ML22269A412

Attachment 3 - Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant-Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

ML22269A412
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
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: ML22269A412 (372)

Text

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Constellation Energy, 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 - 1278

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

............................................................................................................................. ES1 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Location........................................................................ 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 26 2.6 Scenarios and Regions ............................................................................................................... 26 3 DEMAND ESTIMATION ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Permanent Residents ................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 33 3.3.1 Seasonal Transient Population........................................................................................... 33 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Medical Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 35 3.6 School, Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Population Demand.............................................. 35 3.7 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 36 3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population ............................................................................. 38 3.9 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 39 3.10 External Traffic ......................................................................................................................... 310 3.11 Background Traffic ................................................................................................................... 310 3.12 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 310 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the CCNPP Study Area ........................................................................................ 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 47 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 47 4.5 Boundary Condition ................................................................................................................... 48 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 (ETE) .......................................................... 71 7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation ......................................................................... 71 7.2 Staged Evacuation ...................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 74 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results .................................................................................... 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 76 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 77 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps, Transit Dependent 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 ........................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers .................................................................................................................... 102 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. 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 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 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 Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. CCNPP Location ..................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 12. CCNPP LinkNode Analysis Network ...................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ........................................................................................ 29 Figure 31. Zones Comprising the CCNPP EPZ.......................................................................................... 319 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 320 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 321 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 322 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 323 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 324 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 325 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 326 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 327 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 49 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 516 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 517 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 518 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions....................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................... 520 Figure 61. Zones Comprising the CCNPP EPZ............................................................................................ 68 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ...................................................................................... 715 Figure 72. CCNPP Shadow Region........................................................................................................... 716 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate ............................................. 717 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 718 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 719 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 720 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 721 Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 9 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate ................. 722 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ....................................................... 723 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ..................................................... 723 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 ..................................................... 724 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 ..................................................... 725 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 ..................................................... 726 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 ..................................................... 726 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 ..................................................... 727 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 ................................................... 727 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 ................................................... 728 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 ................................................... 728 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 ................................................... 729 Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 ................................................... 729 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ....................................................................... 827 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes ..................................................................................................... 107 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 108 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools ................................................. 109 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network ......................................................................................... C12 Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams ......................................................................................................... C13 Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 ............................................................................ C13 Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3) .................................................... C14 Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities ..................................................................................................... D5 Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ ........................................................................................................... E10 Figure E2. Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps within the EPZ (1 of 2) ............................................... E11 Figure E3. Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ (2 of 2) ......................................................................... E12 Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E13 Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ............................................................................................ E14 Figure E6. Marinas within the EPZ .......................................................................................................... E15 Figure E7. Parks within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E16 Figure E8. Campgrounds, Golf Courses, Historical Sites and Other Recreational Areas within the EPZ ................................................................................................ E17 Figure E9. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E18 Figure F1. Household Size in the Study Area ............................................................................................ F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................. F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households ....................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households ..................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference ......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the Study Area .......................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the Study Area ........................................................................................ F10 Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ......................................................... F10 Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs .......................................................... F11 Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................ F11 Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating ...................... F12 Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F12 Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals .......................................................................... F13 Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work ........................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work ................................................................................... F14 Figure F16. Time to Prepare the Home for an Evacuation ..................................................................... F14 Figure F17. Time to Remove 68 of Snow from Driveway .................................................................... F15 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the CCNPP EPZ ............................................................ G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J6 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J7 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J7 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J8 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J8 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ....................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J9 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ............ J10 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) ................... J10 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ............ J11 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ........ J11 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) .............. J12 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................................................... J12 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................................................ J13 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ...................................................................................... J13 Figure K1. CCNPP LinkNode Analysis Network ........................................................................................ K2 Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 ..................................................................................... K3 Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 ..................................................................................... K4 Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 ..................................................................................... K5 Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 ..................................................................................... K6 Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 ..................................................................................... K7 Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 ..................................................................................... K8 Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 ..................................................................................... K9 Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 ................................................................................... K10 Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 ................................................................................. K11 Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 ............................................................................... K12 Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 ............................................................................... K13 Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 ............................................................................... K14 Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 ............................................................................... K15 Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 ............................................................................... K16 Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 ............................................................................... K17 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather ................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ...................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone .......................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 312 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................. 313 Table 37. School Population Demand Estimates .................................................................................... 314 Table 38. Preschool/Daycares and Day Camps Population Demand Estimates ..................................... 314 Table 39. TransitDependent Population Estimates ............................................................................... 316 Table 310. Demand Estimates for Homebound Population with Access and/or Functional Needs ...... 316 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand ......................................................................................... 317 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand ............................................................................................... 318 Table 51. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities .............................................................................. 511 Table 52. Time Distribution for Notifying the Public ............................................................................. 511 Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ................................................. 511 Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home ................................................................ 512 Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate ..................................................... 512 Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow ...................................................... 513 Table 57. Mapping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................ 513 Table 58. Description of the Distributions ............................................................................................. 513 Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation .................... 514 Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation ....................... 515 Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions ........................................................................................... 64 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 65 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................. 66 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 67 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population .......................... 710 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................ 711 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region.......................... 712 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Region within the Indicated Region ....................... 713 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions ......................................................................................... 714 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 813 Table 82. School, Preschool/Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ..... 814 Table 83. School, Preschool/Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ... 816 Table 84. School, Preschool/Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ......... 818 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather .......................................... 820 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ........................................ 821 Table 87. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 822 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather ............................................... 823 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ............................................. 824 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow.................................................. 825 Table 811. Evacuation Time Estimates for Access and/or Functional Needs Population ..................... 826 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ........................................................................ 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 104 Table 103. Host Schools for Schools, Preschools/Daycares, and Day Camps ........................................ 106 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms ..................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps within the EPZ ............................................................... E3 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E5 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table E5. Marinas within the EPZ ............................................................................................................. E6 Table E6. Parks within the EPZ .................................................................................................................. E7 Table E7. Campgrounds, Golf Courses, Historical Sites and Other Recreational Areas within the EPZ ... E8 Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E9 Table F1. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results ............... F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations ........................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC .................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Regions ............................................................... H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ................................................................................................ J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ............................ J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J4 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 .......................... J5 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control .............................................................................. K1 Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ........................................ M4 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ..................................................... M4 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change ....................................... M4 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist .................................................................................................. N1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant viii 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 Point ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CCNPP Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Constellation Constellation Energy COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETA Estimated Time of Arrival ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household HS Host School ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LEHD Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics LOS Level of Service LODES LEHD OriginDestination Employment Statistics MD Maryland MEMA Maryland Emergency Management Agency MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM DEFINITION MTC Manual Traffic Control NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Origin OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization PAR Protective Action Recommendation pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center REP Radiological Emergency Plan SB Southbound SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TCP Traffic Control Point TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WAC Workplace Area Characteristic WB Westbound Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) located in Calvert County, Maryland. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Constellation Energy (Constellation) and state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

Project Activities This project began in October 2020 and extended over a period of approximately 22 months.

The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted virtual kickoff meetings with Constellation personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county agencies.

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

Estimated the number of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) by the 2019 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) provided by the U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of Maryland, supplemented by data provided by Constellation for plant employee data.

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

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

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

2 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ OnTheMap is an interactive map displaying workplace and residential distributions by user-defined geographies at census block level detail. It also reports the work characteristics detail on age, and earnings industry groups.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Designed and conducted an online demographic survey of residents within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region) to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to conducting the survey.

A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Constellation and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. Available data was provided by the county emergency management officials for transient attractions, schools, and special facilities. Internet searches and phone calls to facilities were also utilized where data was missing. If updated information was not provided or available, the data gathered for the 2012 ETE study was utilized (after being reviewed and confirmed as accurate by the OROs).

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 online demographic survey of the study area residents.

The EPZ is subdivided into 8 existing Zones. These Zones are then grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus 3 radial sectors on either side) that define a total of 19 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R19).

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) as shown in Table 62. One special event scenario - The Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show - was considered for this study. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein the Thomas Johnson Bridge was closed for the duration of the evacuation.

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

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

A rapidly escalating accident at the CCNPP 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 notification.

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

If the emergency occurs while schools, preschools/daycares and day camps are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to reception centers or host schools located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at school prior to the arrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose. The ETE for children at these facilities are calculated separately.

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Patients at medical facilities will be evacuated by buses, wheelchair buses or ambulances, if required, except for those medical facilities within Calvert County. Medical facilities within Calvert County must have comprehensive emergency plans and provide transportation resources for evacuation as per Calvert County emergency management personnel. Thus, patients at medical facilities within Calvert County will be evacuated by buses, wheelchair buses, or ambulances either owned or contracted out by the medical facilities. Separate ETE are calculated for the transit dependent evacuees, for homebound population with access and/or functional needs, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

A final meeting was conducted with Constellation personnel and emergency management personnel representing the OROs to present final results from the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 266 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 19 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (19 x 14 = 266). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including the 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 evacuate voluntarily. In addition, 20% of the population in the Shadow Region will also elect to evacuate. These voluntary evacuees could impede those who are evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused by voluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.

Staged evacuation is considered wherein those people within the 2Mile Region evacuates 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

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

Traffic Management This study reviewed, modeled and analyzed the existing comprehensive Traffic Management Plan (TMP) provided by Dorchester, Calvert and St. Marys County Emergency Management Agencies. The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7.3, indicate that evacuation routes servicing Zone 3 are oversaturated, and experience pronounced traffic congestion during evacuation due to the limited roadway capacity and the large volume of evacuating traffic. When heavy traffic persists in competing directions, the traffic control points (TCP) and access control points (ACP) within the EPZ do little to reduce the ETE. As such, no additional TCPs or ACPs are identified as a result of this study. Refer to Section 9 and Appendix G for additional information.

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 3 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Zone based on the 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 19 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EPZ and from the Shadow Region. These tables also include ETE results for staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region.

Tables 73 and 74 present ETE for the 2Mile Region for unstaged and staged evacuations for the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs, 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.

Table 88 presents the ETE for the medical facility patients in good weather.

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the CCNPP EPZ showing the layout of the 8 Zones that comprise, in aggregate, the EPZ.

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

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 266 unique cases - a combination of 19 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. These ETE range from 2:30 (hr:min) to 12:25 at the 90th percentile and 5:00 to 16:20 at the 100th percentile.

The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the 100th percentile ETE are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile ETE. This is the result of the long trip generation tail of the evacuation curve caused by congestion within the EPZ.

When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand. See Figures 79 through 722.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region and unnecessarily delays the evacuation of those beyond the 2Mile Region for some scenarios (compare Regions R02, R04 and R05 with Regions R17, R18 and 19, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72). See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday, with good weather) and Scenario 13 (summer, weekend, midday with good weather, special event) in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show -

significantly increases the ETE (by 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes) for the 90th percentile for regions which include the combination of the 5Mile Region and Zones 6 and/or 7 and decreases in ETE (by ay most 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes) for all other Regions. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge decreases the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation regions which include Zone 3 and Zone 7 by up to 55 minutes. This is because it forces people to evacuate northwards and thus avoiding the bottlenecks at the bridge for the population within Zone 3 and consequently, releasing the unutilized capacity for Zone 7 population. This alternate routing brings evacuees within 2 miles of the CCNPP, which depending on the condition of the plant may expose evacuees to radiation. Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

The intense congestion within the population centers of Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, and Solomons are seen throughout most of the evacuation due to the capacity constrained by the single lane on MD 2/4 over Thomas Johnson Bridge. In addition, MD 235 suffers from severe congestion due to bottlenecks along this evacuation route created by relentless flow of evacuees from the cross streets. All congestion within the EPZ clears by 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 78.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, medical facilities, transitdependent persons, and access and/or functional needs persons. The average single wave ETE for these facilities and population groups are shorter than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are enough buses and wheelchair accessible buses available to evacuate the schools, medical facilities, transitdependent population, and access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ in a single wave; however, there are not enough ambulances to evacuate the bedridden population in a single wave. As such, second wave ETE were computed. See Section 8.

The general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to reductions in the base trip generation time of 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> due to the severe traffic congestion within the EPZ. It also shows very limited sensitivity to the increases in the base trip generation. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, both the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 5 minutes. See Table M1.

The general population ETE is sensitive to the increase in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. See Table M2. This is due to the fact that there is significant congestion within the Shadow Region therefore any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate will increase this congestion.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 6% or greater results in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE of 30 minutes, which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial censuses. See Section M.3.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 5,777 5,676 2 4,928 4,936 3 19,752 19,726 4 5,396 6,530 5 2,793 2,914 6 4,635 4,328 7 9,109 10,646 8 262 210 EPZ TOTAL: 52,652 54,966 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 4.39%

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R02 R04 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R05 260 349 X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R06 350 11 X X X X X R07 12 56 X X X X X X R08 57 101 X X X X X X X R09 102 124 X X X X X X R10 125 169 X X X X X R11 170 214 X X X X X R12 215 237 X X X R13 238 259 X X R14 260 304 X X X R15 305 326 X X X X R16 327 349 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R17 5Mile Region X X X N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R17 R18 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R19 260 349 X X Zone(s) Shelterin Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Zone(s) Evacuate Place R01, then Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season3 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: The 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge 3

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).

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R02 7:50 9:00 8:30 9:30 7:40 7:00 7:55 9:20 7:30 7:55 9:15 6:55 3:00 7:40 R03 7:15 8:10 8:00 8:55 7:10 6:35 7:30 8:30 6:45 7:25 8:40 6:40 12:15 6:35 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:05 3:05 2:40 2:45 2:40 3:10 3:10 4:50 2:40 2:50 4:30 2:40 2:35 3:15 R05 8:05 9:15 8:40 9:45 7:50 7:10 8:10 9:40 7:45 8:10 9:30 7:05 3:00 7:45 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary R06 7:40 8:35 8:10 9:25 7:30 6:55 7:55 9:00 7:05 7:50 9:05 7:00 12:15 6:45 R07 7:25 8:20 8:05 9:00 7:20 6:40 7:40 8:45 6:55 7:30 8:50 6:45 12:20 6:45 R08 7:15 8:10 8:00 8:55 7:15 6:35 7:35 8:30 6:50 7:30 8:40 6:40 12:20 6:35 R09 4:10 4:35 3:45 4:00 3:45 4:10 4:30 5:40 3:35 3:50 5:10 3:35 11:55 3:55 R10 3:30 3:35 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:30 3:35 5:00 3:20 3:20 4:45 3:20 11:45 3:45 R11 3:20 3:25 3:05 3:15 3:05 3:20 3:30 4:50 3:05 3:15 4:35 3:05 2:40 3:45 R12 3:05 3:05 2:40 2:45 2:40 3:05 3:05 4:45 2:40 2:45 4:30 2:45 2:35 3:10 R13 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:05 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R14 8:00 9:15 8:40 9:40 7:50 7:10 8:05 9:35 7:40 8:10 9:30 7:05 3:00 7:45 R15 7:55 9:00 8:45 9:40 7:50 7:10 8:05 9:25 7:25 8:15 9:40 7:15 12:25 7:05 R16 7:50 8:55 8:25 9:40 7:45 7:10 8:10 9:20 7:20 8:05 9:25 7:15 12:20 7:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles R17 7:50 8:40 8:30 9:30 8:00 7:25 8:05 10:45 7:30 8:00 10:45 7:20 3:15 7:40 R18 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:55 3:55 5:45 3:50 3:50 5:40 3:50 2:35 3:55 R19 8:05 8:55 8:40 9:45 8:10 7:40 8:20 11:00 7:45 8:10 11:00 7:30 3:15 7:45 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 9:00 R03 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:35 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:05 16:20 9:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 8:55 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary R06 9:55 11:10 10:30 11:50 9:40 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:50 9:00 16:10 9:00 R07 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:00 16:20 9:10 R08 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:35 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:05 16:20 9:10 R09 5:15 5:40 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:35 7:45 5:15 5:15 7:40 5:15 15:45 5:15 R10 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 7:45 5:15 5:15 7:40 5:15 15:20 5:15 R11 5:10 5:10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:10 5:10 7:40 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:10 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:10 5:10 7:35 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:10 R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R14 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 8:55 R15 9:50 11:10 10:30 11:45 9:35 9:00 10:05 11:50 9:10 10:05 11:50 8:55 16:10 8:55 R16 9:55 11:10 10:30 11:50 9:40 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:50 9:05 16:10 8:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles R17 9:15 10:15 9:55 11:10 9:25 8:45 9:35 12:25 8:35 9:25 12:25 8:35 5:05 9:00 R18 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R19 9:15 10:15 9:55 11:10 9:25 8:45 9:35 12:25 8:35 9:25 12:25 8:35 5:05 8:55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES11 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2 and 5Mile Regions R01 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R02 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:10 R05 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles, 5Mile Region R17 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 R18 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:45 R19 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES12 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2 and 5Mile Regions R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:05 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles, 5Mile Region R17 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 R18 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:05 R19 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82. School, Preschool, and Day Care Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Travel Dist.

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

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

CALVERT COUNTY Southern Middle School 90 15 12.9 45.4 17 2:05 12.5 14 2:20 St. Leonard Elementary School 90 15 8.0 26.7 18 2:05 12.5 14 2:20 Mutual Elementary School 90 15 6.8 8.6 47 2:35 12.7 14 2:50 Patuxent Elementary School 90 15 15.9 47.5 20 2:05 6.9 7 2:15 Appeal Elementary School 90 15 15.4 47.1 20 2:05 10.0 11 2:20 Mill Creek Middle School 90 15 16.5 25.5 39 2:25 14.7 16 2:45 Dowell Elementary School 90 15 16.8 25.5 40 2:25 13.2 14 2:40 Patuxent High School 90 15 17.6 13.1 81 3:10 12.6 14 3:25 Camp Bay Breeze 90 15 10.3 40.9 15 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 90 15 9.5 11.7 49 2:35 6.1 7 2:45 St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 90 15 14.3 45.5 19 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 You Are Loved Child Care Center 90 15 6.8 35.6 12 2:00 6.2 7 2:10 Grover Place, Inc 90 15 6.8 32.1 13 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 90 15 14.5 46.7 19 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 90 15 15.6 47.4 20 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 90 15 17.8 48.9 22 2:10 6.2 7 2:20 Solomons Day Care Center 90 15 17.8 48.9 22 2:10 6.2 7 2:20 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 90 15 19.1 34.0 34 2:20 6.2 7 2:30 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 90 15 0.7 9.1 5 1:50 6.1 7 2:00 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Hollywood Elementary School 90 15 7.2 8.8 49 2:35 5.2 6 2:45 Town Creek Elementary School 90 15 11.4 7.6 90 3:15 5.2 6 3:25 St John's Elementary School 90 15 3.1 14.1 13 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Green Holly Elementary School 90 15 0.9 32.7 2 1:50 11.4 12 2:05 Esperanza Middle School 90 15 2.6 45.7 3 1:50 5.7 6 2:00 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Dist.

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

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

Minds N Motion 90 15 3.6 55.0 4 1:50 4.5 5 1:55 Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 90 15 1.9 9.7 12 2:00 5.8 6 2:10 USBBA, Inc. California 90 15 1.5 46.8 2 1:50 5.9 6 2:00 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 90 15 2.6 13.0 12 2:00 6.0 7 2:10 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 90 15 2.6 13.0 12 2:00 6.0 7 2:10 Prep & Play Preschool 90 15 2.5 13.0 12 2:00 5.9 6 2:10 St. John's School 90 15 0.8 40.0 1 1:50 6.6 7 2:00 Green Holly School Age Center 90 15 3.3 43.7 4 1:50 5.9 6 2:00 Creative Beginnings 90 15 1.9 45.7 3 1:50 5.8 6 2:00 Maximum for EPZ: 3:15 Maximum: 3:25 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 2:20 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Single Wave Second Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route UNITES Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Route #4 Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 165 18.0 55.0 20 30 3:35 6.1 7 5 10 46 30 5:15 2 2 2 165 22.4 23.3 58 30 4:15 6.1 7 5 10 58 30 6:05 3 2 2 165 34.4 28.0 74 30 4:30 6.1 7 5 10 84 30 6:50 4 2 2 165 23.1 23.3 60 30 4:15 6.1 7 5 10 60 30 6:10 5 2 2 165 33.9 28.0 73 30 4:30 6.1 7 5 10 83 30 6:45 6 2 2 165 15.9 19.6 49 30 4:05 6.1 7 5 10 44 30 5:45 7 3 3 165 21.5 5.1 254 30 7:30 70.9 77 5 10 124 30 11:40 8 3 3 165 22.1 5.2 256 30 7:35 70.9 77 5 10 125 30 11:45 9 4 3 165 23.4 4.6 304 30 8:20 70.9 77 5 10 130 30 12:35 10 4 3 165 19.0 4.2 269 30 7:45 70.9 77 5 10 120 30 11:50 11 5 4 165 22.5 38.1 35 30 3:50 70.9 77 5 10 131 30 8:05 12 5 4 165 19.2 38.0 30 30 3:45 70.9 77 5 10 123 30 7:50 13 5 4 165 15.9 37.9 25 30 3:40 70.9 77 5 10 115 30 7:40 14 5 4 165 22.0 38.0 35 30 3:50 70.9 77 5 10 130 30 8:05 15 6 5 165 7.5 48.2 9 30 3:25 6.1 7 5 10 24 30 4:45 16 6 5 165 12.7 48.1 16 30 3:35 6.1 7 5 10 36 30 5:05 17 6 5 165 19.5 48.7 24 30 3:40 6.1 7 5 10 51 30 5:25 18 7 6 165 6.9 55.0 8 30 3:25 4.0 4 5 10 19 30 4:35 19 8 7 165 9.5 12.7 45 30 4:00 4.0 4 5 10 26 30 5:15 Maximum ETE: 8:20 Maximum ETE: 12:35 Average ETE: 4:45 Average ETE: 7:30 4

See Table 10-2 and Appendix K.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Loading Travel Time Rate to EPZ Mobilization (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 11.7 18 1:55 3 Beas' Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 11.7 18 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.7 17 2:05 In God's Care, Inc. Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 12.3 60 2:35 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 17.4 60 3:00 Solomons Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 56 75 17.4 56 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 17.4 62 2:50 The Hermitage at Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 17.4 60 2:55 Solomons Wheelchair bound 90 5 25 75 17.4 56 3:45 Asbury Solomons Island Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 17.8 22 2:00 Skilled Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 42 75 17.8 19 3:05 Ambulatory 90 1 16 16 2.6 12 2:00 St Mary's Adult Medical Wheelchair bound 90 5 31 75 2.6 12 3:00 Day Care Bedridden 90 15 2 30 2.6 12 2:15 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 2:40 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Permanent Resident Base 4% 5% 6%

Population 70,334 73,147 73,851 74,554 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 4% 5% 6%

2MILE 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5MILE 9:20 9:40 9:45 9:50 FULL EPZ 8:30 8:45 8:55 9:00 ETE for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 4% 5% 6%

2MILE 7:30 7:30 7:30 7:35 5MILE 11:00 11:20 11:30 11:35 FULL EPZ 11:55 12:15 12:25 12:35 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Zones Comprising the CCNPP EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant ES20 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), located in Calvert County, Maryland. This ETE study provides CCNPP, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Constellation, the emergency planners from Calvert, Dorchester and St Marys County Emergency Management Agencies and the Maryland Emergency Management Agency to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed the Constellation and existing county and state emergency operations plans.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

g. Obtained data (to the extend available) to update the database of special facilities (i.e., schools/preschools/day care centers, day camps, and medical facilities), transient attractions, major employers, access and/or functional needs population, transportation providers/resources available, the special event data, and other important information.

