Maximum: 2:50 Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:05 Day Camp Average: 2:15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. Time to Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Name Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) R.C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

Delta/Peach Bottom 1 180 13.0 37.5 21 30 3:55 14.1 21 5 10 60 30 6:05 Municipal Bldg.

15 180 10.6 40.0 16 30 3:50 4.8 7 5 10 39 30 5:25 Drumore Municipal Bldg.

69 210 10.6 40.0 16 30 4:20 4.8 7 5 10 39 30 5:55 14 180 4.2 40.0 6 30 3:40 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 5:05 East Drumore Municipal 58 210 4.2 40.0 6 30 4:10 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 5:35 Bldg.

9 12 240 4.2 40.0 6 30 4:40 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 6:05 Fawn Grove/Fawn Municipal 1 180 4.0 29.6 8 30 3:40 14.1 21 5 10 33 30 5:20 Bldg.

Fulton Municipal Bldg. 16 180 11.7 40.0 18 30 3:50 4.8 7 5 10 42 30 5:25 15 180 9.7 40.0 15 30 3:45 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 5:25 Little Britain Municipal Bldg. 6 10 210 9.7 40.0 15 30 4:15 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 5:55 11 14 240 9.7 40.0 15 30 4:45 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 6:25 Lower Chanceford Municipal 1 180 4.5 40.0 7 30 3:40 10.6 16 5 10 30 30 5:15 Bldg.

Martic Municipal Bldg. 1 180 2.3 38.0 4 30 3:35 7.1 11 5 10 18 30 4:50 14 180 1.6 40.0 2 30 3:35 4.8 7 5 10 12 30 4:40 Providence Municipal Bldg.

58 210 1.6 40.0 2 30 4:05 4.8 7 5 10 12 30 5:10 Quarryville Municipal Bldg. 1 180 1.2 31.2 2 30 3:35 8.3 12 5 10 16 30 4:50 West Nottingham Municipal 1 180 1.5 31.9 3 30 3:35 15.0 23 5 10 28 30 5:15 Bldg.

Zone 1 1 180 6.9 40.0 10 30 3:40 13.0 20 5 10 41 30 5:30 Zone 2 & Zone 4 1 180 11.1 40.0 17 30 3:50 5.2 8 5 10 41 30 5:25 Zone 3 & Zone 5 1 180 9.3 40.0 14 30 3:45 9.2 14 5 10 42 30 5:30 Zone 6 Pick Up 1 & Pick Up 1 180 7.9 40.0 12 30 3:45 6.6 10 5 10 34 30 5:15 2

Zone 6 Pick Up 3 1 180 3.0 38.6 5 30 3:35 8.4 13 5 10 22 30 4:55 Maximum ETE: 4:45 Maximum ETE: 6:25 Average ETE: 3:55 Average ETE: 5:25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Zones Comprising the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station ES22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), located in Delta, York County, Pennsylvania. This ETE study provides Constellation and state and county 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 Constellation and 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 proposed EPZ and scope of work in discussions with representatives from Constellation.

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Constellation, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), Cecil, Chester, Harford, Lancaster and York Counties to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed existing state and county emergency plans.

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

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

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

schools, preschools, day camps, and medical facilities), major employers, access Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 random sample online demographic survey.

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

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

5. Used existing Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 24 Zones along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous Zones for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 and based on wind persistence studies at the site.

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

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

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

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

c. Updated the linknode representation of the evacuation network, which is used as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.

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

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

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016), Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2010.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the PBAPS.

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/daycares, day camps, and medical facilities), for the transitdependent population and for access and/or functional needs population.

1.2 The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Location The PBAPS site is located approximately 35 miles northnortheast of Baltimore, Maryland and approximately 58 miles westsouthwest of Philadelphia. The EPZ consists of parts of Chester, Lancaster, and York counties in Pennsylvania and parts of Cecil and Harford counties in Maryland. Figure 11 shows the location of the PBAPS site relative to Baltimore and Philadelphia, 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 November 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 preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. Roadway types were assigned based on the following criteria:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed in October 2020 through June 2021 to gather information needed for the ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy, to estimate the number of evacuating vehicles during an evacuation, and to estimate elements of the mobilization Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 system was then used to compute ETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

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

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 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Previous ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous (2014) ETE study (KLD TR636, dated April 18, 2014). As indicated in the final row of the table, the ETE values have significantly changed since the last ETE update. The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (Region R03) for a winter, weekday, midday scenario and a summer, weekend, midday scenario increased by at most 55 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios when compared to the previous study. The 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ also increased by as much as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for non snow scenarios, when compared to the previous study.

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

The trip generation time for residents awaiting the return of a commuter has increased by 120 minutes while the residents not awaiting a returning commuter mobilization time increased by 105 minutes. As indicated in Section 7.3, congestion persists in the EPZ for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE, after that time the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by mobilization time plus the time for a vehicle to drive to the EPZ boundary.

Thus, any change in trip generation time results in a direct increase in the 100th percentile ETE. The significant increase in mobilization time is also responsible for the significant increase in the 90th percentile ETE.

The resident population vehicle occupancy decreased by approximately 6%, thereby decreasing the number of persons per vehicle, which increases the number of evacuating vehicles. This increase in evacuating vehicles could prolong the 90th percentile ETE.

The number of employee vehicles within the EPZ decreased by 56% when compared to the previous study. A decrease in fast mobilizing employee vehicles can increase the 90th percentile ETE (yes, less vehicles can increase the 90th percentile ETE when it results Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

in a higher percentage of resident vehicles that take significantly longer to mobilize).

The significant decrease in employees for this study is a result of a change in the federal guidance wherein a major employer is defined as an employer with 200 or more employees in a single shift versus 50 or more employees in a single shift in the previous federal guidance.

Roadway capacity reductions for heavy snow cases have increased from 20% to 25%

based on the new NRC guidance. As a result, roadways process less vehicles than previously assumed during heavy snow cases which could increase the 90th percentile ETE.

Mobilization time for residents in heavy snow increased by 21/2 hours, directly explaining the increase in 100th percentile ETE for heavy snow cases.

The congestion patterns (see Section 7.3) are similar between the previous study and the current study. The changes in ETE are primarily because of the significant increase in mobilization times.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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. Provided recent PBAPS employee data. Coordinated information exchange with offsite response Constellation organizations. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions and draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Will attend a final meeting where the ETE study results are presented.

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project Maryland Emergency Management Agency methodology, key project assumptions and to (MEMA) define data needs. Provided emergency plans, Chester County, Pennsylvania including traffic and access control points and other information critical to the ETE study.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Reviewed and approved project assumptions.

Engaged in the ETE development and informed of York County, Pennsylvania the study results. Attended final meeting where Cecil County, Maryland the ETE study results were presented.

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 2020 US ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census Census blocks; area ratio method Resident Population blocks; area ratio method used.

used.

Basis Population = 59,595 Population = 60,260 Vehicles = 31,426 Vehicles = 33,480 2.48 persons/household, 1.36 2.71 persons/household, 1.58 Resident Population evacuating vehicles/household evacuating vehicles/household Vehicle Occupancy yielding: 1.82 persons/vehicle yielding: 1.72 persons/vehicle Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided about major information provided by employers in EPZ, US Census Constellation and Lancaster County.

Employee Population Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics Employees = 826 Employees = 1,760 Employee Vehicles = 779 Employee Vehicles = 1,760 Estimates based upon U.S. Census Estimates based upon U.S. Census data, results of the telephone survey, data and the results of the and data provided by Lancaster demographic survey. A total of 296 County GIS. A total of 977 people who people who do not have access to a do not have access to a vehicle, vehicle, requiring 12 buses to requiring 33 buses to evacuate. evacuate.

An additional 1,416 Pennsylvania An additional 1,418 Pennsylvania Amish women and children require Dutch (Amish) women and children TransitDependent transportation to evacuate (50 buses require transportation to evacuate Population are required to evacuate this (52 buses are required to evacuate population). this population).

An additional 54 homebound people An additional 103 access and/or with access and/or functional needs functional needs persons require require special transportation to special transportation to evacuate (7 evacuate (17 wheelchair vans and 1 buses, 8 wheelchair vans, and 1 ambulance - are required to evacuate ambulance are required to evacuate this population). this population).

Transient estimates based upon information provided by counties Transient estimates based on within the EPZ, supplemented with information provided by Exelon. internet searches and aerial imagery Transient Population used to estimate parking spaces Transients = 5,760 where data was not provided.

Transient Vehicles = 3,316 Transients = 8,095 Transient Vehicles = 3,309 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Medical facility population based on Medical facility population based on previous study data confirmed by information provided by Exelon and Constellation and the EPZ counties, through phone calls made to facilities. and internet searches where data Medical Facility was not provided.

Population Current Census = 461 Buses Required = 14 Current Census = 472 Wheelchair Vans = 37 Buses Required = 15 Ambulances = 3 Wheelchair Vans Required = 38 Ambulances Required = 3 School population based on data from the previous study confirmed by the EPZ counties, updated data School population based on provided by the EPZ counties, the information provided by Exelon National Center for Educational Statistics website and internet School Population School enrollment = 10,316 searches where data was not PreSchool enrollment = 350 provided Day Camp enrollment = 3,185 Buses Required = 315 School enrollment = 9,041 Preschool enrollment = 538 Day Camp enrollment = 3,215 Buses Required = 237 Voluntary evacuation 20% of the population within the EPZ, 20% of the population within the from within EPZ in but not within the Evacuation Region EPZ, but not within the Evacuation areas outside region (see Figure 21) Region (see Figure 21) to be evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ 20% of people outside of the EPZ within the Shadow Region (see Figure within the Shadow Region (see Shadow

72) Figure 72)

Evacuation/Population 20% Population = 17,332 20% Population = 17,785 20% Vehicles = 9,419 20% Vehicles = 10,197 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

External (Through) data. data.

Traffic Vehicles = 23,872 Vehicles = 24,756 Network Size 1,888 links; 1,672 nodes 2,160 links; 1,882 nodes Field surveys conducted in January Field surveys conducted in November Roadway Geometric 2014. Roads and intersections were 2020. Roads and intersections were Data video archived. video archived. Road capacities Road capacities based on 2010 HCM. based on 2016 HCM.

Direct evacuation to designated host Direct evacuation to designated host school for schools. Direct evacuation school for schools. Direct evacuation School Evacuation to designated reception center for to designated reception center for preschools/daycares and day camps. preschools/daycares and day camps.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study 72.6% of transitdependent persons 50% of transitdependent persons will will evacuate with a neighbor or Ridesharing evacuate with a neighbor, relative or friend based on the results of the friend as per federal guidance.

demographic survey.

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 225 minutes. leave between 30 and 345 minutes.

Trip Generation for Residents without commuters Residents without commuters Evacuation returning leave between 5 and 165 returning leave between 5 and 270 minutes. minutes.

Employees and transients leave Employees and transients leave between 5 and 105 minutes. between 5 and 105 minutes.

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

Good, Rain/Light Snow, or Heavy Snow. The capacity and free flow Good, Rain, or Snow. The capacity speed of all links in the network are and free flow speed of all links in the reduced by 10% in the event of rain Weather network are reduced by 10% for rain and light snow. During heavy snow and 20% for snow. scenarios speed and capacity reduced by 15% and 25%,

respectively.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.19.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair Fireworks at Mason Dixon Fair Special Event Population = 5,000 Special Event Population = 5,000 Special Events additional transients evacuating in additional transients evacuating in 2,017 vehicles. 1,845 vehicles.

34 Regions (central sector wind 38 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector direction and two adjacent sector Evacuation Cases technique used - 3sector keyhole) technique used - 5sector keyhole) and 14 Scenarios producing 476 and 14 Scenarios producing 532 unique cases. unique cases.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Winter, Midweek, Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather: 2:30 Good Weather: 3:25 Evacuation Time Rain: 2:35 Rain/Light Snow: 3:30 Estimates for the Snow: 3:10 Heavy Snow: 4:35 entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer, Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:25 Good Weather: 3:05 Rain: 2:35 Rain: 3:10 Winter, Midweek, Midday, Winter, Weekday, Midday, Good Weather: 3:55 Good Weather: 5:55 Evacuation Time Rain: 3:55 Rain/Light Snow: 5:55 Estimates for the Snow:4:55 Heavy Snow: 7:25 entire EPZ, 100th percentile Summer, Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 3:55 Good Weather: 5:55 Rain: 3:55 Rain: 5:55 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. PBAPS Location Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. PBAPS LinkNode Analysis Network Peach Bottom Atomic 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 ETE.

2.1 Data Estimate Assumptions

1. The permanent resident population is based on the 2020 U.S. Census population from the Census Bureau website1. (See Section 3.1).

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by Constellation and upon data from the previous study confirmed by the county and state emergency management agencies. (See Section 3.4).

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on data received from the counties within the EPZ, the National Center for Education Statistics website2, Pennsylvania Human Services3, and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and aerial imagery where updated data was not available.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is based on the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F). Values of 2.71 persons per household and 1.58 evacuating vehicles per household are used for the permanent resident population.

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

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey; 1.06 employees per vehicle are used in the study. (See Appendix F, subsection F.3.1 and 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 40 mph based on Pennsylvania state laws for buses and average posted speed limits on major roadways within the EPZ.

8. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys performed in November 2020 (verified by aerial imagery), and the application of the Highway Capacity Manual 2016.

a. In accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, only those roadway construction projects that will be completed prior to the finalization of this report will be considered in this study.

1 www.census.gov 2

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp 3

https://data.pa.gov/Human-Services/Child-Care-Providers-Listing-Current-Monthly-Facil/ajn5-kaxt Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

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

a. The 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. ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the geometric center of the containment building for Units 2 and 3 at 39°45'28.6"N and 76°16'06.0"W.

3. The DYNEV II5 system is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. ETE are presented at the 90th and 100th percentiles 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the evacuation. Rather, there is an 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 3.11.

11. To account for boundary conditions (roadway conditions outside the study area that are not specifically modeled due to the limited radius of the study area) beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on twolane roads and multilane highways for roadways that have traffic signals downstream. The 25% reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating (main street) traffic volume will be more significant than the competing (side street) traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

12. 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.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

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

3. Commuter percentages (and percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, 64%

of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1 and Figure F6); 56% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.2).

Therefore, 36% (64% x 56% = 36%) 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 73% of the transitdependent population will rideshare (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1 and Figure F5).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

a. Schools, preschools, childcare centers, daycares, and day camps:

i. If these facilities are in session, buses will evacuate students directly to the designated host facilities.

ii. For the facilities that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed no children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

iii. Children at these facilities, if these facilities are in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

iv. Schools located in the Shadow Region are evacuated to host schools if the county plan states that the facilities will be evacuated.

b. Medical Facilities

i. Buses, wheelchair 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 (68%), wheelchair bound (31%) and bedridden patients (1%) from the previous ETE study is used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at medical facilities wherein updated data was not provided.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

i. Transitdependent general population are evacuated to reception centers.

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

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

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

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

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.

4. Transit vehicles mobilization times:

a. Buses evacuating schools, preschools, and day camps arrive at facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when approximately 90% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at 180 minutes after the ATE (see Figure 54).

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

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

b. Buses for schools are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

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

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

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

6. Drivers for all transit vehicles are available.

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

See Appendix G.

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

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

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

1. A total of 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. Fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair, located in Delta, Pennsylvania on the grounds of the Mason Dixon Fair Association, 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 segment of one of the highest volume roadways will be out of service or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of one lane on US1 northbound (from the Pennsylvania/Maryland state line to the interchange with Pennsylvania State Route 10 - PA10) 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 at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued. Thus, no weather Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in the EPZ is assumed.

It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agencies are 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 free flow highway speeds. In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, this study assumes a 10%

reduction in speed and capacity for rain and 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 180 minutes (see Figure 52). 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 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 for transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair transport vehicles, ambulances) are 10 minutes and 20 minutes longer in 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 and 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 and are based on local wind persistence. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Zones included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered, and the keyhole includes the downwind sector and two adjoining sectors on each side (a five sector keyhole). It is assumed that everyone within the group of Zones forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

8. Due to the irregular shapes of the Zones, there are instances where a small portion of a Zone (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone is not included in the Region so as to not evacuate large 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R29 through R38 in Table 61.

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of Scenario Season6 Day of Week Weather Special Day 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 Midweek, Fireworks at the 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Mason Dixon Fair Roadway Impact -

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on US1 Northbound 6

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Time Mobilization Time Loading Time for Loading Time for Highway Free Flow for General for Transit Vehicles School Buses Transit Buses7 Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Rain/Light 90% 90% No Effect 10minute increase 5minute increase 10minute increase Snow Heavy Snow 75% 85% See Section 5.3 20minute increase 10minute increase 20minute increase

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Peach Bottom Atomic 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 (resident, employee, transient).

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent residents - people who are yearround residents of the EPZ.

Transients - people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (e.g., camping, visiting 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 Zone and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The PBAPS EPZ is subdivided into 24 Zones. The Zones comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 2020 U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.71 persons/household -

See Appendix F, SubSection F.3.1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.58 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, SubSection F.3.2) were adapted from the demographic survey.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Zone and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 summarizes the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Zone, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology described above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 1.12% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household. Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32.

Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from the PBAPS. 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, 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.

3.1.1 Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) Population There are many Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) people living within Lancaster County, PA. There are approximately 23 Amish Church Districts within the study area, according to Lancaster County emergency management officials. Each church district includes a total of 135 Amish people.

Thus, it is estimated there are 3,105 (23 x 135) Amish people residing within the study area.

According to tradition, Amish people do not own or operate motor vehicles. Rather, they travel in traditional horsedrawn buggies. Thus, the Amish population would not evacuate in vehicles.

As per discussions with Lancaster County emergency management officials, the Amish men will remain on their land while the women and children will evacuate in the event of an incident at PBAPS. Amish women and children are considered transit dependent. They will walk to the nearest bus pickup points and be evacuated by bus - see Section 8 and Section 10. The Amish men will be treated as emergency workers and issued dosimeters and potassium iodide (KI) to measure their exposure and limit ingestion of radioactive iodine to their thyroid in the event of a radiological release.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 2020 Census includes Amish population as part of the permanent resident population, but no evacuating vehicles are considered for them in this study. In order to determine the number of women and children who are transit dependent, the following assumptions were made:

1. Adult males will remain with their land while women and children evacuate

2. Adult males are considered to be 15 years of age or older The latest American Community Survey data (2016 - 2020, 5year estimates)1 provided by the U.S. Census Bureau was used to estimate the Amish men, women and children population. This data includes the population breakdowns by gender and by age group at the census block group level. The data indicates there are 60,632 total people - 30,383 males and 30,249 females in the Lancaster County block groups that intersect the study area. According to the same data, the total population of males under 15 years old is 7,114. Thus, there are 23,269 (30,383 - 7,114) males 15 years old or older, which accounts for 38.4% (23,269 ÷ 60,632) of the total population in the Lancaster County portion of the study area. The remaining 61.6% (100% - 38.4%) of the population are women and children under 15 years old.

In order to determine where the Amish reside, the Lancaster County GIS Department provided the centroids of the 23 Amish Church Districts. Each church district was then assigned 135 people. Census block centroids within close proximity to each church district were selected until the total population totaled 135. Then, the percentages discussed above (38.4% and 61.6%) were applied to the total population for each of the selected census block centroids, resulting in a total of 877 adult men and 1,418 women and children within the EPZ, and a total of 311 adult men and 499 women and children in the Shadow Region. Table 33 presents the total Amish population by Zone.

As discussed above, Amish residents would not evacuate in personal vehicles. As a result, a total of 1,340 vehicles (2,295 ÷ 2.71 x 1.58) were removed from the EPZ and 472 vehicles (810 ÷ 2.71 x 1.58) were removed from the Shadow Region to account for the Amish population not evacuating in personal vehicles.

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

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as those for the EPZ permanent resident population. Table 34, Figure 34 and Figure 35 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector. Similar to the EPZ resident vehicle estimates, vehicles for population residing 1

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S0101&tid=ACSST5Y2020.S0101 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

at group quarters and for the Amish population have been removed from the shadow population vehicle demand in Table 34 and Figure 35.

3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) entering the EPZ for a specific purpose (e.g., camping, visiting a park).

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at campgrounds or lodging facilities. Data for transient attractions were provided by the counties within the EPZ. When data could not be provided, the transient vehicles were estimated based on the parking capacity or accommodation capacity obtained from aerial imagery and the facility website. It is assumed that transients would travel to recreational areas as a family/household. As such, the average household size (2.71 persons/household - See Section 3.1) was used to estimate the transient population for those facilities in which exact data could not be obtained. The transient facilities within the PBAPS EPZ are summarized as follows:

Boat Ramps/Marinas - 404 transients and 157 vehicles; 2.57 transients per vehicle (NOTE:

vehicles with boat trailers are modeled as 2 vehicles in DYNEV.)

Campgrounds - 2,905 transients and 1,274 vehicles; 2.28 transients per vehicle (NOTE:

Recreational Vehicles (RVs) are modeled as 2 vehicles in DYNEV due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.)

Recreational Farms (Equestrian and Fall Activities) - 727 transients and 280 vehicles; 2.60 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 986 transients and 397 vehicles; 2.48 transients per vehicle Hunting Areas - 24 transients and 8 vehicles; 3.00 transients per vehicle Parks - 2,993 transients and 1,166 vehicles; 2.57 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.)

Lodging Facilities - 56 transients in 27 vehicles; 2.07 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E6 and Table E 7 present the number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas, while Table E8 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

In total, there are 8,095 transients evacuating in 3,309 vehicles (an average of 2.45 transients per vehicle). Table 35 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Zone. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 employment data provided by Lancaster County includes the maximum shift employment and percent of employees living outside of the EPZ for major employers within the EPZ. The employment data for PBAPS was provided by Constellation Energy. As per NUREG/CR7002, Rev.

1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered to be major employers. As such, the employers not meeting this criterion are not considered in this study.

In total, there are 826 employees commuting into the EPZ at peak times. To estimate the number of evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.06 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, SubSection F.3.1) was used for all the major employers. Detailed information of each major employer is included in Appendix E, Table E5.

Table 36 presents the estimates of employees and vehicles commuting into the EPZ by Zone. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Medical Facilities Data from the previous study was confirmed by the EPZ counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. Table E4 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered. Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients. Table 37 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. A total of 472 persons have been identified as living in or being treated in these facilities. Since the average number of patients at these facilities fluctuates often, the capacity, current census and breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients for each facility was obtained from the previous study and was confirmed by the EPZ counties.

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

37. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depends on the patients state of health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans up to 4 people; and ambulances, up to 2 people (see Assumption 3 in Section 2.4).