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

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

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

5. Used existing Zones to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 8 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 specified in the existing Protective Action Recommendation (PAR).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each origin (location of each source where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) to support evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to the location of the plant.

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

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

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, preschools/daycares, day camps, and medical facilities), for the transitdependent population and for the homebound population with access and/or functional needs.

1.2 The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Location The CCNPP is located in Lusby, Calvert County, Maryland approximately 50 miles southeast of Washington, DC. The EPZ consists of portions of Calvert County, St. Marys County and Dorchester County. Figure 11 shows the location of the plant relative to Washington D.C., as well as the major population centers and major 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

preparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System. Roadway types were assigned based on the following criteria:

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 multilane sections, a value of 1,900 vehicles per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 128 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 and aerial imagery were used to calibrate the analysis network.

Demographic Survey An online demographic survey was performed in 2021 to gather information needed for the ETE study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns along with discussion validating the use of the survey results in this study.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

NUREG/CR4874 - The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the IDYNEV Computer Code.

The evacuation analysis procedures are based upon the need to:

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

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

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

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

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the current ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR 531, dated November 2012). The 90th percentile ETE for the entire EPZ increased by 30 minutes for a winter midweek midday scenario and by an hour and 5 minutes for a summer weekend midday scenario when compared with the 2012 previous study. The 100th percentile ETE increased by 35 minutes, and by an hour and 10 minutes for a winter midweek midday scenario and for a summer weekend midday scenario, respectively.

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 permanent resident population increased by 4.4% and the number of evacuating vehicles for the permanent resident population increased by 9.6% from the 2012 study.

As such, an increase in the number of permanent resident vehicles (increasing demand) can increase in ETE.

The permanent resident population and vehicles in the Shadow Region increased by 13.6% and 18.2%, respectively, when compared to the previous study. The increase in the number of evacuating vehicles in the Shadow Region, which reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees, can increase ETE.

The number of transients increased by 31.3%. An increase in transients, increases the number of transient vehicles which can increase ETE, especially in the summer scenarios, where transients are considered at their peak.

The federal guidance changed the definition of a major employer from 50 or more employees per shift to 200 or more employees per shift. The number of employees increased by 5.4%. In spite the change in federal guidance, an increase in number of employees indicates significant developments within the EPZ over the last 10 years. An Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

increase in the number of employees increase the number of employee vehicles which could increase ETE.

The number of transit dependent population requiring a bus has decreased by 67.4%, as the ridesharing percentage increased by 22%, based on the demographic survey results.

As such, a decrease in transitdependent population decreases the number of buses considered in the study, which could decrease ETE.

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

o Employees/transients decreased by 30 minutes o Permanent residents with commuters during nonheavy snow scenarios remained the same and heavy snow scenarios increased by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, respectively.

o Permanent residents without commuters for nonheavy snow scenarios and heavy snow scenarios increased by 15 minutes and 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, respectively.

o Increases in mobilization times can prolong ETE.

Similar to the previous study, the traffic congestion dictates the 100th percentile ETE in this study for the full EPZ for all cases as it takes longer to clear the congestion than it takes people to mobilize.

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies. Provided recent plant employee data. Reviewed and Constellation Energy approved all project assumptions and draft report.

Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results and coordinated with the OROs. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided state emergency plan Maryland Emergency Management Agency and other information critical to the ETE study.

Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data needs. Provided county emergency plans, and existing traffic management plans and Calvert County Division of Emergency other information critical to the ETE study.

Management & Safety, St Marys Emergency Reviewed, confirmed and provided special facility Services, and Dorchester County Emergency data and transient data. Reviewed and approved Management Agency all project assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results. Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Table 12. Highway Characteristics Number of lanes Posted speed Lane width Actual free speed Shoulder type & width Abutting land use Interchange 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Population Basis Population = 52,652 Population = 54,966 Vehicles = 27,508 Vehicles = 30,142 Vehicle occupancy based upon Vehicle occupancy based upon telephone demographic survey, Average Resident survey, Average household size within household size within EPZ = 2.74 Population EPZ = 2.80 person/household and 1.46 person/household and 1.51 Vehicle vehicles/evacuating household, resulting vehicles/evacuating household, Occupancy in average vehicle occupancy of 1.92 resulting in average vehicle occupancy person/vehicle of 1.81 person/vehicle Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided about major information provided about major employers in EPZ. 1.03 employees per employers in EPZ. 1.06 employees per Employee vehicle based on telephone survey vehicle based on demographic survey Population results. results.

Employees = 2,485 Employees = 2,618 Vehicles = 2,412 Vehicles = 2,470 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the demographic and the results of the telephone survey.

survey. A total of 309 people who do A total of 947 people who do not have not have access to a vehicle, requiring access to a vehicle, requiring 32 buses to Transit 21 buses to evacuate (for at least 1 bus evacuate (for at least 1 bus per route).

Dependent per route). An additional 24 access An additional 24 access and/or functional Population and/or functional needs population needs population needed special needed special transportation to transportation to evacuate (22 required a evacuate (22 required a wheelchair wheelchairaccessible vehicle, and 2 accessible vehicle, and 2 required an required an ambulance).

ambulance).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information provided by the counties, information provided by the counties, supplemented with web searches and supplemented with web searches and phone calls to individual facilities and phone calls to individual facilities and Transient observations of the facilities during the observations of the facilities during the Population road survey. road survey.

Transients = 13,190 (including seasonal Transients = 17,319 (including 681 residents) seasonal residents)

Vehicles = 4,931 (including seasonal Vehicles = 6,134 (including 394 seasonal resident vehicles) resident vehicles)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ. within the EPZ.

Current census = 206 Current census = 242 Special (Medical)

Ambulatory = 69 Ambulatory = 83 Facilities Wheelchair Bound = 129 Wheelchair Bound = 155 Population Bedridden = 8 Bedridden = 4 Buses required = 1 Buses required = 6 Wheelchair Buses Required = 66 Wheelchair Buses Required = 13 Ambulances Required = 5 Ambulances Required = 3 School population based on information School population based on information School provided by each county within the EPZ. provided by each county within the EPZ.

Population School enrollment = 7,732 School enrollment = 7,700 Buses required = 168 Buses required = 139 Voluntary evacuation from 20% of the population within the EPZ, 20% of the population within the EPZ, within EPZ in but not within the Evacuation Region but not within the Evacuation Region areas outside (see Figure 21) (see Figure 21) region to be evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within Shadow the Shadow Region the Shadow Region Evacuation (see Figure 72) (see Figure 72)

Shadow ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS Software using 2020 US Census Population Basis blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Shadow Population = 67,630 Shadow Population = 76,842 Shadow Vehicles = 35,312 Shadow Vehicles = 41,736 Network Size 711 links; 531 nodes 1,042 links; 789 nodes Field surveys conducted in March 2012. Field surveys conducted in November Roadway Roads and intersections were video 2020. Roads and intersections were Geometric Data archived. video archived.

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

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

50% of transitdependent persons will 72% of transitdependent persons will Ridesharing evacuate with a neighbor or friend. evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 15 and 300 minutes (330 leave between 45 and 300 minutes (450 for heavy snow scenarios). for heavy snow scenarios).

Trip Generation Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning for Evacuation leave between 5 and 210 minutes (270 leave between 15 and 225 minutes (390 for heavy snow scenarios). for heavy snow scenarios).

Employees and transients leave between Employees and transients leave 15 and 135 minutes. between 15 and 105 minutes.

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

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

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.11.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 Two Special Events - New Plant One Special Event - Naval Air Station Construction, Naval Air Station Patuxent Patuxent River Air Show Special Events River Air Show Air show attendee vehicles = 36,497 Air show attendee vehicles = 35,715 Construction additional vehicles =2,350 19 Regions (7sector keyhole - central 17 Regions (central sector wind direction sector wind direction and three and each adjacent sector technique used, Evacuation Cases adjacent sector technique used, in in addition to CCNPP specific PARs) and addition to CCNPP specific PARs) and 14 15 Scenarios producing 255 unique cases.

Scenarios producing 266 unique cases.

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

Winter Midweek Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather (Scenario 6): 6:05 Good Weather (Scenario 6): 6:35 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 90th Summer Weekend Midday, Summer Weekend Midday, percentile Good Weather (Scenario 3): 6:55 Good Weather (Scenario 3): 8:00 Winter Midweek Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Evacuation Time Good Weather (Scenario 6): 8:30 Good Weather (Scenario 6): 9:05 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 100th Summer Weekend Midday, Summer Weekend Midday, percentile Good Weather (Scenario 3): 9:30 Good Weather (Scenario 3): 10:40 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. CCNPP Location Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. CCNPP LinkNode Analysis Network Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 113 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2.1 Data Estimates

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

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by the county emergency management agencies, by Constellation, and data from the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 There are no major employers (employers with 200 or more employees in a single shift) within the Dorchester County portion of the EPZ. See Section 3.4.

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on data received from the counties within the EPZ and Constellation, supplemented by data from the previous ETE study (confirmed still accurate), internet searches, phone calls to facilities and aerial imagery for parking spaces where data was missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on the online demographic survey. The average household contains 2.74 people and 1.51 evacuating vehicles per household See Appendix F.

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

a. Campgrounds: 3.49 people per vehicle

b. Golf Course: 2.72 people per vehicle

c. Historical Sites: 3.99 people per vehicle

d. Marinas: 2.89 people per vehicle

e. Parks: 3.00 people per vehicle

f. Lodging Facilities: 2.14 people per vehicle

g. Other Recreational Areas: 2.76 people per vehicle

h. Special Event: Transients attending the event travel as families (households) in a single vehicle. As such, the average household size of 2.74 transients per vehicle was used

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

1 www.census.gov 2

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. The value of 1.06 employees per vehicle is used in the study. In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1 and Figure F7).

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 55 mph on average based on state laws for buses and on average posted speed limits on major roadways within the EPZ.

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

a. In accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, only those roadway construction projects that are completed prior to the finalization of this report are considered in an ETE study. As no roadway projects were identified by Constellation or the OROs, no future roadway improvement projects (affecting roadway capacity estimates) are considered in this study.

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the following3 (as per NRC guidance):

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

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

c. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at the geometric center of the containment buildings for Units 1 and 2 at 38°26'03.6"N, 76°26'30.9"W.

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

4. Evacuees will drive safely, travel radially away from the plant to the extent practicable given the highway network, and obey all 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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) was assumed to be the same as that of the permanent resident population within the EPZ.

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

10. The EPZ essentially consists of two large peninsulas. Thus, there are no true through routes that traverse the full EPZ. The ETE did not consider through (ExternalExternal traffic that originates its trip outside of the study area and has its destination outside of the study area) trips (see Section 3.10).

11. 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).

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

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

1. Trip generation time (also known as mobilization time, or the time required by evacuees to prepare for the evacuation) are based upon the results of the 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3. Commuter percentages (and the percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, about 65% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1); nearly 55% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Appendix F, sub section F.3.2). Therefore, 36% (65% x 55% = 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 rideshare with a neighbor or friend are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 72% of the transitdependent population rideshare (see Appendix F, sub section F.3.1, and Figure F5).

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

a. Schools, Preschools/Daycares, and Day Camps

i. If schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate children/students directly to the designated host schools.

ii. For the schools that are evacuated via buses, it is assumed that no school children at these facilities will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses, except for inhome day cares with less than 10 children, which are assumed to be picked up by parents. For those home day cares, not buses are considered.

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

b. Medical Facilities

i. Buses, wheelchair vehicles, and ambulances (advanced and basic lift support) will evacuate patients at medical facilities and at any senior facilities within the EPZ. It should be noted, that according to the Calvert County emergency management personnel, medical facilities within Calvert County are required to have a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) which identifies mutual aid agreements, emergency resources, and transportation needs for an emergency which will require a possible evacuation of the residents to a similar facility outside of the area to be evacuated. As such, the buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will be provided by or contracted out by the medical facilities directly.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients are assumed to be 33%, 63%, and 4%, respectively from the previous ETE study for the medical facilities within the EPZ.

c. Transitdependent permanent residents:

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

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

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

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

a. School buses = 70 students per bus for primary schools/preschools and 50 students per bus for middle/high schools

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

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

d. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

e. Wheelchair buses = 15 wheelchair bound persons

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

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

b. Transit dependent buses and access and/or functional needs vehicles are mobilized when approximately 90% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at about 165 minutes of the ATE (see Figure 54), to allow the majority of residents to complete their mobilization activities before being picked up. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

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

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. School buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

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

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

e. Ambulances require 15 minutes of loading time per bedridden passenger.

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

6. Drivers for all transit vehicles, identified in Table 81, are available.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 management plans are considered in the ETE analysis, as per NRC guidance. See Appendix G.

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

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. The Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show in St. Marys County is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

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

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

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

Transportation research indicates capacity and speed reductions of about 10% for rain and a range of 10% to 25% for snow. In accordance with Table 31 of Revision 1 to NUREG/CR7002, 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 to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system for heavy snow scenarios. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through the demographic survey of the public and takes up to 210 minutes. 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Zones included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Zones forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes. This site uses a 7 sector keyhole with the central sector defined by wind direction plus 3 sectors on either side based on wind persistence studies.

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 would not be included in the Region so as to not evacuate large numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the PAR document.

9. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R17 through R19 in Table 61.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Time of Scenario Season5 Day of Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None 5 Summer Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow Heavy 8 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Heavy 11 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 12 Winter Midweek, Weekend Evening Good None Special Event: The Naval 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Air Station Patuxent River Air Show Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Loading Time for Loading Free Mobilization Time Time for School, Preschool/Day Time for Highway Flow for General Transit Care Center, and Day Transit Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles Camp Buses Buses6 10 10minute Rain/Light Snow 90% 90% No Effect 5minute increase minute increase increase 20 20minute Heavy Snow 75% 85% See Section 5.3 10minute increase minute increase increase

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

5 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).

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of 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 will tend to overestimate the number of transients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

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

Permanent residents people who are yearround residents of the EPZ.

Transients people who reside outside of the EPZ who enter the area for a specific purpose (camping, recreation) and then leave the area. Transients also include seasonal residents who may spend several weeks or months in the EPZ.

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 CCNPP EPZ is subdivided into 8 Zones. The Zones comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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 (2.74 persons/household -

See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) and the number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.51 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. The methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Zone, for 2010 and 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has increased by 4.39% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the year 2020 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 CCNPP. This 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.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. Data for transient facilities were provided by the counties within the EPZ, supplemented by data collected by phone calls and internet searches. It is assumed that transients would travel to the recreational areas and facilities as a family/household. As such, the average household size (2.74 - See Section 3.1) was used to estimate the transient population or vehicles for those facilities in which exact data could not be obtained. The transient attractions within the CCNPP EPZ are summarized as follows:

Campgrounds - 3,397 transients and 972 vehicles; 3.49 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 125 transients and 46 vehicles; 2.72 transients per vehicle Historical Sites - 419 transients and 105 vehicles; 3.99 transients per vehicle Marinas - 2,733 transients and 945 vehicles; 2.89 transients per vehicle Parks - 7,006 transients and 2,332 vehicles; 3.00 transients per vehicle Other Recreational Areas - 387 transients and 140 vehicles; 2.76 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 2,571 transients and 1,200 vehicles; 2.14 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E5 through Table E7 present the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E8 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

3.3.1 Seasonal Transient Population The CCNPP EPZ has a secondary category of transient population which is seasonal residents.

These people will enter the area during the summer months and may stay considerably longer (several weeks or the entire season) than the average transients using a hotel or motel. The seasonal population use other lodging facilities such as cottages, beach houses and summer rentals that otherwise would not be captured in a typical lodging population.

The 2020 Census block data is used to estimate the seasonal resident population. Each census block includes information regarding the number of vacant and occupied households. An average vacant household percentage was calculated for the entire CCNPP EPZ (10.2%) using this data.

It is assumed that seasonal residents will be renting homes near the Chesapeake Bay shoreline.

Using only those Census blocks that are within a half mile of the shoreline, the number of seasonal homes was calculated. It is further assumed that 10.2% (EPZ average) of the vacant homes within these census blocks are not rental homes and are in fact vacant homes. The remaining households were considered to be seasonal households. An average household size of 2.74 persons per household is used to determine the seasonal transient population from the number of vacant homes, and 1.51 evacuating vehicles per seasonal household is used to determine the number of seasonal transient vehicles from the number of vacant homes.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Using this methodology, it is estimated that there is a seasonal population of 681 transients and 394 transient vehicles within the CCNPP EPZ.

In total, there are 17,319 transients in the EPZ at peak times, evacuating in 6,134 vehicles (an average vehicle occupancy of 2.82 transients per vehicle). Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Zone. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector. Transient population estimates presented here define the maximum number of transients expected in each category. The population in each category varies by season, by day of the week, and by time of day. These variations are presented in Section 6.

3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the 2019 Workplace Area Characteristic (WAC) provided by the U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap Census analysis tool1 extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projection for the State of Maryland2, supplemented by data provided by Constellation Energy.

The WAC data provides the employee counts by industry sector for each census block within the CCNPP EPZ. The employee count of each industry sector was then extrapolated 2020 for each census block using the statewide shortterm employment projections. Since not all employees are working at facilities within the EPZ at one time, a maximum shift reduction was applied to each census block. Assuming maximum shift employment occurs Monday through Friday between 9 AM and 5 PM, the following jobs take place outside the typical 95 workday:

Manufacturing - takes place in shifts over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation - takes place in evenings and on weekends Accommodations and Food Services - peaks in the evenings Therefore, the number of extrapolated employees working in these three industry sectors was subtracted from the total number for each census block to represent the maximum number of employees present in the EPZ at any one time. As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as the major employers. As such, the census blocks with less than 200 extrapolated employees (during the maximum shift) are not included in this study.

Employees who work within the EPZ fall into two categories:

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

Those of the first category are already counted as part of the permanent resident population.

To avoid double counting, we focus only on those employees commuting from outside the EPZ who will evacuate along with the permanent resident population. The 2019 LEHD (Longitudinal 1

http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ OnTheMap is an interactive map displaying workplace and residential distributions by user-defined geographies at census block level detail. It also reports the work characteristics detail on age, and earnings industry groups.

2 https://www.dllr.state.md.us/lmi/iandoprojshort/industryshort.shtml Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EmployerHousehold Dynamics) OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) data3 from OnTheMap website was then used to estimate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 68.0%, was applied to the maximum shift employee values to compute the number of employees commuting into the EPZ at peak times. Note, the plant employment data was provided by Constellation Energy and supplemented for the census block in Zone 1. As such, the plant employment data is reflected in the Calvert County employment subtotal in Appendix E, Table E4.

There are a total of 2,618 employees commuting into the EPZ on a daily basis. To estimate the 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 the major employers. Table 35 presents the estimates of employees and vehicle estimates commuting into the EPZ by Zone. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided or confirmed by the counties for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. It should be noted that medical facilities within Calvert County have their own emergency plans and transportation resources. Table E3 in Appendix E summarizes the data gathered for medical facilities. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. As shown in these tables, 242 people (83 ambulatory patients, 124 wheelchair bound patients and 2 bedridden patients) have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The percent breakdown of ambulatory (33%), wheelchair bound (63%), and bedridden (4%) patients from the 2012 data was used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities within the EPZ for this study.

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

36. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that up to 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair bus runs assumes up to 15 wheelchairs per trip; and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip. It should be noted that although it is assumed that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip, there was no data received confirming the number of ambulances for each county. Six (6) buses, 13 wheelchair buses and 3 ambulances are required to evacuate the medical facility population, as shown in Table 36. Buses and wheelchair buses are represented as two passenger vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.6 School, Preschool/Day Care and Day Camp Population Demand Table 37 and Table 38 present the school, preschool/day care and day camp population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools within the EPZ for the 3

The LODES data is part of the LEHD data products from the U.S. Census Bureau. This dataset provides detailed spatial distributions of workers employment and residential locations and the relation between the two at the census block level. For detailed information, please refer to this site: https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

20202021 school year. This information was provided by counties within the EPZ supplemented by internet searches where no data was provided.

The column in Table 37 and Table 38 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

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

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

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

There are several small inhome daycare facilities with enrollments less than 10 and we assume that parents will pick the children up. Any children that are not picked up will be evacuated in personal vehicles of the operators/staff members of the inhome daycare centers.

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% daily.

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

Table 103 presents a list of the host schools for each school in the EPZ. Students will be transported to these host schools where they will be subsequently retrieved by their respective families or guardians.

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

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

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

In the latter group, the vehicle(s) may be used by a commuter(s) who does not return (or is not expected to return) home to evacuate the household. Table 39 presents estimates of transit dependent people.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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% of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario4 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70% of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1), approximately 72% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

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

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 39 indicates that transportation must be provided for 309 people. Therefore, a total of 11 bus runs is required from a capacity standpoint. According to the public information, each Zone has one or more designated staging area. This study adopts the routes designed in the 2012 study for evacuating transit dependent population. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have at least one bus drives through each staging area within the transit routes to pick up transit dependent people, 21 buses are used in the ETE calculations.

See Section 8.1 for further discussion. These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 37 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 20,061 0.0056 1 0.1412 1.64 1 0.6489 0.4455 0.4410 2.63 2 0.6489 0.4455 1,102 1 0.72 30 0.28 1,102 30 11 (Rounded up)

These calculations, based on the demographic survey results, are explained as follows:

• 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 number of households (HH) is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (54,966 2.74) and is 20,061.

• All members (1.00 avg) of households (HH) with no vehicles (0.56%) will evacuate by public transit or rideshare. The term 20,061 x .0052 x 1.00 accounts for these people.