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

• Those persons in households that do not have a vehicle available.

• Those persons in households that do have vehicle(s) that would not be available at the time the evacuation is advised.

In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, Ontario 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 73 percent of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimate of average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children (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 296 people. As mentioned above in Section 3.1.1, Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) women and children are considered transitdependent and would travel to pickup points throughout the EPZ to board transitdependent buses. The 1,418 Amish women and children shown in Table 33 are added to the transit dependent population shown in Table 38 resulting in a total transitdependent population of 1,714.

Therefore, a total of 58 buses are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population (including Amish women and children) and have at least one bus drive through each of the Zones to pick up transit dependent people, 64 buses are used in the ETE calculations. See Section 10 for further discussion.

To illustrate this estimation procedure, we calculate the number of persons (not including the Amish population), P, requiring public transit or rideshare, and the number of buses, B, required for the PBAPS:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Where:

A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 21,389 0.145 1.54 1 0.64 0.44 0.470 2.76 2 0.64 0.44 1,080 1 0.726 30 10 These calculations are explained as follows:

• The estimated number of households is obtained by dividing the EPZ population without the Amish Population (60,260 - 877 - 1,418 = 57,965) by the average household size (2.71 people per household) and equals 21,389.

• Note that all households (HH) within the EPZ (excluding the Amish) have access to a vehicle as indicated in the demographic survey. See Appendix F, Figure F2.

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (14.5%), who are at home, equal (1.54 1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (21,389 x 0.145 x 0.54 x 0.64 x 0.44), as 64% of EPZ households have a commuter, 44% 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 (47.0%), who are at home, equal (2.76 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 21,389 x 0.470 x 0.76 x (0.64 x 0.44)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 far exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons in the EPZ as provided by the counties (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 do not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.7 School, PreSchool, Day Care and Day Camp Population Demand Table 39 presents the population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools, preschools, and day camps within the EPZ (and just beyond the EPZ boundary) for the 20202021 school year. The majority of this data was gathered in the previous ETE study and was updated and/or confirmed by the counties within the EPZ. The National Center for Education Statistics2 and internet searches were used where school data was missing. The Pennsylvania 2

https://nces.ed.gov/

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Human Services website3 was used to update data for some preschools and day care centers.

The column in Table 39 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.

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

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

• No allowance is made for student absenteeism, 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. In this way, the number of buses dispatched to the schools, preschools, and day camps will reflect the actual number needed. Those buses originally allocated to evacuate schoolchildren that are not needed due to children being picked up by their parents (although they are not advised to do so) can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

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

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Based on data provided by Cecil and Harford Counties, supplemented by information/data from the previous study where data was not provided, there are an estimated 103 access and/or functional needs persons registered within the EPZ. Since the percent breakdown for the access and/or functional needs population was not provided, the percent breakdown for the medical facilities (68.0% ambulatory, 30.7% wheelchair bound, and 1.3% bedridden) was used. In total there are 70 ambulatory, 32 wheelchair bound, and 1 bedridden person within the EPZ. Using the capacities of 30, 4, and 2 people per vehicle for buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances, respectfully, a total of 3 buses, 8 wheelchair vans, and 1 ambulance are needed from a capacity standpoint to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ. This study, however, will assume that only 7 buses are needed to evacuate the ambulatory population to limit the number of stops made by each bus. Table 310 summarizes the access and/or functional needs population and the vehicles needed to evacuate this population group.

3 https://data.pa.gov/Human-Services/Child-Care-Providers-Listing-Current-Monthly-Facil/ajn5-kaxt Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.9 Special Event Based on data from the previous study confirmed by Constellation and the EPZ counties, fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair, located in Delta, Pennsylvania on the grounds of the Mason Dixon Fair Association, is considered for the special event - Scenario 13 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening with good weather). According to the previous study, the Mason Dixon Fair has a peak attendance of 10,000 people in a single day, of which 50% are assumed to live outside the EPZ. The average household size from the demographic survey (2.71 persons per household) was used as the vehicle occupancy factor for those attending the Mason Dixon Fair.

As such, it is estimated that an additional 5,000 transients in 1,845 vehicles are present for the special event.

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

After the advisory to evacuate is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel the major routes traversing the EPZ - Interstate95 (I95),

US1, and US40. 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 2018 was obtained from Marylands GIS Data Catalog website4 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph).

The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 311, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (access control is 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 24,756 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of access control and the diversion of this traffic.

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 (Time Period 1). Rather, there is an initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic 4

https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/3f4b959826c34480be3e4740e4ee025f/explore?location=38.827713%2C-77.269750%2C8.93 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from the start of the evacuation (Time Period

1) are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the evacuation depends on the scenario and the region being considered (see Section 6). There are approximately 4,800 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 312 and Table 313, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 105,839 people and 75,039 vehicles are considered in this study.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population Delta 728 707 Drumore North 984 976 Drumore South 1,576 1,585 East Drumore 3,791 3,936 Fawn 3,099 3,012 Fawn Grove 452 476 Fulton East 1,408 1,489 Fulton West 1,666 1,725 Little Britain 4,106 4,118 Lower Chanceford North 1,885 1,992 Lower Chanceford South 1,143 1,039 Martic 4,465 4,458 Peach Bottom Central 1,462 1,628 Peach Bottom East 724 754 Peach Bottom West 2,627 2,584 Providence 3,996 4,101 Quarryville 2,576 2,843 West Nottingham 2,722 2,756 Zone 1 3,718 3,741 Zone 2 3,848 3,884 Zone 3 3,467 3,319 Zone 4 907 984 Zone 5 1,208 1,166 Zone 6 7,037 6,987 EPZ TOTAL 59,595 60,260 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 1.12%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone 2020 Zone 2020 Population Resident Vehicles Delta 707 411 Drumore North 976 507 Drumore South 1,585 764 East Drumore 3,936 1,805 Fawn 3,012 1,747 Fawn Grove 476 277 Fulton East 1,489 867 Fulton West 1,725 853 Little Britain 4,118 2,018 Lower Chanceford North 1,992 1,162 Lower Chanceford South 1,039 605 Martic 4,458 2,499 Peach Bottom Central 1,628 949 Peach Bottom East 754 438 Peach Bottom West 2,584 1,501 Providence 4,101 2,194 Quarryville 2,843 1,659 West Nottingham 2,756 1,601 Zone 1 3,741 2,138 Zone 2 3,884 2,256 Zone 3 3,319 1,930 Zone 4 984 572 Zone 5 1,166 674 Zone 6 6,987 4,053 EPZ TOTAL 60,260 33,480 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 33. Total Amish Population within the Study Area by Zone Zone Men Women & Children Delta 0 0 Drumore North 39 63 Drumore South 104 169 East Drumore 194 313 Fawn 0 0 Fawn Grove 0 0 Fulton East 0 0 Fulton West 101 161 Little Britain 247 401 Lower Chanceford North 0 0 Lower Chanceford South 0 0 Martic 63 104 Peach Bottom Central 0 0 Peach Bottom East 0 0 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 129 207 Quarryville 0 0 West Nottingham 0 0 Zone 1 0 0 Zone 2 0 0 Zone 3 0 0 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 877 1,418 Shadow Region 311 499 STUDY AREA TOTAL 1,188 1,917 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34 Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 7,481 4,279 NNE 5,120 2,737 NE 3,317 1,869 ENE 2,308 1,342 E 3,908 2,275 ESE 7,944 4,620 SE 6,206 3,602 SSE 3,701 2,152 S 9,835 5,716 SSW 22,519 12,823 SW 5,155 3,004 WSW 2,642 1,540 W 886 514 WNW 1,619 945 NW 1,599 932 NNW 4,686 2,633 TOTAL 88,926 50,983 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 35. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Zone Transients Transient Vehicles Delta 0 0 Drumore North 0 0 Drumore South 822 331 East Drumore 898 362 Fawn 407 150 Fawn Grove 0 0 Fulton East 0 0 Fulton West 0 0 Little Britain 0 0 Lower Chanceford North 2,158 820 Lower Chanceford South 140 57 Martic 1,317 567 Peach Bottom Central 48 24 Peach Bottom East 231 165 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 0 0 Quarryville 0 0 West Nottingham 900 363 Zone 1 562 227 Zone 2 0 0 Zone 3 252 97 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 360 146 EPZ TOTAL 8,095 3,309 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Zone Employees Employee Vehicles Delta 0 0 Drumore North 0 0 Drumore South 0 0 East Drumore 254 240 Fawn 0 0 Fawn Grove 0 0 Fulton East 0 0 Fulton West 0 0 Little Britain 0 0 Lower Chanceford North 0 0 Lower Chanceford South 0 0 Martic 0 0 Peach Bottom Central 0 0 Peach Bottom East 400 377 Peach Bottom West 0 0 Providence 172 162 Quarryville 0 0 West Nottingham 0 0 Zone 1 0 0 Zone 2 0 0 Zone 3 0 0 Zone 4 0 0 Zone 5 0 0 Zone 6 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 826 779 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel Ambul Current Ambu chair Bed Bus chair Van ance Zone Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs CECIL COUNTY, MD Zone 6 Conowingo Veterans Center Conowingo 22 18 16 2 0 1 1 0 Zone 6 Allcare Assisted Living Conowingo 9 8 6 2 0 1 1 0 Zone 6 Liberty Garden Elderly Care Conowingo 12 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 Cecil County Subtotal: 43 35 26 7 2 3 3 1 HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 Hart Heritage Estate Street 39 34 25 7 2 1 2 1 Zone 5 Broad Creek Manor Assisted Living Whiteford 11 11 8 3 0 1 1 0 Harford County Subtotal: 50 45 33 10 2 2 3 1 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA East Drumore Country View Manor Quarryville 24 20 20 0 0 1 0 0 Quarryville Presbyterian East Drumore Retirement Community Quarryville 375 372 242 128 2 9 32 1 Lancaster County Subtotal: 399 392 262 128 2 10 32 1 TOTAL: 492 472 321 145 6 15 38 3 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Percent HH Survey Percent Survey Average HH Size with Indicated No. of Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Vehicles Estimated Vehicles Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ No. of with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 57,965 0.00 1.54 2.76 21,389 0.0% 14.5% 47.0% 64% 44% 1,080 72.6% 296 0.5%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 39. School, PreSchool/Daycare, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates Enroll Buses Zone School Name ment Required CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOL Zone 6 Conowingo Elementary School 567 9 Cecil County School Subtotal: 567 9 HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOL Zone 1 North Harford High School 1,212 25 Zone 1 North Harford Elementary School 344 5 Zone 1 North Harford Middle School 895 18 Zone 2 Harford Christian School 413 9 Zone 3 Dublin Elementary School 238 4 Zone 3 Darlington Elementary School 106 2 Harford County School Subtotal: 3,208 63 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOL East Drumore Solanco High School 1,056 22 Fulton East Clermont Elementary School 465 7 Fulton East Swift Middle School 428 9 Martic Martic Elementary School 339 5 Quarryville Quarryville Elementary School 414 6 S.R. Smith Middle School 421 9 Lancaster County School Subtotal: 3,123 58 YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Fawn South Eastern Middle School 406 9 Fawn South Eastern Intermediate School 387 8 Fawn Fawn Area Elementary School 227 4 Fawn Grove KennardDale High School 769 16 Lower Chanceford South Cherry Ridge Amish School 18 1 Peach Bottom Central DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 303 5 Peach Bottom Central Cypress School 3 1 Peach Bottom West Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 30 1 York County School Subtotal: 2,143 45 HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS/DAYCARES Zone 1 Christian Childcare Center 41 1 Zone 1 Childrens Center of North Harford 48 1 Zone 3 Wilson Ministry Center 28 1 Harford County Preschool/Daycare Subtotal: 117 3 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS/DAYCARES East Drumore Mechanic Grove CLASP 89 2 East Drumore Barnsley Academy 47 1 Providence Busy Hands Daycare 12 1 Quarryville Shining Stars Daycare 104 2 Lancaster County Preschool/Daycare Subtotal: 252 6 YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS/DAYCARES Fawn Kidsville Junction Childcare 56 1 Peach Bottom Central Delta Christian Academy 113 2 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Enroll Buses Zone School Name ment Required York County Preschool/Daycare Subtotal: 169 3 CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMP Zone 6 Camp Conowingo GSA 275 4 Zone 6 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 800 12 Cecil County Day Camp Subtotal: 1,075 16 HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMP Zone 1 Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 190 3 Zone 3 Indian Lake Christian Camp 110 2 Zone 3 Camp Ramblewood 300 5 Zone 5 Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 1,000 15 Harford County Day Camp Subtotal: 1,600 25 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMP Drumore North Camp Andrews 140 2 Little Britain Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 300 5 Lancaster County Day Camp Subtotal: 440 7 YORK COUNTY, PA DAY CAMP Peach Bottom Central Guppy Gulch Park 100 2 York County Day Camp Subtotal: 100 2 SCHOOL TOTAL: 9,041 175 PRESCHOOL/DAYCARE TOTAL: 538 12 DAY CAMP TOTAL: 3,215 50 GRAND TOTAL: 12,794 237 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 310. Access and/or Functional Needs Estimates Population Group Population Vehicles deployed Ambulatory 70 7 buses Wheelchair Bound 32 8 wheelchair vans Bedridden 1 1 ambulance Total: 103 16 Table 311. External Traffic Traveling through the Study Area Upstream Downstream Hourly External 5 6 7 Node Node Road Name Direction AADT KFactor DFactor Volume Traffic 8023 1925 I95 North 85,286 0.091 0.5 3,881 7,762 8009 9 I95 South 85,286 0.091 0.5 3,881 7,762 8088 1886 US1 North 14,012 0.116 0.5 813 1,626 8027 1924 US1 South 14,012 0.116 0.5 813 1,626 8729 1729 US40 East 27,946 0.107 0.5 1,495 2,990 8734 1734 US40 West 27,946 0.107 0.5 1,495 2,990 TOTAL: 24,756 5

2018 AADT Counts; https://data.imap.maryland.gov/datasets/3f4b959826c34480be3e4740e4ee025f/explore?location=38.835724%2C-77.269750%2C8.93 6

HCM 2016 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Population Demand Pennsylvania Schools, Dutch Transit Medical Preschools, Special Shadow External Zone Residents7 (Amish) Men Dependent8 Transients Employees Facilities Day Camps Event Population Traffic Total Delta 707 0 4 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,711 Drumore North 874 39 67 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 1,120 Drumore South 1,312 104 176 822 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,414 East Drumore 3,429 194 331 898 254 392 1,192 0 0 0 6,690 Fawn 3,012 0 15 407 0 0 1,076 0 0 0 4,510 Fawn Grove 476 0 2 0 0 0 769 0 0 0 1,247 Fulton East 1,489 0 8 0 0 0 893 0 0 0 2,390 Fulton West 1,463 101 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,732 Little Britain 3,470 247 419 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 4,436 Lower Chanceford North 1,992 0 10 2,158 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,160 Lower Chanceford South 1,039 0 5 140 0 0 18 0 0 0 1,202 Martic 4,291 63 126 1,317 0 0 339 0 0 0 6,136 Peach Bottom Central 1,628 0 8 48 0 0 519 0 0 0 2,203 Peach Bottom East 754 0 4 231 400 0 0 0 0 0 1,389 Peach Bottom West 2,584 0 13 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 2,627 Providence 3,765 129 226 0 172 0 12 0 0 0 4,304 Quarryville 2,843 0 15 0 0 0 518 0 0 0 3,376 West Nottingham 2,756 0 14 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,670 Zone 1 3,741 0 19 562 0 34 2,730 0 0 0 7,086 Zone 2 3,884 0 20 0 0 0 413 0 0 0 4,317 Zone 3 3,319 0 17 252 0 0 782 0 0 0 4,370 Zone 4 984 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 989 Zone 5 1,166 0 6 0 0 11 1,000 0 0 0 2,183 Zone 6 6,987 0 36 360 0 35 1,642 0 0 0 9,060 Shadow Region 0 311 0 0 0 0 421 0 17,785 0 18,517 Total 57,965 1,188 1,714 8,095 826 472 12,794 5,000 17,785 0 105,839 7

Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) residents were excluded from the Permanent Resident population due to the men not evacuating and the women and children being included in the transit-dependent population. See Section 3.1.1.

8 Transit-dependent population includes the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) women and children population.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 313. Summary of Vehicle Demand9 Schools, Transit Medical Preschools, Special Shadow External Zone Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities Day Camps Event Vehicles10 Traffic Total Delta 411 0 0 0 0 0 1,845 0 0 2,256 Drumore North 507 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 511 Drumore South 764 18 331 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,113 East Drumore 1,805 24 362 240 53 50 0 0 0 2,534 Fawn 1,747 0 150 0 0 44 0 0 0 1,941 Fawn Grove 277 2 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 311 Fulton East 867 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 899 Fulton West 853 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 865 Little Britain 2,018 28 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2,056 Lower Chanceford North 1,162 2 820 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,984 Lower Chanceford South 605 0 57 0 0 2 0 0 0 664 Martic 2,499 10 567 0 0 10 0 0 0 3,086 Peach Bottom Central 949 2 24 0 0 20 0 0 0 995 Peach Bottom East 438 0 165 377 0 0 0 0 0 980 Peach Bottom West 1,501 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1,503 Providence 2,194 16 0 162 0 2 0 0 0 2,374 Quarryville 1,659 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 1,677 West Nottingham 1,601 2 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,966 Zone 1 2,138 2 227 0 5 106 0 0 0 2,478 Zone 2 2,256 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 2,274 Zone 3 1,930 0 97 0 0 28 0 0 0 2,055 Zone 4 572 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 574 Zone 5 674 2 0 0 3 30 0 0 0 709 Zone 6 4,053 4 146 0 10 50 0 0 0 4,263 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 10,197 24,756 34,971 Total 33,480 128 3,309 779 71 474 1,845 10,197 24,756 75,039 9

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.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. Zones Comprising the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 328 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 329 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 330 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 331 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.

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 (SV). 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 LOS. 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 (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. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements 1

A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2016 Page 1515)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 70 mph in the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the 2016 HCM. For example, HCM 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).

As discussed in Section 2.6, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10 percent. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6, 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. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change.

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

3600 3600 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, 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:

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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 SV, VF, under congested conditions.

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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

occurs at bottlenecks or choke points on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson3 describe a research program that collected data from a computerbased surveillance system (loop detectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin cities metro area in Minnesota over a 7week period. When flow breakdown occurs, queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior to observed breakdown. These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to the next and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances. The cited reference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl). This figure compares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE for freeway links.

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

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

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

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

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1530 in 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 2016 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" SV, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3 Application to the PBAPS 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)

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 Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. 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 procedures then estimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the 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 EPZ are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

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

4.3.2 Multilane Highway Ref: HCM Chapter 14 Exhibit 142 of HCM 2016 presents a set of curves that indicate a perlane capacity ranging from approximately 1,900 to 2,200 pc/h, for freespeeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively. Based on observation, the multilane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 does not address LOS F explicitly).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3.4 Intersections Ref: HCM 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 provided in Appendix K.

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

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

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

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 does extend 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 percent 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 percent in this case) of the signal green time.

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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 49 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 ETE study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.

The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

1. The 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. 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 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this 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, EAS broadcasts, loudspeakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over a large area 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 people 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 EPZ residents. Such a survey was conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, 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 evacuation time estimate to extend in time 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 (e.g., depart work, arrive home)

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

As such, a completed Activity changes the state of an individual (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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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, item 3 of the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual states that Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100% of the population Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The notification distribution is provided in Table 52. The distribution is plotted in Figure 52.

Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work/School: 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. 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 snow 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.

Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable - albeit at a lower capacity - under the vast majority of heavy 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 (15.1%) 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 as shown to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Decline to State to some questions or choose to not respond to a question. The mobilization activity distributions are based upon actual responses. But it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses are inconsistent with the overall pattern of results. An example would be a case in which for 500 responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 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 alternates to consider:

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

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

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

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

There is considerable statistical literature on the identification and treatment of outliers singly or in groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non 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, and 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; Peach Bottom Atomic 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 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

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

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 in Figure 53.

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

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

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

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE. Figure 54 presents the resultant trip generation distributions for each of the population groups identified. 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. Zones comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately

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

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

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

5. The population in the 5 to 10 mile region (to the EPZ boundary) shelters in place

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Zones beyond 5 miles will shelterinplace, with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.

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

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2Mile Region will be as computed based upon the results of the demographic survey and analysis.

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

a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the Zones comprising the 2Mile Region. This value, TScen*, is obtained from simulation results. It will become the time at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for each scenario.

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 2:45 for nonheavy snow scenarios and 4:00 for heavy 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 heavy snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and heavy snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters; the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region is approximately 165 minutes for good weather and rain/light snow and approximately 240 minutes for heavy snow scenarios. At the approximate 90th percentile evacuation time for the 2Mile Region, approximately 20% of the population (who have completed their mobilization activities) 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. Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Appendix 20 of Annex E of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Emergency Plan states that the Pennsylvania Fish and boat Commission establishes and operates waterway access control points as required. The following river access control points are identified within the study area: York Furnace Access along the west shore of the Susquehanna River at South River Drive off Accomac Road; Urey Island along the east shore of the Susquehanna River located near Pequea Borough. Attachment F2 of the Cecil County Emergency Plan states that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources will support Maryland State Police access control operations by restricting access of watercraft along waterways through the establishment and maintenance of ACPs.

The Cecil County Emergency Plan states that The Department of Natural Resources notifies state parks and boaters of protective actions in the evacuation of waterways and that the Emergency Medical Service Coordinator does the same with other recreational facilities.

As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient for the notification of boaters recreating on the Susquehanna River.

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 45 minutes; it is assumed that this allows sufficient time for campers, boaters, and other transients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work/School Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent Elapsed Time Employees Elapsed Time Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0.0% 35 89.2%

5 33.5% 40 91.5%

10 48.3% 45 93.2%

15 63.1% 50 94.3%

20 73.9% 55 94.3%

25 79.0% 60 98.9%

30 85.2% 75 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response. That is, the sample was reduced in size to include only those households who responded to this question. The underlying assumption is that the distribution of this activity for the Decline to State responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as those responders who provided estimates.