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (14.1%), who are at home, equal (1.64 1). The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (20,061 x 0.141 x 0.64 x 0.649 x 0.446), as 64.99% of EPZ households have a commuter, 44.55% 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 (44.1%), who are at home, equal (2.63

- 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 20,061 x 0.441 x 0.63 x (0.649 x 0.446)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 number of buses is computed based on 72% of the transitdependent population ridesharing with a neighbor or friend and a capacity of 30 people per bus.

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 39 exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons (access and/or functional needs population) in the EPZ (discussed in Section 3.8). This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population Counties have an annual registration for homebound (noninstitutionalized) people with access and/or functional needs. Based on data provided by Calvert and St. Marys Counties, there are 24 homebound people with access and/or functional needs who require transportation assistance to evacuate, 4 of them are in the Calvert County and 20 of them are in the St. Marys County of the EPZ. The percentage breakdown of bedridden (8%), wheelchair bound (92%), and ambulatory (0%) people from the 2012 ETE study was used to estimate the percentage Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

breakdown for the current study. Based on these data, there are no ambulatory residents who would require a bus to evacuate, 22 wheelchair bound people who require two wheelchair buses to be evacuated, and 2 people who are bedridden will require an ambulance to evacuate.

See Table 310.

Wheelchair buses needed to evacuate the homebound people with access and/or functional needs are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.9 Special Event A special event can attract a significant transient population to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Counties were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ. Several special events were identified as having the potential to attracts transients from outside the EPZ, including:

Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show - 100,000 transients Fourth of July Fireworks at Hollywood Volunteer Fire Department - 10,000 transients Based on discussions with St. Marys County, the Naval Air Show was chosen as the special event (Scenario 13) for this study, as this event attracts the largest number of transients to the study area. The event occurs at Naval Air Station located in the Shadow Region. A total of 100,000 people attend this event. Assuming that people will rideshare with friends and family to attend the event, the average vehicle occupancy (2.74) was used yielding a total of 36,497 vehicles. As such, a total of 100,000 people in 36,497 vehicles will attend the event.

The total special event attendees and vehicles was broken down as the following:

Of the 100,000 people attending the event, it is estimated that 75% of the existing EPZ and Shadow Region population (70,344 people x .75 = 52,750 people) and 75% of the seasonal population and transients (17,319 transients x .75 = 12,989) in the EPZ will also attend this event. In order to adjust the population realistically, the remaining 25% of the population (including seasonal people and transients) will remain throughout the EPZ and Shadow Region. A total of 34,261 people (Total Attendance, 100,000 - 75% of EPZ and Shadow population, seasonal population and transients, 65,739) is assumed to be the total number of transients considered at the special event.

Of the 36,497 vehicles, 33,467 vehicles represent 75% of the total number of permanent resident vehicles within the EPZ and Shadow Region (38,489 vehicles - see Table 32 and Table 33 and seasonal and transient vehicles (6,134 vehicles - see Table 34) and an additional 3,030 transients (33,467 vehicles + 3,030 vehicles = 36,497 vehicles).

According to St. Marys County, people will park their cars within 400 yards of the event area.

Since parking is encouraged in close proximity of the event area, public transportation is not provided for this event. No roadway closures are considered for this event and the vehicle trips for were generated utilizing the same distribution used for transients.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.10 External Traffic In general, vehicles travel through the study area (externalexternal trips) at the time of an accident. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers start to evacuate. This EPZ has no true through roadways because it is on two peninsulas; however, the simulation model populates the network with some background traffic prior to the start of the evacuation to account for these travelers. See Section 3.11 for further discussion.

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 15 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 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 6). There are approximately 266 vehicles on the roadways in the study area at the end of fill time for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 (summer, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions.

3.12 Summary of Demand A summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 311 and Table 312, respectively. This summary includes all population groups described in this section. A total of 132,783 people and 50,484 vehicles are considered in this study.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Zone 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 5,777 5,676 2 4,928 4,936 3 19,752 19,726 4 5,396 6,530 5 2,793 2,914 6 4,635 4,328 7 9,109 10,646 8 262 210 EPZ TOTAL: 52,652 54,966 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 4.39%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Zone Zone 2020 Population Resident Vehicles 1 5,676 3,119 2 4,936 2,722 3 19,726 10,752 4 6,530 3,596 5 2,914 1,593 6 4,328 2,381 7 10,646 5,863 8 210 116 EPZ TOTAL: 54,966 30,142 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector Population Evacuating Vehicles N 0 0 NNE 0 0 NE 345 192 ENE 418 222 E 78 43 ESE 305 170 SE 72 39 SSE 8 4 S 21,282 11,516 SSW 16,679 9,140 SW 10,627 5,684 WSW 4,229 2,324 W 4,127 2,274 WNW 4,234 2,327 NW 7,905 4,203 NNW 6,533 3,598 TOTAL: 76,842 41,736 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Seasonal Total Transient Seasonal Resident Total Transient Zone Transients Vehicles Residents Vehicles Transients Vehicles 1 1,987 657 81 47 2,068 704 2 201 68 39 23 240 91 3 9,540 3,269 386 223 9,926 3,492 4 461 169 0 0 461 169 5 0 0 113 65 113 65 6 867 231 0 0 867 231 7 2,814 1,035 62 36 2,876 1,071 8 768 311 0 0 768 311 EPZ TOTAL: 16,638 5,740 681 394 17,319 6,134 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Zone Employees Employee Vehicles 1 244 230 2 0 0 3 156 147 4 0 0 5 358 338 6 0 0 7 1,860 1,755 8 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 2,618 2,470 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel chair Current Ambu chair Bed Bus Bus Ambulance Zone Facility Name Capacity Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs CALVERT COUNTY5 1 3 Beas' Assisted Living 6 6 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 In God's Care, Inc. 6 5 5 0 0 1 0 0 3 Solomons Nursing Center 90 87 30 56 1 1 4 1 3 The Hermitage at Solomons 162 49 24 25 0 1 2 0 3 Asbury Solomons Island Skilled Nursing Home 48 46 4 42 0 1 3 0 Calvert County Subtotal: 312 193 67 124 2 5 10 2 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 7 St Mary's Adult Medical Day Care 49 49 16 31 2 1 3 1 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 49 49 16 31 2 1 3 1 TOTAL: 361 242 83 155 4 6 13 3 5

According to Calvert County emergency management personnel, medical facilities are required to have a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) which includes their own transportation resources provided directly or contracted out.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37. School Population Demand Estimates Buses Zone School Name Enrollment Required CALVERT COUNTY 1 Southern Middle School 463 10 1 St. Leonard Elementary School 473 7 2 Mutual Elementary School 324 5 3 Patuxent Elementary School 512 8 3 Appeal Elementary School 160 3 3 Mill Creek Middle School 485 10 3 Dowell Elementary School 522 8 3 Patuxent High School 1,070 22 Calvert County Subtotal: 4,009 73 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 7 Hollywood Elementary School 488 7 7 Town Creek Elementary School 222 4 7 St John's Elementary School 125 2 7 Green Holly Elementary School 551 8 7 Esperanza Middle School 893 18 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 2,279 39 EPZ Total: 6,288 112 Table 38. Preschool/Daycares and Day Camps Population Demand Estimates Buses Zone Preschool/Daycare, and Day Camp Name Enrollment Required CALVERT COUNTY 1 Camp Bay Breeze6 158 3 1 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 30 1 1 St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 40 1 2 You Are Loved Child Care Center 73 2 2 Grover Place, Inc 59 1 2 Mutual Elementary Before & After School Program 30 07 3 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 10 1 3 Patuxent Elementary Before and Atter School Program 30 07 3 Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 55 1 3 Dowell Elementary School BASP 30 07 3 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 10 1 3 Solomons Day Care Center 86 2 6

Camp Bay Breeze is a day camp where children will be evacuated by bus in the event of an emergency at the CCNPP.

7 The before and after school programs are hosted by some elementary schools and the students are already counted at the corresponding elementary school enrollment listed in Table 3-7. Therefore, no buses were estimated to avoid double counting students.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Buses Zone Preschool/Daycare, and Day Camp Name Enrollment Required 3 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 30 1 4 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 20 1 Calvert County Subtotal: 661 15 ST. MARY'S COUNTY8 6 Samantha Joy 6 0 6 Wendi Wheeler 7 0 6 Judy Smith 8 0 6 Minds N Motion 53 1 6 Tammy Carr 8 0 6 Julie Jackson 7 0 6 Sonia Munoz 6 0 6 Crystal James 6 0 6 Gail Sotelo 8 0 6 Wendy Kruk 8 0 7 Brittany Gaydosh 7 0 7 Joseph Hillan 8 0 7 Danielle Finn 8 0 7 Angel Pitcher 8 0 7 Melissa Mattingly 8 0 7 Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 65 1 7 USBBA, Inc. California 60 1 7 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 50 1 7 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 31 1 7 Prep & Play Preschool 75 2 7 Velinda Johnson 8 0 7 Jessica Edelbaum 8 0 7 Sharon Cooper 2 0 7 Aimee Buchanan 8 0 7 St. John's School 59 1 7 Charlotte Jaques 8 0 7 Bridgette Lawrence 8 0 7 Kelly Eno 7 0 7 Green Holly School Age Center 50 1 7 Chantini Somerville 7 0 7 Creative Beginnings 149 3 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 751 12 EPZ Total: 1,412 27 8

There are several small in-home daycare facilities with enrollments less than 10 children and it was assumed that parents will pick the children up. Any children that are not picked up will be evacuated in personal vehicles of the operators/staff members of the in-home daycares.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 39. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. of Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 54,966 1.00 1.64 2.63 20,061 0.56% 14.1% 44.1% 64.9% 44.6% 1,102 72.0% 309 0.6%

Table 310. Demand Estimates for Homebound Population with Access and/or Functional Needs Population Group Transportation Needed Population Vehicles deployed Wheelchair Bound Wheelchair Bus 22 2 Bedridden Ambulance 2 1 Total: 24 3 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 311. Summary of Population Demand Schools, Preschools/Day Transit Medical Care Centers Special Shadow Zone Residents Dependent Transients Seasonal Employees Facilities and Day Camps Event Population9 Total 1 5,676 32 1,987 81 244 6 1,164 0 0 9,190 2 4,936 28 201 39 0 5 486 0 0 5,695 3 19,726 111 9,540 386 156 182 3,000 0 0 33,101 4 6,530 37 461 0 0 0 20 0 0 7,048 5 2,914 16 0 113 358 0 0 0 0 3,401 6 4,328 24 867 0 0 0 117 0 0 5,336 7 10,646 60 2,814 62 1,860 49 2,913 0 0 18,404 8 210 1 768 0 0 0 0 0 0 979 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,261 15,368 49,629 EPZ TOTAL: 54,966 309 16,638 681 2,618 242 7,700 34,261 15,368 132,783 9

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand Schools, Preschools/Day Transit Medical Care Centers and Special Shadow Zone Residents Dependent10 Transients Seasonal Employees Facilities10 Day Camps10 Event Vehicles11 Total 1 3,119 4 657 47 230 5 44 0 0 4,106 2 2,722 10 68 23 0 2 16 0 0 2,841 3 10,752 8 3,269 223 147 25 114 0 0 14,538 4 3,596 8 169 0 0 0 2 0 0 3,775 5 1,593 6 0 65 338 0 0 0 0 2,002 6 2,381 2 231 0 0 0 2 0 0 2,616 7 5,863 4 1,035 36 1,755 9 100 0 0 8,802 8 116 0 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 427 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,03012 8,347 11,377 EPZ TOTAL: 30,142 42 5,740 394 2,470 41 278 3,030 8,347 50,484 10 Buses for transit-dependent population, medical facilities, and schools are represented as two passenger vehicles.

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

12 Of the 36,497 vehicles attending the Naval Air Show (see Section 3.10), 33,497 are assumed to be from the EPZ and Shadow regions to avoid double counting and thus already included in resident, shadow, seasonal, and transient vehicles columns. As such, only the remaining 3,030 vehicles are shown in the special event column. See Section 3.10 for more details.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. Zones Comprising the CCNPP EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, wind speed, ice)

These factors are considered during the road survey and in the capacity estimation process; some factors have greater influence on capacity than others. For example, lane and shoulder width have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 157 of the HCM 2016. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observed during the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed 1

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 20 mph to 70 mph within the study area. Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the HCM 2016. For example, HCM 2016 Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the SV at the upper bound of LOS E).

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

As discussed in Section 2.6, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions. Adverse conditions like inclement weather, construction, and other incidents tend to slow traffic down and often, also increases vehicletovehicle separation, thus decreasing the amount of traffic flow. Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions such as rain reduce the values of freeflow speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10%. Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain/light snow and heavy snow on traffic capacity. These studies indicate a range of effects between 5% and 25% depending on wind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.6, we employ a reduction in free speed and in highway capacity of 10% for rain/light snow. The free speed and highway capacity reductions of 15% and 25% r respectively, during heavy snow conditions.

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. See Appendix G for more information.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3600 3600 where:

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

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

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

Formally, we can write, where:

hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicle F1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hm fm( ) = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat, F1, F2, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway The capacity of highway sections as distinct from approaches to intersection - 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.

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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

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

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

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

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

The estimated value of capacity is based primarily upon the type of facility and on roadway geometrics. Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower freeflow speeds and lane capacity. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 was referenced to estimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on freeflow speed and on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as is the case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section" capacity, VE, based on observations made traveling over each section of the evacuation network, based on the posted speed limits and travel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the HCM 2016. The DYNEV II simulation 3

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether its capacity would be limited by the "sectionspecific" service volume, VE, or by the intersectionspecific capacity. For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Each of these classifications will be discussed below.

4.3.1 TwoLane Roads Ref: HCM 2016 Chapter 15 Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region). The perlane capacity of a twolane highway is estimated at 1,700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate is essentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, for extended distances, the twoway capacity will not exceed 3,200 pc/h.

The HCM 2016 procedures then estimate LOS and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation model accepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on the timevarying demand: capacity relations.

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

Most sections of twolane roads within the study area, are classified as Class I, with "level terrain"; some are rolling terrain.

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

4.3.3 4.3.3 Intersections Ref: HCM 2016 Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22 Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented in Chapter 19 (signalized intersections), Chapters 20, 21 (unsignalized intersections) and Chapter 22 (roundabouts). The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate length of these chapters. The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.

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

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

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

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

This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations across an area encompassing a study area operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM 2016 - they replace these procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

by location. The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2016 procedures only for the purpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify the performance parameters applicable to the analysis network. Two of the most important of these are: (1) FFS; and (2) saturation headway, hsat. The first of these is estimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using the concepts of the HCM 2016, as described earlier.

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

4.5 Boundary Condition As illustrated in Figure 12 and in Appendix K, the linknode analysis network used for this study is finite. The analysis network extends well beyond the 15mile radial study area in some locations in order to model intersections with other major evacuation routes beyond the study area. However, the network does have an end at the destination (exit) nodes as discussed in Appendix C. Beyond these destination nodes, there may be signalized intersections or merge points that impact the capacity of the evacuation routes leaving the study area. Rather than neglect these boundary conditions, this study assumes a 25% reduction in capacity on two lane roads (Section 4.3.1 above) and multilane highways (Section 4.3.2 above). The 25%

reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals outside the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic (main street) volume will be more significant than the competing traffic (side street) volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

1. The Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) will be announced coincident with the siren notification.

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

3. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

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

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

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency. For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast. Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this report.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 Public Alert and Notification System available within the EPZ [e.g., sirens, tone alerts, Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcasts on radios and loudspeakers].

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 182 square miles and is engaged in a wide variety of activities. It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between the transmission and receipt of the information advising the public of an event.

The amount of elapsed time will vary from one individual to the next depending on where that person is, what that person is doing, and related factors. Furthermore, some persons who will be directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time the emergency is declared. These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers who reside within the EPZ and who will return to join the other household members upon receiving notification of an emergency.

As indicated in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt of notification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times for different people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible to distinguish between different population groups and different dayofweek and timeofday scenarios, so that accurate ETE may be computed.

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

As indicated in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, the information required to compute trip generation times is typically obtained from a demographic survey of the study area permanent residents. Such a demographic survey was conducted in support of this ETE study for this site.

Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan, the number of completed surveys obtained (including statistical confidence bounds), documents the survey instrument utilized and provides the survey results. It is important to note that the shape and duration of the evacuation trip mobilization distribution is important at sites where traffic congestion is not expected to cause the ETE to extend well beyond the trip generation period. The remaining discussion will focus on the application of the trip generation data obtained from the demographic survey to the development of the ETE documented in this report.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

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

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

It is seen from Figure 51, that the Trip Generation time (i.e., the total elapsed time from Event 1 to Event 5) depends on the scenario and will vary from one household to the next. Furthermore, Event 5 depends, in a complicated way, on the time distributions of all activities preceding that event. That is, to estimate the time distribution of Event 5, we must obtain estimates of the time Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that Notification methods will be established to ensure coverage within 45 minutes of essentially 100%

of the population within the entire plume exposure pathway EPZ who may not have received the initial notification.

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

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

Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 4 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey.

This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 54.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 5 These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the demographic survey.

This distribution is plotted in Figure 52 and listed in Table 55.

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

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

Note that those respondents (~12%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

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

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly to form the required distribution. As an outcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign letter designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure. Table 57 presents the summing procedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternatives to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) The individual mobilization activities (prepare to leave work, travel home, prepare home, clear snow) are reviewed for outliers, and then the overall trip generation distributions are created (see Figure 51, Table 57, Table 58);

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 3 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. Values more than 3.00 standard deviations from the mean were removed for all Distributions except for Distribution 2. For Distribution 2 (Prepare to Leave Work), values more than 3.40 standard deviations from the mean were removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions designated for each population group considered. These distributions are presented on the same time scale. (As discussed earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is a conservative approach, because it makes all activities sequential - travel home from work follows preparation to leave work; preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and so forth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least to some extent - for instance, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

preparation to depart begins by a household member at home while the commuter is still on the road.) The mobilization distributions results are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputs to later computations that lead to the ETE.

The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation for each origin centroid, expressed in the form of histograms. These histograms, which represent Distributions A, C, D, E and F, properly displaced with respect to one another, are tabulated in Table 59 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

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

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

1. 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 to prepare for an evacuation.

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

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

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in 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, at campgrounds, on a beach, or at other venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation would prove difficult.

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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 is scenariospecific.

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

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The approximate average value of TScen* is 2:45 for nonheavy snow scenarios and 4:30 for heavy snow scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

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; Approximately, the approximate 90th percentile 2Mile Region evacuation time is 165 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios, and 270 minutes for heavy snow scenarios.

At TScen*, approximately, 20% of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

Since the 90th percentile evacuation time occurs before the end of the trip generation time, after the sheltered region is advised to evacuate, the shelter trip generation distribution rises to meet the balance of the nonstaged trip generation distribution. Following time TScen*, the balance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 60 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios (30 minutes for heavy snow scenario) and after this time, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the unstaged trip generation distribution.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 55 and Table 510 provide the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Section 1.6.2.4 and Section 5.11.4 of the Calvert County Radiological Emergency Plan (REP), and Section 6.2 of the Dorchester County REP, indicate the following:

The State Department of Natural Resources' Forest and Park Services will notify campers and visitors in Calvert Cliffs State Park.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources Police will assist in notifying boaters on affected waterways.

The Natural Resources Police will provide evacuation notification information to the mariners by public address systems from boats, and/or motor vehicles, by personal contact, or by VHF or citizens band radio. The Natural Resources Police will also provide boat transportation for evacuees, if necessary.

The Natural Resources Police will also provide boat transportation for evacuees from special areas, if necessary.

Backup notification procedures are available in the event of siren system failure.

As discussed in Section 2.2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. As indicated in Table 52 and discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes which is consistent with the FEMA REP Manual. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes. It is assumed that this timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles or campground facilities, pack their belongings and begin their evacuation trip.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 7%

10 13%

15 27%

20 47%

25 66%

30 87%

35 92%

40 97%

45 100%

Table 53. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Employees Elapsed Time Percent Employees (Minutes) Leaving Work (Minutes) Leaving Work 0 0% 35 88.2%

5 23.7% 40 90.1%

10 45.4% 45 92.2%

15 62.9% 50 93.8%

20 69.6% 55 93.8%

25 74.2% 60 99.7%

30 85.2% 75 100%

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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Returning Elapsed Time Percent Returning (Minutes) Home (Minutes) Home 0 0 40 72.1%

5 4.0% 45 76.7%

10 15.1% 50 81.4%

15 30.2% 55 85.1%

20 37.4% 60 88.6%

25 50.9% 75 93.9%

30 61.8% 90 98.1%

35 66.8% 105 100%

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

Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0% 105 81.1%

15 2.1% 120 87.6%

30 18.6% 135 93.2%

45 32.5% 150 95.3%

60 59.2% 165 95.9%

75 73.4% 180 97.6%

90 79.6% 195 100%

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 512 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Removal 0 11.5% 105 71.9%

15 23.9% 120 76.0%

30 37.0% 135 87.0%

45 47.9% 150 88.5%

60 60.0% 165 89.9%

75 66.9% 180 94.1%

90 70.4% 210 100.0%

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

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

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

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

begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Unstaged Evacuation1 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents with Residents with without Commuters Residents without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 30 63% 63% 0% 11% 0% 2%

3 30 26% 26% 6% 34% 1% 10%

4 15 5% 5% 8% 19% 2% 8%

5 15 1% 1% 12% 11% 4% 10%

6 30 0% 0% 27% 9% 12% 16%

7 30 0% 0% 19% 10% 15% 14%

8 60 0% 0% 21% 6% 28% 21%

9 15 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 4%

10 30 0% 0% 3% 0% 10% 7%

11 30 0% 0% 2% 0% 8% 4%

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

13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

14 60 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2 30 0% 2% 0% 0%

3 30 1% 7% 0% 2%

4 15 2% 4% 1% 2%

5 15 2% 2% 0% 2%

6 30 6% 2% 3% 3%

7 30 3% 2% 3% 3%

8 60 79% 81% 5% 4%

9 15 2% 0% 2% 1%

10 30 3% 0% 2% 1%

11 30 2% 0% 70% 78%

12 60 0% 0% 10% 3%

13 30 0% 0% 2% 1%

14 60 0% 0% 2% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

80%

60%

40%

20%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

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

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating Zones, that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ),

that must be evacuated in response to a radiological emergency.

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

A total of 19 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 seven adjoining sectors (central sector plus 3 sectors on either side based on wind persistence studies), each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance.