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 40 73.7%

5 3.4% 45 82.1%

10 12.3% 50 87.7%

15 22.3% 55 88.8%

20 35.2% 60 97.2%

25 46.9% 75 99.4%

30 64.2% 90 100.0%

35 69.3%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Leaving Elapsed Time Percent Leaving (Minutes) Home (Minutes) Home 0 0% 135 87.9%

15 3.6% 150 89.1%

30 19.4% 165 90.9%

45 30.9% 180 92.1%

60 58.2% 195 97.6%

75 71.5% 210 97.6%

90 74.5% 225 97.6%

105 75.2% 240 99.4%

120 80.6% 255 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Removal 0 15.1%

15 28.5%

30 40.1%

45 48.7%

60 62.7%

75 75.0%

90 79.8%

105 82.3%

120 87.2%

135 92.7%

150 95.1%

165 95.7%

180 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Decline to State" response Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 513 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).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents Residents With Without Residents with Without Commuters Commuters Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Heavy Snow Heavy Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 30 35% 35% 0% 3% 0% 1%

2 60 64% 64% 14% 59% 4% 21%

3 15 1% 1% 12% 10% 4% 9%

4 15 0% 0% 15% 3% 6% 9%

5 30 0% 0% 23% 9% 15% 16%

6 15 0% 0% 7% 4% 8% 7%

7 15 0% 0% 6% 2% 9% 6%

8 60 0% 0% 14% 8% 26% 18%

9 30 0% 0% 5% 2% 10% 6%

10 60 0% 0% 3% 0% 12% 5%

11 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

12 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

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

14 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

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

NOTE:

Shadow vehicles are loaded onto the analysis network (Figure 12) using Distributions C and E for good weather and heavy snow, respectively.

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 515 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 Period*

Residents Residents Residents With Without Residents with Without Commuters Commuters Time Duration Commuters Commuters Heavy Snow Heavy Snow Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 30 0% 1% 0% 0%

2 60 3% 11% 1% 4%

3 15 2% 2% 1% 2%

4 15 3% 1% 1% 2%

5 30 5% 2% 3% 3%

6 15 1% 1% 1% 2%

7 15 63% 72% 2% 1%

8 60 14% 8% 5% 3%

9 30 5% 2% 68% 76%

10 60 3% 0% 12% 5%

11 15 1% 0% 1% 1%

12 30 0% 0% 3% 0%

13 30 0% 0% 1% 1%

14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

• Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 59) is the same for UnStaged and Staged Evacuation.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 516 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

80%

60%

Notification Prepare to Leave Work Travel Home 40% Prepare Home Time to Clear Snow 20%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 518 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged and Unstaged Evacuation Trip Generation Employees / Transients Residents with Commuters Residents with no Commuters Res with Comm and Snow Res no Comm 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 20 Percent of Population Beginning Evacuation Trip 0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 521 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6 EVACUATION CASES An evacuation case defines a combination of Evacuation Region and Evacuation Scenario.

The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Zones that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

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

A total of 38 Regions were identified which encompass all the groupings of Zones considered.

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

Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and two adjoining sectors on each side (a 5sector keyhole), each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per Constellations Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) flowchart for the site. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R12) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R13 through R28).

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R29 through R38 are identical to Regions R02 and R04 through R12; however, those Zones between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 38 x 14 = 532 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population estimates and the 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 average population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the Region percentages are provided in Table H1 through Table H3. Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the scenario percentages in Table 63. The percentages presented in Table 63 were determined as follows:

The percentage of households with returning commuters (36%) during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to the product of 64% (the number of households with at least one commuter) and 56% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters during the week will have a commuter at work during those times.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e., 10%

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 could be reduced by 5% 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 further estimated that only 10% of employees are working in the evenings and during the weekends.

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak during summer weekends (95%) and less (60%)

during the week as many of the recreational facilities are less populated on weekdays.

Transient activity is estimated to be significantly less in the winter as some of these facilities (campgrounds, golf courses and marinas) would be closed in the winter. As such, transient activity is estimated to be 35% on weekends and 25% during the week in the winter. As shown in Appendix E, there are many parks, golf courses, campgrounds, and lodging facilities that are utilized during evening hours; thus, transient activity is estimated to be 50% for summer (while camps are in session) and 25% for winter during evening hours.

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 shown below. Given that there are many more residents than employees, the shadow percentages remain at 20%.

748 20% 1 20%

12,045 21,435 One special event - fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Day camp buses are calculated separately from school buses due to day camps primarily being operational during the summer contrary to schools being operational in the winter (including fall and spring as per the federal guidance). It is estimated that day camp population is 100%

during summer scenarios and 0% during winter scenarios.

Transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances) for the transitdependent and medical facility population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that these population groups 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 evening scenarios.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Region

Description:

2Mile Region 5Mile Region Full EPZ Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 N, NE, SSW, SW, WNW, Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N/A E ESE SE SSE, S NNW NNE ENE WSW, W NW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X Drumore South X X X X X East Drumore X Fawn X Fawn Grove X Fulton East X Fulton West X X X X X Little Britain X Lower Chanceford North X Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X X Martic X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X Providence X Quarryville X West Nottingham X Zone 1 X Zone 2 X Zone 3 X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X Zone 6 X Zone not within plume, but evacuates because it is Zone(s) Evacuate surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 Wind Direction From: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X X X X X X Drumore South X X X X X X X East Drumore X X X X X X Fawn X X X X X X X Fawn Grove X X X X X X X Fulton East X X X X X X Fulton West X X X X X X X Little Britain X X X X X X Lower Chanceford X X X X X X Lower Chanceford X X X X X X X Martic X X X X X X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X X X X X X Providence X X X X X X Quarryville X X X X X West Nottingham X X X X X Zone 1 X X X X X X X Zone 2 X X X X X X X Zone 3 X X X X X X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X X Zone 6 X X X X X X Zone not within plume, but Evacuates because it is Zone(s) Evacuate surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 5Mile SSW, SW, Wind Direction From: N, NNE NE, ENE E ESE SE SSE, S WNW, NW NNW Region WSW, W Zone Delta X X X X X X Drumore North Drumore South X X X X East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West X X X X Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X Martic Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X Zone 6 Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Zone(s) Evacuate Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 66 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 Midweek, Fireworks at the Mason 13 Summer Weekend Evening Good Dixon Fair Roadway Impact - Lane 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US1 Northbound 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).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without Day Transit/ External Returning Returning Special School Camp Medical/ Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Buses Buses Vehicles Traffic 1 36% 64% 96% 60% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

2 36% 64% 96% 60% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

3 4% 96% 10% 95% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

4 4% 96% 10% 95% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

5 4% 96% 10% 50% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% 40%

6 36% 64% 100% 25% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

7 36% 64% 100% 25% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

8 36% 64% 100% 25% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

9 4% 96% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 4% 96% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 4% 96% 10% 35% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 4% 96% 10% 25% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%

13 4% 96% 10% 50% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100% 40%

14 36% 64% 96% 60% 20% 0% 10% 100% 100% 100%

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

Households without Returning 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 event for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.

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

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

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

External Through Traffic ................................ Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control 120 minutes after the evacuation begins.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Households Households With Without Medical External Total Returning Returning Special Facility School Day Camp Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Vehicles Buses Buses Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 12,045 21,435 748 1,985 10,424 0 71 37 100 128 24,756 71,729 2 12,045 21,435 748 1,985 10,424 0 71 37 100 128 24,756 71,729 3 1,205 32,276 78 3,144 10,220 0 71 0 100 128 24,756 71,978 4 1,205 32,276 78 3,144 10,220 0 71 0 100 128 24,756 71,978 5 1,205 32,276 78 1,655 10,220 0 71 0 100 128 9,902 55,635 6 12,045 21,435 779 827 10,434 0 71 374 0 128 24,756 70,849 7 12,045 21,435 779 827 10,434 0 71 374 0 128 24,756 70,849 8 12,045 21,435 779 827 10,434 0 71 374 0 128 24,756 70,849 9 1,205 32,276 78 1,158 10,220 0 71 0 0 128 24,756 69,892 10 1,205 32,276 78 1,158 10,220 0 71 0 0 128 24,756 69,892 11 1,205 32,276 78 1,158 10,220 0 71 0 0 128 24,756 69,892 12 1,205 32,276 78 827 10,220 0 71 0 0 128 9,902 54,707 13 1,205 32,276 78 1,655 10,220 1,845 71 0 100 128 9,902 57,480 14 12,045 21,435 748 1,985 10,424 0 71 37 100 128 24,756 71,729 2

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Zones Comprising the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 610 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES 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 38 Evacuation Regions within the PBAPS 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 for the 2Mile Region in both staged and unstaged regions are presented in Table 73 and Table 74. Table 75 through Table 77 define the Evacuation Regions considered. The tabulated values of ETE are obtained from the DYNEV II model outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Zones for which an 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 PAR 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 PBAPS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20% of permanent residents located in Zones outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.

Similarly, it is assumed that 20% of those 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, it is estimated that a total of 88,926 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. Zones comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

5. The population between the 5 Mile Region and the 10mile radius (to the EPZ boundary) shelters in place.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

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

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

The HCM uses LOS F to define operations that have either broken down (i.e., demand exceeds capacity) or have reached a point that most users would consider unsatisfactory, as described by a specified service measure value (or combination of service measure values).

However, analysts may be interested in knowing just how bad the LOS F condition is, particularly for planning applications where different alternatives may be compared.

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 73 displays the developing congestion at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the ATE. Throughout the evacuation, there is never significant congestion within 2miles of the plant. At this time, congestion (LOS F) is observed at the following locations:

Pennsylvania State Route 851 (PA851) westbound through Fawn, PA PA272 northbound through Providence, PA Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

PA741 northbound beyond the Shadow Region near Millersville, PA White Oak Rd eastbound at the intersection with May Post Office Rd in the Shadow Region north of Quarryville, PA US1 northbound east of Zone 6 near Rising Sun, MD US1 southbound just beyond the Shadow Region near Bel Air, MD Maryland State Route 222 (MD222) southbound in the Shadow Region in Port Deposit, MD There is significant traffic volume (LOS C and D) on most state routes in the study area at this time. External traffic is still permitted to traverse the study area at this time along Interstate 95 (I95), US1, and US40. There is considerable traffic volume along each of these routes with some parts of US1 operating at LOS F as discussed above.

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 74 shows that congestion persists at the seven aforementioned locations in the study area. Congestion has intensified (longer queues) in each of those locations except for PA272 northbound through Providence and White Oak Rd eastbound north of Quarryville which have similar queuing to an hour earlier. All roadways in the 2Mile Region are operating at LOS A at this time. All roadways in the 5Mile Region are operating at LOS A at this time with the exception of Main St at the intersection with MD136 in Zone 4 which is operating at LOS B. External traffic flow ceases at this time; however, considerable traffic volume is still on US1, I95, and US40.

Figure 75 shows the last remnants of congestion within the EPZ at 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes after the ATE. The 2mile region and 5mile region are completely clear of congestion. At this time, significant congestion persists along US1 within Zone 6, and along PA851 within Fawn.

Congestion persists in the Shadow Region along US1 northbound near Rising Sun, MD, along US1 southbound from Bel Air, MD to the EPZ boundary, and along PA741 northbound just outside the Shadow Region. Congestion along PA SR 272 has reduced to LOS B or better at this time. Traffic congestion has cleared in Providence and near Quarryville. The remaining congestion (LOS F) in the EPZ 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 /> after the ATE. All roads in the EPZ are operating at LOS A 15 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 15 minutes after the ATE.

At 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after the ATE, Figure 76 shows the last of the traffic congestion along US1 southbound near Bel Air, MD in the Shadow Region and beyond. This congestion clears 45 minutes later at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes after the ATE. The last evacuee to mobilize for Scenario 1 is at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes after the ATE (see Table 59). Thus, traffic congestion within the EPZ and the study area clears well before the completion of mobilization time. Thus, 100th percentile ETE will be dictated by mobilization time.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 77 through Figure 720Figure 720.

These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As indicated in Figure 77 through Figure 720, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions, due to the time to mobilize. 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 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 ETE Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 38 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for 2Mile Region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

76. All of the congestion is located beyond the 5Mile Region along the major evacuation routes near population centers. This is reflected in the ETE results:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region (R01) ranges from 2:40 (hh:mm) to 2:50 for nonheavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 3:55 to 4:05. These ETE closely parallel the time needed to mobilize 90% of evacuees.

The 90th percentile ETE for the 5Mile Region (R02) range from 2:50 to 3:25 for all non heavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 4:20 to 4:35. The 5Mile Region has a significantly higher percentage of permanent residents when compared to the 2Mile Region as plant employees are included in the 2Mile Region. Permanent residents take significantly longer to mobilize than employees. As a result, the ETE for Region R02 are on average 30 minutes longer than the 2Mile Region and are at much as 45 minutes longer than the 2Mile Region. These ETE also closely parallel the time needed to mobilize 90% of evacuees.

The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (R03) range from 3:05 to 3:45 for nonheavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 4:20 to 4:35. The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 range from 5 to 20 minutes longer than Region R02 as a result of the congestion shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76 which is predominately between the 5Mile Region and the EPZ boundary.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and Scenarios parallel mobilization time (plus a 5 or 10 minute travel time to get to the boundary of the Region being evacuated), as the congestion within the EPZ dissipates 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, as displayed in Figure 76 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE range from 5:45 to 5:55 (mobilization time plus 10 minutes to travel out of the EPZ) for all scenarios with exception of heavy snow scenarios. Heavy Snow scenarios range from 7:15 to 7:25, due to mobilization times being longer in heavy snow.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair - reduces the 90th percentile ETE by as much as 35 minutes for some Regions. While it seems counterintuitive to add more evacuating vehicles and have a lower ETE, the results are plausible at the 90th percentile. The Special Event is located in Delta which is in the 5Mile Region. As discussed above and in Section 5, transients (including those at the Special Event) mobilize significantly more quickly than permanent residents. The addition of 1,845 quickly mobilizing transient vehicles at the Special Event helps to decrease the overall mobilization time of evacuees for keyhole regions extending to 5 miles which include evacuation of Delta, which results in lower ETE. The Special Event, however, has no impact on 100th percentile ETE as congestion clears well before the mobilization time even with the addition of the Special Event vehicles.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the roadway closure

- a single lane closure on US1 northbound from the Pennsylvania/Maryland State line to the interchange with PA10 has a significant impact on the 90th percentile (at most 45 minutes) for Regions wherein the wind is blowing over the eastern and southeastern portion of the EPZ (Regions R24 through R27) and for the full EPZ (Region R03) as the evacuees in this portion of the EPZ rely heavily upon US1 northbound as their evacuation route. As discussed in Section 7.3 and displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 76, US1 northbound experiences significant congestion for the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. Closing a lane on US1 northbound significantly Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

reduces (62%) the capacity of the roadway, prolonging congestion and increasing ETE. This prolonged congestion, however, does not extend beyond the mobilization time as evidenced by the roadway closure not having an impact on 100th percentile ETE.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R29 through R38 are geographically identical to Region R02, and Region R04 through Region R12, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile Region is not significantly increased (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) when evacuating Zones beyond the 2Mile Region. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region is the same for all Regions and Scenarios with and without staging when Zones beyond 2 miles evacuated. As discussed in Section 7.3, there is no congestion (LOS F) within the 5Mile Region. As such, the evacuation of those between 2 and 5 miles does not impede the evacuation of those evacuees within 2 miles of the PBAPS.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Region R02, and Regions R04 through R12 are compared to the ETE for Regions R29 through R38 in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar Regions reveals that staging significantly increases (up to 40 minutes) ETE at the 90th percentile for those beyond 2 miles. Staging has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE as mobilization time dictates the ETE.

In summary, staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and significantly impacts evacuees within the 2 to 5Mile Region. Based on the guidance in NUREG 0654, Supplement 3, this analysis would result in staged evacuation not being implemented for this site.

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

1. Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow

• Special Event Fireworks at the Mason Dixon Fair

• Roadway Impact A single lane closure of US1 northbound (from the Pennsylvania/Maryland State line to the interchange with PA10)

• 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/light snow are not explicitly identified in the tables. For these conditions, Scenarios (7) and (9) 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.

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

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

• Determine the projected azimuth direction of the plume (coincident with the wind direction). This direction is expressed in terms of compass orientation: from the 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 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 through R12) to EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R13 through R28)

• Enter Table 75 through Table 77 and identify the applicable group of candidate Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Regions based on the distance that the selected Region extends from the plant.

Select the Evacuation Region identifier in that column, based on the azimuth direction of the plume, from the second row of the table.

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

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

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

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

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

• Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the southwest (SW).

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

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

Table 71 is applicable because the 90th percentile ETE is desired. Proceed as follows:

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

2. Enter Table 76 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the SW and read Region R23 in the second row of that column.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R23. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R23; it contains the ETE value of 3:05.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R02 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:25 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:50 3:25 R03 3:25 3:25 3:05 3:10 3:05 3:25 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:45 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R05 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:25 3:25 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R06 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:00 3:00 4:20 3:05 2:45 3:20 R07 3:15 3:15 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 3:00 3:00 4:15 3:00 2:25 3:15 R08 3:20 3:20 2:55 2:55 3:00 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:15 3:05 2:35 3:20 R09 3:10 3:10 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 3:00 3:00 4:15 3:05 3:00 3:10 R10 3:15 3:15 2:55 2:55 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:25 3:05 3:05 4:15 3:05 3:05 3:15 R11 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 3:05 3:15 R12 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:20 4:30 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:55 3:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R13 3:15 3:15 2:55 3:10 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:30 2:55 3:00 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R14 3:15 3:20 2:55 3:15 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R15 3:15 3:20 2:55 3:15 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:05 3:05 3:15 R16 3:15 3:20 2:50 2:50 3:00 3:15 3:20 4:30 2:50 2:55 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 R17 3:10 3:20 2:50 2:55 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:30 2:50 2:55 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:10 R18 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:05 2:55 3:25 R19 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:05 3:10 4:20 3:10 2:55 3:25 R20 3:25 3:25 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:30 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:25 R21 3:25 3:25 2:55 3:00 3:05 3:25 3:30 4:35 3:05 3:05 4:20 3:10 3:05 3:25 R22 3:30 3:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:30 3:30 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:10 3:30 R23 3:30 3:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 3:30 3:30 4:40 3:10 3:10 4:20 3:10 3:10 3:30 R24 3:20 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:15 3:05 3:05 3:50 R25 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:25 4:25 3:00 3:10 4:10 3:05 3:05 3:55 R26 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:10 3:05 3:00 4:00 R27 3:15 3:20 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:20 3:25 4:30 3:00 3:10 4:15 3:05 3:00 3:55 R28 3:15 3:15 3:00 3:10 3:00 3:15 3:15 4:25 2:55 3:05 4:10 3:00 3:00 3:15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 3:35 3:35 3:25 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:35 4:55 3:30 3:30 4:55 3:30 3:20 3:35 R30 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:30 3:35 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:25 3:35 R31 3:35 3:35 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:35 3:35 5:00 3:30 3:30 5:00 3:30 3:25 3:35 R32 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 3:30 4:50 3:30 3:30 4:50 3:30 3:20 3:30 R33 3:15 3:15 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:15 3:15 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:30 3:10 3:05 3:15 R34 3:20 3:20 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:30 3:10 3:05 3:20 R35 3:10 3:10 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:15 3:15 4:35 3:05 3:10 4:30 3:05 3:05 3:10 R36 3:15 3:15 3:05 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:15 R37 3:20 3:20 3:05 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:20 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:20 R38 3:20 3:20 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:20 3:25 4:35 3:10 3:10 4:35 3:10 3:10 3:20 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R02 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R03 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R05 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R06 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R07 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R08 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R09 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R10 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R11 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R12 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R13 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R14 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R15 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R16 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R17 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R18 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R19 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R20 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R21 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R22 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R23 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R24 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R25 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R26 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R27 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 R28 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 7:25 5:55 5:55 5:55 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R30 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R31 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R32 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R33 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R34 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R35 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R36 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R37 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 R38 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 7:20 5:50 5:50 5:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Region and 5Mile Region R01 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R02 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R05 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R06 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R07 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R08 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R09 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R10 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R11 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R12 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R30 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R31 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R32 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R33 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R34 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R35 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R36 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R37 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 R38 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:45 2:40 2:40 3:55 2:50 2:50 4:05 2:50 2:45 2:40 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening 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 Region and 5Mile Region R01 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R02 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R04 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R05 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R06 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R07 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R08 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R09 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R10 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R11 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R12 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R30 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R31 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R32 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R33 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R34 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R35 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R36 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R37 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 R38 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 7:15 5:45 5:45 5:45 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R01R12) 2Mile 5Mile Full Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Region Region EPZ Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 NE, SSW, SW, WNW, Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N/A N, NNE E ESE SE SSE, S NNW ENE WSW, W NW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X Drumore South X X X X X East Drumore X Fawn X Fawn Grove X Fulton East X Fulton West X X X X X Little Britain X Lower Chanceford North X Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X X Martic X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X Providence X Quarryville X West Nottingham X Zone 1 X Zone 2 X Zone 3 X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X Zone 6 X Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because it Zone(s) Evacuate is surrounded by other Zones which are Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 76. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R13R28)

Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 Wind Direction From: N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Zone Delta X X X X X X X Drumore North X X X X X X Drumore South X X X X X X X East Drumore X X X X X X Fawn X X X X X X X Fawn Grove X X X X X X X Fulton East X X X X X X Fulton West X X X X X X X Little Britain X X X X X X Lower Chanceford X X X X X X North Lower Chanceford X X X X X X X South Martic X X X X X X Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West X X X X X X Providence X X X X X X Quarryville X X X X X West Nottingham X X X X X Zone 1 X X X X X X X Zone 2 X X X X X X X Zone 3 X X X X X X Zone 4 X X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X X X Zone 6 X X X X X X Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because Zone(s) Evacuate it is surrounded by other Zones which are Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 77. Description of Evacuation Regions (Regions R29R38)

Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 NE, SSW, SW, WNW, Wind Direction From: N/A N, NNE E ESE SE SSE, S NNW ENE WSW, W NW Zone Delta X X X X X X Drumore North Drumore South X X X X East Drumore Fawn Fawn Grove Fulton East Fulton West X X X X Little Britain Lower Chanceford North Lower Chanceford South X X X X X X Martic Peach Bottom Central X X X X X X Peach Bottom East X X X X X X X X X X Peach Bottom West Providence Quarryville West Nottingham Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 X X X X X Zone 5 X X X X X Zone 6 Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Zone(s) Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace R01, then Evacuate Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Shadow Region Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the ATE Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours after the ATE Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 55 Minutes after the ATE Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours after the ATE Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 2 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

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

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 4 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 6 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 714. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 8 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 10 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

45 40 35 Vehicles Evacuating 30 25 (Thousands) 20 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 717. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

40 35 30 Vehicles Evacuating 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 12 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13) 2Mile Region 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 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 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates - Scenario 14 for Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 730 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 ETEs for transit vehicles (i.e., buses, wheelchair transport, and ambulances). The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools, day cares, day camps and medical facilities; 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.

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 distances 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 PBAPS EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to host schools if an evacuation is recommended while school is in session, and that parents should pick schoolchildren up at host schools. As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a fast breaking general emergency. Therefore, schools and special facilities receive initial notification at the same time as the rest of the EPZ and children are evacuated to host schools. 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/CR 7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the host schools/reception centers ETE 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, Daycares, Day Camps, TransitDependent People, and Medical Facilities Table 81 lists the transportation resources and transportation needs to evacuate the transit dependent and special facility population in the EPZ. As shown in the table, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the entire school, preschool, daycare, day camp, transit dependent, and medical facility population. EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception center or host school after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transport service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a one wave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

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 at the pickup points.

School, PreSchool, Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated. Based on discussions with the offsite agencies, drivers would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools/preschools/daycares/day camps for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather -

100 minutes for rain/light snow, 110 minutes for heavy snow.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Based on discussions with the offsite agencies, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school buses is used. See Section 2.4, assumption 5 and Table 22.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools, preschools, daycares and day camps are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the ATE - 90 minutes mobilization time plus a 15minute 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/preschool/daycare/day camp being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate host school/reception center.

This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool/daycare/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 Section 10 in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the link node analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 105 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school/preschool/daycare/day camp evacuation. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the host school/reception center was computed assuming an average speed of 40 mph, 36 mph (10% decrease), and 34 mph (15% decrease) for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 to 40 mph (36 mph for rain/light snow and 34 mph for heavy snow) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 40 mph (see Section 2.1, Item 7).

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following ETEs (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools, preschools, daycares and day camps in the EPZ:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1. The elapsed time from the ATE until the bus exits the EPZ (ETE); and

2. The elapsed time until the bus reaches the host school (ETA to H.S./R.C.).

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 min. + 15 + 15 = 2:00 for Conowingo Elementary School, with good weather). The average singlewave ETE, for schools (2:05),

preschools/daycares (2:00), and day camps (2:05), are less than the 90th percentile ETE (3:25) for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and should not impact protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the host school/reception center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.

Activity: Travel to Host School/Reception Center (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the host schools/reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the host school/reception center. The host schools/reception centers/host facilities are mapped in Figure 104. For a one wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 40 mph, 36 mph, and 34 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the school 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 (GC DE)

As shown in Table 81, there are sufficient buses for evacuation of children in a single wave, if the entire EPZ is evacuated at once (a highly unlikely event). However, there might be a shortfall of drivers. As such, a twowave evacuation may be needed for some schools/preschools/daycares/day camps. Due to the large number of schools/preschools/

daycares/day camps in the EPZ, second wave ETE were not computed for each facility. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation of schools/preschools/daycares/day camps. The travel time from the host school/reception center back to the EPZ boundary and then back to the school/preschool/daycare/day camp was computed assuming an average speed of 40 mph (good weather), 36 mph (rain/light snow) and 34 mph (heavy snow) as buses will be traveling counter to the evacuation traffic. Time and distance are based on averages from Table 82 for all schools/preschools/daycares/day camps in the EPZ for good weather:

• Buses arrive at host schools/reception centers at 2:25.

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

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second route: 14 minutes to return to the EPZ (equal to average travel time to host school for good weather) + 14 minutes to return to the start of the route (9.5 miles, average distance to EPZ boundary from Table 82 @ 40 mph) + 14 minutes to perform a second wave of service on the route (9.5 miles, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

average distance to EPZ boundary from Table 82 @ 40 mph, average network speed at this time) = 42 minutes.

• Loading Time: 15 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:25 + 0:15 + 0:42 + 0:15 = 3:40 after the ATE, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

Given the average single wave ETE for schools/preschools/daycares/day camps is 2:25, a second wave evacuation would require an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes, on average, for good weather.

Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle and Amish Women and Children)

As detailed in Section 3.6, the transit dependent population includes people who do not have access to a vehicle based on results from the demographic survey data and the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) women and children population1 from Census data. Bus capacities are estimated to be 30 passengers; see Section 2.4. This study uses 16 bus routes to service the major evacuation routes and transportation pickup points (PUPs) defined in the county plans. The routes are shown graphically in Figure 102 and Figure 103 and are described in Table 101.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after a majority of their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters), approximately 90% of the evacuees will have completed their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 180 minutes after the ATE for good weather.

Those routes with multiple buses have been designed such that buses are dispatched using 30 minute headways. The use of bus headways ensures that those people who take longer to mobilize will be picked up.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

For multiple stops along a pickup route (transitdependent bus routes) estimation of travel time must allow for the delay associated with stopping and starting at each pickup point. The time, t, required for a bus to decelerate at a rate, a, expressed in ft/sec/sec, from a speed, v, expressed in ft/sec, to a stop, is t = v/a. Assuming the same acceleration rate and final speed following the stop yields a total time, T, to service boarding passengers:

2 ,

Where B = Dwell time to service passengers. The total distance, s in feet, travelled during the deceleration and acceleration activities is: s = v2/a. If the bus had not stopped to service 1

The Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) women and children are considered in the transit-dependent population due to their need for transportation in an evacuation. It is assumed that Amish men will not evacuate. See Section 3.1.1.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

passengers, but had continued to travel at speed, v, then its travel time over the distance, s, would be: s/v = v/a. Then the total delay (i.e., pickup time, P) to service passengers is:

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. As mentioned previously, bus capacities are 30 passengers per bus.

Thus, bus pickup times are 30 minutes per bus, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain/light snow and heavy snow resulting in 10 and 20 minute delays in loading time per bus, respectively.

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/daycare/day camp evacuation.

Table 85 through Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETE for each bus route calculated using the above procedures for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

For example, the ETE for the bus route servicing the Delta/Peach Bottom Municipal Bldg. is computed as 180 + 21 + 30 = 3:55 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 21 minutes is the time to travel 13.0 miles at 37.5 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 180 minutes. As mentioned before, the total pickup time is equal to 30 minutes.

The ETE for a second wave (discussed below) is presented in the event there is a shortfall of available buses or bus drivers, as previously discussed.

The average ETE for a onewave evacuation of transitdependent people (3:55) exceeds the ETE for the general population by 30 minutes at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and could potentially impact protective action decision making.

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 general population reception centers are mapped in Figure 104. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 40 mph, 36 mph, and 34 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

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

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

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

The secondwave ETE for the bus route servicing Delta/Peach Bottom Municipal Bldg. is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 4:16 in good weather (3:55 to exit EPZ + 21minute 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: 21 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 19.5 minutes (13.0 miles @ 40 mph - assumed speed to start of route) + 19.5 minutes (13.0 miles @ 40.0 mph - network wide speed at time bus starts route for the second time) = 60 minutes.

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 4:16 + 0:15 + 1:00 + 0:30 = 6:05 after the ATE (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes).

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 for a twowave evacuation of transitdependent people (5:25) significantly exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and could impact protective action decision making.

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

Evacuation of Medical Facilities As discussed in Section 2.4 and in Table 22, 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 for 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, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances are 30, 20 and 30 minutes, respectively.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective pickup routes within the EPZ is estimated using the UNITES software. Transit vehicle travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school and transitdependent 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 3, capped at 40 mph (36 mph for rain/light snow and 34 mph for heavy snow), are used to compute travel time to the 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 boundary. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for the Conowingo Veterans Center with 16 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 16 x 1 + 14 = 120 min or 2:00 It is assumed that the medical facility population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facilities outside the EPZ. 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 for medical facilities (2:00) in the EPZ does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE (3:25) for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) evacuation and should not impact protective action decision making.

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

As shown in Table 81, there are sufficient transportation resources to evacuate all medical facilities within the EPZ. In the event of a shortfall of vehicles or available drivers, a second wave ETE was developed for medical facilities.

Second wave ETE were not computed for each medical facility. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation for buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances, respectively.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Times and distances are based on facilitywide averages:

• Ambulatory patients:

o Buses arrive at Reception Centers at 2:07 (1:55 Average ETE for buses to exit the EPZ plus 12 minutes to travel 8 miles, average distance to Reception Center at 40 mph).

o Bus discharges passengers (16 minutes - average loading time for buses from Table 88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 26 minutes.

o Bus returns to facility: 12 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (time needed to travel 8 miles back to the EPZ at 40 mph) + 6 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 4 miles for buses from Table 88 @ 40 mph) = 18 minutes.

o Remaining patients loaded on bus (maximum): 30 minutes.

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 10 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (4 miles) at 40 mph (network wide average speed at 3:20).

o Van exits EPZ at time 2:07 + 0:26 + 0:18 + 0:30 + 0:10 = 221 minutes or 3:35 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

• Wheelchair Bound patients:

o Wheelchair Vans arrive at reception centers at 2:07 (1:55 Average ETE for vans to exit the EPZ plus 12 minutes to travel 8 miles, average distance to Reception Center at 40 mph).

o Van discharges passengers (15 minutes - average loading time for vans from Table

88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 25 minutes.

o Van returns to facility: 12 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (time needed to travel 8 miles back to the EPZ at 40 mph) + 6 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 4 miles for vans from Table 88 @ 40 mph) = 18 minutes.

o Remaining patients loaded on van (maximum): 20 minutes.

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 10 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (4 miles) at 40 mph (network wide average speed at 3:10).

o Van exits EPZ at time 2:07 + 0:25 + 0:18 + 0:20 + 0:10 = 200 minutes or 3:20 after the ATE.

• Bedridden patients:

o Ambulances arrive at reception centers at 2:22 (2:10 Average ETE for ambulances to exit the EPZ plus 12 minutes to travel 8 miles, average distance to Reception Center at 40 mph).

o Ambulance discharges passengers (30 minutes - average loading time for ambulances from Table 88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 40 minutes.

o Ambulance returns to facility: 12 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (time needed to travel 8 miles back to the EPZ at 40 mph) + 6 minutes to travel back to the facility (average distance to EPZ = 4 miles for ambulances from Table 88 @ 40 mph) = 18 minutes.

o Remaining patients loaded on ambulance (maximum): 30 minutes.

o Bus travels to EPZ boundary: 10 minutes (average distance from medical facilities to EPZ boundary (4 miles) at 40 mph (network wide average speed at 3:50).

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

o Van exits EPZ at time 2:22 + 0:40 + 0:18 + 0:30 + 0:10 = 240 minutes or 4:00 after the ATE.

Thus, the second wave evacuation for ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients require an additional 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes, 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 25 minutes, and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes, respectively, when compared to the first wave ETE. The average ETE for a twowave evacuation of medical facilities exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) evacuation and could impact protective action decision making.

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population The registered access and/or functional needs population was provided by the offsite agencies and is further discussed in Section 3.8. Table 811 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs population. The table is broken down by weather condition. It is assumed that the access and/or functional needs population will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that households are spaced 3 miles apart. Vehicle speeds approximate 20 mph between households in good weather (10% slower in rain/light snow, 15%

slower in heavy snow). Mobilization times of 90 minutes were used (100 minutes for rain/light snow, and 110 minutes for heavy snow). The last household is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 40 mph (36 mph for rain/light snow and 34 mph for heavy snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time.

ETE is computed by summing mobilization time, loading time at first household, travel to the subsequent households, loading time at subsequent households, and travel time to the EPZ boundary. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per household (HH) implies that 103 HH need to be serviced. Wheelchair vans are assumed to have a capacity of 4 wheelchair bound persons per van resulting in a total of 8 wheelchair vans needed to complete the evacuation in a single wave. The following outlines the ETE calculations for a wheelchair van:

1. Assume 8 wheelchair vans are deployed, each with 4 stops, to service a total of 32 HH.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows:

a. Wheelchair vans arrive at the first pickup location: 90 minutes

b. Load passenger at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 3 @ 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20 mph) = 27 minutes

d. Load passenger at subsequent pickup locations: 3 @ 5 minutes = 15 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 11 minutes (5 miles @ 26.6 mph).

ETE: 90 + 5 + 27 + 15 + 11 = 2:30 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes)

The average ETE for a firstwave evacuation of the access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ is less than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Full EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and should not impact protective action decision making.

The following outlines the ETE calculations for a second wave evacuation using wheelchair vans after the medical facilities have been evacuated:

a. Wheelchair vans arrive at reception centers: 2:01 (1:55 Average ETE for wheelchair buses to exit the EPZ from Table 88 plus 6 minutes to travel 4miles, average distance to a Reception Center at 40 mph) on average

b. Unload passengers at reception center (average from Table 88): 15 minutes

c. Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes

d. Travel time back to EPZ: 6 minutes (4miles at 40 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 locations: 3 @ 9 minutes = 27 minutes

h. Loading time at subsequent households: 3 stops @ 5 minutes = 15 minutes

i. Travel time to EPZ boundary: 5 miles @ 40 mph (at 3:34) = 8 minutes Wheelchair Van exits EPZ at time: 2:01 + 15 + 10 + 6 + 15 + 5 + 27 + 15 + 8 = 3:45 after the ATE, rounded up to the nearest 5minutes.

The average ETE for a secondwave evacuation of the wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ is 20 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the Full EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and could impact protective action decision making.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Resource Buses Minibuses Vans Vans Ambulances Resources Available Cecil County, MD 175 0 15 20 20 Harford County, MD 400 0 0 100 4 Lancaster County, PA 194 34 0 2 70 York County, PA 713 0 0 144 66 TOTAL: 1,482 34 15 266 160 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 37): 15 0 0 38 3 TransitDependent Population (Section 3.6): 64 0 0 0 0 Schools/Preschools/Daycares/Day Camp (Table 39): 237 0 0 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs (Table 310): 7 0 0 8 1 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 323 0 0 46 4 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS Conowingo Elementary School 90 15 4.8 19.7 15 2:00 5.7 9 2:10 HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS North Harford High School 90 15 4.0 18.2 13 2:00 7.9 12 2:15 North Harford Elementary School 90 15 2.8 16.4 10 1:55 3.9 6 2:05 North Harford Middle School 90 15 3.7 29.8 7 1:55 6.0 9 2:05 Harford Christian School 90 15 5.0 40.0 8 1:55 15.9 24 2:20 Dublin Elementary School 90 15 3.5 40.0 5 1:50 3.4 5 1:55 Darlington Elementary School 90 15 1.8 40.0 3 1:50 7.9 12 2:05 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Solanco High School 90 15 2.9 37.0 5 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Clermont Elementary School 90 15 7.2 40.0 11 2:00 9.4 14 2:15 Swift Middle School 90 15 7.2 40.0 11 2:00 9.4 14 2:15 Martic Elementary School 90 15 2.7 24.7 7 1:55 1.6 2 2:00 Quarryville Elementary School 90 15 1.4 34.3 2 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Smith Middle School 90 15 Located Outside the EPZ 1:45 9.4 14 2:00 YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS South Eastern Middle School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 South Eastern Intermediate School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Fawn Area Elementary School 90 15 3.3 7.5 26 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 KennardDale High School 90 15 3.6 7.5 29 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Cherry Ridge Amish School 90 15 15.3 35.0 26 2:15 13.9 21 2:40 DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 90 15 12.7 19.1 40 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 Cypress School 90 15 10.7 17.5 37 2:25 13.9 21 2:50 Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 90 15 10.7 17.5 37 2:25 13.9 21 2:50 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 School Maximum: 2:50 School Average for EPZ: 2:05 School Average: 2:25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS Christian Childcare Center 90 15 7.1 26.1 16 2:05 12.4 19 2:25 Childrens Center of North Harford 90 15 4.9 39.8 7 1:55 7.9 12 2:10 Wilson Ministry Center 90 15 1.5 40.0 2 1:50 9.2 14 2:05 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Mechanic Grove CLASP 90 15 4.9 40.0 7 1:55 8.3 12 2:10 Barnsley Academy 90 15 2.9 37.0 5 1:50 9.4 14 2:05 Busy Hands Daycare 90 15 0.9 40.0 1 1:50 5.6 8 2:00 Shining Stars Daycare 90 15 1.2 34.3 2 1:50 8.3 12 2:05 YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Kidsville Junction Childcare 90 15 3.4 7.5 27 2:15 14.1 21 2:40 Delta Christian Academy 90 15 11.5 18.6 37 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 PreSchool Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 PreSchool Maximum: 2:50 PreSchool Average for EPZ: 2:00 PreSchool Average: 2:20 CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Camp Conowingo GSA 90 15 7.8 21.5 22 2:10 6.7 10 2:20 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout 90 15 4.1 29.6 8 1:55 6.7 10 2:05 Reservation HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 90 15 2.2 26.9 5 1:50 12.4 19 2:10 Indian Lake Christian Camp 90 15 8.5 40.0 13 2:00 5.2 8 2:10 Camp Ramblewood 90 15 3.5 40.0 5 1:50 9.2 14 2:05 Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 90 15 8.1 40.0 12 2:00 5.2 8 2:10 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Camp Andrews 90 15 7.4 40.0 11 2:00 4.8 7 2:10 Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 90 15 10.6 27.5 23 2:10 3.9 6 2:20 YORK COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Guppy Gulch Park 90 15 12.7 19.1 40 2:25 14.1 21 2:50 Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:25 Day Camp Maximum: 2:50 Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:05 Day Camp Average: 2:15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 83. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Travel Travel Time Dist. To Time to Dist. EPZ from EPZ Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to Bdry to ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S/R.C. H.S./R.C H.S./R.C.

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS Conowingo Elementary School 100 20 4.8 6.1 47 2:50 5.7 10 3:00 HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS North Harford High School 100 20 4.0 16.7 14 2:15 7.9 13 2:30 North Harford Elementary School 100 20 2.8 12.8 13 2:15 3.9 7 2:25 North Harford Middle School 100 20 3.7 28.8 8 2:10 6.0 10 2:20 Harford Christian School 100 20 5.0 36.0 8 2:10 15.9 27 2:40 Dublin Elementary School 100 20 3.5 36.0 6 2:10 3.4 6 2:20 Darlington Elementary School 100 20 1.8 36.0 3 2:05 7.9 13 2:20 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Solanco High School 100 20 2.9 34.8 5 2:05 9.4 16 2:25 Clermont Elementary School 100 20 7.2 36.0 12 2:15 9.4 16 2:35 Swift Middle School 100 20 7.2 36.0 12 2:15 9.4 16 2:35 Martic Elementary School 100 20 2.7 23.3 7 2:10 1.6 3 2:15 Quarryville Elementary School 100 20 1.4 32.5 3 2:05 9.4 16 2:25 Smith Middle School 100 20 Located Outside the EPZ 2:00 9.4 16 2:20 YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS South Eastern Middle School 100 20 3.6 6.8 32 2:35 14.1 24 3:00 South Eastern Intermediate School 100 20 3.6 6.8 32 2:35 14.1 24 3:00 Fawn Area Elementary School 100 20 3.3 6.7 30 2:30 14.1 24 2:55 KennardDale High School 100 20 3.6 6.8 32 2:35 14.1 24 3:00 Cherry Ridge Amish School 100 20 15.3 32.2 29 2:30 13.9 23 2:55 DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 100 20 12.7 15.7 49 2:50 14.1 24 3:15 Cypress School 100 20 10.7 14.4 45 2:45 13.9 23 3:10 Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 100 20 10.7 14.4 45 2:45 13.9 23 3:10 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:50 School Maximum: 3:15 School Average for EPZ: 2:25 School Average: 2:45 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS Christian Childcare Center 100 20 7.1 21.6 20 2:20 12.4 21 2:45 Childrens Center of North Harford 100 20 4.9 36.0 8 2:10 7.9 13 2:25 Wilson Ministry Center 100 20 1.5 36.0 3 2:05 9.2 15 2:20 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Mechanic Grove CLASP 100 20 4.9 36.0 8 2:10 8.3 14 2:25 Barnsley Academy 100 20 2.9 34.8 5 2:05 9.4 16 2:25 Busy Hands Daycare 100 20 0.9 36.0 2 2:05 5.6 9 2:15 Shining Stars Daycare 100 20 1.2 32.5 2 2:05 8.3 14 2:20 YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Kidsville Junction Childcare 100 20 3.4 6.8 30 2:30 14.1 24 2:55 Delta Christian Academy 100 20 11.5 15.4 45 2:45 14.1 24 3:10 PreSchool Maximum for EPZ: 2:45 PreSchool Maximum: 3:10 PreSchool Average for EPZ: 2:15 PreSchool Average: 2:35 CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Camp Conowingo GSA 100 20 7.8 8.0 58 3:00 6.7 11 3:15 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout 100 20 4.1 27.6 9 2:10 6.7 11 2:25 Reservation HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 100 20 2.2 24.5 5 2:05 12.4 21 2:30 Indian Lake Christian Camp 100 20 8.5 36.0 14 2:15 5.2 9 2:25 Camp Ramblewood 100 20 3.5 36.0 6 2:10 9.2 15 2:25 Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 100 20 8.1 36.0 14 2:15 5.2 9 2:25 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Camp Andrews 100 20 7.4 31.6 14 2:15 4.8 8 2:25 Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 100 20 10.6 27.9 23 2:25 3.9 7 2:35 YORK COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Guppy Gulch Park 100 20 12.7 15.7 49 2:50 14.1 24 3:15 Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 3:00 Day Camp Maximum: 3:15 Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:25 Day Camp Average: 2:40 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. School Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Travel Dist. To Time to Dist. EPZ Travel Time Driver Loading EPZ Average EPZ Bdry to from EPZ Bdry ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE H.S/R.C. to H.S./R.C H.S./R.C.