The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Region R04 and Region R05) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R06 through R16).

Regions R01, R02, and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R17, R18 and R19 are geographically identical to Regions R02, R04, and R05, respectively; however, those Zones between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90%

of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

Each Zone that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the Calvert Cliffs Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) Flowchart (Constellation document

1. EPAA111F12, Rev. A). There are instances when a small portion of a Zone is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of Zone population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Zone would not be included in the Region.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 14 x 19 = 266 evacuation cases. Table 62 provides a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated. The population and vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 and in Appendix E are peak values.

These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Regionspecific percentages, such that the population is considered for each evacuation case. The Scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the Region percentages are provided in Table H1.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is equal to 36%, which is the product of 65% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F6) and 55% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - see Figure F11). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of those households with returning commuters (36%) will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 4% (10% x 36% = 3.6%, rounded up to 4%) of households overall.

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

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

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

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (90%) during summer weekends and is less (55%) during the week. The recreational areas in the EPZ (shown in Table E6 and Table E7) are predominantly outdoors and will be frequented more often during the summer than the winter. As a result, transient activity during winter weekends is estimated to be 30% and less (20%) for winter weekdays. As shown in Appendix E, there are some campgrounds (see Table E

7) and lodging facilities (see Table E8) offering overnight accommodations in the EPZ; thus, transient activity is estimated to be moderate (50%) during the evening for summer and less (25%) for winter evenings.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 63, the shadow percentages are computed using a base of 20% (see assumption 7 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the Shadow Region who may choose to evacuate, the voluntary evacuation is multiplied by a scenario specific proportion of employees to permanent residents in the Shadow Region. For example, using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

2,371 20% 1 22%

10,814 19,328 One special event - The Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show - was considered as Scenario 13, during the summer, weekend, midday, with good weather. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13 and 0% for all other scenarios.

Seasonal population activity is only present during summer period, thus seasonal traffic is 100%

evacuated for all summers cases and 0% for all winter cases.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R02 R04 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R05 260 349 X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R06 350 11 X X X X X R07 12 56 X X X X X X R08 57 101 X X X X X X X R09 102 124 X X X X X X R10 125 169 X X X X X R11 170 214 X X X X X R12 215 237 X X X R13 238 259 X X R14 260 304 X X X R15 305 326 X X X X R16 327 349 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R17 5Mile Region X X X N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R17 R18 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R19 260 349 X X Zone(s) Shelterin Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Zone(s) Evacuate Place R01, then Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season1 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: The 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge 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).

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without Returning Returning Special Seasonal School Medical Transit Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Population Buses Facility Buses 1 36% 64% 96% 55% 22% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

2 36% 64% 96% 55% 22% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

3 4% 96% 10% 90% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

4 4% 96% 10% 90% 20% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

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

6 36% 64% 100% 20% 22% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

7 36% 64% 100% 20% 22% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

8 36% 64% 100% 20% 22% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100%

9 4% 96% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 4% 96% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 4% 96% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

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

13 4% 96% 10% 90% 20% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

14 36% 64% 96% 55% 22% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

Employees ................................................. EPZ employees who live outside the EPZ Transients .................................................. People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (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. These values are rounded to the nearest whole number for this table. The actual values computed by the formula shown on page 63 are used to compute the values shown in Table 6 4.

Special Event ............................................. Additional vehicles in the Study Area due to the Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show.

Seasonal Population .................................. Seasonal People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (nonemployment) purposes.

School Buses and Transit Buses ................. Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools, preschools/daycares/day camps (except for inhome day cares with less than 10 children) and transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

Medical FacilityVehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuations servicing medical facilities (1 ambulatory bus or wheelchair bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Residents Residents Total with without Special Seasonal School Medical Transit Scenario Scenarios Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Population Buses3 Facilities4 Buses Vehicles 1 10,814 19,328 2,371 3,157 9,004 0 394 28 41 42 45,179 2 10,814 19,328 2,371 3,157 9,004 0 394 28 41 42 45,179 3 1,081 29,061 247 5,166 8,416 0 394 0 41 42 44,448 4 1,081 29,061 247 5,166 8,416 0 394 0 41 42 44,448 5 1,081 29,061 247 2,870 8,416 0 394 0 41 42 42,152 6 10,814 19,328 2,470 1,148 9,031 0 0 278 41 42 43,152 7 10,814 19,328 2,470 1,148 9,031 0 0 278 41 42 43,152 8 10,814 19,328 2,470 1,148 9,031 0 0 278 41 42 43,152 9 1,081 29,061 247 1,722 8,416 0 0 0 41 42 40,610 10 1,081 29,061 247 1,722 8,416 0 0 0 41 42 40,610 11 1,081 29,061 247 1,722 8,416 0 0 0 41 42 40,610 12 1,081 29,061 247 1,435 8,416 0 0 0 41 42 40,323 5

13 278 7,402 247 1,296 2,158 36,497 104 0 41 42 48,065 14 10,814 19,328 2,371 3,157 9,004 0 394 28 41 42 45,179 2

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

3 School Buses also include those vehicles being used to transport preschools/daycares and day camps (except for in-home day cares with less than 10 children).

4 Medical Facilities include transport vehicles for the medical and senior facilities within the EPZ.

5 The Naval Airshow vehicles listed include 75% of the permanent residents and transients/seasonal (within EPZ and Shadow Region) vehicles that are attending the show and will start their evacuation trip from the air base. The vehicle estimates within the other population group was reduced to avoid double counting. See Section 3.10 for more details.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. Zones Comprising the CCNPP EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover 19 Evacuation Regions within the CCNPP EPZ, and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

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

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

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Zones for which an Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) has not been issued, yet who elect to evacuate. Shadow evacuation is the voluntary outward movement of some permanent residents from the Shadow Region (outside the EPZ) for whom no protective action recommendation has been issued. Both voluntary and shadow evacuations are assumed to take place over the same time frame as the evacuation from within the impacted Evacuation Region.

The ETE for the CCNPP 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 the permanent residents in the Shadow Region will choose to leave the area.

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

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 76,842 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, traveling away from the CCNPP location, has the potential for impeding evacuating vehicles from within the Evacuation Region. All ETE calculations include this shadow traffic movement.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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 evacuate when approximately 90% of the 2Mile Region evacuating traffic crosses the 2Mile Region boundary.

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

See Section 5.4.2 for additional information on staged evacuation.

7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation Figure 73 through Figure 78 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):

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, 1h, 3h).

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

All highway "links" which experience LOS F are delineated in these figures by a thick red line; all others are lightly indicated. Congestion develops rapidly around concentrations of population and traffic bottlenecks.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> after the ATE, Figure 73 displays significant congestion within the population centers of Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, and Solomons, and along Maryland State Route (MD) 760, MD 497, and around the roundabouts near Lusby within Zone 3. The major evacuation route, MD 2/4 experiences significant congestion due to the reduction of lanes from 2 to 1, as evacuees approach the Thomas Johnson Bridge. Evacuees from Zone 3 cannot evacuate to the north as it would take them significantly closer to the plant. In addition, significant congestion (LOS F) exists on MD 235 from MD 4 to MD 472 within Zones 6 and 7. North of the CCNPP, sections of MD 2/4 northbound due to the bottleneck caused by the roundabout located at MD 264 and evacuees merging onto MD 2/4 within the population center of Prince Frederick.

At 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 displays fully developed congestion within Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, Drum Point and Solomons south of the plant in Zone 3. In addition, congestion along MD 2/4 southbound within Zone 3 and Zone 7 has worsened.

Congestion has increased along MD 264 as evacuees try to access MD 2/4 northbound and within the population center of Calvert Beach, north of CCNPP, as more evacuees have mobilized. The bottlenecks that existed at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> continue to worsen, with the congestion along MD 765, MD 760, MD 2/4 between MD 5 and MD 235 being the most prevalent. MD 235 exhibits pronounced congestion northbound through Zones 6 and 7. Within the Shadow Region, congestion is now visible within Prince Frederick and Huntingtown north of the plant, and along MD 2/4 (south of Wildewood), MD 234 (west of Leonardtown) and MD 235 within Mechanicsville. Significant congestion also exists outside the study area along MD 6 westbound and MD 5 northbound near Charlotte Hall.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes, as shown in Figure 75, the intense congestion within the population centers of Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, and Solomons persists due to the congestion as evacuees travel through the Thomas Johnson Bridge bottleneck on MD 2/4.

Evacuees south of CCNPP are directed to evacuate south over the Thomas Johnson Bridge wherein the significant vehicular demand from Zone 3 greatly exceeds the available roadway capacity, resulting in significant congestion and queuing. The bottleneck at the intersection of MD 264 and MD 2/4 persists but is dissipating as evacuees from Zones 2 and 4 are forced into a single acceleration lane to merge onto MD 2/4 northbound. Significant congestion persists along MD 235 northbound as the demand far exceeds the available roadway capacity, due to the significant congestion along MD 235 from MD 245 south of Hollywood to MD 6 in Charlotte Hall. Additional bottlenecks occur at the intersection of MD 2/4 and MD 5 as vehicles exiting Zone 7 intersect vehicles evacuating north along MD 5 within the Shadow Region. Congestion is dissipating north of the plant near Prince Fredrick, while the Huntingtown area remains congested. Congestion persists just beyond the 2Mile Region in Zone 3 as evacuees only have access to MD 2/4 southbound to evacuate the area due to the limited roadway network on the peninsula.

At 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 76, congestion persists in Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, and Solomons due to the Thomas Johnson Bridge bottleneck and the congestion at the intersection of MD 235 and MD 2/4. MD 235 northbound is still congestion though the queue is dissipating (no longer extends into Zone 7). All roadways north of the plant are operating at LOS A at this time as congestion has cleared in Prince Frederick Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

and in Huntingtown. MD 234 and MD 6 westbound are congested as evacuees are diverting from MD 235 northbound.

At 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 77, the congestion within Lusby, Chesapeake Ranch Estates, and Solomons begin to dissipate. LOS F conditions remain on MD 2/4 southbound at the Thomas Johnson Bridge and intersection with MD 235 bottlenecks.

Congestion along MD 235 northbound has dissipated significantly as LOS F conditions are no longer exhibited in the EPZ.

At 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE, Zone 3 is now clear of congestion, as shown in Figure

78. At this time, the entire roadway network experiences LOS A except for a small portion on MD 2/4 southbound after the Thomas Johnson Bridge which experiences LOS F as evacuees intersect MD 235 and turn northbound. MD 235 northbound is now operating at LOS B, as the remaining vehicles exit from the EPZ and travel northwest towards Hughesville. The congestion within the EPZ clears 10 minutes later at 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE, while the entire study area clears 25 minutes later at 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the ATE.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 79 through Figure 722. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 79 through Figure 722, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to congestion. Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, there are a few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.

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

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 19 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Region (R01) for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

The animation snapshots described above in Section 7.3 reflect the ETE statistics for the concurrent (unstaged) evacuation scenarios and regions, which are displayed in Figure 73 through Figure 78. Most of the significant congestion is located in Zone 3 which is included within the 5Mile Region; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2Mile Region) ranges between 2:30 (hrs:mins) and 4:45 hours. Residents with commuters make up approximately 30% of the evacuees within Region R01. Thus, the time to mobilize 90% of residents with commuters dictates the 90th percentile ETE for Region R01.

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5Mile Region) are 30 minutes to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and 50 minutes longer than R01, as R02 includes the evacuation of the larger population within Zone 3 and the persistent congestion occurring within Zone 3 (and within Zones 6 and 7 because of the evacuees from Zone 3). As such, the 90th percentile ETE ranges from 3:00 and 9:30. 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 are dictated by traffic congestion, not by mobilization time.

The 90th percentile ETE for Regions R03 (full EPZ) and R06 through R16 (which extend to the EPZ boundary) are shorter than that of R02 except for Scenario 13. This is due to the heaviest congestion being within the 5Mile Region. The evacuees caught in the congestion are proportionately more significant to R02 than the more populated R03.

On the other hand, Scenario 13 has the longest 90th percentile ETE for R03 and the shortest for R02 compared to other scenarios due to the special event being located within the Shadow Region and the majority of the permanent residents and transients/seasonal population from within the EPZ is now considered attending the event within the Shadow Region, which reduces the number of evacuees within the 5 Mile Region during an emergency. The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 ranges from 6:35 to 8:40 (12:15 for scenario 13).

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for all Scenarios extend beyond the mobilization time (5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />), except for Region R01, Region R04, and Region R18. The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

congestion that develops from evacuating Zone 3 prolongs ETE by up to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and 50 minutes for all scenarios (11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> and 20 minutes for special event scenarios) when compared to the time needed to mobilize 100% of evacuees. Region R01, Region R04, and Region R18 involve the evacuation of Zone 1 and Zone 2 only. The only congestion in these zones is along MD 264 northbound at the intersection with MD 2/4 northbound. This congestion clears prior to the completion of mobilization time explaining why the 100th percentile ETE for these regions is equal to mobilization time.

The 100th percentile ETE range from 5:00 to 11:55 (16:20 for Scenario 13).

Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show - significantly increases the ETE (by 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and 30 minutes) for the 90th percentile for regions which include the combination of the 5Mile Region and Zones 6 and/or 7. Due to the geographical location of the special event, when evacuating Zones 6 or 7, those additional vehicles slow the evacuation along MD 235 which in turn prolongs the ETE.

Conversely, since the special event attracts 75% of the EPZ permanent residents, shadow population and the transient/seasonal population, it significantly reduces the ETE for Regions that did not include the evacuation of Zones 6 or 7 by up to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway closure - closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge - significantly impacts the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation regions which include Zone 3 or Zone 7, with decreases by up to 55 minutes. The closure of the bridge causes the population within Zone 3 to evacuate north on MD 2/4 past the plant which avoids the congestion prior to the Thomas Johnson Bridge (caused by the reduction in capacity at the lane drop). Thus, the significant population in Zone 3 is able to evacuate faster along MD 2/4 northbound which is 2 lanes which then reduces the congestion for evacuees trying to access MD 235 from within Zone 7. The only Regions that experience an increase in ETE (by at most 25 minutes) are those that do not involve Zone 3 or Zone 7 (Regions R01, R04, R10 through R13, and the staged Region R18) as Zone 3 evacuees reroute through these regions.

Similar to the 90th percentile ETE, the 100th percentile ETE also decreases by up to an hour, as seen in Table 72.

Although the ETE are reduced for some Regions when vehicles are prohibited from using the Thomas Johnson Bridge (Scenario 14), the rerouting that occurs brings evacuees within 2 miles of the CCNPP, which depending on the condition of the plant may expose evacuees to radiation. All efforts should be made to remove any blockage on the Thomas Johnson Bridge thereby allowing vehicles to evacuate away from the plant. As such, increasing the capacity across the bridge by implementing a contraflow lane could also be considered to reduce the 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 R17 through R19 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, R04 and R05, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The objective of a staged evacuation strategy is to ensure that the ETE for the 2Mile Region is not significantly impacted (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) when evacuating areas beyond the 2Mile Region. Additionally staged evacuation should not significantly impact people beyond the 2Mile Region. The 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region remain the same when a staged evacuation is implemented for all Regions and Scenarios, except for Scenario 14 (Roadway Impact), as shown in Table 73 and Table 74. For Scenario 14, the 90th percentile ETE and 100th percentile ETE increases by at most 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes and 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 55 minutes, respectively, when staging occurs as evacuees from Zone 3 are routed through the 2Mile Region.

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R17, R18 and R19 are compared with R02, R04 and R05, respectively, in Table 71 and Table 72. A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the ETE for those in the 2 to 5Mile Region 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 30 minutes for both the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the large number of evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (tripgeneration rate) of evacuating vehicles. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

Staging evacuation provides no benefit to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and adversely impacts many evacuees located beyond the 2Mile Region. Based on the guidance in 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 (The NRC guidance calls for the 90th percentile). The applicable value of ETE within the chosen Table may then be identified using the following procedure:

1. Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Special Event The Naval Air Station Patuxent River Air Show

• Roadway Impact Road Closure (Closure of the Thomas Johnson Bridge)

• 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 (10) for rain/light snow apply.

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

• The seasons are defined as follows:

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

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

• Time of Day: Midday implies the time over which most commuters are at work or are travelling 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 degrees (from 350° - 11°, 11° - 56°,

56° - 101°, 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 (Regions R02, R04 and R05)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R06 through R16)

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

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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 30°.

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

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from 30° and read Region R07 in the first column of that row.

3. Enter Table 71 to locate the data cell containing the value of ETE for Scenario 4 and Region R07. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R07; it contains the ETE value of 9:00.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R02 7:50 9:00 8:30 9:30 7:40 7:00 7:55 9:20 7:30 7:55 9:15 6:55 3:00 7:40 R03 7:15 8:10 8:00 8:55 7:10 6:35 7:30 8:30 6:45 7:25 8:40 6:40 12:15 6:35 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:05 3:05 2:40 2:45 2:40 3:10 3:10 4:50 2:40 2:50 4:30 2:40 2:35 3:15 R05 8:05 9:15 8:40 9:45 7:50 7:10 8:10 9:40 7:45 8:10 9:30 7:05 3:00 7:45 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary R06 7:40 8:35 8:10 9:25 7:30 6:55 7:55 9:00 7:05 7:50 9:05 7:00 12:15 6:45 R07 7:25 8:20 8:05 9:00 7:20 6:40 7:40 8:45 6:55 7:30 8:50 6:45 12:20 6:45 R08 7:15 8:10 8:00 8:55 7:15 6:35 7:35 8:30 6:50 7:30 8:40 6:40 12:20 6:35 R09 4:10 4:35 3:45 4:00 3:45 4:10 4:30 5:40 3:35 3:50 5:10 3:35 11:55 3:55 R10 3:30 3:35 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:30 3:35 5:00 3:20 3:20 4:45 3:20 11:45 3:45 R11 3:20 3:25 3:05 3:15 3:05 3:20 3:30 4:50 3:05 3:15 4:35 3:05 2:40 3:45 R12 3:05 3:05 2:40 2:45 2:40 3:05 3:05 4:45 2:40 2:45 4:30 2:45 2:35 3:10 R13 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:05 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R14 8:00 9:15 8:40 9:40 7:50 7:10 8:05 9:35 7:40 8:10 9:30 7:05 3:00 7:45 R15 7:55 9:00 8:45 9:40 7:50 7:10 8:05 9:25 7:25 8:15 9:40 7:15 12:25 7:05 R16 7:50 8:55 8:25 9:40 7:45 7:10 8:10 9:20 7:20 8:05 9:25 7:15 12:20 7:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles R17 7:50 8:40 8:30 9:30 8:00 7:25 8:05 10:45 7:30 8:00 10:45 7:20 3:15 7:40 R18 3:50 3:55 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:55 3:55 5:45 3:50 3:50 5:40 3:50 2:35 3:55 R19 8:05 8:55 8:40 9:45 8:10 7:40 8:20 11:00 7:45 8:10 11:00 7:30 3:15 7:45 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Radial Regions R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 9:00 R03 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:35 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:05 16:20 9:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 8:55 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary R06 9:55 11:10 10:30 11:50 9:40 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:50 9:00 16:10 9:00 R07 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:00 16:20 9:10 R08 9:55 11:10 10:40 11:50 9:45 9:05 10:35 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:55 9:05 16:20 9:10 R09 5:15 5:40 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:35 7:45 5:15 5:15 7:40 5:15 15:45 5:15 R10 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 5:15 7:45 5:15 5:15 7:40 5:15 15:20 5:15 R11 5:10 5:10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:10 5:10 7:40 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:10 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:10 5:10 7:35 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:10 R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 7:35 5:05 5:05 5:05 R14 9:15 10:40 9:55 11:10 9:00 8:15 9:20 11:00 8:50 9:25 10:55 8:10 5:05 8:55 R15 9:50 11:10 10:30 11:45 9:35 9:00 10:05 11:50 9:10 10:05 11:50 8:55 16:10 8:55 R16 9:55 11:10 10:30 11:50 9:40 9:05 10:25 11:55 9:10 10:05 11:50 9:05 16:10 8:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles R17 9:15 10:15 9:55 11:10 9:25 8:45 9:35 12:25 8:35 9:25 12:25 8:35 5:05 9:00 R18 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R19 9:15 10:15 9:55 11:10 9:25 8:45 9:35 12:25 8:35 9:25 12:25 8:35 5:05 8:55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 711 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2 and 5Mile Regions R01 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:05 R02 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:50 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:10 R05 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles, 5Mile Region R17 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 R18 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 3:45 R19 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:40 2:35 3:00 3:05 4:45 2:35 2:40 4:25 2:35 2:30 7:45 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 712 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation 2 and 5Mile Regions R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:05 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles, 5Mile Region R17 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 R18 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 5:05 R19 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 7:30 5:00 5:00 8:55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region X R02 5Mile Region X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R02 R04 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R05 260 349 X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R06 350 11 X X X X X R07 12 56 X X X X X X R08 57 101 X X X X X X X R09 102 124 X X X X X X R10 125 169 X X X X X R11 170 214 X X X X X R12 215 237 X X X R13 238 259 X X R14 260 304 X X X R15 305 326 X X X X R16 327 349 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Keyhole to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R17 5Mile Region X X X N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R17 R18 102 214 X X N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R19 260 349 X X Zone(s) Shelterin Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90%

Zone(s) Evacuate Place ETE for R01, then Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. CCNPP Shadow Region Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 5 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 7 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 78. Congestion Patterns at 9 Hours and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 79. 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 20 (Thousands) 15 10 5

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 711. 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%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 726 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 727 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 728 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

0 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

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

0 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 722. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 729 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES This section details the analyses applied and the results obtained in the form of evacuation time estimates for transit vehicles (buses, ambulances, and wheelchair transport vehicles). The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools/daycares and 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 larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc. Ambulances are considered one pc.

Transit vehicles must be mobilized in preparation for their respective evacuation missions.

Specifically:

• Bus drivers must be alerted

• They must travel to the bus depot

• They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. The location of bus depots impacts the time to travel from the bus depots to the facilities being evacuated. Locations of bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, the offsite agencies were asked to factor the location of the depots and the distance to the EPZ into the estimate of mobilization time. Based on discussions with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that bus mobilization time will be approximately 90 minutes for schools, preschools/daycares and day camps extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated. Transport vehicles will arrive at medical facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes following the ATE. In addition, it is estimated that transitdependent buses and access and/or functional needs buses mobilize within 165 minutes, which is when approximately 90% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization activities 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 or childcare 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 CCNPP EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to the host schools where they can be picked up by their parents. As such, it is assumed no schoolchildren (which includes children at preschools/daycares and day camps) will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. It is assumed that children at in Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

home daycares with less than 10 children enrollment will be picked up by their parents and the time needed to do so is included in the time for residents to mobilize.