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS Conowingo Elementary School 110 25 4.8 12.4 23 2:40 5.7 10 2:50 HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS North Harford High School 110 25 4.0 18.8 13 2:30 7.9 14 2:45 North Harford Elementary School 110 25 2.8 17.1 10 2:25 3.9 7 2:35 North Harford Middle School 110 25 3.7 24.9 9 2:25 6.0 11 2:40 Harford Christian School 110 25 5.0 33.8 9 2:25 15.9 28 2:55 Dublin Elementary School 110 25 3.5 34.0 6 2:25 3.4 6 2:35 Darlington Elementary School 110 25 1.8 34.0 3 2:20 7.9 14 2:35 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Solanco High School 110 25 2.9 32.3 5 2:20 9.4 17 2:40 Clermont Elementary School 110 25 7.2 34.0 13 2:30 9.4 17 2:50 Swift Middle School 110 25 7.2 34.0 13 2:30 9.4 17 2:50 Martic Elementary School 110 25 2.7 21.7 7 2:25 1.6 3 2:30 Quarryville Elementary School 110 25 1.4 31.0 3 2:20 9.4 17 2:40 Smith Middle School 110 25 Located Outside the EPZ 2:15 9.4 17 2:35 YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS South Eastern Middle School 110 25 3.6 15.6 14 2:30 14.1 25 2:55 South Eastern Intermediate School 110 25 3.6 15.6 14 2:30 14.1 25 2:55 Fawn Area Elementary School 110 25 3.3 15.6 13 2:30 14.1 25 2:55 KennardDale High School 110 25 3.6 15.6 14 2:30 14.1 25 2:55 Cherry Ridge Amish School 110 25 15.3 28.7 32 2:50 13.9 25 3:15 DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 110 25 12.7 22.9 33 2:50 14.1 25 3:15 Cypress School 110 25 10.7 23.3 28 2:45 13.9 25 3:10 Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 110 25 10.7 23.3 28 2:45 13.9 25 3:10 School Maximum for EPZ: 2:50 School Maximum: 3:15 School Average for EPZ: 2:30 School Average: 2:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS Christian Childcare Center 110 25 7.1 25.2 17 2:35 12.4 22 3:00 Childrens Center of North Harford 110 25 4.9 34.0 9 2:25 7.9 14 2:40 Wilson Ministry Center 110 25 1.5 34.0 3 2:20 9.2 16 2:40 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Mechanic Grove CLASP 110 25 4.9 34.0 9 2:25 8.3 15 2:40 Barnsley Academy 110 25 2.9 32.3 5 2:20 9.4 17 2:40 Busy Hands Daycare 110 25 0.9 34.0 2 2:20 5.6 10 2:30 Shining Stars Daycare 110 25 1.2 31.0 2 2:20 8.3 15 2:35 YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Kidsville Junction Childcare 110 25 3.4 15.6 13 2:30 14.1 25 2:55 Delta Christian Academy 110 25 11.5 24.1 29 2:45 14.1 25 3:10 PreSchool Maximum for EPZ: 2:45 PreSchool Maximum: 3:10 PreSchool Average for EPZ: 2:30 PreSchool Average: 2:45 CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Camp Conowingo GSA 110 25 7.8 13.0 36 2:55 6.7 12 3:10 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout 110 25 4.1 25.6 10 2:25 6.7 12 2:40 Reservation HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 110 25 2.2 23.9 6 2:25 12.4 22 2:50 Indian Lake Christian Camp 110 25 8.5 34.0 15 2:30 5.2 9 2:40 Camp Ramblewood 110 25 3.5 34.0 6 2:25 9.2 16 2:45 Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 110 25 8.1 34.0 14 2:30 5.2 9 2:40 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Camp Andrews 110 25 7.4 34.0 13 2:30 4.8 8 2:40 Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 110 25 10.6 25.5 25 2:40 3.9 7 2:50 YORK COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Guppy Gulch Park 110 25 12.7 22.9 33 2:50 14.1 25 3:15 Day Camp Maximum for EPZ: 2:55 Day Camp Maximum: 3:15 Day Camp Average for EPZ: 2:35 Day Camp Average: 2:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Travel Driver Travel Pickup Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. Time to Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Name Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) R.C. (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

Delta/Peach Bottom 1 180 13.0 37.5 21 30 3:55 14.1 21 5 10 60 30 6:05 Municipal Bldg.

15 180 10.6 40.0 16 30 3:50 4.8 7 5 10 39 30 5:25 Drumore Municipal Bldg.

69 210 10.6 40.0 16 30 4:20 4.8 7 5 10 39 30 5:55 14 180 4.2 40.0 6 30 3:40 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 5:05 East Drumore Municipal 58 210 4.2 40.0 6 30 4:10 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 5:35 Bldg.

9 12 240 4.2 40.0 6 30 4:40 8.3 12 5 10 25 30 6:05 Fawn Grove/Fawn Municipal 1 180 4.0 29.6 8 30 3:40 14.1 21 5 10 33 30 5:20 Bldg.

Fulton Municipal Bldg. 16 180 11.7 40.0 18 30 3:50 4.8 7 5 10 42 30 5:25 15 180 9.7 40.0 15 30 3:45 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 5:25 Little Britain Municipal Bldg. 6 10 210 9.7 40.0 15 30 4:15 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 5:55 11 14 240 9.7 40.0 15 30 4:45 8.3 12 5 10 41 30 6:25 Lower Chanceford Municipal 1 180 4.5 40.0 7 30 3:40 10.6 16 5 10 30 30 5:15 Bldg.

Martic Municipal Bldg. 1 180 2.3 38.0 4 30 3:35 7.1 11 5 10 18 30 4:50 14 180 1.6 40.0 2 30 3:35 4.8 7 5 10 12 30 4:40 Providence Municipal Bldg.

58 210 1.6 40.0 2 30 4:05 4.8 7 5 10 12 30 5:10 Quarryville Municipal Bldg. 1 180 1.2 31.2 2 30 3:35 8.3 12 5 10 16 30 4:50 West Nottingham Municipal 1 180 1.5 31.9 3 30 3:35 15.0 23 5 10 28 30 5:15 Bldg.

Zone 1 1 180 6.9 40.0 10 30 3:40 13.0 20 5 10 41 30 5:30 Zone 2 & Zone 4 1 180 11.1 40.0 17 30 3:50 5.2 8 5 10 41 30 5:25 Zone 3 & Zone 5 1 180 9.3 40.0 14 30 3:45 9.2 14 5 10 42 30 5:30 Zone 6 Pick Up 1 & Pick Up 1 180 7.9 40.0 12 30 3:45 6.6 10 5 10 34 30 5:15 2

Zone 6 Pick Up 3 1 180 3.0 38.6 5 30 3:35 8.4 13 5 10 22 30 4:55 Maximum ETE: 4:45 Maximum ETE: 6:25 Average ETE: 3:55 Average ETE: 5:25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Name Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

Delta/Peach Bottom 1 190 13.0 31.5 25 40 4:15 14.1 24 5 10 65 40 6:40 Municipal Bldg.

15 190 10.6 36.0 18 40 4:10 4.8 8 5 10 42 40 5:55 Drumore Municipal Bldg.

69 220 10.6 36.0 18 40 4:40 4.8 8 5 10 42 40 6:25 14 190 4.2 36.0 7 40 4:00 8.3 14 5 10 27 40 5:40 East Drumore Municipal 58 220 4.2 36.0 7 40 4:30 8.3 14 5 10 27 40 6:10 Bldg.

9 12 250 4.2 36.0 7 40 5:00 8.3 14 5 10 27 40 6:40 Fawn Grove/Fawn 1 190 4.0 24.5 10 40 4:00 14.1 24 5 10 37 40 6:00 Municipal Bldg.

Fulton Municipal Bldg. 16 190 11.7 36.0 20 40 4:10 4.8 8 5 10 45 40 6:00 15 190 9.7 36.0 16 40 4:10 8.3 14 5 10 45 40 6:05 Little Britain Municipal 6 10 220 9.7 36.0 16 40 4:40 8.3 14 5 10 45 40 6:35 Bldg.

11 14 250 9.7 36.0 16 40 5:10 8.3 14 5 10 45 40 7:05 Lower Chanceford 1 190 4.5 36.0 8 40 4:00 10.6 18 5 10 32 40 5:45 Municipal Bldg.

Martic Municipal Bldg. 1 190 2.3 34.5 4 40 3:55 7.1 12 5 10 20 40 5:25 Providence Municipal 14 190 1.6 36.0 3 40 3:55 4.8 8 5 10 13 40 5:15 Bldg. 58 220 1.6 36.0 3 40 4:25 4.8 8 5 10 13 40 5:45 Quarryville Municipal 1 190 1.2 28.4 3 40 3:55 8.3 14 5 10 18 40 5:25 Bldg.

West Nottingham 1 190 1.5 36.0 3 40 3:55 15.0 25 5 10 30 40 5:45 Municipal Bldg.

Zone 1 1 190 6.9 36.0 12 40 4:05 13.0 22 5 10 44 40 6:10 Zone 2 & Zone 4 1 190 11.1 36.0 19 40 4:10 5.2 9 5 10 44 40 6:00 Zone 3 & Zone 5 1 190 9.3 36.0 16 40 4:10 9.2 15 5 10 44 40 6:05 Zone 6 Pick Up 1 & Pick 1 190 7.9 36.0 13 40 4:05 6.6 11 5 10 36 40 5:50 Up 2 Zone 6 Pick Up 3 1 190 3.0 35.1 5 40 3:55 8.4 14 5 10 24 40 5:30 Maximum ETE: 5:10 Maximum ETE: 7:05 Average ETE: 4:15 Average ETE: 6:00 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Name Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

Delta/Peach Bottom 1 200 13.0 21.8 36 50 4:50 14.1 25 5 10 67 50 7:30 Municipal Bldg.

15 200 10.6 34.0 19 50 4:30 4.8 8 5 10 43 50 6:30 Drumore Municipal Bldg.

69 230 10.6 34.0 19 50 5:00 4.8 8 5 10 43 50 7:00 14 200 4.2 34.0 7 50 4:20 8.3 15 5 10 29 50 6:10 East Drumore Municipal 58 230 4.2 34.0 7 50 4:50 8.3 15 5 10 29 50 6:40 Bldg.

9 12 260 4.2 34.0 7 50 5:20 8.3 15 5 10 29 50 7:10 Fawn Grove/Fawn 1 200 4.0 17.9 13 50 4:25 14.1 25 5 10 38 50 6:35 Municipal Bldg.

Fulton Municipal Bldg. 16 200 11.7 34.0 21 50 4:35 4.8 8 5 10 46 50 6:35 15 200 9.7 34.0 17 50 4:30 8.3 15 5 10 47 50 6:40 Little Britain Municipal Bldg. 6 10 230 9.7 34.0 17 50 5:00 8.3 15 5 10 47 50 7:10 11 14 260 9.7 34.0 17 50 5:30 8.3 15 5 10 47 50 7:40 Lower Chanceford Municipal 1 200 4.5 34.0 8 50 4:20 10.6 19 5 10 34 50 6:20 Bldg.

Martic Municipal Bldg. 1 200 2.3 32.5 4 50 4:15 7.1 13 5 10 21 50 5:55 14 200 1.6 34.0 3 50 4:15 4.8 8 5 10 13 50 5:45 Providence Municipal Bldg.

58 230 1.6 34.0 3 50 4:45 4.8 8 5 10 13 50 6:15 Quarryville Municipal Bldg. 1 200 1.2 23.9 3 50 4:15 8.3 15 5 10 19 50 5:55 West Nottingham Municipal 1 200 1.5 24.6 4 50 4:15 15.0 26 5 10 31 50 6:20 Bldg.

Zone 1 1 200 6.9 34.0 12 50 4:25 13.0 23 5 10 46 50 6:40 Zone 2 & Zone 4 1 200 11.1 34.0 20 50 4:30 5.2 9 5 10 45 50 6:30 Zone 3 & Zone 5 1 200 9.3 34.0 16 50 4:30 9.2 16 5 10 46 50 6:40 Zone 6 Pick Up 1 & Pick Up 1 200 7.9 34.0 14 50 4:25 6.6 12 5 10 38 50 6:20 2

Zone 6 Pick Up 3 1 200 3.0 33.0 5 50 4:15 8.4 15 5 10 25 50 6:00 Maximum ETE: 5:30 Maximum ETE: 7:40 Average ETE: 4:35 Average ETE: 6:35 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Medical Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Conowingo Ambulatory 90 1 16 16 3.9 14 2:00 Veterans Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 3.9 14 1:55 Allcare Assisted Ambulatory 90 1 6 6 2.9 5 1:45 Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 2.9 5 1:45 Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 2.1 3 1:40 Liberty Garden Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 2.1 3 1:50 Elderly Care Bedridden 90 15 2 30 2.1 3 2:05 Ambulatory 90 1 25 25 4.4 7 2:05 Hart Heritage Wheelchair bound 90 5 7 20 4.4 7 2:00 Estate Bedridden 90 15 2 30 4.4 7 2:10 Broad Creek Ambulatory 90 1 8 8 8.1 12 1:50 Manor Assisted 2:00 Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 8.1 12 Country View 2:00 Manor Ambulatory 90 1 20 20 4.1 6 Quarryville Ambulatory 90 1 242 30 1.4 3 2:05 Presbyterian Wheelchair bound 90 5 128 20 1.4 3 1:55 Retirement 2:05 Community Bedridden 90 15 2 30 1.4 3 Maximum ETE: 2:10 Average ETE: 2:00 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Conowingo Ambulatory 100 1 16 16 3.9 40 2:40 Veterans Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 3.9 40 2:30 Allcare Assisted Ambulatory 100 1 6 6 2.9 5 1:55 Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 2.9 5 1:55 Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 2.1 4 1:50 Liberty Garden Wheelchair bound 100 5 3 15 2.1 4 2:00 Elderly Care Bedridden 100 15 2 30 2.1 4 2:15 Ambulatory 100 1 25 25 4.4 7 2:15 Hart Heritage Wheelchair bound 100 5 7 20 4.4 7 2:10 Estate Bedridden 100 15 2 30 4.4 7 2:20 Broad Creek Ambulatory 100 1 8 8 8.1 14 2:05 Manor Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 3 15 8.1 14 2:10 Country View Manor Ambulatory 100 1 20 20 4.1 9 2:10 Quarryville Ambulatory 100 1 242 30 1.4 3 2:15 Presbyterian Wheelchair bound 100 5 128 20 1.4 3 2:05 Retirement Community Bedridden 100 15 2 30 1.4 3 2:15 Maximum ETE: 2:40 Average ETE: 2:10 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Conowingo Ambulatory 110 1 16 16 3.9 20 2:30 Veterans Center Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 3.9 13 2:15 Allcare Assisted Ambulatory 110 1 6 6 2.9 5 2:05 Living Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 2.9 5 2:05 Ambulatory 110 1 4 4 2.1 4 2:00 Liberty Garden Wheelchair bound 110 5 3 15 2.1 4 2:10 Elderly Care Bedridden 110 15 2 30 2.1 4 2:25 Ambulatory 110 1 25 25 4.4 8 2:25 Hart Heritage Wheelchair bound 110 5 7 20 4.4 8 2:20 Estate Bedridden 110 15 2 30 4.4 8 2:30 Broad Creek Ambulatory 110 1 8 8 8.1 14 2:15 Manor Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 110 5 3 15 8.1 14 2:20 Country View Manor Ambulatory 110 1 20 20 4.1 7 2:20 Quarryville Ambulatory 110 1 242 30 1.4 3 2:25 Presbyterian Wheelchair bound 110 5 128 20 1.4 3 2:15 Retirement Community Bedridden 110 15 2 30 1.4 3 2:25 Maximum ETE: 2:30 Average ETE: 2:20 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Good 90 81 13 3:15 Buses 70 7 10 Rain 100 1 90 9 14 3:35 Snow 110 99 13 3:55 Good 90 27 11 2:30 Wheelchair 32 8 4 Rain 100 5 30 15 14 2:45 Vans Snow 110 33 11 2:55 Good 90 0 8 1:55 Ambulances 1 1 1 Rain 100 15 0 0 9 2:05 Snow 110 0 11 2:20 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Average ETE: 2:50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A ATE B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Host School G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 826 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 the 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 Control Points and/or Access Control Points (TCPs/ACPs) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the EPZ.

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

The terms "facilitate" and "discourage" are employed rather than "enforce" and "prohibit" to indicate the need for flexibility in performing the traffic control function. There are always legitimate reasons for a driver to prefer 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 control tactics discussed in the latest state and county emergency plans served as the basis of the TMP, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing ACP or TCP locations in the county and state plans as being controlled by actuated signals. Table K1 in Appendix K identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TCPs/ACPs.

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 76). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that could benefit from traffic control are examined. No additional TCPs or ACPs were identified, which would benefit the ETE, as part of this study.

3. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs: Application of traffic and access control at some TCPs and ACPs will have a more pronounced influence on expediting traffic movements than at other TCPs and ACPs. For example, TCPs controlling traffic originating from areas in close proximity to the power plant could have a more beneficial effect on minimizing potential exposure to radioactivity than those TCPs located farther from the power plant. 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 a list of priority TCPs/ACPs using the process enumerated above.

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

The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the existing TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption 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 ATE.

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

Section 2.5 further discusses TCP and ACP operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the on board navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools/daycares, day camps, medical facilities, or permanent residents who do not own or have access to a private vehicle) from the EPZ boundary to Reception Centers.

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

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

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

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

The 16 bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and Figure 103 and described in Table 101 were designed for this study to service the major evacuation routes and transportation pickup point (PUPs) identified in the county emergency plans. These routes service the transit dependent evacuees throughout the entire EPZ along major evacuation routes through each Zone and then proceed to the nearest reception center. It is assumed that residents will walk to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus to be picked up or to a PUP to be picked up.

Schools, preschools/daycares, day camps and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the reception center/host school/host facility, in order to compute ETE.

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers/host schools/host facilities to congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

10.2 Reception Centers, Host Schools and Host Facilities According to the current public information brochure to the EPZ residents, evacuees from:

Cecil County will be directed to Rising Sun High School; Chester County will be directed to Octorara Middle School; Harford County will be directed to Harford Community College and Fallston High School; Lancaster County will be directed to Willow Street Campus - Lancaster County Career and Technology Center; and York County will be directed to Red Lion Senior High School and Susquehannock High School.

Table 103 lists the host schools for each school, preschool/daycare, and day camp in the EPZ.

For those facilities that did not have a specified host school in the public information, it was assumed that the facility would evacuate to the nearest reception center.

Figure 104 presents a map showing the reception centers, host schools and host facilities for the general population and the transitdependent evacuees.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

31 1 Transit Dependent Lower Chanceford Municipal Building 4.5 34 1 Transit Dependent Zone 6 Pick Up 1 7.9 36 1 Transit Dependent Zone 6 Pick Up 3 3.0 37 12 Transit Dependent East Drumore Municipal Bldg. 4.2 38 9 Transit Dependent Drumore Municipal Bldg. 10.6 39 6 Transit Dependent Fulton Municipal Bldg. 11.7 40 14 Transit Dependent Little Britain Municipal Bldg. 9.7 41 5 Transit Dependent Martic Municipal Bldg. 2.3 42 8 Transit Dependent Providence Municipal Bldg. 1.6 43 1 Transit Dependent Quarryville Municipal Bldg. 1.2 44 1 Transit Dependent West Nottingham Municipal Bldg. 1.5 45 1 Transit Dependent Delta/Peach Bottom Bldg. 13.0 46 1 Transit Dependent Fawn Grove/ Fawn Municipal Bldg. 4.0 47 1 Transit Dependent Zone 1 6.9 48 1 Transit Dependent Zone 2 & Zone 4 11.1 49 1 Transit Dependent Zone 3 & Zone 5 9.3 Total: 64 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Facility Route Type Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Clermont Elementary School & Swift 29, 730, 731, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 750, 751, 1

Middle School 752, 753, 754, 1587, 756, 759, 758, 760, 1677 2 Conowingo Elementary School 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47 DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 392, 414, 482, 483, 484, 485, 487, 488, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 3

& Guppy Gulch Park 598, 565, 566, 567, 568, 571, 572, 573, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 South Eastern Middle School, South Eastern Intermediate School, Fawn 4 Area Elementary School, Kennard Dale 568, 571, 572, 573, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 High School & Kidsville Junction Childcare 5 Martic Elementary School 1236, 1668, 1237, 886 Solanco Senior High School & Barnsley 6 48, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 1587, 756, 759, 758, 760, 1677 Academy 7 Smith Middle School 757, 1737, 758, 760, 1677 Quarryville Elementary School &

8 56, 757, 1737, 758, 760, 1677 Shining Stars Daycare Darlington Elementary School, Wilson 9 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273 Ministry Center & Camp Ramblewood School/PreSchool/Daycare/Day Camp 10 Dublin Elementary School 409, 410, 411, 412, 68, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249 11 North Harford Elementary School 422, 423, 1838, 1837, 424, 425, 426, 428, 429, 430 12 North Harford Middle School 1838, 1837, 424, 1839, 509, 511, 513, 515, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528 423, 1838, 1837, 424, 1839, 509, 511, 513, 515, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 13 North Harford High School 528 14 Harford Christian School 404, 405, 406, 408, 323, 409, 410, 411, 412, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 15 Childrens Center of North Harford 511, 513, 515, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1539, 1980, 413, 414, 482, 483, 484, 485, 487, 488, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 598, 565, 566, 16 Delta Christian Academy 567, 568, 571, 572, 573, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 1587, 756, 759, 758, 760, 17 Mechanic Grove CLASP 1677 18 Busy Hands Daycare 1612, 711, 712 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 1838, 1837, 424, 1839, 509, 511, 513, 515, 517, 518, 519, 19 Christian Childcare Center 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528 22 Camp Conowingo GSA 1272, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47 Broad Creek Memorial Scout 27 399, 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 323, 409, 410, 411, 412, 68, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249 Reservation 28 Indian Lake Christian Camp 344, 342, 341, 340, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 90, 65, 66, 67, 68, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249 Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout 29 215, 123, 124 Reservation Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout 30 1568, 180, 181 Reservation 1549, 1548, 695, 696, 698, 1764, 699, 700, 701, 1605, 703, 1608, 705, 706, 707, 1610, 708, 709, 32 Camp Andrews 710 School/PreSchool/Daycare/Day Camp 33 Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 1384, 1383, 528 1342, 618, 619, 620, 622, 3009, 3010, 3011, 649, 651, 652, 654, 655, 657, 658, 659, 660, 662, 663, 61 Cherry Ridge Amish School 664, 665, 667, 669, 670, 672, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 Cypress School & Blue Bird Meadow 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 593, 594, 595, 596, 62 Amish 598, 565, 566, 567, 568, 571, 572, 573, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 20 Quarryville Presbyterian Ret Com 1587, 756, 759, 758, 760, 1677 21 Country View Manor 1762, 1761, 699, 700, 701, 1605, 703, 1608, 705, 706, 707, 1610, 708, 709, 710 23 Hart Heritage Estate 513, 515, 517, 518, 519, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528 24 Allcare Assisted Living 234, 235, 236, 142 25 Liberty Garden Elderly Care 233, 234, 235, 236, 142 26 Conowingo Veterans Center 1787, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47 Medical Facility 358, 357, 356, 354, 353, 351, 350, 365, 346, 345, 344, 342, 341, 340, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 90, 65, 66, 63 Broad Creek Manor Assisted Living 67, 68, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Transit Dependent - Lower Chanceford 31 620, 622, 623, 624, 625, 626, 628, 629, 630, 631, 632, 633, 635 Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent - Zone 6 - Pick Up 1 34 1270, 1271, 1272, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47 and 2 36 Transit Dependent - Zone 6 - Pick Up 3 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 142 Transit Dependent - East Drumore Twp 37 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 1587, 756, 759, 758, 760, 1677 Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent - Drumore Twp 1553, 1552, 689, 690, 692, 693, 1548, 695, 696, 698, 1764, 699, 700, 701, 1605, 703, 1608, 705, 38 Municipal Bldg. 706, 707, 1610, 708, 709, 710 Transit Dependent - Fulton Twp 164, 680, 1555, 681, 682, 683, 684, 686, 687, 688, 1552, 689, 690, 692, 693, 1548, 695, 696, 698, 39 Municipal Bldg. 1764, 699, 700, 701, 1605, 703, 1608, 705, 706, 707, 1610, 708, 709, 710 Transit Dependent - Little Britain Twp 1560, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 744, 745, 747, 748, 750, 751, 752, 753, 754, 1587, 756, 759, 40 Municipal Bldg. 758, 760, 1677 Transit Dependent - Martic Twp 41 1234, 1235, 1668, 1237, 886 Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent - Providence Twp 42 1611, 1610, 708, 709, 710 Transit Dependent Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent - Quarryville 43 1738, 756, 759, 758, 760, 1677 Borough Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent - West Nottingham 44 1753, 1752, 1755, 1754, 33 Twp Municipal Bldg.

Transit Dependent Delta/Peach 1545, 1546, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 392, 414, 482, 483, 484, 485, 487, 488, 591, 592, 593, 594, 45 Bottom 595, 596, 598, 565, 566, 567, 568, 571, 572, 573, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 Transit Dependent - Fawn Grove/Fawn 46 667, 669, 670, 672, 1977, 574, 576, 577, 578, 579 Twp Mun Bldg.

47 Transit Dependent Zone 1 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 1838, 1837, 424, 425, 426, 428, 429, 430 388, 389, 390, 392, 393, 394, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 408, 323, 409, 410, 411, 48 Transit Dependent Zone 2, Zone 4 412, 68, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249 364, 363, 362, 360, 358, 357, 356, 354, 353, 351, 350, 365, 346, 345, 344, 342, 341, 340, 60, 264, 49 Transit Dependent Zone 3, Zone 5 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. School, PreSchool, Daycare and Day Camp Host Schools/Reception Centers School/PreSchool/Daycare/Day Camp Host School/Reception Center CECIL COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS Conowingo Elementary School Calvert Elementary HARFORD COUNTY, MD SCHOOLS North Harford High School C. Milton Wright High North Harford Elementary School North Bend Elementary North Harford Middle School Hickory Elementary Harford Christian School Upper Crossroads Baptist Church Dublin Elementary School Churchville Elementary Darlington Elementary School Meadowvale Elementary School LANCASTER COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS Solanco High School Clermont Elementary School Swift Middle School LampeterStrasburg Campus Quarryville Elementary School Smith Middle School Martic Elementary School Marticville Middle School YORK COUNTY, PA SCHOOLS South Eastern Middle School South Eastern Intermediate School Grace United Methodist Church Fawn Area Elementary School DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School KennardDale High School Shrewsbury Assembly of God Cherry Ridge Amish School Cypress School Nearest Reception Center Blue Bird Meadow Amish School HARFORD COUNTY, MD PRESCHOOLS Christian Childcare Center Childrens Center of North Harford Nearest Reception Center Wilson Ministry Center LANCASTER COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Mechanic Grove CLASP Barnsley Academy Nearest Reception Center Busy Hands Daycare Shining Stars Daycare YORK COUNTY, PA PRESCHOOLS Kidsville Junction Childcare Nearest Reception Center Delta Christian Academy Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

School/PreSchool/Daycare/Day Camp Host School/Reception Center CECIL COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Camp Conowingo GSA Nearest Reception Center Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout Reservation HARFORD COUNTY, MD DAY CAMPS Habonim Dror Camp Moshava Indian Lake Christian Camp Nearest Reception Center Camp Ramblewood Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation LANCASTER COUNTY, PA DAY CAMPS Camp Andrews Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation Nearest Reception Center Guppy Gulch Park Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Evacuation Routes Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 109 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes within Pennsylvania Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1010 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. TransitDependent Bus Routes within Maryland Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1011 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 104. General Population Reception Centers/Host Schools/Host Facilities Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1012 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity). Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence. The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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.

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the Destination Matrix number of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 section describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

DTRAD executes the Traffic Assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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 ca ta la sa ,

where ca is the generalized cost for link a, 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 d0 = 15 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb vQ shown, Q Cap, with t 0 and a queue of Q

Qe length, Q , formed by that portion of M and E that reaches the stopbar within the TI, but could not v discharge due to inadequate capacity. That is, Q Mb M E . This queue length, Q Q v L3 M E Cap can be extended to Q by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling t1 t3 at speed, v, and reaching the rear of the queue within T the TI. A portion of the entering vehicles, E E ,

will likely join the queue. This analysis calculates t , Q and M for the input values of L, TI, v, E, t, L , LN, Q .

When t 0 and Q Cap:

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

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

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

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

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

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

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e., the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Peach Bottom Atomic 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Q in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Peach Bottom Atomic 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)

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 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 EPZ boundary information and create a GIS base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location. The base map incorporates the local roadway topology, a suitable topographic background and the EPZ and Zone boundaries.

Step 2 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Estimates of employees who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ was based upon data provided by Lancaster County and by Constellation. Transient facility, school and medical facility data were obtained from county emergency management agencies and the National Center for Education Statistics website1.

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

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any are present), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity.

Step 5 An online demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study 1

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 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 24 Zones. Based on wind direction and speed, regions (groupings of Zones) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

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

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

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

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using EVAN software see Section 1.3)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a laborintensive activity, requiring the direct participation of skilled engineers who possess the necessary practical experience to interpret the results and to determine the causes of any problems reflected in the results.

Essentially, the approach is to identify those bottlenecks in the network that represent locations where congested conditions are pronounced and to identify the cause of this congestion. This cause can take many forms, either as excess demand due to high rates of trip generation, improper routing, a shortfall of capacity, or as a quantitative flaw in the way the physical system was represented in the input stream. This examination leads to one of two conclusions:

The results are satisfactory; or The input stream must be modified accordingly.

This decision requires, of course, the application of the user's judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many "treatments" available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding minor routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such "treatments" take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses and for school buses, ambulances, and other transit vehicles 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results were 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 were used to compute evacuation time estimates for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, hospitals, and other special facilities, and the access and/or functional needs population.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated and graphed. The results were 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Use DYNEVII to Simulate All Evacuation Cases Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream and Compute ETE Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Special Facility Data

E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of August 2022, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the PBAPS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools/daycares, day camps, and medical facilities.

Transient population data is included in the tables for transient attractions (boat ramps/marinas, campgrounds, farms, golf courses, hunting areas, parks) and lodging facilities.

Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by state, then 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/daycare, day camp, medical facility, major employer, transient attraction (boat ramp/marina, campground, farm, golf course, hunting area, park), and lodging facility are also provided.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the Study Area Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment CECIL COUNTY, MD Zone 6 8.2 SE Conowingo Elementary School 471 Rowlandsville Rd Conowingo 567 Cecil County Subtotal: 567 HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 9.1 SW North Harford High School 211 Pylesville Rd Pylesville 1,212 Zone 1 9.1 SW North Harford Elementary School 120 Pylesville Rd Pylesville 344 Zone 1 9.3 SW North Harford Middle School 112 Pylesville Rd Pylesville 895 Zone 2 6.8 S Harford Christian School 1736 Whiteford Rd Darlington 413 Zone 3 7.5 S Dublin Elementary School Whiteford Rd Dublin 238 Zone 3 9.1 SSE Darlington Elementary School 2119 Shuresville Rd Dublin 106 Harford County Subtotal: 3,208 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA East Drumore 9.7 NE Solanco High School 585 Solanco Rd Quarryville 1,056 Fulton East 6.8 ENE Clermont Elementary School 1868 Robert Fulton Hwy Quarryville 465 Fulton East 6.9 ENE Swift Middle School 1866 Robert Fulton Hwy Quarryville 428 Martic 8.9 N Martic Elementary School 266 Martic Heights Dr Holtwood 339 Quarryville 11.0 NNE Quarryville Elementary School 211 S Hess St Quarryville 414 S.R. 11.4 NNE Smith Middle School1 645 Kirkwood Pike Quarryville 421 Lancaster County Subtotal: 3,123 YORK COUNTY, PA Fawn 10.6 W South Eastern Middle School 375 Main St Fawn Grove 406 Fawn 10.7 W South Eastern Intermediate School 417 Main St Fawn Grove 387 Fawn 10.8 W Fawn Area Elementary School 504 Main St Fawn Grove 227 Fawn Grove 10.6 W KennardDale High School 393 Main St Fawn Grove 769 Lower Chanceford South 3.4 NW Cherry Ridge Amish School 241 Johnson Rd Delta 18 Peach Bottom Central 3.2 SW DeltaPeach Bottom Elementary School 1081 Atom Rd Delta 303 Peach Bottom Central 4.7 W Cypress School 2325 Bryansville Rd Delta 3 Peach Bottom West 5.0 WSW Blue Bird Meadow Amish School 680 Line Rd Delta 30 York County Subtotal: 2,143 STUDY AREA TOTAL: 9,041 1

Smith Middle School is located in the Shadow Region (S.R.), close to the EPZ boundary. According to the 2021 - 2022 public information brochure for the PBAPS, the students in Smith Middle School will be evacuated to Lampeter-Strasburg Campus in the event of an emergency at the PBAPS.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 6.6 SW Christian Childcare Center 719 Wheeler School Rd Whiteford 41 Zone 1 8.5 SW Childrens Center of North Harford 707 Highland Rd Street 48 Zone 3 9.0 SSE Wilson Ministry Center 1024 Main St Darlington 28 Harford County Subtotal: 117 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA East Drumore 8.3 NE Mechanic Grove CLASP 1392 Robert Fulton Hwy Quarryville 89 East Drumore 9.9 NE Barnsley Academy 550 Solanco Rd Quarryville 47 Providence 11.4 N Busy Hands Daycare 290 Sawmill Rd New Providence 12 Quarryville 11.2 NNE Shining Stars Daycare 7 S Hess St Quarryville 104 Lancaster County Subtotal: 252 YORK COUNTY, PA Fawn 10.8 WSW Kidsville Junction Childcare 89 Hunt Club Rd Fawn Grove 56 Peach Bottom Central 4.3 WSW Delta Christian Academy 6610 Delta Rd Delta 113 York County Subtotal: 169 EPZ TOTAL: 538 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Day Camps within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction Day Camp Name Street Address Municipality ment CECIL COUNTY, MD Zone 6 5.9 SE Camp Conowingo GSA 378 Bell Manor Rd Conowingo 275 Zone 6 8.6 ESE Camp Horseshoe, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 1286 Ridge Rd Rising Sun 800 Cecil County Subtotal: 1,075 HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 9.7 SSW Habonim Dror Camp Moshava 615 Cherry Hill Rd Street 190 Zone 3 6.4 SSE Indian Lake Christian Camp 3915 River Rd Darlington 110 Zone 3 9.2 SE Camp Ramblewood Silver Rd Darlington 300 Zone 5 4.3 S Broad Creek Memorial Scout Reservation 1929 Susquehanna Hall Rd Whiteford 1,000 Harford County Subtotal: 1,600 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA Drumore North 5.7 N Camp Andrews 1226 Silver Spring Rd Holtwood 140 Little Britain 8.1 ESE Camp Ware, Horseshoe Scout Reservation 239 Jubilee Rd Peach Bottom 300 Lancaster County Subtotal: 440 YORK COUNTY, PA Peach Bottom Central 3.2 SW Guppy Gulch Park 95 Guppy Valley Delta 100 York County Subtotal: 540 EPZ TOTAL: 3,215 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Capa Current atory chair ridden Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality city Census Patients Patients Patients CECIL COUNTY, MD Zone 6 7.9 SE Conowingo Veterans Center 775 Ragan Rd Conowingo 22 18 16 2 0 Zone 6 9.6 SE Allcare Assisted Living 405 McCauley Rd Conowingo 9 8 6 2 0 Zone 6 10.2 SE Liberty Garden Elderly Care 1670 Liberty Grove Rd Conowingo 12 9 4 3 2 Cecil County Subtotal: 43 35 26 7 2 HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 9.4 SW Hart Heritage Estate 3708 Grier Nursery Rd Street 39 34 25 7 2 Zone 5 4.1 SSE Broad Creek Manor Assisted Living 4411 Flintville Rd Whiteford 11 11 8 3 0 Harford County Subtotal: 50 45 33 10 2 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA East Drumore 8.2 NNE Country View Manor 12 Friendly Dr Quarryville 24 20 20 0 0 East Drumore 10.6 NNE Quarryville Presbyterian Retirement Community 625 Robert Fulton Hwy Quarryville 375 372 242 128 2 Lancaster County Subtotal: 399 392 262 128 2 EPZ TOTAL: 492 472 321 145 6 Table E5. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ LANCASTER COUNTY, PA Quarryville Presbyterian Retirement East Drumore 10.6 NNE Community 625 Robert Fulton Hwy Quarryville 369 68.9% 254 240 Providence 8.7 NNE Buck Company 897 Lancaster Pike Quarryville 250 68.9% 172 162 Lancaster County Subtotal: 619 426 402 YORK COUNTY, PA Peach Bottom East Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 1848 Lay Rd Delta 450 88.8% 400 377 York County Subtotal: 450 400 377 EPZ TOTAL: 1,069 826 779 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E6. Boat Ramps/Marinas, Farms, Golf Courses and Hunting Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles CECIL COUNTY, MD Zone 6 6.5 SE Conowingo Creek Boat Launch Old Conowingo Rd Conowingo Boat Ramp 40 16 Zone 6 9.3 ESE Hilltop Farm Inc. 1089 Nesbitt Rd Colora Farm 320 130 Cecil County Subtotal: 360 146 HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 9.6 SW Geneva Farm Golf Course 217 Davis Rd Street Golf Course 400 161 Zone 3 6.9 SSE Glen Cove Marina Glen Cove Rd &, Berkley Rd Darlington Marina 152 56 Harford County Subtotal: 552 217 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA Drumore South 4.8 NE Pilgrim's Oak Golf Course 1107 Pilgrims Pathway Peach Bottom Golf Course 209 84 East Drumore 7.6 NNE Tanglewood Manor Golf Course 653 Scotland Rd Quarryville Golf Course 377 152 Fulton West 1.9 E Peach Bottom Marina2 1798 Slate Hill Rd Peach Bottom Marina Local residents only Lancaster County Subtotal: 586 236 YORK COUNTY, PA Maize Quest Fun Park/Maple Fawn 10.6 W Lawn Farms 2885 New Park Rd New Park Farm 407 150 Lower Chanceford North 7.6 NW State Gamelands 181 814898 E Posey Rd Airville Hunting Area 12 4 Lower Chanceford North 9.9 NW York Furnace Boat Launch Indian Steps Rd Airville Boat Ramp 102 41 Lower Chanceford North 10.5 NW State Gamelands 83 E Heffner Rd Brogue Hunting Area 12 4 Lower Chanceford South 3.5 NW Muddy Creek Access Area River Rd Lower Chanceford Boat Ramp 110 44 York County Subtotal: 643 243 EPZ TOTAL: 2,141 842 2

Aerial imagery shows limited parking space for the Peach Bottom Marina. The majority of the visitors to a facility with such limited parking are likely local residents. Therefore, no transients or transient vehicles were assigned to this marina to avoid double counting.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E7. Campgrounds and Parks within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles HARFORD COUNTY, MD Zone 1 11.2 SW Rocks 4H Camp 6 Cherry Hill Rd Street Campground 162 66 Zone 3 9.0 SE Conowingo's Fisherman's Park Shures Landing Rd Darlington Park 100 41 Harford County Subtotal: 262 107 CHESTER COUNTY, PA West Nottingham 12.2 E Nottingham County Park 150 Park Rd Nottingham Park 900 363 Chester County Subtotal: 900 363 LANCASTER COUNTY, PA Drumore South 3.4 NNW Susquehannock State Park State Park Rd Drumore Park 613 247 East Drumore 10.0 NE Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park 340 Blackburn Rd Quarryville Campground 521 210 Martic 6.3 N Muddy Run Park 172 Bethesda Church Rd W Holtwood Campground 469 189 Martic 7.6 NNW Tucquan Park Family Campground 917 River Rd Holtwood Campground 492 198 Martic 8.7 N Hobo Hollow Campground 65 Nissley Ln Holtwood Campground 108 80 Martic 10.6 NNW Pequea Creek Campground 86 Fox Hollow Rd Pequea Campground 248 100 Lancaster County Subtotal: 2,451 1,024 YORK COUNTY, PA Lower Chanceford North 5.0 NW Lock 12 Recreational Area 699645 River Rd Airville Park 30 13 Lower Chanceford North 5.7 NW Mill Creek Falls Retreat Center 303 E Telegraph Rd Airville Campground 125 46 Lower Chanceford North 5.9 NW Holtwood Playpark River Rd Airville Park 1,300 480 Lower Chanceford North 9.1 NW Gamler's Campground 211 Indian Steps Rd Airville Campground 348 140 Otter Creek / Urey Overlook Lower Chanceford North 10.0 NW Nature Preserve 3 S 8th St Columbia Park Included below Lower Chanceford North 10.2 NW Otter Creek Campground 1101 Furnace Rd Airville Campground 221 89 Lower Chanceford South 3.6 NW Lock 15 Recreation Park River Rd Lower Chanceford Park 30 13 Peach Bottom East 1.5 SSE Orchard Campground 870 Orchard Rd Delta Campground 211 156 Peach Bottom East 1.8 NW Cold Cabin Public Park Cold Cabin Rd Delta Park 20 9 York County Subtotal: 2,285 946 EPZ TOTAL: 5,898 2,440 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Street Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Address Municipality Transients Vehicles YORK COUNTY, PA Lower Chanceford North 7.6 WNW The Farmhouse at The Jack 3899 Delta Rd Airville 8 3 Peach Bottom Central 3.5 WSW Peach Bottom Inn 6085 Delta Rd Delta 48 24 York County Subtotal: 56 27 EPZ TOTAL: 56 27 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the PBAPS Study Area Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Preschools/Daycares within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Day Camps within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Major Employers within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E6. Boat Ramps/Marinas, Farms, Golf Courses and Hunting Areas within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E7. Campgrounds and Parks within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E8. Lodging Facilities within the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of ETE for the EPZ of the PBAPS 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 in this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in early 2021 and the 2020 Census data had not been released, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of approximately 382 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample should be drawn from the study area population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the study area was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. An estimate of the population and number of households in each zip code was determined by overlaying Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

As shown in Table F1, a total of 170 completed samples were obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-8% at the 95% confidence level based on 2020 Census data (with a total of 53,106 households in the sampled zip codes). Of the 170 completed survey samples, 90 were obtained from the EPZ population and 80 were obtained from the Shadow Region. After consulting with Constellation, it was deemed that the demographics between the EPZ and the Shadow Region were similar. As a result, the surveys gathered from zip codes within the Shadow Region were included in the analysis to reduce the sampling error.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the decline to state responses are ignored and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ. According to the survey results, the average household contains 2.71 people. The average household size within the study area based on 2020 Census data is 2.81, as shown in Table F1. The difference in household size between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 3.6%, which falls within the sampling error of 8%. The good agreement between the survey results and Census data is indicative of the reliability of the survey.

Vehicle Availability The average number of vehicles available per household in the EPZ is 2.46. It should be noted that all households in the study area have access to a vehicle according to the demographic survey. The distribution of vehicle availability is presented in Figure F2. Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the vehicle availability by household size.

Ridesharing 72.6% 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. Figure F5 presents this response.

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 1.08 commuters in each household in the EPZ, and 64.1% of households have at least one commuter.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority (approximately 94%) of commuters drive to work alone. The data shows an average of 1.06 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Less than half of the households surveyed indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. Considering the majority of households had commutes that were not impacted by COVID19, the results of this demographic survey were not compared with the previous study.

Functional or Transportation Needs The survey results indicate that approximately 5% of households have functional or transportation needs. Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. Of those (5% of households) with functional or transportation needs, 42.1% require a bus, 26.2% require a medical bus/van, 21.1% require a wheelchair accessible van, 5.3% require an ambulance, and 5.3% require other modes of transportation.

Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) Community The survey included questions to elicit information from members of the Pennsylvania Dutch (Amish) Community. Of those who took the survey, none indicated that they were a member of the Pennsylvania Dutch Community.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.58 vehicles.

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

Of the survey participants who responded, 56% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 44% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.

What would you do with your pet(s) and/or animal(s) if you had to evacuate? Based on responses from the survey, 81% of households have pet(s) and/or animal(s). Of the households with pet(s) and/or animal(s), 28.2% indicated that they would take their pet(s) and/or animal(s) with them to a shelter, 69.6% indicated that they would take their pet(s) and/or animal(s) somewhere else and 2.2% would leave their pet(s) and/or animal(s) at home, as shown in Figure F11. Of the households that would evacuate with their pet(s) and/or animal(s), 96% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s) and 4% said they did not.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, 92.1% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, rodent, rabbit, ferret, or fish) and 7.9% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, pig, sheep, or cow), as shown in Figure F12.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 90% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 10% 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, Revision 1. Thus, the data obtained above is significantly lower than the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Table M2 in Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that 66% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 34% 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. 45.2% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 1.8% to a reception center, 16.1% to a hotel, motel or campground, 5.4% to a second or seasonal home, 1.2% of households would not evacuate, and the remaining 30.4%

answered other or dont know to this question. See Figure F13.

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 or college?

Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by 75 minutes. Approximately 85% can leave within 30 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F15 presents the work/college to home travel time for the EPZ. Approximately 82% of commuters can arrive home within 45 minutes of leaving work/college; all within 90 minutes.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car? Figure F16 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The distribution shown in Figure F16 has a long tail. Approximately 75% of households can be ready to leave home within 90 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 45 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 may 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.

Approximately 80% of driveways are passable within 90 minutes. The last driveway is cleared at 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the start of this activity. Note, those respondents (approximately 15%) 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.