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating event at the plant wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

Therefore, children are evacuated to host schools. Picking up children at school, preschool/daycare, or day camp 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 children at the aforementioned facilities will not be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. See Section 10 for further discussion.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the reception centers/host schools 8.1 ETEs for Schools, Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if school is in session at the time of the 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 centers after completing their first evacuation trip, to complete a second wave of providing transportation service to evacuees. For this reason, the ETE for the transitdependent population will be calculated for both a single wave transit evacuation and for a second wave evacuation.

A list of available transportation resources was provided by the counties within the EPZ and is shown in Table 81. Also included in the table is the capacity needed to evacuate schools, preschools/day cares, day camps, medical facilities, transitdependent population and access and/or functional needs persons (discussed below in Section 8.2). These numbers indicate there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the children at school, preschool/day care and day camps and ambulatory and wheelchairbound persons within the EPZ in a single wave. According to Calvert County emergency management personnel, medical facilities in accordance with their operating licenses are responsible to provide transportation services directly to their patients (Section 2.4, Item 2b) and no public transportation is provided. As no ambulance information was provided for those within St. Mary County, there is a shortfall of capacity for bedridden persons.

As discussed in Section 2, it is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 various routes described in Table 101.

The 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.

School Evacuation Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the school or preschools/daycares or day camps to be evacuated. It is assumed school bus drivers would require 90 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the schools for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact.

Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 100 minutes in rain/light snow, 110 minutes in heavy snow.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4 and shown in Table 22, a loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school buses is assumed.

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 advisory to evacuate - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate host schools. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school, preschool/day care or 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 5 minute interval, for each bus route.

The specified bus routes are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). Data provided by DYNEV during the appropriate timeframe depending on the mobilization and loading times (i.e., 100 to 105 minutes after the advisory to evacuate for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools, preschools/daycares and day camp in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. The travel time to the EPZ boundary was computed for each bus using the computed average speed and the distance to the EPZ boundary along the most likely route out of the EPZ. The travel time from the EPZ boundary to the host schools was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph for good weather, 50 mph for rain/light snow (10% decrease), and 47 mph for heavy snow (15% decrease). Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 to 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow - 10%

decrease, rounded - and 47 mph for heavy snow - 15% decrease, rounded) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, which is based on state laws and the posted speed limits on the major roadways within the EPZ.

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

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

2. The elapsed time until the bus reaches the host schools (H.S.).

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 + 17 = 2:02, rounded up to 2:05 for Southern Middle School in good weather). All school ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

The average single wave ETE, for schools, preschools/day cares and day camp, is 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 25 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for the general population during Scenario 6 (winter, midweek, midday, good weather) conditions (6:35 - 2:10 = 4:25) and will not impact protective action decision making.

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

Activity: Travel to Host Schools (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the host schools are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the facility. The host schools are mapped in Figure 103. For a single wave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. Assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the schools in the EPZ. Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the elapsed time until the bus reaches the host schools.

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)

As shown in Table 81, there are a sufficient number of buses available for evacuation of schoolchildren in a single wave if the entire EPZ is evacuated at once (a highly unlikely event).

However, if some drivers fail to report, a twowave evacuation may be needed for some schools.

A second wave ETE was not computed for each school. Rather, the following representative ETE is provided to estimate the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation of schools. The travel time from the host schools back to the EPZ boundary and then back to the school was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph (good weather), 50 mph (rain - 10% reduction) and 47 mph (snow - 15% reduction) as buses will be traveling counter to evacuating traffic. Times and distances are based on averages for all schools in the EPZ for good weather:

• Buses arrive at the host schools at 2:20 (see average value in Table 82)

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

• Bus returns to facility: 18 minutes (average distance to host schools (7.5 miles) +

average distance to EPZ boundary (8.8 miles) at 55 mph)

• Loading Time: 15 minutes

• Bus completes second wave of service along route: 56 minutes (average distance to EPZ boundary (8.8 miles) at network wide average speed at 3:10 (9.5 mph))

• Bus exits EPZ at time 2:20 + 0:15 + 0:18 + 0:15 + 0:56 = 4:05 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

Given the average single wave ETE for schools is 2:10 (see Table 82); 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 55 minutes, on average. The average second wave ETE of schools is 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes shorter than the 90th percentile ETE (6:35) of the full EPZ during a winter, midweek, midday (Scenario 6) evacuation and should not impact protective action decision making.

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

A detailed computation of transitdependent population was done and is discussed in Section 3.7. Predesigned routes have been supplied by both St. Marys and Calvert Counties. There are a total of 17 routes which service Calvert County and 2 routes which service St. Marys County (Zone 6 and 7). There are 5 staging areas where buses will deploy from. Therefore, the ETE was computed for the 19 bus routes needed to evacuate the transitdependent population. The routes from staging areas to the EPZ boundary for Calvert County and the routes which serve Zones 6 and 7 for St. Marys are discussed in Section 10 and shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101. Those buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along these routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Refer to county emergency plans for a details map for the bus pick up runs. In order to develop accurate ETE for these pickup runs, distances Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

provided by the counties were used. The distance for each bus pickup run (which starts and ends at the staging area) was combined with the distance from the staging area to the EPZ boundary and an average speed along the route was applied to calculate the ETE.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at their designated route. The buses dispatched from the depots to service the transitdependent evacuees will be scheduled so that they arrive at their respective routes after their passengers have completed their mobilization. As shown in Figure 54 (Residents with no Commuters),

approximately 90% of the evacuees will complete their mobilization at 165 minutes after the ATE.

As such, mobilization time for the first buses to arrive at each route will be 165 minutes during good weather, 175 minutes in rain/light snow and 185 minutes in heavy snow, to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity in adverse weather.

The ETEs for the transit trips were developed using both good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow conditions. Table 85 (good weather), Table 86 (rain/light snow), and Table 87 (heavy snow) show the ETE breakdown for each step (discussed below) in the transitdependent evacuation process.

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

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

• v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain and snow; total loading time is 40 minutes per bus in rain/light snow, 50 minutes in heavy snow.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 and day camp evacuation.

For example, the ETE for the first group of buses servicing Zone 1 (Route Number 1) is computed as 165 + 20 + 30 = 3:35 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 2018 minutes is the time to travel 18.0 miles at 55 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 165 minutes.

The average single wave ETE for the transit dependent population (4:45) is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 50 minutes shorter than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population (6:35) for a winter, midweek, midday, good weather scenario (Scenario 6) and should not impact protective action decision making.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the facility. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a secondwave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Similar to schools, assumed bus speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transitdependent population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

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

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

The buses assigned to return to the EPZ to perform a second wave evacuation of transit dependent evacuees will be those that have already evacuated transitdependent people who mobilized more quickly. The first wave of transitdependent people depart the bus, and the bus then returns to the EPZ, travels to its route and proceeds to pick up more transitdependent evacuees along the route. Similar to schools, assumed speeds of 55 mph, 50 mph and 47 mph are used to estimate the travel time back to the EPZ in good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively, as buses are traveling counter to evacuating traffic.

The second wave ETE for Bus Route 1, which services Zone 1, is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 3:42 in good weather (3:35 to exit EPZ + 7minute travel time to reception center).

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• Bus returns to EPZ, drives to the start of the route and completes second route: 7 minutes (6.1 miles back to the EPZ @ 55 mph) + 20 minutes (equal to travel time to start of route, i.e., 18.0 miles @ 55 mph) + 20 minutes (equal to travel time for second route, i.e., 18.0 miles @ 55 mph - route specific speed at the time the bus begins the second route) = 46 minutes

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 3:35 + 0:07 + 0:15 + 0:46 + 0:30 = 5:13, rounded up to 5:15 after the ATE.

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

The average ETE (8:20) for a second wave evacuation of transitdependent people exceeds the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile (6:35) by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes and could impact protective action decision making.

Evacuation of Medical Facilities Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities. As discussed in Section 2.4, Item 2b, according to the Calvert County emergency management personnel, Calvert County requires medical facilities to have a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) which identifies mutual aid agreements, emergency resources, and transportation needs for an emergency which will require a possible evacuation of the residents to a similar facility outside of the area. As such, the buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances will evacuate patients at medical facilities within Calvert County are provided by or contracted by the medical facilities.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

The evacuation of these facilities is similar to school, preschool/daycare and day camp evacuation except:

Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients.

Wheelchair accessible buses can accommodate 15 patients, and ambulances can accommodate two (2) bedridden patients. As discussed in Section 3.5, although it is assumed that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip, there was no data received confirming the number of ambulances for each county.

As is done for the schools, it is estimated that the mobilization time of 90 minutes is used in good weather (100 minutes in rain/light snow, 110 in heavy snow). Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90minute timeframe.

As no data was provided for bedridden patients within St. Mary County, there is a shortfall of capacity for bedridden persons within St. Mary County portion of the EPZ. As such, a second wave ETE was computed for bedridden patients and is discussed below. (As discussed above, ambulances will be available for those bedridden patients within Calvert County medical facilities, as per their operating licenses.)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 in buses, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger in wheelchair buses, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger in ambulances, respectively. No reduction was made to loading times for adverse weather as these loading times are already conservative. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The travel distance along the respective 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, preschool/daycare and day camp evacuation.

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively. The distances from the medical facilities to the EPZ boundary were estimated using GIS software. 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 55 mph (50 mph for rain and 47 mph for 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. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair buses, and ambulances at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses (maximum capacity of 30 times 1 minute per passenger), wheelchair buses (maximum capacity of 15 passengers times 5 minutes per passenger), and ambulances (2 passenger times 15 minutes per passenger) are 30, 75, and 30 minutes, respectively. All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for Solomons Nursing Center with 56 wheelchair bound residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + 15 (max capacity per bus with concurrent loading on multiple buses) x 5 + 56 (17.4 distance to EPZ boundary at 55 mph) = 221 minutes or 3:45, rounded up.

It is assumed that the medical facility population is directly evacuated to reception centers or appropriate host medical facilities that are at approximately the same distances to the EPZ boundary as the reception centers.

The average single wave ETE (2:40) for medical facilities are 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 55 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE (6:35) for the evacuation of the general population from Region R03 during Scenario 6 conditions and should not impact protective action decision making.

Activity: Travel to Reception Center (EF), Passengers Leave Bus (FG), Bus Returns to Route for Second Wave Evacuation (GC)

According to Table 81, a combination of private bus contractors, medical facilities and the counties can collectively provide transportation with the capacity for 12,288 ambulatory persons, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

177 wheelchair bound persons, and no bedridden patients. Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory and wheelchair bound persons in a single wave, but ambulances may require a second wave. According to Calvert County emergency personnel, medical facilities in accordance with their operating licenses are responsible to provide transportation services to their patients (Section 2.4, Item 2b) directly. As such, ambulances needed in the medical facilities within Calvert County will be available as needed. Even though, some ambulances may be available within Calvert County, no information was provided for those requiring ambulances within the St. Marys County portion of the EPZ. As such, a second wave ETE was computed to provide an average estimate of the additional time needed for a second wave evacuation using school buses after the schools have been evacuated. Times and distances are based on facility wide averages:

• Buses arrive at reception center at 2:20 (average arrival time at host schools in Table 821)

• Bus discharges passengers 14 minutes (average bus loading time from Table 88) and driver takes a 10minute rest: 24 minutes.

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes second wave of service along the route: 8 minutes to travel back to the EPZ boundary (equal to average distance to host schools in Table 82 -

7.5 miles @ 55 mph as buses are traveling counter to evacuating traffic) + 14 minutes to travel back to the facility (average Dist. to EPZ Boundary in Table 88 - 12.7 miles @ 55 mph) and then back to the EPZ boundary (12.7 miles @ 9.5 mph = 80 minutes) = 102 minutes. (The average distance to EPZ boundary is approximately 12.7 miles in Table 88.

The 9.5 mph is the network wide average speed at 3:10 for Scenario 6.)

• Loading Time: 32 minutes (average from Table 88)

Bus exits EPZ at time 2:20 + 0:24 + 1:42 + 0:32 = 5:00 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

Thus, the second wave evacuation is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 35 minutes (6:35 minus 5:00), on average. The average ETE for a second wave evacuation of medical facilities is shorter than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile (6:35) and should not impact protective action decision making.

8.2 ETE for Access and/or Functional Needs Population The access and/or functional needs population registered within the EPZ was provided by the counties within the EPZ. There is a total of 24 access and/or functional needs people who require transportation assistance to evacuate (see Section 3.8 for detail information). Table 811 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs population. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle. Due to the potential mobility limitations for access and/or functional needs persons, it assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart. Bus speeds 1

In the absence of data on the location and capacity of host medical facilities, the average arrival time at host schools were utilized as an estimate of the time required to arrive at a host facility prior to returning for a second wave of evacuation.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

approximate 20 mph between households in good weather (10% slower in rain/light snow, 15%

slower in heavy snow). Mobilization times of 165 minutes were used (175 minutes for rain/light snow, and 185 minutes for heavy snow), similar to the transit dependent population as evacuees will need time to mobilize. Loading times of 5 minutes per person are assumed for wheelchair bound people and 15 minutes per person for bedridden people. The last household is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow and 47 mph for heavy snow), after the last pickup is used to compute travel time.

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

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per household implies that 22 wheelchair bound households need to be serviced. The following outlines the ETE calculations:

1. Assume 2 wheelchair buses (capacity of 15 persons per wheelchair bus) are deployed, each with at most 11 stops, to service a total of 22 households.

2. The ETE is calculated as follows for buses in good weather:

a. Wheelchair buses arrive at the first pickup location: 165 minutes

b. Load household members at first pickup: 5 minutes

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20 mph) = 90 minutes

d. Load household members at subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 5 minute = 50 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 41 minutes (5 miles @ 7.3 mph - network wide average speed at this time).

ETE: 165 + 5 + 90 + 50 + 41 = 5:55 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

The average ETE for a single wave evacuation (5:15) of the access and/or functional needs population is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes shorter than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile (6:35) for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03), during Scenario 6 conditions.

Therefore, the evacuation of access and/or functional needs population should not impact protective action decision making.

As there are no ambulance resources available within the counties, the following outlines the ETE calculations if a second wave is needed using school buses after the medical facilities have been evacuated (see Table 82):

School buses arrive at reception centers/host schools: 2:20 on average Unload students at reception centers/host schools: 5 minutes.

Driver takes 10minute rest: 10 minutes.

Travel time back to EPZ: 8 minutes (equal to average distance to host school in Table 82

- 7.5 miles @ 55 mph)

Travel to first household: 9 minutes (3 miles @ 20 mph)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Loading time at first household: 5 minutes Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 9 minutes = 90 minutes Loading time at subsequent households: 10 stops @ 5 minutes = 50 minutes Travel time to EPZ boundary at 5 miles @ 7.4 mph (network wide average speed at 5:20)

= 41 minutes Good Weather ETE: 2:20 + 5 + 10 + 8 + 9 + 5 + 1:30 + 50 + 41 = 6:00 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

Rain/Light Snow ETE: 2:40 + 5 + 10 + 9 + 10 + 5 + 1:40 + 50 + 47 = 6:40 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

Heavy Snow ETE: 2:50 + 5 + 10 + 10 + 11 + 5 + 1:50 + 50 + 44 = 6:55 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

The average ETE for a secondwave evacuation for good weather of the access and/or functional needs population is 35 minutes shorter than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile (6:35) for winter, midweek, midday with good weather conditions (Scenario 6) and should not impact protective action decision making.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Ambulatory Wheelchair Bedridden Resource Capacity Capacity Capacity Resources Available St. Mary's County STS Transit System 450 68 0 Dorchester County Board of Education 2,878 27 0 Calvert County Board of Education 8,700 44 0 Calvert County Transportation 260 38 0 Medical Facilities in Calvert County As needed2 TOTAL: 12,288 177 0 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 36): 83 155 4 TransitDependent Population (Table 39): 309 0 0 Schools (Table 37): 6,288 0 0 Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps(Table 38): 1,412 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs (Table 310): 0 22 2 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 8,092 177 6 2

Calvert County requires medical facilities to have an emergency plan including transportation to evacuate residents. See Section 2.4, Item 2b.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

CALVERT COUNTY Southern Middle School 90 15 12.9 45.4 17 2:05 12.5 14 2:20 St. Leonard Elementary School 90 15 8.0 26.7 18 2:05 12.5 14 2:20 Mutual Elementary School 90 15 6.8 8.6 47 2:35 12.7 14 2:50 Patuxent Elementary School 90 15 15.9 47.5 20 2:05 6.9 7 2:15 Appeal Elementary School 90 15 15.4 47.1 20 2:05 10.0 11 2:20 Mill Creek Middle School 90 15 16.5 25.5 39 2:25 14.7 16 2:45 Dowell Elementary School 90 15 16.8 25.5 40 2:25 13.2 14 2:40 Patuxent High School 90 15 17.6 13.1 81 3:10 12.6 14 3:25 Camp Bay Breeze 90 15 10.3 40.9 15 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 90 15 9.5 11.7 49 2:35 6.1 7 2:45 St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 90 15 14.3 45.5 19 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 You Are Loved Child Care Center 90 15 6.8 35.6 12 2:00 6.2 7 2:10 Grover Place, Inc 90 15 6.8 32.1 13 2:00 6.1 7 2:10 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 90 15 14.5 46.7 19 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 90 15 15.6 47.4 20 2:05 6.1 7 2:15 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 90 15 17.8 48.9 22 2:10 6.2 7 2:20 Solomons Day Care Center 90 15 17.8 48.9 22 2:10 6.2 7 2:20 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 90 15 19.1 34.0 34 2:20 6.2 7 2:30 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 90 15 0.7 9.1 5 1:50 6.1 7 2:00 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Hollywood Elementary School 90 15 7.2 8.8 49 2:35 5.2 6 2:45 Town Creek Elementary School 90 15 11.4 7.6 90 3:15 5.2 6 3:25 St John's Elementary School 90 15 3.1 14.1 13 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Green Holly Elementary School 90 15 0.9 32.7 2 1:50 11.4 12 2:05 Esperanza Middle School 90 15 2.6 45.7 3 1:50 5.7 6 2:00 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Minds N Motion 90 15 3.6 55.0 4 1:50 4.5 5 1:55 Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 90 15 1.9 9.7 12 2:00 5.8 6 2:10 USBBA, Inc. California 90 15 1.5 46.8 2 1:50 5.9 6 2:00 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 90 15 2.6 13.0 12 2:00 6.0 7 2:10 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 90 15 2.6 13.0 12 2:00 6.0 7 2:10 Prep & Play Preschool 90 15 2.5 13.0 12 2:00 5.9 6 2:10 St. John's School 90 15 0.8 40.0 1 1:50 6.6 7 2:00 Green Holly School Age Center 90 15 3.3 43.7 4 1:50 5.9 6 2:00 Creative Beginnings 90 15 1.9 45.7 3 1:50 5.8 6 2:00 Maximum for EPZ: 3:15 Maximum: 3:25 Average for EPZ: 2:10 Average: 2:20 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 83. School, Preschool/Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Dist. Travel Dist. Travel To Time EPZ Time Driver Loading EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. Bdry to H.S.

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

CALVERT COUNTY Southern Middle School 100 20 12.9 31.8 24 2:25 12.5 15 2:40 St. Leonard Elementary School 100 20 8.0 15.4 31 2:35 12.5 15 2:50 Mutual Elementary School 100 20 6.8 7.9 52 2:55 12.7 15 3:10 Patuxent Elementary School 100 20 15.9 34.2 28 2:30 6.9 8 2:40 Appeal Elementary School 100 20 15.4 34.2 27 2:30 10.0 12 2:45 Mill Creek Middle School 100 20 16.5 22.2 45 2:45 14.7 18 3:05 Dowell Elementary School 100 20 16.8 22.4 45 2:45 13.2 16 3:05 Patuxent High School 100 20 17.6 12.1 87 3:30 12.6 15 3:45 Camp Bay Breeze 100 20 10.3 27.5 23 2:25 6.1 7 2:35 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 100 20 9.5 8.9 64 3:05 6.1 7 3:15 St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 100 20 14.3 32.8 26 2:30 6.1 7 2:40 You Are Loved Child Care Center 100 20 6.8 22.5 18 2:20 6.2 7 2:30 Grover Place, Inc 100 20 6.8 21.1 19 2:20 6.1 7 2:30 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 100 20 14.5 33.5 26 2:30 6.1 7 2:40 Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 100 20 15.6 34.4 27 2:30 6.1 7 2:40 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 100 20 17.8 35.8 30 2:30 6.2 7 2:40 Solomons Day Care Center 100 20 17.8 35.8 30 2:30 6.2 7 2:40 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 100 20 19.1 26.8 43 2:45 6.2 7 2:55 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 100 20 0.7 6.5 7 2:10 6.1 7 2:20 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Hollywood Elementary School 100 20 7.2 7.9 55 2:55 5.2 6 3:05 Town Creek Elementary School 100 20 11.4 6.2 110 3:50 5.2 6 4:00 St John's Elementary School 100 20 3.1 9.8 19 2:20 4.5 5 2:25 Green Holly Elementary School 100 20 0.9 31.1 2 2:05 11.4 14 2:20 Esperanza Middle School 100 20 2.6 33.0 5 2:05 5.7 7 2:15 Minds N Motion 100 20 3.6 50.0 4 2:05 4.5 5 2:10 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 100 20 1.9 6.2 18 2:20 5.8 7 2:30 USBBA, Inc. California 100 20 1.5 43.8 2 2:05 5.9 7 2:15 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 100 20 2.6 12.8 12 2:15 6.0 7 2:25 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 100 20 2.6 12.8 12 2:15 6.0 7 2:25 Prep & Play Preschool 100 20 2.5 12.8 12 2:15 5.9 7 2:25 St. John's School 100 20 0.8 36.0 1 2:05 6.6 8 2:15 Green Holly School Age Center 100 20 3.3 32.1 6 2:10 5.9 7 2:20 Creative Beginnings 100 20 1.9 33.0 4 2:05 5.8 7 2:15 Maximum for EPZ: 3:50 Maximum: 4:00 Average for EPZ: 2:30 Average: 2:40 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 84. School, Preschool/Daycare and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Dist. Travel Dist. Travel To Time EPZ Time Driver Loading EPZ Average to EPZ Bdry from EPZ ETA to Mobilization Time Bdry Speed Bdry ETE to H.S. Bdry to H.S.

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

CALVERT COUNTY Southern Middle School 110 25 12.9 47.0 16 2:35 12.5 16 2:55 St. Leonard Elementary School 110 25 8.0 44.1 11 2:30 12.5 16 2:50 Mutual Elementary School 110 25 6.8 40.6 10 2:25 12.7 16 2:45 Patuxent Elementary School 110 25 15.9 47.0 20 2:35 6.9 9 2:45 Appeal Elementary School 110 25 15.4 47.0 20 2:35 10.0 13 2:50 Mill Creek Middle School 110 25 16.5 26.6 37 2:55 14.7 19 3:15 Dowell Elementary School 110 25 16.8 26.6 38 2:55 13.2 17 3:15 Patuxent High School 110 25 17.6 12.8 82 3:40 12.6 16 4:00 Camp Bay Breeze 110 25 10.3 46.6 13 2:30 6.1 8 2:40 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 110 25 9.5 40.7 14 2:30 6.1 8 2:40 St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 110 25 14.3 47.0 18 2:35 6.1 8 2:45 You Are Loved Child Care Center 110 25 6.8 45.6 9 2:25 6.2 8 2:35 Grover Place, Inc 110 25 6.8 40.7 10 2:25 6.1 8 2:35 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 110 25 14.5 47.0 19 2:35 6.1 8 2:45 Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 110 25 15.6 47.0 20 2:35 6.1 8 2:45 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 110 25 17.8 47.0 23 2:40 6.2 8 2:50 Solomons Day Care Center 110 25 17.8 47.0 23 2:40 6.2 8 2:50 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 110 25 19.1 34.3 33 2:50 6.2 8 3:00 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 110 25 0.7 27.9 2 2:20 6.1 8 2:30 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Hollywood Elementary School 110 25 7.2 10.0 43 3:00 5.2 7 3:10 Town Creek Elementary School 110 25 11.4 11.5 59 3:15 5.2 7 3:25 St John's Elementary School 110 25 3.1 16.7 11 2:30 4.5 6 2:40 Green Holly Elementary School 110 25 0.9 29.0 2 2:20 11.4 15 2:35 Esperanza Middle School 110 25 2.6 38.1 4 2:20 5.7 7 2:30 Minds N Motion 110 25 3.6 47.0 5 2:20 4.5 6 2:30 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 110 25 1.9 9.2 12 2:30 5.8 7 2:40 USBBA, Inc. California 110 25 1.5 39.6 2 2:20 5.9 7 2:30 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 110 25 2.6 41.6 4 2:20 6.0 8 2:30 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 110 25 2.6 41.6 4 2:20 6.0 8 2:30 Prep & Play Preschool 110 25 2.5 41.6 4 2:20 5.9 8 2:30 St. John's School 110 25 0.8 34.0 1 2:20 6.6 8 2:30 Green Holly School Age Center 110 25 3.3 36.7 5 2:20 5.9 7 2:30 Creative Beginnings 110 25 1.9 38.1 3 2:20 5.8 7 2:30 Maximum for EPZ: 3:40 Maximum: 4:00 Average for EPZ: 2:35 Average: 2:50 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Single Wave Second Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route UNITES Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Route #3 Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 165 18.0 55.0 20 30 3:35 6.1 7 5 10 46 30 5:15 2 2 2 165 22.4 23.3 58 30 4:15 6.1 7 5 10 58 30 6:05 3 2 2 165 34.4 28.0 74 30 4:30 6.1 7 5 10 84 30 6:50 4 2 2 165 23.1 23.3 60 30 4:15 6.1 7 5 10 60 30 6:10 5 2 2 165 33.9 28.0 73 30 4:30 6.1 7 5 10 83 30 6:45 6 2 2 165 15.9 19.6 49 30 4:05 6.1 7 5 10 44 30 5:45 7 3 3 165 21.5 5.1 254 30 7:30 70.9 77 5 10 124 30 11:40 8 3 3 165 22.1 5.2 256 30 7:35 70.9 77 5 10 125 30 11:45 9 4 3 165 23.4 4.6 304 30 8:20 70.9 77 5 10 130 30 12:35 10 4 3 165 19.0 4.2 269 30 7:45 70.9 77 5 10 120 30 11:50 11 5 4 165 22.5 38.1 35 30 3:50 70.9 77 5 10 131 30 8:05 12 5 4 165 19.2 38.0 30 30 3:45 70.9 77 5 10 123 30 7:50 13 5 4 165 15.9 37.9 25 30 3:40 70.9 77 5 10 115 30 7:40 14 5 4 165 22.0 38.0 35 30 3:50 70.9 77 5 10 130 30 8:05 15 6 5 165 7.5 48.2 9 30 3:25 6.1 7 5 10 24 30 4:45 16 6 5 165 12.7 48.1 16 30 3:35 6.1 7 5 10 36 30 5:05 17 6 5 165 19.5 48.7 24 30 3:40 6.1 7 5 10 51 30 5:25 18 7 6 165 6.9 55.0 8 30 3:25 4.0 4 5 10 19 30 4:35 19 8 7 165 9.5 12.7 45 30 4:00 4.0 4 5 10 26 30 5:15 Maximum ETE: 8:20 Maximum ETE: 12:35 Average ETE: 4:45 Average ETE: 7:30 3

See Table 10-2 and Appendix K.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Single Wave Second Wave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Route UNITES Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. to R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Route # Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 175 18.0 39.8 27 40 4:05 6.1 7 5 10 48 40 5:55 2 2 2 175 22.4 23.4 58 40 4:35 6.1 7 5 10 59 40 6:40 3 2 2 175 34.4 27.6 75 40 4:50 6.1 7 5 10 86 40 7:20 4 2 2 175 23.1 23.4 59 40 4:35 6.1 7 5 10 61 40 6:40 5 2 2 175 33.9 27.6 74 40 4:50 6.1 7 5 10 85 40 7:20 6 2 2 175 15.9 20.1 48 40 4:25 6.1 7 5 10 45 40 6:15 7 3 3 175 21.5 4.2 306 40 8:45 70.9 85 5 10 135 40 13:20 8 3 3 175 22.1 4.3 309 40 8:45 70.9 85 5 10 136 40 13:25 9 4 3 175 23.4 4.3 329 40 9:05 70.9 85 5 10 141 40 13:50 10 4 3 175 19.0 4.0 288 40 8:25 70.9 85 5 10 130 40 12:55 11 5 4 175 22.5 34.9 39 40 4:15 70.9 85 5 10 142 40 9:00 12 5 4 175 19.2 34.9 33 40 4:10 70.9 85 5 10 134 40 8:45 13 5 4 175 15.9 34.9 27 40 4:05 70.9 85 5 10 125 40 8:30 14 5 4 175 22.0 34.9 38 40 4:15 70.9 85 5 10 141 40 9:00 15 6 5 175 7.5 24.4 18 40 3:55 6.1 7 5 10 25 40 5:25 16 6 5 175 12.7 25.5 30 40 4:05 6.1 7 5 10 37 40 5:45 17 6 5 175 19.5 27.7 42 40 4:20 6.1 7 5 10 53 40 6:15 18 7 6 175 6.9 50.0 8 40 3:45 4.0 5 5 10 21 40 5:10 19 8 7 175 9.5 10.4 55 40 4:30 4.0 5 5 10 28 40 6:00 Maximum ETE: 9:05 Maximum ETE: 13:50 Average ETE: 5:15 Average ETE: 8:20 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 87. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Route UNITES Zone Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. to R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Route # Serviced (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min) 1 1 1 185 18.0 47.0 23 50 4:20 6.1 8 5 10 51 50 6:25 2 2 2 185 22.4 40.5 33 50 4:30 6.1 8 5 10 61 50 6:45 3 2 2 185 34.4 41.0 50 50 4:45 6.1 8 5 10 94 50 7:35 4 2 2 185 23.1 40.5 34 50 4:30 6.1 8 5 10 66 50 6:50 5 2 2 185 33.9 40.8 50 50 4:45 6.1 8 5 10 93 50 7:35 6 2 2 185 15.9 40.7 23 50 4:20 6.1 8 5 10 48 50 6:25 7 3 3 185 21.5 3.6 354 50 9:50 70.9 91 5 10 142 50 14:50 8 3 3 185 22.1 3.7 358 50 9:55 70.9 91 5 10 144 50 14:55 9 4 3 185 23.4 3.6 393 50 10:30 70.9 91 5 10 148 50 15:35 10 4 3 185 19.0 3.3 343 50 9:40 70.9 91 5 10 138 50 14:35 11 5 4 185 22.5 33.3 41 50 4:40 70.9 91 5 10 150 50 9:50 12 5 4 185 19.2 33.2 35 50 4:30 70.9 91 5 10 142 50 9:30 13 5 4 185 15.9 33.3 29 50 4:25 70.9 91 5 10 133 50 9:15 14 5 4 185 22.0 33.3 40 50 4:35 70.9 91 5 10 149 50 9:40 15 6 5 185 7.5 40.8 11 50 4:10 6.1 8 5 10 27 50 5:50 16 6 5 185 12.7 40.6 19 50 4:15 6.1 8 5 10 40 50 6:10 17 6 5 185 19.5 39.3 30 50 4:25 6.1 8 5 10 57 50 6:35 18 7 6 185 6.9 47.0 9 50 4:05 4.0 5 5 10 21 50 5:40 19 8 7 185 9.5 29.6 19 50 4:15 4.0 5 5 10 29 50 5:55 Maximum ETE: 10:30 Maximum ETE: 15:35 Average ETE: 5:40 Average ETE: 9:00 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather Loading Travel Time Rate to EPZ Mobilization (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 11.7 18 1:55 3 Beas' Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 1 5 11.7 18 1:55 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.7 17 2:05 In God's Care, Inc. Ambulatory 90 1 5 5 12.3 60 2:35 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 17.4 60 3:00 Solomons Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 56 75 17.4 56 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 17.4 62 2:50 The Hermitage at Ambulatory 90 1 24 24 17.4 60 2:55 Solomons Wheelchair bound 90 5 25 75 17.4 56 3:45 Asbury Solomons Island Ambulatory 90 1 4 4 17.8 22 2:00 Skilled Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 42 75 17.8 19 3:05 Ambulatory 90 1 16 16 2.6 12 2:00 St Mary's Adult Medical Wheelchair bound 90 5 31 75 2.6 12 3:00 Day Care Bedridden 90 15 2 30 2.6 12 2:15 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 2:40 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 11.7 24 2:10 3 Beas' Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 1 5 11.7 24 2:10 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 11.7 24 2:20 In God's Care, Inc. Ambulatory 100 1 5 5 12.3 67 2:55 Ambulatory 100 1 30 30 17.4 68 3:20 Solomons Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 56 75 17.4 57 3:55 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 17.4 67 3:05 The Hermitage at Ambulatory 100 1 24 24 17.4 68 3:15 Solomons Wheelchair bound 100 5 25 75 17.4 57 3:55 Asbury Solomons Island Ambulatory 100 1 4 4 17.8 30 2:15 Skilled Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 42 75 17.8 25 3:20 Ambulatory 100 1 16 16 2.6 12 2:10 St Mary's Adult Medical Wheelchair bound 100 5 31 75 2.6 8 3:05 Day Care Bedridden 100 15 2 30 2.6 12 2:25 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Average ETE: 2:55 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 824 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Loading Travel Time Rate to EPZ Mobilization (min per Total Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 110 1 4 4 11.7 16 2:10 3 Beas' Assisted Living Wheelchair bound 110 5 1 5 11.7 16 2:15 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 11.7 16 2:25 In God's Care, Inc. Ambulatory 110 1 5 5 12.3 18 2:15 Ambulatory 110 1 30 30 17.4 64 3:25 Solomons Nursing Center Wheelchair bound 110 5 56 75 17.4 64 4:10 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 17.4 63 3:10 The Hermitage at Ambulatory 110 1 24 24 17.4 64 3:20 Solomons Wheelchair bound 110 5 25 75 17.4 64 4:10 Asbury Solomons Island Ambulatory 110 1 4 4 17.8 23 2:20 Skilled Nursing Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 42 75 17.8 23 3:30 Ambulatory 110 1 16 16 2.6 5 2:15 St Mary's Adult Medical Wheelchair bound 110 5 31 75 2.6 11 3:20 Day Care Bedridden 110 15 2 30 2.6 5 2:25 Maximum ETE: 4:10 Average ETE: 3:00 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 825 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 811. Evacuation Time Estimates for Access and/or Functional Needs Population 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 165 90 41 5:55 Wheelchair 22 2 11 Rain 175 5 100 50 46 6:20 Buses Snow 185 110 43 6:35 Good 165 10 33 4:00 Ambulances 2 1 2 Rain 175 15 11 15 40 4:20 Snow 185 13 35 4:25 Maximum ETE: 6:35 Average ETE: 5:15 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 826 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Centers/Host Schools E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Centers/Host Schools 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 Centers/Host Schools Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 827 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 Point (TCP) and Access Control Point (ACP) locations, provides necessary details for traffic or access control and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

The TMP is the outcome of the following process:

1. The detailed traffic and access control tactics discussed in the offsite agencies in their existing emergency plans serve as the basis of the TMP, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP/ACP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix K, Table K1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TCP/ACP.

3. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Section 7.3 and Figure 73 through Figure 78). These simulations help to identify the best routing and critical intersections that experience pronounced congestion during evacuation. Any critical intersections that would benefit from traffic or access control which are not already identified in the existing offsite agency plans are examined. No additional TCP/ACP locations were identified which would benefit the evacuation time estimate (ETE), as part of this study.

4. Prioritization of TCPs and ACPs

a. 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 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 TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that TCP and ACP are staffed 120 minutes after the ATE, as per NRC guidance.

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

Study assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 discuss TCP/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 also be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. The 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 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the onboard navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

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

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. Predesigned routes have been supplied by both St. Marys and Calvert Counties. There are a total of 17 routes which service Calvert County. There are 5 staging areas where buses will deploy from. Figure 102 shows the routes from staging areas to the EPZ boundary for Calvert County and two (2) additional routes to serve the transitdependent demand within St. Marys County (Zones 6 and 7). Refer to Calvert County Emergency plans for a detailed map of the bus pickup runs that are associated with each staging area. In order to develop accurate ETE for these pickup runs, distances provided by Calvert County were used.

The distance for each bus pickup run (which starts and ends at the staging area) was combined with the distance from the staging area to the EPZ boundary and an average speed along the route was applied to calculate the ETE. It is assumed that residents will walk and congregate at these predesigned pickup locations.

For school, preschool/daycare, and day camp buses, and medical facilities (which also includes senior facilities) were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the designated host schools/facilities.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to mass care/congregate centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate/evacuate evacuees.

10.2 Reception Centers The 20212022 public information brochure provides a list of reception centers for EPZ residents, based on the county in which the evacuees are located. Evacuees/residents living in the EPZ by County will be directed as follows:

Calvert County to Huntingtown High School Dorchester County to Dorchester Career & Technology St. Marys County to Leonardtown High School.

The St. Mary County Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) lists the host schools for the evacuation of schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps within the EPZ. Host schools for Calvert County schools, preschools/daycares and day camps were based on data provided by Calvert County .

In order to compute ETE, it was assumed that schools, preschools/daycares, and day camp evacuate to the designated/assigned host school, except for the inhome daycares. Figure 103 presents a map displaying the reception centers and host schools for the general population, the school population and the preschools/daycares/day camp children. Transit dependent evacuees and medical patients would be transported to the appropriate reception center or host medical facility.

Table 103 presents a list of the host schools for each school, preschool/daycare, and day camp in the EPZ. If no host school was specified, it was assumed evacuees at those facilities will be evacuated to the designated reception center for the Zone in which that facility is located and will be subsequently picked up by parents or legal guardians. No children at these facilities will be picked up by parents prior to the arrival of the buses except for inhome daycares. Inhome daycares with less than 10 children are assumed to be picked up by the parents/legal guardians directly.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Number Buses Staging Area 1 2 Zone 1 Southern Middle School White Sands Run 18.0 2 1 Zone 2 Christ Church Calvert Beach Run 22.4 3 1 Zone 2 Christ Church West Broomes Island Road Run 34.4 4 1 Zone 2 Christ Church North Port Republic Run 23.1 5 1 Zone 2 Christ Church East Broomes Island Road Run 33.9 6 1 Zone 2 Christ Church South Port Republic Run 15.9 7 1 Zone 3 Cove Point Park Cove Point Run 21.5 8 1 Zone 3 Cove Point Park CRE Central Run 22.1 9 1 Zone 3 Cove Point Park CRE South Run 23.4 10 1 Zone 3 Cove Point Park CRE North Run 19.0 11 1 Zone 4 Solomons Fire Station Lusby West Run 22.5 12 1 Zone 4 Solomons Fire Station Drum Point Run 19.2 13 1 Zone 4 Solomons Fire Station Lusby East Run 15.9 14 1 Zone 4 Solomons Fire Station Solomons Run 22.0 15 1 Zone 5 Fairgrounds Prince Frederick Run 7.5 16 1 Zone 5 Fairgrounds Dares Beach Run 12.7 17 1 Zone 5 Fairgrounds Barstow Run 19.5 18 1 Zone 6 NA Servicing Zone 6 6.9 19 2 Zone 7 NA Servicing Zone 7 9.5 Total: 21 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 381, 382, 144, 567, 380, 561, 379, 566, 565, 142, 560, 22, 1 Transit Dependent: Zone 1 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 2 through 6 Transit Dependent: Zone 2 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 409, 722, 191, 765, 179, 761, 760, 174, 178, 177, 187, 493, 7 and 8 Transit Dependent: Zone 3 176, 8, 491, 9, 486, 487, 10, 196, 198, 197, 568, 203, 11, 12, 13, 224, 14, 15, 729, 731, 658, 578, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 407, 182, 183, 193, 550, 736, 552, 184, 176, 490, 485, 489, 9 and 10 Transit Dependent: Zone 3 650, 195, 202, 198, 197, 568, 203, 11, 12, 13, 224, 14, 15, 729, 731, 658, 578, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 11 through 14 Transit Dependent: Zone 4 387, 91, 389, 90, 391, 390, 92, 630, 600, 24 15 through 17 Transit Dependent: Zone 5 154, 494, 151, 150, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 410, 320, 73, 589, 325, 570, 319, 318, 316, 611, 71, 612, 301, 18 Transit Dependent: Zone 6 300 51, 53, 52, 533, 244, 242, 50, 49, 231, 48, 47, 46, 45, 16, 68, 19 Transit Dependent: Zone 7 579, 69, 70, 431, 573, 312, 309, 71, 612, 301, 300 175, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 20 Southern Middle School 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 663, 501, 500, 153, 631, 632, 506, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 21 St. Leonard Elementary School 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 22 Mutual Elementary School 566, 565, 142, 560, 22, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 177, 178, 174, 649, 543, 648, 542, 175, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 23 Patuxent Elementary School 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 177, 178, 174, 649, 543, 648, 542, 175, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 24 Appeal Elementary School 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 483, 484, 540, 485, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 25 Mill Creek Middle School 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 483, 484, 540, 485, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 26 Dowell Elementary School 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 756, 482, 758, 757, 483, 484, 540, 485, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 27 Patuxent High School 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 311, 310, 475, 309, 71, 611, 316, 318, 725, 319, 570, 325, 28 Hollywood Elementary School 589, 73 229, 228, 48, 47, 46, 45, 16, 68, 579, 69, 70, 431, 573, 312, 29 Town Creek Elementary School 309, 71, 611, 316, 318, 725, 319, 570, 325, 589, 73 30 St John's Elementary School 313, 312, 309, 71, 612, 301, 300 31 Green Holly Elementary School 240, 50, 49 32 Esperanza Middle School 238, 49, 231, 48, 47, 46, 45, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 33 Camp Bay Breeze 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 680, 681, 684, 378, 682, 683, 156, 500, 153, 631, 632, 506, 34 Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 174, 649, 543, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, St Paul United Methodist Preschool 35 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, Center, Inc.

554, 340, 24 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 36 You Are Loved Child Care Center 340, 24 153, 495, 152, 494, 151, 150, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 37 Grover Place, Inc 24 174, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 38 Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 176, 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, Adventure Point Youth Activity 39 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, Center 340, 24 The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early 198, 196, 10, 487, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 40 Learning Center 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, Solomons Day Care Center 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 199, 200, 652, 201, 202, 198, 196, 10, 487, 486, 488, 9, 492, 41 Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 42 The Grapevine Early Learning Center 554, 340, 24 43 Minds N Motion 318, 316, 611, 612, 301, 300 Honey MacCallum Christian 44 15, 729, 731, 658, 578, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 Preschool 45 USBBA, Inc. California 70, 69, 579, 68, 610, 67, 596, 293 Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 46 310, 475, 309, 71, 612, 301, 300 Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 47 Prep & Play Preschool 310, 475, 309, 71, 612, 301, 300 48 St. John's School 313, 314, 823 49 Green Holly School Age Center 240, 50, 49, 231, 48, 47, 46, 45, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 50 Creative Beginnings 47, 46, 45, 16, 610, 67, 596, 293 674, 169, 673, 668, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 51 3 Beas' Assisted Living 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 146, 563, 564, 143, 562, 379, 566, 565, 142, 560, 22, 339, 52 In God's Care, Inc.