F.4 Conclusions The demographic survey provides valuable, relevant data associated with the study area population, which have been used to quantify demographics specific to the study area, and mobilization time which can influence ETE.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. Peach Bottom Demographic Survey Sampling Plan 2010 Pop 2020 Pop 2020 HH 201 HH in Desired Sample Location Zip Code in Zip in Zip in Zip Zip Code Samples Obtained Code Code Code 17302 2715 968 2783 979 18 2 17309 158 58 170 58 1 1 17314 5929 2142 5999 2242 38 6 17321 2238 812 2245 849 15 5 17352 1034 368 950 353 7 3 17363 46 15 45 15 0 7 17518 1355 420 1344 440 8 0 17532 3381 1188 3424 1213 22 0 17536 371 117 360 112 2 0 17560 3134 1133 3269 1186 21 0 17563 3849 1257 3991 1257 23 0 17565 1543 539 1536 555 10 0 17566 8133 2919 8570 2893 52 1 EPZ 17584 62 19 77 20 0 1 19362 5040 1757 5017 1785 31 1 19363 422 150 399 148 3 0 21015 168 58 194 63 1 0 21034 3325 1250 3106 1261 23 0 21050 101 39 139 51 1 1 21132 1750 599 1861 636 11 0 21154 5396 1915 5235 1871 34 0 21160 2408 881 2559 976 16 0 21904 4 1 4 1 1 23 21911 2226 757 2224 805 14 15 21917 1131 398 1090 393 7 9 21918 3676 1304 3669 1382 23 15 EPZ Total 59,595 21,064 60,260 21,544 382 90 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2010 Pop 2020 Pop 2020 HH 201 HH in Desired Sample Location Zip Code in Zip in Zip in Zip Zip Code Samples Obtained Code Code Code 17302 368 130 387 135 2 17309 1,794 684 1,830 692 1 17322 1,092 399 1,084 397 0 17352 258 96 281 102 3 17363 514 186 509 182 7 17509 539 130 599 146 0 17516 3,912 1,457 3,975 1,534 0 17536 2,468 741 2,533 788 0 17551 108 37 142 42 0 17560 1,984 759 2,011 778 0 17562 53 16 71 18 0 17565 994 377 1,056 375 0 17566 3,189 975 3,402 1,048 1 17579 1,870 573 1,988 602 0 17584 5,401 1,980 5,925 2,233 1 17602 195 56 180 50 0 Shadow 17603 370 126 426 134 0 N/A 19362 620 209 736 207 1 19363 3,443 1,114 3,701 1,189 0 21001 549 217 534 219 0 21014 8,296 2,690 8,550 2,809 1 21015 7,436 2,571 7,938 2,727 0 21028 3,310 1,166 3,256 1,156 0 21034 62 24 60 26 0 21050 13,610 4,865 13,522 4,995 1 21078 2,636 1,013 2,766 1,055 0 21084 3,932 1,410 3,923 1,445 0 21132 884 314 994 339 0 21154 1,068 365 1,127 386 0 21161 1,106 399 1,182 416 0 21904 6,304 2,252 6,187 2,347 23 21911 6,296 2,305 6,234 2,334 15 21917 1,389 467 1,246 444 9 21918 608 207 571 212 15 Shadow Total 86,658 30,310 88,926 31,562 0 80 Grand Total 146,253 51,374 149,186 53,106 382 170 Average HH Size: 2.85 2.81 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Peach Bottom Household Size 50%

41.6%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

23.5%

20%

13.9%

12.0%

10% 6.6%

2.4%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ Peach Bottom Vehicle Availability 60%

50% 47.6%

Percent of Households 40%

30% 26.5%

20%

14.1%

10% 8.3%

3.5%

0.0%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 13 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability - 1 to 3 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 46+ Person Households 4 People 5 People 6+ People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability - 4 to 6+ Person Households Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Peach Bottom Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

72.6%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

27.4%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Peach Bottom Commuters per Household 50%

40%

35.9%

Percent of Households 29.4% 28.2%

30%

20%

10%

4.1%

2.4%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Peach Bottom Travel Mode to Work/College 100%

93.9%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

6.1%

0%

Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the EPZ COVID19 Pandemic Impact to Commuters 80%

60%

Percent of Households 51.5%

40%

30.2%

20%

10.6%

5.3%

2.4%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Impacted Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional or Transportation Needs 50%

42.1%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

26.2%

21.1%

20%

10%

5.3% 5.3%

0%

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Ambulance Other Accessible Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transpiration Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 80%

60%

Percent of Households 54.8%

40% 34.5%

20%

10.1%

0.6%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals 80%

69.6%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

28.2%

20%

2.2%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F11. Households evacuating with Pets/Animals to Shelters Type of Pets/Animals 100%

92.1%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

7.9%

0%

Household Pets Farm Animals Figure F12. Types of Pets/Animals Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter Locations 60%

50% 45.2%

Percent of Households 40%

30.4%

30%

20% 16.1%

10% 5.4%

1.8% 1.2%

0%

Figure F13. Shelter Locations Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Work/College to Home Travel Time Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F15 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 90 120 150 180 Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Clear Driveway of 6"8" of Snow Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station F17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

06^_`ÿb4cc4dÿec4df_ÿ04g62ÿhc^cf4iÿj6d4k2^3`f_ÿh12l6m nÿR9o 9

0123456 789ÿ 9ÿÿ8ÿ 9ÿÿÿ9ÿÿ98ÿ ÿ999ÿÿ789ÿÿ899ÿÿ8ÿ 9ÿÿ9ÿ89ÿ8ÿÿ999ÿ9ÿÿ989ÿ999ÿ 9 9ÿÿÿ ÿ9ÿ ÿ9 9ÿÿ9ÿ 9ÿÿÿ999ÿ 9 99ÿ!"#$"ÿ%&!'ÿ(%)*!"+"ÿ%&"ÿ$,-."'ÿ*"-ÿ/%,$"/%!0ÿ!"#$"ÿ/#."ÿ+/"ÿ/"#0ÿ%1ÿ+/"ÿ/%,$"/%!0ÿ234ÿ

'"#-$ÿ%-ÿ%!0"-5ÿ(%)*!"+"ÿ+/"ÿ$,-."'ÿ6ÿÿ 9ÿ ÿ9ÿÿÿ9ÿ7ÿÿ89ÿ 9ÿÿ89ÿ9ÿ8ÿ9ÿ 9ÿÿ 99

 pqÿr`^cÿf5ÿm412ÿk6is62t

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF I9 J99 699ÿÿK9 G89H L uqÿr`^cÿf5ÿm412ÿ4d6ÿvf3ÿ_4s6tn M weqÿxiÿc4c^yzÿ4gÿd^imÿ21iifikÿ_^25zÿ42ÿ4c62ÿl6`f_y65ÿ^26ÿ151^yymÿ^l^fy^{y6ÿc4ÿc6ÿ4156`4yst

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF GNO 7PG 7QROO JGSR JTUO KTV KOUON OTWQ7 NTNOÿGRÿIGRO XORGÿ2NGNO5 6OYZTNOÿ7GÿK7[7O

\ wbqÿxiÿ^iÿ6d62k6i_mzÿ_41ysÿm41ÿk6cÿ^ÿ2fs6ÿ41cÿ4lÿc6ÿ^26^ÿgfcÿ^ÿi6fk`{42ÿ42ÿl2f6ist

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF

OK NG 6OYZTNOÿ7GÿK7[7O 9 }qÿ~4gÿd^imÿl6`f_y65ÿg41ysÿm412ÿ4156`4ysÿ156ÿs12fikÿ^iÿ6l^_1^cf4it

<=>ÿ@ABCÿ@ADÿ@E<BF GNO 7PG 7QROO JGSR JTUO KTV KOUON OTWQ7 NTNOÿGRÿIGRO XORGÿ2NGNO5 TÿPGSZ6ÿOU[YS[7Oÿ]ÿ]TYYZO TÿPGSZ6ÿOU[YS[7Oÿ]ÿ]SK 6OYZTNOÿ7GÿK7[7O

01 +,ÿ./0ÿ1234ÿ56/576ÿ8982774ÿ7:;6ÿ:3ÿ<=:9ÿ=/896=/7>?

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739





































ÿÿ

 ÿÿ!

"1 @A,ÿAB6ÿ4/8ÿ2ÿ161C6Bÿ/Dÿ<=6ÿE633947;23:2ÿF8<G=ÿHA1:9=IÿG/1183:<4?

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

1. 



 ÿÿ!

$1 @J,ÿK3ÿ23ÿ616BL63G4Mÿ0/87>ÿ4/8ÿ/Bÿ161C6B9ÿ/Dÿ4/8Bÿ=/896=/7>ÿ6;2G82<6?

2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

1. %ÿ!ÿ&ÿÿ! !

1. %ÿÿ&ÿÿÿÿÿ! !ÿ'( #ÿ&)

%ÿÿÿÿ! !

 ÿÿ!

• 1 E76296ÿ956G:D4ÿ0=:G=ÿ161C6B9ÿ/Dÿ4/8Bÿ=/896=/7>ÿ0:77ÿ6;2G82<6N

012 -./ÿ123ÿ4567ÿ8928:9ÿ;6ÿ<=;>ÿ=2?>9=2:@ÿ3;::ÿ9A5B?5<9C 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84





































ÿÿ

!ÿÿ"

002 -D/ÿE6ÿ56ÿ949FG96B7Hÿ=23ÿ3;::ÿ72?ÿ2Fÿ494I9F>ÿ2Jÿ72?Fÿ=2?>9=2:@ÿ9A5B?5<9C 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿ" ÿ#$

1. !$!

"%

ÿÿ#

ÿ&'"ÿ'!$ÿ#(

0)2 K:95>9ÿ><5<9ÿ2<=9Fÿ49<=2@>ÿ2Jÿ9A5B?5<;26ÿ<=5<ÿ39F9ÿ62<ÿ:;><9@ÿ5I2A9L 0*2 M/ÿ123ÿ4567ÿ8928:9ÿ;6ÿ72?Fÿ=2?>9=2:@ÿ=5A9ÿ5ÿ32FNÿ56@O2Fÿ>B=22:ÿB244?<9ÿ<=5<ÿ=5>ÿI996ÿ<9482F5F;:7ÿ;485B<9@ÿ@?9ÿ<2ÿ<=9ÿ.PQEDRSTÿ856@94;BC 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+







ÿÿ

!ÿÿ"

0,2 U/ÿ123ÿ4567ÿ8928:9ÿ;6ÿ<=9ÿ=2?>9=2:@ÿB244?<9ÿ<2ÿ5ÿV2IHÿ2Fÿ<2ÿB2::9G9ÿ26ÿ5ÿ@5;:7ÿI5>;>CW 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+







ÿÿ

!ÿÿ"

012 -.ÿ01234235ÿ6789:ÿ;6<1ÿ<8==9:;>?ÿ18@ÿA8;Bÿ;6<1ÿC;>B83ÿ9B96DDEÿ:>6F;Dÿ:8ÿ@8>4ÿ8>ÿ<8DD;5;G 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

HIJ %KL 'HJMN%IOPOJQ (RISQÿ&JTUQ )HRVTTJÿTRÿWTRQÿVQTVJQ (TUXYÿMUTZ

)TWWKYQRÿ0

)TWWKYQRÿ

)TWWKYQRÿ

)TWWKYQRÿ!

02 [\][.ÿ^8@ÿ=9<1ÿ:2=;ÿ83ÿ6F;>65;?ÿ@89DAÿ2:ÿ:64;ÿ_8==9:;>ÿ[ÿ:8ÿ:>6F;Dÿ18=;ÿa>8=ÿ@8>4ÿ8>ÿ<8DD;5;G 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

!ÿ

!0!1ÿ

!1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ"

#ÿ0ÿ"$ÿ%ÿÿ"&ÿ0ÿ"ÿ01ÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!1ÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿÿ&(ÿÿ"

#ÿÿ"

()ÿÿ&

0*2 baÿcF;>ÿdÿ^89>Bÿa8>ÿe9;B:283ÿ[\][?ÿfC;<2aEÿ^;>;

JQHSQÿgJHUMÿIhÿPTKRÿHULZQRÿhTRÿiKQLYITUÿ00$ÿILÿKUjQRÿÿkTKRL2 0+2 [\]d.ÿ^8@ÿ=9<1ÿ:2=;ÿ83ÿ6F;>65;?ÿ@89DAÿ2:ÿ:64;ÿ_8==9:;>ÿdÿ:8ÿ:>6F;Dÿ18=;ÿa>8=ÿ@8>4ÿ8>ÿ<8DD;5;G 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

!ÿ

!0!1ÿ

!1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ"

#ÿ0ÿ"$ÿ%ÿÿ"&ÿ0ÿ"ÿ01ÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ0ÿÿ&(ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!1ÿ

%'ÿ0ÿ"ÿ!ÿÿ&(ÿÿ"

#ÿÿ"

()ÿÿ&

0,2 baÿcF;>ÿdÿ^89>Bÿa8>ÿe9;B:283ÿ[\]d?ÿfC;<2aEÿ^;>;

JQHSQÿgJHUMÿIhÿPTKRÿHULZQRÿhTRÿiKQLYITUÿ0$ÿILÿKUjQRÿÿkTKRL2

012 ()*+,ÿ./0ÿ1234ÿ5617ÿ/8ÿ9:7;9<7=ÿ0/2>?ÿ65ÿ59@7ÿA/11257;ÿB+ÿ5/ÿ5;9:7>ÿ4/17ÿC;/1ÿ0/;@ÿ/;ÿ3/>>7<7D 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 ECÿF:7;ÿGÿ./2;HÿC/;ÿI27H56/8ÿ()*+=ÿJK736CLÿ.7;7 MNOPNÿQMORSÿTUÿVWXYÿORZ[NYÿUWYÿ\XNZ]TWRÿ1"ÿTZÿXR^NYÿ0ÿ_WXYZ2 002 ()*`,ÿ./0ÿ1234ÿ5617ÿ/8ÿ9:7;9<7=ÿ0/2>?ÿ65ÿ59@7ÿA/11257;ÿB`ÿ5/ÿ5;9:7>ÿ4/17ÿC;/1ÿ0/;@ÿ/;ÿ3/>>7<7D 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 ECÿF:7;ÿGÿ./2;HÿC/;ÿI27H56/8ÿ()*`=ÿJK736CLÿ.7;7 MNOPNÿQMORSÿTUÿVWXYÿORZ[NYÿUWYÿ\XNZ]TWRÿ1"ÿTZÿXR^NYÿ0ÿ_WXYZ2

012 ))*)+ÿ-../012345678ÿ90:ÿ3;<9ÿ5236ÿ:0;7=ÿ25ÿ54>6ÿ?033;56/ÿ@)ÿ50ÿ<03.7656ÿ./6.4/4520AÿB0/ÿ764C2ADÿ:0/>ÿ0/ÿ<0776D6ÿ./20/ÿ50ÿE54/52ADÿ596ÿ5/2.ÿ9036F 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 GBÿHC6/ÿIÿJ0;/EÿB0/ÿK;6E520Aÿ))*)LÿM.6<2B8ÿJ6/6 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ"ÿU[ÿYS_OZÿ0ÿXYZ[2 02 ))*I+ÿ-../012345678ÿ90:ÿ3;<9ÿ5236ÿ:0;7=ÿ25ÿ54>6ÿ?033;56/ÿ@Iÿ50ÿ<03.7656ÿ./6.4/4520AÿB0/ÿ764C2ADÿ:0/>ÿ0/ÿ<0776D6ÿ./20/ÿ50ÿE54/52ADÿ596ÿ5/2.ÿ9036F 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0(2 GBÿHC6/ÿIÿJ0;/EÿB0/ÿK;6E520Aÿ))*ILÿM.6<2B8ÿJ6/6 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ0"ÿU[ÿYS_OZÿ0ÿXYZ[2

012 **+,-ÿ/00123456789:ÿ;2<ÿ5=>;ÿ7458ÿ<2=9?ÿ47ÿ76@8ÿA255=781ÿB,ÿ72ÿ>2509878ÿ0180616742CÿD21ÿ986E4CFÿ<21@ÿ21ÿ>2998F8ÿ01421ÿ72ÿG76174CFÿ7;8ÿ7140ÿ;258H 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2 IDÿJE81ÿKÿL2=1GÿD21ÿM=8G742Cÿ**+,NÿO08>4D:ÿL818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿ#ÿW]ÿ[UaQ\ÿ0ÿbZ[\]2

2 **+c-ÿ/00123456789:ÿ;2<ÿ5=>;ÿ7458ÿ<2=9?ÿ47ÿ76@8ÿA255=781ÿBcÿ72ÿ>2509878ÿ0180616742CÿD21ÿ986E4CFÿ<21@ÿ21ÿ>2998F8ÿ01421ÿ72ÿG76174CFÿ7;8ÿ7140ÿ;258H 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2 IDÿJE81ÿKÿL2=1GÿD21ÿM=8G742Cÿ**+cNÿO08>4D:ÿL818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿ#ÿW]ÿ[UaQ\ÿ0ÿbZ[\]2

012 ()*ÿ,-ÿ./0ÿ1232ÿ4567825ÿ9.ÿ:/;4:ÿ40<=/37<728ÿ</ÿ264;04<2>ÿ=/1ÿ?0;=ÿ<7?2ÿ1/0:5ÿ7<ÿ<4@2ÿ<=2ÿ=/082=/:5ÿ</ÿA4;@ÿ;:/<=7BC>ÿ?257;4<7/B8>ÿ82;032ÿ<=2ÿ=/082>ÿ:/45ÿ<=2ÿ;43>ÿ4B5ÿ;/?A:2<2 A32A434<7/B8ÿA37/3ÿ</ÿ264;04<7BCÿ<=2ÿ4324D 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ !

ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !

1ÿ !ÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿÿ

1ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿ0ÿ

1ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿÿ

1ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ !

0ÿ !ÿ ÿ0ÿ !ÿÿ

0ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ !ÿ0ÿ

0ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿ0ÿ !ÿÿ

0ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !

ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !

ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿÿ !

"!ÿÿ !

1. ÿ ÿ"$

%$ÿ ÿ

002 ,-ÿE623ÿFÿG/038ÿ-/3ÿH028<7/Bÿ()>ÿIA2;7-.ÿG232 JKLMKÿNJLOPÿQRÿSTUVÿLOWXKVÿRTVÿYUKWZQTOÿ1'ÿQWÿUO[KVÿÿ\TUVW2 02 (]*ÿ,-ÿ<=232ÿ432ÿF^_ÿ7B;=28ÿ/-ÿ8B/1ÿ/Bÿ./03ÿ5376214.ÿ/3ÿ;039>ÿ1/0:5ÿ./0ÿB225ÿ</ÿ8=/62:ÿ/0<ÿ</ÿ264;04<2Dÿ,-ÿ.28>ÿ=/1ÿ?0;=ÿ<7?2>ÿ/Bÿ46234C2>ÿ1/0:5ÿ7<ÿ<4@2ÿ./0ÿ</ÿ;:243ÿ<=2ÿF^_

7B;=28ÿ/-ÿ8B/1ÿ</ÿ?/62ÿ<=2ÿ;43ÿ-3/?ÿ<=2ÿ5376214.ÿ/3ÿ;039ÿ</ÿ92C7Bÿ<=2ÿ264;04<7/Bÿ<37ADÿ880?2ÿ<=2ÿ3/458ÿ432ÿA48849:2*

3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ&ÿÿ !

ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !

1ÿ !ÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿÿ

1ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿ0ÿ

1ÿ !ÿ0ÿÿ ÿ1ÿ !ÿÿ

1ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ !

 'ÿ#ÿ ÿ "ÿ

"!ÿ0ÿ !

%$ÿ ÿ

02 ,-ÿE623ÿ]ÿG/038ÿ-/3ÿH028<7/Bÿ(]>ÿIA2;7-.ÿG232 JKLMKÿNJLOPÿQRÿSTUVÿLOWXKVÿRTVÿYUKWZQTOÿ0'ÿQWÿUO[KVÿ0ÿ\TUVW2

012 KLMÿOPQRSQÿSTQUVWXÿYZQÿ[\]^Q_ÿWÿTQ`TPQÿV[ÿX`\_ÿZ`\SQZ`PaÿbZ`ÿ_Qc\V_Qÿd\[UYV[RPÿ_ÿe_R[ST`_YRYV[ÿ[QQaSÿV[ÿR[ÿQfRU\RYV[g 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

< I 0

?ÿ ÿ:

G"

?&ÿG"B7

C&

5&&""$ÿ7&

5#$ &

9

02 hTQUVWXÿijYZQ_iÿe_R[ST`_YRYV[ÿkQQaÿlQPb 02 KmMÿOPQRSQÿUZ``SQÿ[QÿWÿYZQÿWPPbV[ng 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ##$"ÿÿ%&ÿ'2

ÿÿ%&ÿ(  )ÿ ÿ#ÿÿ"ÿ##$"ÿ2

• &ÿÿ+

0,2 KopMÿq]Q_nQ[UXÿWWVUVRPSÿRafVSQÿX`\ÿYÿSZQPYQ_rV[rTPRUQÿV[ÿR[ÿQ]Q_nQ[UXÿ^QUR\SQÿX`\ÿR_Qÿ[`YÿV[ÿYZQÿR_QRÿWÿ_VSsMÿt`\PaÿX`\g 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+-./0.12324/56.

.756850.

• .6/3.ÿ09ÿ+050.

2 KolMÿq]Q_nQ[UXÿWWVUVRPSÿRafVSQÿX`\ÿYÿSZQPYQ_rV[rTPRUQÿ[`bÿV[ÿR[ÿQ]Q_nQ[UXÿR[aÿT`SSV^PXÿQfRU\RYQÿPRYQ_ÿbZVPQÿTQ`TPQÿV[ÿYZQ_ÿR_QRSÿR_QÿRafVSQaÿYÿQfRU\RYQÿ[`bMÿt`\PaÿX`\gÿ 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+-./0.12324/56.

.756850.

• .6/3.ÿ09ÿ+050.

<2 KouMÿq]Q_nQ[UXÿWWVUVRPSÿRafVSQÿX`\ÿYÿQfRU\RYQÿa\QÿYÿR[ÿQ]Q_nQ[UXMÿtZQ_Qÿb`\PaÿX`\ÿQfRU\RYQÿYv 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

5ÿ1./507.=+ÿ91ÿ>1.3*=+ÿ-9?.

5ÿ1.6.4093ÿ6.30.1 5ÿ-90./@ÿ?90./ÿ91ÿ65?4A1983*

5ÿ+.693*B+.5+935/ÿ-9?.

C98/*ÿ390ÿ.756850.

• 93D0ÿE39C 90-.1ÿF+(&!)ÿGH

• .6/3.ÿ09ÿ+050.

I2 dVPPÿV[ÿjewqxÿR[SbQ_SÿW_ÿc\QSYV[ÿKou

02 KypMÿz`ÿX`\ÿZRfQÿR[XÿTQY{SlÿR[a}`_ÿR[V]RP{Slv 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

J.+

39

• .6/3.ÿ09ÿ+050.