436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 Solomons Nursing Center 651, 195, 202, 198, 196, 10, 487, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 6, 5, 53 167, 165, 4, 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, The Hermitage at Solomons 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 198, 196, 10, 487, 486, 488, 9, 492, 8, 7, 6, 5, 167, 165, 4, 54 Asbury Solomons Island Skilled NH 544, 3, 336, 159, 17, 158, 18, 384, 19, 505, 633, 338, 20, 335, 21, 339, 436, 707, 23, 25, 554, 340, 24 55 St Mary's Adult Medical Day Care 310, 475, 309, 71, 612, 301, 300 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. Host Schools for Schools, Preschools/Daycares, and Day Camps Facility Name Host Schools CALVERT COUNTY, MD Southern Middle School Northern Middle School St. Leonard Elementary School Windy Hill Middle School Mutual Elementary School Calvert Elementary School Patuxent High School Northern High School Patuxent Elementary School Huntingtown Elementary School Appeal Elementary School Plum Point Elementary School Mill Creek Middle School Plum Point Middle School Dowell Elementary School Calvert Middle School Camp Bay Breeze Gateway Early Learning Center LLC You Are Loved Child Care Center Grover Place, Inc Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center Huntingtown High School Adventure Point Youth Activity Center The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center The Grapevine Early Learning Center St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. Beach Elementary School Solomons Day Care Center Sunderland Elementary School Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care Mt. Harmony Elementary ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MD Hollywood Elementary School Margret Brent Middle School Town Creek Elementary School St John's Elementary School St. Marys Ryken Green Holly Elementary School Forrest Career and Technology Center Esperanza Middle School Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool USBBA, Inc. California Hollywood Recreation School Age Center Hollywood United Methodist Preschool Prep & Play Preschool Leonardtown High School St. John's School Green Holly School Age Center Creative Beginnings Minds N Motion Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. General Population Reception Centers and Host Schools Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 109 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian, and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

DTRAD executes the traffic assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where is the generalized cost for link and , , and, are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 = Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 11.9 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, Evacuation Animator (EVAN)

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g., a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q  ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 Q E O If Q 0 , then Calculate Q , M with Algorithm A Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Algorithm A This analysis addresses the flow environment over a TI during which moving vehicles can join a standing or discharging queue. For the case Qb v Q 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 M v L3 E Cap can be extended to Q by traffic entering the approach during the current TI, traveling at t1 t3 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

The solution of the unit problem yields the values of the number of vehicles, O, that discharge from the link over the time interval and the number of vehicles that remain on the link at the end of the time interval as stratified by queued and moving vehicles: Q and M . The procedure considers each movement separately (multipiping). After all network links are processed for a given network sweep, the updated consistent values of entering flows, E; metering rates, M; and source flows, S are defined so as to satisfy the no spillback condition.

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

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e., the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours:minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g., lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a geographic information system (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

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

Step 2 The 2020 Census block population information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Data for employees, transients, schools/preschools/daycares/day camps, and other facilities were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap Census analysis tool1, the Constellation Nuclear, the counties within the EPZ, supplemented by the data from the previous ETE study (confirmed still accurate), direct phone calls to facilities, internet searches and aerial imagery for parking spaces where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available during an emergency were provided by the counties within the EPZ.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency officials and Constellation personnel). The purpose of the kickoff meeting was to present an overview of the work effort, identify key agency personnel, and indicate the data requirements for the study.

Specific requests for information were presented to the state and county emergency officials and Constellation utility managers. Unique features of the study area were discussed to identify the local concerns that should be addressed by the ETE study.

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine the geometric properties of the highway sections, the channelization of lanes on each section of roadway, whether there are any turn restrictions or special treatment of traffic at intersections, the type and functioning of traffic control devices, gathering signal timings for pretimed traffic signals (if any exist within the study area), and to make the necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

1 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ OnTheMap is an interactive map displaying workplace and residential distributions by user-defined geographies at census block level detail. It also reports the work characteristics detail on age, and earnings industry groups.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 5 An online demographic survey of the households within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region) was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuation related demographic information of the study area population for this study. This information was used to determine important study factors including the average number of evacuating vehicles used by each household, and the time required to perform preevacuation mobilization activities.

Step 6 A computerized representation of the physical roadway system, called a linknode analysis network, was developed using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the geometry of the network was completed, the network was calibrated using the information gathered during the road survey (Step 4) and information obtained from aerial imagery. Estimates of highway capacity for each link and other linkspecific characteristics were introduced to the network description. Traffic signal timings were input accordingly. The link node analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 8 Zones. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Zones) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

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

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

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

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software see Section 1.3) produced by DYNEV II and reviewing the statistics output by the model. This is a 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Step 15 All evacuation cases were executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures were used to assure the results were consistent, dynamic routing was reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks were addressed properly. Traffic management plans are analyzed, and traffic control points are prioritized, if applicable.

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

Step 16 Once vehicular evacuation results are accepted, average travel speeds for transit and special facility routes are used to compute ETE for transitdependent permanent residents, schools, preschools/daycares and day camps, medical facilities, and other special facilities.

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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation 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 and Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Compute ETE Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of August 2022, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the CCNPP 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 (campgrounds, golf courses, historical sites, marinas, parks, other recreational areas) and lodging facilities.

Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, preschool/daycare, day camp, medical facility, transient attraction (campground, golf course, historical site, marina, park, other recreational area), lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment CALVERT COUNTY 1 1.9 S Southern Middle School 9615 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 463 1 3.7 WNW St. Leonard Elementary School 5370 St Leonard Rd St. Leonard 473 2 5.6 WNW Mutual Elementary School 1455 Ball Rd Port Republic 324 3 4.0 S Patuxent Elementary School 35 Appeal Ln Lusby 512 3 4.0 S Appeal Elementary School 11655 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 160 3 5.0 S Mill Creek Middle School 12200 Southern Connector Blvd Lusby 485 3 5.4 S Dowell Elementary School 12680 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 522 3 5.5 S Patuxent High School 12485 Southern Connector Blvd Lusby 1,070 Calvert County Subtotal: 4,009 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 7 8.6 SW Hollywood Elementary School 44345 Joy Chapel Rd Hollywood 488 7 9.4 SSW Town Creek Elementary School 45805 Dent Dr Lexington Park 222 7 9.5 SW St John's Elementary School 43900 Saint Johns Rd Hollywood 125 7 9.9 SSW Green Holly Elementary School 46060 Millstone Landing Rd Lexington Park 551 7 10.1 SSW Esperanza Middle School 22790 Maple Rd Lexington Park 893 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 2,279 EPZ TOTAL: 6,288 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment CALVERT COUNTY 1 2.2 WNW Camp Bay Breeze1 140 Walnut Cove Dr Lusby 158 1 2.6 NW Gateway Early Learning Center LLC 5845 Calvert Blvd St. Leonard 30 1 3.1 S St Paul United Methodist Preschool Center, Inc. 11000 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 40 2 4.5 WNW You Are Loved Child Care Center 150 Ball Rd St. Leonard 73 2 4.5 NW Grover Place, Inc 4740 Saint Leonard Rd St. Leonard 59 2 5.6 WNW Mutual Elementary Before & After School Program2 1455 Ball Rd Port Republic 30 3 4.0 S Inns of Evergreen Child Care Center 11551 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 10 3 4.0 S Patuxent Elementary Before and Atter School Program2 35 Appeal Ln Lusby 30 3 4.3 S Adventure Point Youth Activity Center 11875 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 55 3 5.4 S Dowell Elementary School BASP2 12680 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 30 3 5.8 S The Bay Kids, Inc Child Care and Early Learning Center 12990 Monticello Dr Lusby 10 3 6.0 S Solomons Day Care Center 105 Swaggers Point Rd Solomons 86 3 7.6 S Our Lady Star of the Sea After Care 90 Alexander Ln Solomons 30 4 10.0 NW The Grapevine Early Learning Center 870 Solomons Island Rd S Prince Frederick 20 Calvert County Subtotal: 661 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 6 8.9 SW Samantha Joy 25097 Vista Rd Hollywood 6 6 9.0 SW Wendi Wheeler 43493 Greg St Hollywood 7 6 9.2 SW Judy Smith 24740 Nelson Hill Way Hollywood 8 6 9.4 WSW Minds N Motion 25468 Eva's Way Hollywood 53 6 9.4 W Tammy Carr 27367 N Sandgates Rd Mechanicsville 8 6 9.4 WSW Julie Jackson 42541 Keith Ct Hollywood 7 6 9.6 WSW Sonia Munoz 42880 Charity Ct Hollywood 6 6 9.9 WSW Crystal James 42550 Keith Ct Hollywood 6 6 9.9 WSW Gail Sotelo 42538 Keith Ct Hollywood 8 6 10.4 WSW Wendy Kruk 42466 Riva Ridge Dr Hollywood 8 7 8.6 SW Brittany Gaydosh 44545 Clarkes Landing Rd Hollywood 7 7 8.7 SW Joseph Hillan 24820 Sotterley Rd Hollywood 8 1

Camp Bay Breeze is a day camp where children will be evacuated by bus in the event of an emergency at the CCNPP. See Section 3 for additional information.

2 The before and after school programs are hosted by elementary schools and the students have been included as part of the elementary student population listed in Table E-1. As such, no transportation resources were estimated for these three facilities. See Section 3 for additional information.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distance Dire Enroll Zone (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment 7 8.8 SW Danielle Finn 24071 John Cameron Way Hollywood 8 7 8.8 SSW Angel Pitcher 23550 Kingston Creek Rd California 8 7 8.9 SW Melissa Mattingly 24660 Kmr Way Hollywood 8 7 9.0 SSW Honey MacCallum Christian Preschool 23421 Kingston Creek Rd California 65 7 9.0 SSW USBBA, Inc. California 23415 Three Notch Rd California 60 7 9.2 SW Hollywood Recreation School Age Center 24400 Mervell Dean Rd Patuxent 50 7 9.2 SW Hollywood United Methodist Preschool 24422 Mervell Dean Rd Hollywood 31 7 9.2 SW Prep & Play Preschool 24442 Mervell Dean Rd Hollywood 75 7 9.3 SW Velinda Johnson 23985 Rustic Way Hollywood 8 7 9.4 SSW Jessica Edelbaum 45695 Linden Ln Lexington Park 8 7 9.4 SW Sharon Cooper 24621 Moran Rd Hollywood 2 7 9.5 SSW Aimee Buchanan 45250 Cal Acres Ln California 8 7 9.6 SW St. John's School 43900 St. John's Rd Hollywood 59 7 9.6 S Charlotte Jaques 8565 Bridlewood Ln Lexington Park 8 7 9.7 SSW Bridgette Lawrence 23185 Oak Dr California 8 7 9.8 SW Kelly Eno 43374 Quail St Hollywood 7 7 9.9 SSW Green Holly School Age Center 46060 Millstone Landing Rd Lexington Park 50 7 10.0 SW Chantini Somerville 23836 Lawrence Hayden Rd Hollywood 7 7 10.2 SSW Creative Beginnings 22840 Three Notch Rd California 149 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 751 EPZ TOTAL: 1,412 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients CALVERT COUNTY 1 1.7 WSW 3 Beas' Assisted Living 544 Barnacle Ln Lusby 6 6 4 1 1 2 3.5 WSW In God's Care, Inc. 2365 Delight Ct St. Leonard 6 5 5 0 0 3 6.1 S Solomons Nursing Center 13325 Dowell Rd Solomons 90 87 30 56 1 3 6.1 S The Hermitage At Solomons 13325 Dowell Rd Solomons 162 49 24 25 0 3 6.3 SSW Asbury Solomons Island Skilled Nursing Home 11100 Asbury Cir Solomons 48 46 4 42 0 Calvert Subtotal: 312 193 67 124 2 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 7 9.2 SW St Mary's Adult Medical Day Care 24400 Mervell Dean Rd Patuxent 49 49 16 31 2 St. Mary's Subtotal: 49 49 16 31 2 EPZ TOTAL: 361 242 83 155 4 Table E4. Major Employers3 within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Facility Street Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Zone (miles) ction Name Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ CALVERT COUNTY Various locations throughout the EPZ 1,205 62.9% 758 715 Calvert County Subtotal4: 1,205 758 715 ST. MARY'S COUNTY Various locations throughout the EPZ 2,735 68.0% 1,860 1,755 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 2,735 1,860 1,755 EPZ TOTAL: 3,940 2,618 2,470 3

The major employer locations identified by the Census Bureau are shown in Figure E-5. The locations are represented by circles which increase in size proportional to the number of employees commuting into the EPZ in each census block.

4 Based on the data provided by Constellation Energy, the CCNPP has 450 employees in the maximum shift and 244 of them live outside of the EPZ. This employment data supplemented the census block data in Zone 1 in the Calvert County portion of the EPZ.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E5. Marinas within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CALVERT COUNTY 1 2.6 WSW Vera's White Sands Marina 1200 White Sands Dr Lusby 75 27 1 2.6 NW Flag Harbor Yacht Haven 1565 Flag Harbor Blvd St. Leonard 168 61 2 6.0 WSW Len's Marina 8995 Broomes Island Rd Broomes Island 44 8 3 6.2 S Mill Creek Marine 12565 Rousby Hall Rd Lusby 6 2 3 6.8 S Solomons Harbor Marina LLC 205 Holiday Dr Solomons 85 20 3 6.9 S Spring Cove Marina 455 Lore Rd Solomons 250 91 3 7.1 S Beacon Marina 255 Lore Rd Solomons 179 50 3 7.4 S Safe Harbor Zahnisers 245 C St Solomons 250 85 3 7.4 S Solomon's Boat Ramp & Fishing 14195 Solomons Island S Solomons 140 50 3 7.5 S Calvert Marina 14485 Dowell Rd Solomons 450 164 3 7.7 S Bunky's Charter Boats 14448 Solomons Island Rd S Solomons 31 11 3 7.7 S Solomons Yachting Center 255 Alexander St Solomons 134 48 3 7.9 S Harbor Island Marina Inc. 105 Charles St Solomons 100 31 4 5.9 W Nans Cove Canoe/Kayak Launch 7955 Broomes Island Rd Broomes Island 10 3 Calvert County Subtotal: 1,922 651 DORCHESTER COUNTY 8 8.2 ENE Chapel Cove Marina 514 Taylors Island Rd Taylors Island 206 75 8 8.9 ENE Slaughter Creek Marina 638 Taylors Island Rd Taylors Island 290 106 Dorchester County Subtotal: 496 181 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 6 9.8 W Cape St. Mary's Marina 27290 Holly Ln Mechanicsville 203 74 7 7.0 SSW Blackstone Marina 24845 Marina Way Hollywood 41 14 7 7.1 SW Weeks Marine Railway & Marina 45046 Blackistone Cir Hollywood 31 11 7 8.1 SSW Boatel California 23950 N Patuxent Beach Rd California 40 14 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 315 113 EPZ TOTAL: 2,733 945 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E6. Parks within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CALVERT COUNTY 1 1.7 NW Flag Ponds Nature Park 1525 Flag Ponds Pkwy Lusby 500 182 1 1.8 S BGE Field 9550 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 1,000 300 1 2.7 S Calvert Cliffs State Park 10540 H G Trueman Rd Lusby 244 87 3 3.2 S Dominion Energy Regional Park5 10495 S Solomons Island Rd Lusby 1,306 477 3 3.5 SSE Cove Point Recreation Park 750 Cove Point Rd Lusby 1,500 547 3 5.9 S Solomons Town Center Park 13300 Dowell Rd Lusby 600 219 4 8.5 WNW Grays Road Dog Park 2695 Grays Rd Prince Frederick 50 15 4 8.6 WNW Biscoe Gray Heritage Park 2695 Grays Rd Prince Frederick 100 36 4 8.8 WNW Gatewood Preserve 2800 Grays Rd Prince Frederick 16 6 4 9.0 WNW Battle Creek Cypress Swamp 2880 Grays Rd Prince Frederick 40 15 Calvert County Subtotal: 5,356 1,884 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 6 10.8 SW Judge P.H. Dorsey Memorial Park 24275 Hollywood Rd Leonardtown 650 150 7 6.5 SW Greenwell State Park 25420 Rosedale Manor Ln Hollywood 275 125 7 7.9 SSW Myrtle Point Park 24050 Patuxent Blvd California 75 23 7 8.5 SW Hollywood Soccer Complex Joy Chapel Rd Hollywood 650 150 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 1,650 448 EPZ TOTAL: 7,006 2,332 5

Dominion Energy Regional Park is a park identified by the county officials and included in this study. Currently, this park is under construction. According to the master plan (https://www.calvertcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/33330/ADOPTED-2020-08-15-CovePointMasterPlan_Final), this park can accommodate up to 477 vehicles when the project is complete.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E7. Campgrounds, Golf Courses, Historical Sites and Other Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles CALVERT COUNTY 2 4.3 SW Jefferson Park & Museum 10115 Mackall Rd St. Leonard Historical Site 30 9 2 4.5 NW St. Leonard Recreation Area 4825 Maryland Ave St. Leonard Other, Not Listed 75 27 2 5.8 W Broomes Island Produce Farm 4085 School Rd Broomes Island Other, Not Listed 12 4 3 3.6 SSE Chesapeake Hills Golf Course 11352 H G Trueman Rd Lusby Golf Course 125 46 3 3.7 S Southern Community Center 20 Appeal Lane Lusby Other, Not Listed 300 109 3 6.5 SSW Navy Recreation Center Pass Office 13855 Solomons Island Rd Solomons Campground 3,000 800 3 7.2 S Calvert Marine Museum 14200 Solomons Island Rd S Solomons Historical Site 201 58 4 8.1 W Patuxent Camp Sites 4774 Williams Wharf Rd St. Leonard Campground 125 42 Calvert County Subtotal: 3,868 1,095 DORCHESTER COUNTY 8 6.6 ENE Taylors Island Family Campgrounds 4362 Bay Shore Rd Taylors Island Campground 200 100 8 8.3 ENE Tideland Park Campground 525 Taylors Island Rd Taylors Island Campground 72 30 Dorchester County Subtotal: 272 130 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 7 7.0 SW Historic Sotterley 44300 Sotterley Ln Hollywood Historical Site 188 38 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 188 38 EPZ TOTAL: 4,328 1,263 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E8. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Zone (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CALVERT COUNTY 2 4.5 NW Cliff's Motor Inn 4785 Saint Leonard Rd St. Leonard 40 20 3 5.9 S Hilton Garden Inn Solomons 13100 Dowell Rd Solomons 113 75 3 6.8 S Holiday Inn SolomonsConf Center & Marina 155 Holiday Dr Solomons 652 326 3 7.1 S Quality Inn Solomons Beacon Marina 255 Lore Rd Solomons 118 60 4 10.3 NW SpringHill Suites by Marriot 75 Sherry Ln Prince Frederick 120 52 Calvert County Subtotal: 1,043 533 ST. MARY'S COUNTY 6 8.3 SW The Victorian Candle Llc 25065 Peregrine Way Hollywood 14 7 7 9.8 SSW Sleep Inn & Suites 23428 Three Notch Rd California 65 32 7 9.9 SSW Holiday Inn Express & Suites Lexington ParkCalifornia 45260 Abell House Ln California 274 100 7 10.2 SSW Super 8 by Wyndham 22801 Three Notch Rd California 167 61 7 10.2 SSW La Quinta Inn 22769 Three Notch Rd California 274 100 7 10.4 S TownePlace Suites by Marriott 22520 Three Notch Rd Lexington Park 174 87 7 10.8 S Extended Stay America Lexington Park Pax River 46565 Expedition Park Dr Lexington Park 190 95 7 10.9 S Hampton Inn Lexington Park 22211 Three Notch Rd Lexington Park 220 110 7 10.9 S Fairfield Inn Lexington Park Patuxent River Naval 22119 Three Notch Rd Lexington Park 150 75 St. Mary's County Subtotal: 1,528 667 EPZ TOTAL: 2,571 1,200 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Preschools/Daycares and Day Camps within the EPZ (1 of 2)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Preschools/Daycares within the EPZ (2 of 2)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Major Employers within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

a Figure E6. Marinas within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E7. Parks within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E8. Campgrounds, Golf Courses, Historical Sites and Other Recreational Areas within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E9. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant E18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data; The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning.

First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?).

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in 2021 prior to the release of the 2020 Census data, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of 463 completed survey forms yields the results with a sampling error of +/-4.50%

at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population. Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1.

Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software.

The proportional percentage 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.

A total of 290 completed household survey forms was obtained, corresponding to a sampling error of +/-5.72% at the 95% confidence level for the number of households in the EPZ according to the 2010 Census. The number of samples obtained was less than the sampling plan. After discussion with Constellation, it was deemed that the demographics between the EPZ and the Shadow Region were similar. This increased the number of completed surveys to 358 and reduced the sampling error to +/-5.14%. This is more than the 4.5% sampling plan and was Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

discussed with Constellation personnel and after the multiple attempts to increase the number of responses received, a 5.14% sampling error was deemed acceptable for this study. The number of samples obtained from each zip code is also shown in Table F1.

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know or decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a dont know/decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional dont know/decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the dont know/decline to state responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the study area (EPZ and shadow region) based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses, the average household contains 2.74 people. The estimated average household size of the study area from the 2020 Census data is 2.72 people. The percent difference between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 0.89%, which is within the sampling error of +/-5.14%, as discussed in Section F.2.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the study area is 2.50. It should be noted that two surveyed households (0.6% of the households surveyed) do not have access to an automobile. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2. Figure F 3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Ridesharing Approximately 72% of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 1.07 commuters per household in the study area, and approximately 65% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F7 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The majority (90.5%)

of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.06 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) on Commuters Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows an average of 1.10 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 57% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The survey result shows that approximately 3% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 66.6% (12 people) require a bus, 16.7% (3 people) require a wheelchair accessible bus, and 16.7% (3 people) require an ambulance.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.51 vehicles.

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

Of the survey participants who responded, approximately 55% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and about 45% indicated they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating, as shown in Figure F11.

Emergency officials advise you to shelter at home in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelterinplace. The results indicate that nearly 90% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 10% would choose to evacuate the area.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. Thus, the compliance rate obtained above is significantly higher than the federal guidance. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation noncompliance of shelter advisory on ETE - see Appendix M.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelter at home now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information specifically related to the possibility of a staged evacuation. That is, asking a population to shelter in place now and then to evacuate after a specified period of time. Results indicate that about 72% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the remaining 28% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Results show that 51.4% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 1.7% to a reception center, 15% to a hotel, motel or campground, 5.9% to a second or seasonal home, 0.3% of households (1 household) would not evacuate, and the remaining 25.7% responded dont know/ other to this question. The response is shown in Figure F12.

If you had a pet and/or animal, would you take your pet and/or animal with you if you were asked to evacuate? Based on the responses to the survey, about 68% of households have a pet and/or animal. Of the households with pets and/or animals, 20.2% of them indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 75.2% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else, and 4.6% would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F13. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, approximately 97% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pets/animals, about 2% said they did not, and the remaining 1% would use a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, of the households with pet and/or animal, 94.3% have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, fish, hamster, etc.), 5.2% have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, rabbit, etc.), and 0.5% (2 households) have other small pets/animals.

F.3.3 Time Distribution Results The survey asked several questions about the amount of time it takes to perform certain pre evacuation activities. These activities involve actions taken by residents during the course of their daytoday lives. Thus, the answers fall within the realm of the responders experience.