001 <=>?ÿABCDÿDEFGÿHIÿFGDJKLÿCMNOHPÿCMQRCSJKLÿNHÿEHTÿBCUGV 89 ÿÿ9ÿ

2







2 

!

"#

2



2ÿ%ÿ &#% ÿ'(5)*+,ÿ5-./0 2ÿÿ &#% ÿ'(5)*+,ÿ5-./0 234567 011 23ÿ45ÿ45ÿ46

#ÿ2ÿ

071 <=W?ÿABCDÿXHTSNÿEHTÿNHÿXQDBÿEHTPÿFGDJKLÿCMNOHPÿCMQRCSJKLÿQIÿEHTÿBCNÿDHÿGUCYTCDGV 23ÿ45ÿ45ÿ46

"ÿÿ8ÿ%ÿ2ÿÿ

"ÿÿ8ÿ%ÿ2%8ÿ 

9ÿÿÿ2%

#ÿ2ÿ

0:1 <=Z?ÿZHÿEHTÿBCUGÿKTIIQYQGMDÿPHHRÿQMÿEHTPÿUGBQYSGJKLÿDHÿGUCYTCDGÿXQDBÿEHTPÿFGDJKLÿCMNOHPÿCMQRCSJKLV 23ÿ45ÿ45ÿ46



1. 2

#ÿ2ÿ

234567

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic control plans for the EPZ were provided by the offsite agencies within the EPZ.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs/ACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TCP/ACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with the existing TCPs and ACPs that were provided in the approved county and state emergency plans, with no additional recommended TCPs or ACPs.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TCPs and ACPs are forms of manual traffic control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, MTC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pre timed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TCP or ACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTC at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the 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 TCP/ACP, the control type is indicated as TCP/ACP in Table K1. MTC points that were identified as TCPs in the state emergency plan, are mapped as blue dots in Figure G1; ACPs are mapped as red squares, and MTC points that were both a TCP and ACP are mapped as yellow and black bullseye dots. No additional locations for MTC are recommended based on the findings in this study.

It is assumed that the ACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the 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 I95, US1, and US40 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TCP/ACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management 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.

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a winter, midweek, midday, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

with good weather (Scenario 6) evacuation of the 2Mile Radius, 5Mile Radius and the entire EPZ (Regions R01, R02, R03) 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, the 90th percentile ETE was only minimally impacted (increased by 5 minutes at most) and 100th percentile ETE was not affected when MTC was not present at these intersections. The remaining TCPs/ACPs at controlled intersections were left as actuated signals in the model and, therefore, had no material impact on ETE. External traffic along I95, US1 and US40 was assumed to be stopped 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 similar to the base case.

As discussed in 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, congestion in the EPZ is predominately along state routes and US1. This congestion is a result of the limited capacity of these roadways (single lane in each direction), not necessarily because of bottlenecks at controlled intersections.

The congestion along US1 is a result of the demand exceeding the capacity of the main thoroughfare and the limited capacity of the single lane ramps to access the highway. MTC does little to increase the capacity of ramps or the main thoroughfare of roadways. As such, implementation of MTC reduces the 90th percentile ETE only slightly. Similarly, 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 significant reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TCPs/ACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations Previous Control TCP/ACP Number Node Number (Prior to being a TCP/ACP) 3 York (TCP) 593 Stop Control 4 York (TCP) 566 Stop Control 5 York (TCP) 1977 & 574 Stop Control 6 York (TCP) 3169 Stop Control 10 York (TCP) 618 Stop Control 14 York (TCP) 643 Stop Control 3 Harford (TCP) 323 Stop Control 6 Harford (ACP) 392 Stop Control 22 Harford (ACP) 1456 Stop Control 25 Harford (ACP) 430 Stop Control 2 Cecil (TCP) 51 Stop Control 5 Cecil (TCP) 123, 124, 125, 139 Traffic Circle 9 Cecil (TCP) 103 Stop Control 10 Cecil (TCP) 105 Stop Control 2 Cecil (ACP) 45 Yield Control 3 Chester (TCP) 187 Stop Control 2 Lancaster 172 Stop Control 4 Lancaster 689 Stop Control 6 Lancaster 757 Stop Control 8 Lancaster 791 Stop Control 10 Lancaster 1548 Stop Control 11 Lancaster 1601 Stop Control 12 Lancaster 1605 Stop Control 13 Lancaster 1677 Stop Control 14 Lancaster 1764 Stop Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 6 th Region 90 Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 2:40 2:40 0:00 5:45 5:45 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 3:25 3:25 0:00 5:50 5:50 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 3:25 3:30 0:05 5:55 5:55 0:00 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic Control Points and Access Control Points for the PBAPS EPZ Peach Bottom Atomic 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 through Table H3) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H38). The percentages presented in Table H1 through Table H3 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R01R12) 2Mile 5Mile Full Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Region Region EPZ Region Number: R01 R02 R03 R04 R05 R06 R07 R08 R09 R10 R11 R12 SSW, NE, WNW, Wind Direction From: N/A N/A N/A N, NNE E ESE SE SSE, S SW, NNW ENE NW WSW, W Zone Delta 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore North 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore South 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

East Drumore 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn Grove 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fulton East 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fulton West 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

Little Britain 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Lower Chanceford North 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Lower Chanceford South 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Martic 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom Central 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom East 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Peach Bottom West 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Providence 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Quarryville 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

West Nottingham 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 1 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 2 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 3 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 4 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Zone 5 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

Zone 6 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because it Zone(s) Evacuate is surrounded by other Zones which are Zone(s) ShelterinPlace Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H2. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R13R28)

Region

Description:

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Region Number: R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 Wind Direction N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW From:

Zone Delta 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore North 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore South 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

East Drumore 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn Grove 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fulton East 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

Fulton West 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Little Britain 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

Lower Chanceford 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

North Lower Chanceford 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

South Martic 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom Central 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom East 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Peach Bottom West 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Providence 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Quarryville 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

West Nottingham 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

Zone 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Zone 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

Zone 3 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

Zone 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Zone 5 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% X X 100%

Zone 6 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Zone not within Plume, but Evacuates because it is Zone(s) Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace surrounded by other Zones which are Evacuating Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H3. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Each Region (Regions R29R38)

Region

Description:

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Region Number: R29 R30 R31 R32 R33 R34 R35 R36 R37 R38 5Mile SSW, SW, Wind Direction From: N, NNE NE, ENE E ESE SE SSE, S WNW, NW NNW Region WSW, W Zone Delta 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore North 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Drumore South 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

East Drumore 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fawn Grove 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fulton East 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Fulton West 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

Little Britain 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Lower Chanceford North 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Lower Chanceford South 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

Martic 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom Central 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Peach Bottom East 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Peach Bottom West 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Providence 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Quarryville 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

West Nottingham 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 2 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 3 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Zone 5 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

Zone 6 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, Zone(s) Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace then Evacuate Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H20. Region R20 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H21. Region R21 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H22. Region R22 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H23. Region R23 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H24. Region R24 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H25. Region R25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H26. Region R26 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H27. Region R27 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H28. Region R28 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H29. Region R29 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H30. Region R30 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H31. Region R31 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H32. Region R32 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H33. Region R33 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H34. Region R34 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H35. Region R35 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H36. Region R36 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H37. Region R37 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H38. Region R38 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station H42 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. There are a total of 350 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. Evacuees travel a straight line distance of 3.97 miles, on average, to exit the study area.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, rain, rain/light snow and heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11) exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays and longer average travel times than comparable good weather scenarios. When comparing Scenario 13 (special event) and Scenario 5, the additional vehicles the special event introduces lowers the average speeds, causes higher delays and increases the travel times. When comparing Scenario 14 (roadway closure) and Scenario 1, the single lane closure on US 1 northbound lowers the average speeds, causes higher delays and increases the travel times.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

US1, Maryland (MD) State Route 543 (MD543), MD136, MD24, MD165, US 222, Pennsylvania (PA) State Route 74 (PA74), PA272 and MD273 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, US1 southbound is the most congested route in the study area. The average speed along US1 southbound is significantly lower for the first 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of the evacuation, increasing significantly in the 5th and 6th hours as congestion dissipates.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (region R03) under scenario 1 conditions. As expected, US1 is the most heavily used evacuation route in the EPZ.

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 spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3. Travel times peak (approximately 45 minutes) for those evacuees who begin their evacuation trip at about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after the ATE when congestion is at its worst.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Route Name Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8590 1,275 PA2045 1545 1546 43 SW 8178 1,275 8181 1,700 8814 1,700 St Catherine Drive 879 877 23 NE 8815 1,700 8901 1,700 8027 4,500 Fulton Inn Road 1563 726 149 NE 8814 1,700 8815 1,700 8448 1,275 Cherry Hill Road 1392 456 448 SW 8088 2,850 8697 1,275 8643 2,850 PA272 701 1605 651 N 8923 1,275 8023 6,750 Hopewell Road 298 290 15 S 8729 2,850 8734 3,800 8212 1,700 MD273 131 132 47 E 8009 6,750 8138 1,700 8023 6,750 Aldino Stepney Road 1517 1512 17 S 8729 2,850 8088 2,850 Cool Spring Road 3157 249 131 S 8697 1,275 8850 2,850 8969 1,275 US222 764 765 66 N 8972 1,275 8960 1,275 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 1.5 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.8 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.6 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 39.0 32.4 33.3 28.2 32.9 39.3 33.1 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 78,513 78,931 79,082 79,546 59,628 77,327 77,726 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 29.3 35.3 29.6 28.7 33.6 30.7 31.8 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 78,009 76,472 76,887 76,940 58,439 61,724 78,499 Exiting Network Peach Bottom Atomic 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 R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time US1 Southbound 16.5 32.8 30.2 8.8 112.1 7.1 140.1 18.5 53.6 51.4 19.3 54.0 18.3 MD543 Southbound 11.4 48.8 14.0 49.9 13.7 49.6 13.8 50.0 13.7 50.9 13.4 52.4 13.0 MD136 Southbound 14.2 48.1 17.7 48.0 17.7 47.6 17.9 47.9 17.7 48.4 17.6 49.2 17.3 MD24 Southbound 8.9 38.7 13.8 39.5 13.5 38.3 14.0 38.5 13.9 38.8 13.8 41.8 12.8 MD165 Southbound 14.5 46.8 18.6 46.3 18.8 46.8 18.6 46.7 18.6 46.8 18.6 48.2 18.1 US222 Northbound 21.0 48.4 26.0 48.3 26.0 48.2 26.1 48.2 26.1 48.6 25.9 50.2 25.1 PA74 Northbound 13.5 47.5 17.0 44.7 18.1 52.5 15.4 52.4 15.4 52.5 15.4 54.9 14.7 PA272 Northbound 11.0 49.4 13.4 49.6 13.3 49.5 13.4 49.6 13.3 50.3 13.2 51.3 12.9 PA272 Southbound 8.5 47.2 10.8 48.6 10.5 48.4 10.5 48.4 10.5 48.4 10.5 50.7 10.0 MD273 Eastbound 5.4 42.3 7.6 42.1 7.6 43.2 7.4 43.6 7.4 45.7 7.0 45.9 7.0 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours)

Upstream Downstream 1 2 3 4 5 6 Route Name Node Node Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 4,212 8,881 10,463 10,663 10,768 10,789 I95 23 1925 22% 18% 16% 14% 14% 14%

1,600 4,649 7,230 8,084 8,423 8,494 US1 27 1924 8% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11%

66 237 380 437 467 474 MD136 262 263 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

523 1,436 1,772 1,883 1,932 1,944 PA74 646 648 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2%

36 129 208 239 256 260 River Road 1204 1205 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

US1 160 547 966 1,189 1,302 1,315 1697 1848 Business 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

272 1,052 1,554 1,766 1,868 1,886 MD273 1750 1916 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

3 19 38 46 49 51 PA472 1802 1803 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

64 236 413 512 563 568 MD24 1849 1850 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

161 1,001 1,941 2,288 2,433 2,463 MD924 1877 1691 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

294 904 1,247 1,407 1,491 1,508 PA372 1900 1901 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

992 2,175 3,421 4,802 5,949 6,042 US1 1927 1886 5% 5% 5% 6% 8% 8%

266 631 869 1,001 1,082 1,094 PA425 1929 1030 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

273 882 1,380 1,556 1,660 1,678 PA896 1950 1972 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Strasburg 75 293 507 582 623 631 1959 1960 Pike 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

53 258 451 529 569 575 PA741 1968 1969 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

79 410 693 807 868 878 PA896 3015 1814 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

17 146 297 357 396 403 PA10 3015 3028 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Elapsed Time (hours)

Upstream Downstream 1 2 3 4 5 6 Route Name Node Node Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 4,144 8,734 10,321 10,506 10,605 10,627 I95 3032 9 22% 18% 15% 14% 14% 14%

69 328 587 688 742 755 MD272 3043 212 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1,607 3,458 4,071 4,156 4,199 4,208 US40 3050 1734 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5%

1,968 3,817 4,412 4,499 4,542 4,550 US40 3053 1729 10% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6%

220 1,007 1,706 1,980 2,128 2,158 MD165 3061 448 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

202 996 1,682 1,957 2,106 2,131 MD138 3062 1907 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

301 1,039 1,755 2,062 2,199 2,219 PA24 3175 590 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

209 837 1,448 1,710 1,820 1,836 PA851 3177 3178 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

123 465 732 843 900 908 MD439 3180 3181 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

542 1,931 3,362 3,786 4,010 4,046 PA222 3195 3196 3% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5%

569 1,704 2,871 3,707 3,981 4,024 PA741 3199 3200 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5%

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 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%

Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/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 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Peach Bottom Atomic 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%

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 (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 51 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K52) 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 November 2020.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pretimed signal, actuated signal, traffic and/or access control point [TCP/ACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 1,517 Pretimed 0 Actuated 94 Stop 184 TCP/ACP 76 Yield 11 Total: 1,882 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. PBAPS LinkNode Analysis Network Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K46. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 45 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K47. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 46 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K48. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 47 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K49. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 48 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K50 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K50. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 49 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K51. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 50 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K52. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 51 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station K53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Zone Boundaries

L. ZONE BOUNDARIES Delta County: York County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Delta Borough Drumore North County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Drumore Township north of River Road.

Drumore South County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Drumore Township south of River Road.

East Drumore County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: East Drumore Township Fawn County: York County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Fawn Township Fawn Grove County: York County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Fawn Grove Borough Fulton East County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the east, north and south by the Fulton Township boundary and on the west by US 222 and State Route 272.

Fulton West County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west, north and south by the Fulton Township boundary and on the east by US 222 and State Route 272.

Little Britain County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Little Britain Township Lower Chanceford County: York County North Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound by the Lower Chanceford Township boundary on the north, south, and west. Bound on the east by State Routes 74, 372, Buecker Road and Wright Road.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Lower Chanceford County: York County South Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound by the Lower Chanceford Township boundary on the south, north, and east. Bound on the west by State Routes 74, 372, Buecker Road and Wright Road.

Martic County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the south, west and east by the Martic Township boundary. Bound on the north by the Martic Township boundary and the Enola Low Grade Trail Peach Bottom County: York County Central Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the north and south by the Peach Bottom Township boundary. Bound on the east by Pikes Peak Road, Atom Road, and Flintville Road. Bound on the west by Fishing Creek, Kilgore Road, Orr Road, and State Route 74.

Peach Bottom East County: York County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the north, south, and east by the Peach Bottom Township boundary. Bound on the west by Pikes Peak Road, Atoms Rd, and Flintville Road.

Peach Bottom West County: York County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the north, west, and south by the Peach Bottom Township boundary. Bound on the east by Fishing Creek, Kilgore Road, Orr Road, and State Route 74.

Providence County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west and south by the Providence Township boundary. Bound on the north and east by the Enola Low Grade Trail Quarryville County: Lancaster County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Quarryville Borough West Nottingham County: Chester County Defined as the area within the following boundary: West Nottingham Township Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Zone 1 County: Harford County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west by Fawn Grove Road, State Route 165, and St Clair Bridge Road. Bound on the south by Holy Cross Road, State Route 24, Cherry Hill Road, Grier Nursery Road and Walters Mill Road. Bound on the east by State Routes 543 and 165. Bound on the North by the Maryland/Pennsylvania State line.

Zone 2 County: Harford County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west by State Routes 543 and 165. Bound on the north and east by State Road 136.

Bound on the south by Walters Mill Road, Kalmia Road, Forge Hill Road and Deer Creek.

Zone 3 County: Harford County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the south by Deer Creek. Bound on the west by State Route 136. Bound on the east by the Susquehanna River. Bound on the north by Castleton Road.

Zone 4 County: Harford County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west by State Route 165. Bound on the south by State Route 136. Bound on the north by the Maryland/Pennsylvania State line. Bound on the east by Prospect Road.

Zone 5 County: Harford County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the north by the Maryland/Pennsylvania State line. Bound on the east by the Susquehanna River. Bound on the south by State Route 136 and Castleton Road. Bound on the west by Prospect Road.

Zone 6 County: Cecil County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bound on the west by the Susquehanna River. Bound on the north by the Maryland/Pennsylvania State line. Bound on the south by McGlothlin Road, Dr. Jack Road, State Route 269, Frist Road, Russell Road and Colora Rd. Bound on the east by Harrisville Road, State Route 276, Slicers Mill Road, Loft House Road, Ridge Road and Minns Road.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station L3 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 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 EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the ATE could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the ETE is reduced by 25 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for the 90th and 100th percentile ETE, respectively. If evacuees take an additional hour to mobilize, both the 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETE increase 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).

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the 100th percentile ETE.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1, Region 3; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are not impacted when shadow evacuation is eliminated (0%) or reduced to 10%1.

Tripling the shadow evacuation percentage (60%) increases the 90th percentile ETE by 10 minutes and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. Increasing the shadow evacuation percentage to 100% increases the ETE by 20 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively - a significant change. The increase in ETE is due to the congestion along US1 in the study area. The Shadow Region is densely populated in Maryland, especially to the southsouthwest of the EPZ. This area includes Bel Air and Jarrettsville, which house approximately 22,500 residents (see SSW in Table 34). Increased evacuation in these cities adds to the 1

Note that the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that 10% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter in place, which is half the base assumption of 20% non-compliance suggested in the NUREG/CR-7002, Rev. 1.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

congestion along US1 southbound (the last road to clear in the study area) thereby prolonging ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in the 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) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in the population within the study area was increased by up to 42%.

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 Region (R01), the 5Mile Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03).

4. The scenario (excluding roadway impact and special event) which yielded the longest 90th percentile ETE values was selected as the case to be considered in this sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday with 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 Region, 5Mile Region or entire EPZ) to increase by 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. All the base ETE values are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; thus, 25% of these base ETE is always greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating.

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 41% or greater increase in the EPZ population. Constellation will have to estimate the EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 41% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 the trip generation time by an hour reduces the 90th percentile ETE by 25 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 />, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.1). Public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner could decrease ETE.

Increasing the shadow evacuation percentage can impact the 90th percentile ETE by up to 20 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by up to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes (Section M.2). 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. ETE for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Trip Generation Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes 3:00 4:55 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes (Base) 3:25 5:55 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes 4:25 6:55 Table M2. ETE for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles2 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 3:25 5:55 10 (Demographic 5,212 3:25 5:55 Survey) 20 (Base) 10,424 3:25 5:55 40 20,849 3:30 5:55 60 31,272 3:35 5:55 80 41,696 3:40 6:15 100 52,120 3:45 7:15 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Permanent Base 40% 41% 42%

Resident Population 78,045 109,263 110,043 110,824 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 40% 41% 42%

2MILE 3:55 4:10 4:10 4:10 5MILE 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 Full EPZ 4:35 5:00 5:05 5:05 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 40% 41% 42%

2MILE 7:15 7:15 7:15 7:15 5MILE 7:20 7:20 7:20 7:25 Full EPZ 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 2

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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 is Yes Section 1.2 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined in Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75 through Table 77, Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for Table H1 though H3 each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75 through Table 77, Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying Table H1 through Table H3, Table 73, the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind Table 74 direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to NA 2020 Census used as the base year of 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 included, Yes Section 3.3, Table E6 through E8 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

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 35, Table 36, and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Population Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 by Sector, is included showing the population distribution for (employees) the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.6 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.8 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.6, Table 38, Table 312 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 38, Table 313, Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E4 lists all medical facilities by average population, are listed. Special facility staff is included facility name, location, and average in the total special facility population. population. Staff estimates were not provided.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed Yes Section 3.5 available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., medical Yes Section 8.1 - under:

support or security support for prisons, jails, and other Evacuation of Medical Facilities correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student population, Yes Table 39, Table E1, Section 3.7 and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.7 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.7 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 no return trips are needed.

2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event is Yes Section 3.9 estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Figure 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 34, 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough traffic is Yes Section 3.10, Section 3.11 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Item 11 and 12 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.10 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 312, Table 313, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and pass through demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is discussed. Yes Section 4 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 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 of the Yes Appendix K modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to evacuation routes. assign evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Item 2 and 3 of Section 2.6

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table 3 Yes Table 22 1, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. adverse weather conditions.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Item 6 of Section 2.6, Table 22 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 used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative set Yes Section 2, Appendix J of model inputs are provided.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing N/A There was no uncertainty when trip generation times are discussed, if applicable. developing trip generation times.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage of commuters.

residents will need to return home before evacuating. Table 63 presents the percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

Item 3 of Section 2.3

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method to Yes Section 5 notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided expected is considered. for the special event and was therefore not considered.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Transportation Pickup Points (PUPs) are used in the ETE analysis. listed in the county emergency plans.

Routes were designed to service the major evacuation routes and PUPs in each Zone.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent People (Residents without access to a vehicle)

Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent People (Residents without expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described. access to a vehicle)

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load passengers Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102, Figure 103 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 no return trips are necessary. needed.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 provided. through Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 8 residents are discussed. 10

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 evacuation Yes Section 8.1 can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1 are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. 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 Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 provided. through 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 evacuation Yes Section 8.1 can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion is Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random seeds dynamic traffic assignment model to for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, Midweek, obtain the "average" (stable) network Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. work flow distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo 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 may Yes Section 4.5 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.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not vehicle exits the evacuation exiting the EPZ. zone

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage of plot for each scenario evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ. considered)

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits 6. Table J3 the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 76 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation the last vehicle exits the evacuation zone. zone.

Peach Bottom Atomic 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 members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated to eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar to Yes Table 73 and Table 74 Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that affect Yes Section 9, Appendix G the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may No Will discuss with state and local affect the ETE. authorities during the final meeting.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ conditions N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of not adequately reflected in the scenario variations. the availability of US Census Bureau decennial census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 104 provided.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0