As discussed in Section F.3.1 and shown in Figure F8, about 57% of respondents indicated commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic and could have an impact on the commuting patterns of those who live in the CCNPP EPZ. To minimize uncertainty in the commuting patterns obtained and resulting estimated trip generation times, data from the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

previous 2012 study (based on results from the 2007 telephone survey) were compared to the results of the 2020 demographic survey for the distributions involving commuters (time to prepare to leave work and time to travel home from work). The figures showing these distributions involving commuters will present both the results of this survey, and the results of the previous study. Due to the similar patterns between the two survey results, the results from this survey (labeled as 2021 in the graphs) are deemed acceptable for this study.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work? Figure F14 presents the cumulative distribution for the 2021 and 2012 study survey responses. For the 2020 survey, in all cases, the activity is completed by about 75 minutes. Approximately 92% can leave within 45 minutes. For the 2012 study, in all cases, the activity was completed by 120 minutes and about 88% could leave within 45 minutes. The distributions are very similar for the first 45 minutes but the 2012 survey has a longer tail.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F15 presents the time to commute home from work for the study area for the 2020 and 2012 study survey responses.

About 89% of commuters (84% in the previous study) can arrive home within about 60 minutes of leaving work; all within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 45 minutes (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in the previous study). The 2007 survey used in the 2012 study is very similar to the 2020 survey except it has a long tail for the last 20% of the commuters.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home. Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

About 88% of households can be ready to leave home within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; the remaining households require up to 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.

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street.

Figure F17 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

About 89% of driveways are passable within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional hour. Note, that those respondents (about 12%) 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Demographic Survey Sampling Plan and Results Households Population Within Zip Code Desired Samples Location Zip Code (2010) (2010) Samples Obtained 20615 405 156 4 3 20619 3,039 1,443 35 12 20629 535 246 6 1 20636 7,225 2,663 64 7 20653 2,366 868 21 10 20657 20,432 6,938 168 118 20659 1,111 404 10 8 EPZ 20670 3 1 0 0 20676 3,867 1,335 32 23 20678 5,110 1,762 43 42 20685 6,469 2,235 54 47 20688 1,828 970 23 18 21622 24 12 0 0 21648 9 3 0 0 21669 229 105 3 1 EPZ Total: 52,652 19,141 463 290 20639 7,280 2,283 29 20732 1,271 463 17 20634 5,264 1,978 2 Shadow Region 20620 1,099 395 1 20650 5,854 2,102 14 20637 191 66 5 Shadow Region Total: 20,959 7,287 68 Grand Total: 73,611 26,428 463 358 Average HH Size (EPZ)1: 2.75 1

It is an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Household Size 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6+

Household Size Figure F1. Household Size in the Study Area Vehicle Availability 50%

44.1%

40%

Percent of Households 30% 27.0%

20%

14.3%

10% 8.1%

5.9%

0.6%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 15 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 5 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 69+ Person Households 6 People 7 People 8 People 9+ People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 5 to 9+ Person Households Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 40%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the Study Area Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Mode to Work 100%

90.5%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

3.5% 6.0%

0%

Rail/Bus Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F7. Modes of Travel in the Study Area COVID19 Impact to Commuters 50%

43%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

23%

20%

20%

10% 7% 7%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F8. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Bus Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 80%

58.0%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

35.5%

20%

6.2%

0.3%

0%

0 1 2 3+

Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Evacuating Shelter Locations 60%

51.4%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30% 25.7%

20%

15.0%

10% 5.9%

1.7% 0.3%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Hotel, Motel, A Would not Other/Don't Home Center or Campground Second/Seasonal evacuate Know Home Figure F12. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Pets/Animals Evacuation Response 80%

60%

Percent of Households 40%

20%

0%

Take with me to a Shelter Take with me to Somewhere Leave Pet at Home Else Figure F13. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Time to Prepare to Leave Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

2021 40%

2012 20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

2021 40%

2012 20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Travel Time (min)

Figure F15. Time to Commute Home from Work Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time to Prepare the Home for an Evacuation Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 Time (min)

Figure F17. Time to Remove 68 of Snow from Driveway Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Demographic Survey

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

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

1. 1. What is your gender?

Mark only one oval.

Male Female Decline to State Other:

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

3. 3A. In total, how many running cars, or other vehicles are usually available to the household?

Mark only one oval.

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

DECLINE TO STATE

4. 3B. In an emergency, could you get a ride out of the area with a neighbor or friend?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE

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

Mark only one oval.

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

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

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

Mark only one oval.

ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN FOURTEEN FIFTEEN SIXTEEN SEVENTEEN EIGHTEEN NINETEEN OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 7 COVID-19

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

Mark only one oval.

ZERO ONE TWO THREE FOUR OR MORE DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 8 Commuters

8. 7. How many people in the household commute to a job, or to college on a daily basis?

• Mark only one oval.

ZERO Skip to question 53 ONE Skip to question 9 TWO Skip to question 10 THREE Skip to question 11 FOUR OR MORE Skip to question 12 DECLINE TO STATE Skip to question 53 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Skip to question 13 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Skip to question 15 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Skip to question 19 Mode of Travel

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

Mark only one oval per row.

Rail Bus Walk/Bicycle Drive Alone Carpool-2 or more people Dont know Commuter 1 Commuter 2 Commuter 3 Commuter 4 Skip to question 25 Travel Home From Work/College

13. 9-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

Skip to question 33 Travel Home From Work/College

15. 9-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

17. 9-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

Skip to question 35 Travel Home From Work/College

19. 9-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

21. 9-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

23. 9-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

Skip to question 39 Travel Home From Work/College

25. 9-1. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #1 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

27. 9-2. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #2 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

29. 9-3. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #3 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

31. 9-4. How much time on average, would it take Commuter #4 to travel home from work or college?

Mark only one oval.

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

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

Skip to question 45 Preparation to leave Work/College

33. 10-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

34. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

35. 10-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

36. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

37. 10-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

38. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

39. 10-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

40. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

41. 10-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

42. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

43. 10-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

44. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 53 Preparation to leave Work/College

45. 10-1. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #1 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

46. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-1, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-1, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

47. 10-2. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #2 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

48. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-2, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-2, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

49. 10-3. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #3 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

50. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-3, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-3, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

51. 10-4. Approximately how much time would it take Commuter #4 to complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to starting the trip home?

Mark only one oval.

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

52. If Over 2 Hours for Question 10-4, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 10-4, is under 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Skip to question 53 Additional Questions

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

Mark only one oval.

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

54. If Over 6 Hours for Question 11, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 11, is under 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.

55. 12. If there are 6-8 inches of snow on your driveway or curb, would you need to shovel out to evacuate? If yes, how much time, on average, would it take you to clear the 6-8 inches of snow to move the car from the driveway or curb to begin the evacuation trip? Assume the roads are passable.

Mark only one oval.

LESS THAN 15 MINUTES 15-30 MINUTES 31-45 MINUTES 46 MINUTES - 1 HOUR 1 HOUR TO 1 HOUR 15 MINUTES 1 HOUR 16 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 30 MINUTES 1 HOUR 31 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR 45 MINUTES 1 HOUR 46 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 2 HOURS TO 2 HOURS 15 MINUTES 2 HOURS 16 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 30 MINUTES 2 HOURS 31 MINUTES TO 2 HOURS 45 MINUTES 2 HOURS 46 MINUTES TO 3 HOURS NO, WILL NOT SHOVEL OUT OVER 3 HOURS DECLINE TO STATE

56. If Over 3 Hours for Question 12, Specify Here leave blank if your answer for Question 12, is under 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.

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

Mark only one oval per row.

0 1 2 3 4 More than 4 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle Ambulance Other

58. Specify "Other" Transportation Need Below

59. 14. Please choose one of the following:

Mark only one oval.

I would await the return of household members to evacuate together.

I would evacuate independently and meet other household members later.

Decline to State

60. 15A. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place in an emergency because you are not in the area of risk. Would you:

Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE

61. 15B. Emergency officials advise you to shelter-in-place now in an emergency and possibly evacuate later while people in other areas are advised to evacuate now. Would you:

Mark only one oval.

SHELTER-IN-PLACE EVACUATE DECLINE TO STATE

62. 15C. Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to?

Mark only one oval.

A RELATIVES OR FRIENDS HOME A RECEPTION CENTER A HOTEL, MOTEL OR CAMPGROUND A SECOND/SEASONAL HOME WOULD NOT EVACUATE DON'T KNOW OTHER (Specify Below)

DECLINE TO STATE

63. Fill in OTHER answers for question 15C Pet Questions

64. 16A. Do you have any pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions

65. 16B. What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have?

Check all that apply.

DOG CAT BIRD REPTILE HORSE FISH CHICKEN GOAT PIG OTHER SMALL PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

OTHER LARGE PETS/ANIMALS (Specify Below)

Other:

66.

Mark only one oval.

DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions

67. 16C. What would you do with your pet(s) and/or animal(s) if you had to evacuate?

Mark only one oval.

TAKE PET WITH ME TO A SHELTER TAKE PET WITH ME SOMEWHERE ELSE LEAVE PET AT HOME DECLINE TO STATE Pet Questions

68. 16D. Do you have sucient room in your vehicle(s) to evacuate with your pet(s) and/or animal(s)?

Mark only one oval.

YES NO WILL USE A TRAILER DECLINE TO STATE Other:

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Forms

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic 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 Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by the OROs within the EPZ.

These plans were reviewed, and the TCPs and ACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TCP/ACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing TCPs/ACPs that were provided in the Radiological Emergency Plan (REP) of the risk counties, with no additional TCPs recommended.

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 traffic control point (or ACP), the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the number of nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a Roadblock, the control type is indicated as TCP/ACP in Table K1. These MTC points, as shown in the traffic management Plan (TMP), are mapped as aqua dots (representing TCP) and red square blocks (representing ACP) in Figure G1. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study.

It is assumed that the TCPs/ACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to facilitate movement of travelers away from the EPZ.

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 (stop 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 summer, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 1) evacuation of the 2Mile Region (R01), 5Mile Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Region (R02) and the entire EPZ (R03) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results are shown in Table G2.

The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7. The ETE remained unchanged when compared to R01, R02 and R03 during Scenario 1 conditions, wherein these stopcontrolled intersections were modeled as actuated signals (with MTC). There is no change in ETE at both the 90th and 100th percentile 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 impact to ETE.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 78 and discussed in Section 7.3, major evacuation routes (including Maryland (MD) Route 2/4 and MD Route 264) servicing the EPZ experiences significant traffic congestion (LOS D or worse), which lasts for 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes following the ATE.

Heavy traffic flows exist in both the northsouth and eastwest direction at many intersections as vehicles evacuate the area. When heavy traffic persists in competing directions, MTC provides little to no benefit since both approaches need equal amounts of green time. As a result, the TCPs/ACPs within the EPZ do very little to reduce the ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion and can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, blocking vehicles from entering the EPZ or specific Zone, 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 as the few remaining TCPs/ACPs already have actuated traffic signals which would mimic MTC.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual Traffic Control Locations TCP/ACP Node Previous Control Number Location Number (Prior to being a TCP/ACP)

C3 Maryland Route 2/4 at Parran Road 18 Stop Control C9 Maryland 264 at Grays Road 565 Stop Control C11 Maryland 264 at Maryland 265 379 Stop Control C17 Maryland 231 at German Chapel Road 391 Stop Control C18 Adelina Road at Sixes Road 91 Stop Control S2 Maryland 235 at New Market Turner Rd/Route 6 75 Stop Control S4 Maryland 235 at N Sandgate Rd/Route 472 73 Stop Control S17 Maryland Route 4 at Indian Bridge Rd 66 Stop Control A2 Route 16 at Smithville Road 209 Stop Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 1 Region 90th Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile) 3:00 3:00 0:00 5:00 5:00 0:00 R02 (5Mile) 7:50 7:50 0:00 9:15 9:15 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 7:15 7:15 0:00 9:55 9:55 0:00 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the CCNPP EPZ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H19). The percentages presented in Table H1 are based on the methodology discussed in assumption 7 of Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 21.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20 percent of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Zone Population Evacuating for Regions Radial Regions Zone Region Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R02 R04 102 214 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R05 260 349 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R06 350 11 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20%

R07 12 56 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20%

R08 57 101 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R09 102 124 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R10 125 169 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R11 170 214 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R12 215 237 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100%

R13 238 259 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R14 260 304 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R15 305 326 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R16 327 349 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction From Zone Region (Degrees) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 R17 5Mile Region 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A 350 101 Refer to Region R17 R18 102 214 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

N/A 215 259 Refer to Region R01 R19 260 349 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Zone(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Zone(s) Evacuate Zone(s) ShelterinPlace R01, then Evacuate Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are a total of 289 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 4.49 miles to exit the network.

Table J2 provides network-wide statistics (average travel time, average delay time1, average speed and number of vehicles) for an evacuation of the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)

(Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, the rain (Scenarios 2 and 4), rain/light snow (Scenarios 7 and 10) and heavy snow scenarios (Scenarios 8 and 11) exhibit slower average speeds, longer average delay times and longer average travel times when compared to good weather scenarios.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Maryland (MD) Route 4 and MD Route 235 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions (summer, midweek, midday, with good weather). As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 78, there is congestion (LOS C or worse) within the EPZ until 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE. Due to the significant traffic (LOS F) congestion on MD Route 4 and MD Route 235, the average speeds are comparably lower than the free flow speed for about 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and then as congestion dissipates, speeds increase again, except for MD Route 4, which is the last route with significant congestion within the EPZ to clear (at 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes). As such speeds begin to decrease again at 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 55 minutes.

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.

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 significant traffic congestion within in the EPZ throughout the evacuation. As discussed in detail Section 7.3, significant congestion within the EPZ persists for 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE for a summer, midweek, midday, good weather scenario.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 14 7 6 4 S 8352 3,800 8094 1,700 215 142 560 160 NW 8096 3,800 8348 1,700 8352 3,800 531 405 198 435 S 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 8352 3,800 919 764 191 461 SE 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 8094 1,700 854 701 704 50 NW 8096 3,800 8352 3,800 422 308 307 246 SW 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 8133 1,700 195 124 123 234 N 8094 1,700 8096 3,800 8352 3,800 385 277 276 169 S 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 8352 3,800 498 363 621 104 W 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 8352 3,800 618 517 82 1 SW 8334 1,275 8292 1,275 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 5.6 6.5 5.6 6.6 5.4 5.3 6.2 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 4.4 5.2 4.3 5.4 4.2 4.0 4.9 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 10.6 9.2 10.7 9.1 11.1 11.4 9.8 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 45,737 45,459 45,011 44,719 42,665 43,664 43,386 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 6.3 5.1 6.1 6.2 5.1 4.6 4.4 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 5.0 3.9 4.8 5.0 3.8 3.3 3.2 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 9.6 11.7 9.9 9.6 11.8 13.1 13.5 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 43,773 41,022 40,972 40,945 40,724 51,018 46,130 Exiting Network Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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)

Major Evacuation 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 Route Name Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time MD Route 4 NB 34.0 54.4 37.5 33.2 61.4 32.1 63.6 48.2 42.3 56.8 35.9 MD Route 4 SB 39.3 20.1 116.9 12.4 189.7 8.8 266.6 10.5 223.9 14.5 162.7 MD Route 235 NB 23.2 25.8 53.8 16.3 85.2 12.4 112.2 10.3 134.9 11.5 121.0 MD Route 235 SB 18.2 59.3 18.5 55.4 19.7 54.4 20.1 62.0 17.7 62.0 17.7 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 9:55 Major Evacuation Length Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Route Name (miles) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time MD Route 4 NB 34.0 61.1 33.4 61.1 33.4 61.1 33.4 61.1 33.4 61.1 33.4 MD Route 4 SB 39.3 16.1 146.3 18.5 127.4 26.0 90.6 30.8 76.4 60.1 39.2 MD Route 235 NB 23.2 23.0 60.4 40.9 34.0 58.4 23.8 58.4 23.8 53.8 25.9 MD Route 235 SB 18.2 62.0 17.7 62.0 17.7 62.0 17.7 62.0 17.7 62.0 17.7 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 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) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 9:55 Network Upstream Downstream Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Exit Link # Road Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 361 526 720 890 1,030 1,066 1,066 1,066 1,066 1,066 158 MD Route 2 93 94 16% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2%

647 3,618 6,651 9,769 10,459 10,459 10,459 10,459 10,459 10,459 161 MD Route 4 95 96 28% 37% 38% 39% 35% 31% 28% 26% 24% 23%

6 124 278 348 368 369 369 369 369 369 205 MD Route 261 132 133 0.3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1 11 27 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 298 MD Route 336 206 214 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

0 6 14 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 299 MD Route 335 206 215 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

40 457 857 992 1,010 1,011 1,011 1,011 1,011 1,011 316 MD Route 381 221 348 2% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2%

1,025 2,938 4,846 6,546 8,147 9,733 11,318 12,902 14,487 15,691 485 MD Route 5 349 352 45% 30% 27% 26% 27% 29% 30% 32% 33% 35%

1 14 31 39 41 41 41 41 41 41 508 MD Route 343 374 375 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

142 256 303 323 327 328 328 328 328 328 566 MD Route 16 450 451 6% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

59 744 1,698 2,803 3,971 5,126 6,046 6,727 7,057 7,534 1005 MD Route 234 845 292 3% 8% 10% 11% 13% 15% 16% 17% 16% 17%

7 1,142 2,291 3,445 4,453 5,482 6,561 7,513 8,496 8,830 1042 MD Route 6 870 334 0.3% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 18% 19% 20% 19%

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J9 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 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:30 3:00 4:30 6:00 7:30 9:00 10:30 12:00 13:30 15:00 16:30 18:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant J13 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 34 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K35) 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 558 Pretimed 4 Actuated 64 Stop 111 TCP/ACP 35 Yield 17 Total: 789 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. CCNPP LinkNode Analysis Network Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Zone Boundaries

L. ZONE BOUNDARIES Zone 1 County: Calvert Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bordered by Calvert Beach Road to the north, the Chesapeake Bay on the east, on the south by Breeden Road, Sollers Wharf Road, Old Mill Road, Hellen Creek, St. Paul Branch, Route 492 and Calvert Cliffs State Park, and Route 2/4 and St. Leonard Creek on the west.

Zone 2 County: Calvert Defined as the area within the following boundary: Northern boundaries include Route 2/4 and Governor Run Road, eastern boundaries include Chesapeake Bay, Route 2 and 4/St. Leonard Creek, southern boundaries include Calvert Beach Road and the Patuxent River, bordered by Broomes Island Road and Nan Cove to the west.

Zone 3 County: Calvert Defined as the area within the following boundary: Northern boundaries include Breeden Road, Sollers Wharf Road, Old Mill Road, Hellen Creek, St.

Paul Branch, Route 497 and Calvert Cliffs State Park, bordered by the Chesapeake Bay to the east, bordered by the Patuxent River to the south and west.

Zone 4 County: Calvert Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bordered by Route 2 and 4 to the north, Broomes Island Road and Nan Cove to the east, the Patuxent River to the south, Route 231, Adelina Road and Sheridan Road to the west.

Zone 5 County: Calvert Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bordered by Dares Beach Road and Cassell Road to the north, the Chesapeake Bay to the east, Governor Run Road to the south, Tobacco Ridge Road to Calvert County Property Gate, Main Street at Monitor Way to Calvert Towne, Route 2 and4 to the west.

Zone 6 County: St. Marys Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bordered by the Patuxent River to the north, Hollywood Road and Sotterly Gate Road to the east, Brooks Run to the south, Cat Creek Road, Sandgates Road, Route 235, Clover Hill Road, McIntosh Road, Riva Ridge Drive and McIntosh Run to the west.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Zone 7 County: St. Marys Defined as the area within the following boundary: Bordered by the Patuxent River to the north, Patuxent Naval Air Test Center to the east, Brooks Run, Broad Run, Hayden Road, St. Marys County Airport Drive, Cottonwood Parkway, Wildewood Parkway, Saint Andrews Church Road and Route 235 to the south, Hollywood Road and Sotterly Gate Road to the west.

Zone 8 County: Dorchester Defined as the area within the following boundary: Includes all of Taylors Island, Smithville, and residents off Meekins Neck Road, Smithville Road (north of Beaver Dam Creek), and Route 16 (west of Parsons Creek).

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 1, Region R03; a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE remain unchanged. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, both the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are increased by 5 minutes.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion (LOS C or worse) persists within the EPZ for 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE. As such, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE is not affected by the trip generation time (plus a 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary), but by the time needed to clear the congestion within the EPZ. See Table M1.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 1 (a summer, midweek, midday, with good weather) evacuation for the entire EPZ (R03).

The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%),

shadow evacuation reduces the 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETE by 5 minutes.

Doubling (40%) shadow evacuation significantly increased the 90th percentile ETE by 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 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 /> and 20 minutes. Tripling (60%) shadow evacuation increases the 90th percentile ETE by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes and the 100th percentile ETE by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes. A full shadow evacuation (100%) increases both the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicate that 10% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs from the base assumption of 20% non compliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 10% shadow evacuation and both the 90th and 100th percentile ETE reduced by 5 minutes.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 78, there is significant traffic congestion within the Shadow Region. Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate will increase this congestion, delay the egress of EPZ evacuees, and prolong ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013 001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25%

or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 6%.

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 base ETE values for the 2Mile Region (R01), 5Mile Region (R02), and for the entire (EPZ) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; 25% of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 6% or greater increase in the 5Mile Region or full EPZ permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). Constellation will have to estimate the 5Mile Region or full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the 5Mile Region or full EPZ population increases by 6% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE.

Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time an hour minimally impacts the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by at most by 5 minutes since congestion within the EPZ dictates the ETE (Section M.1). Nonetheless, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly could be considered.

Increasing the percent shadow evacuation (especially 40% or over) has a significant impact on ETE (Section M.2). As such, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results 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.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Generation Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Period 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 4 Hours 7:15 9:55 5 Hours (Base) 7:15 9:55 6 Hours 7:20 10:00 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 7:10 9:50 10 (Survey) 4,502 7:10 9:50 20 (Base) 9,004 7:15 9:55 40 18,008 8:40 11:15 60 27,012 9:30 12:00 80 36,016 11:00 13:10 100 45,020 11:30 14:10 Table M3. Evacuation Time Estimates for Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Permanent Resident Base 4% 5% 6%

Population 70,334 73,147 73,851 74,554 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 4% 5% 6%

2MILE 4:45 4:45 4:45 4:45 5MILE 9:20 9:40 9:45 9:50 FULL EPZ 8:30 8:45 8:55 9:00 th ETE for the 100 Percentile Population Change Region Base 4% 5% 6%

2MILE 7:30 7:30 7:30 7:35 5MILE 11:00 11:20 11:30 11:35 FULL EPZ 11:55 12:15 12:25 12:35 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant M4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX N ETE Criteria Checklist

N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area Yes Section 1.2 is described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 site including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 1 1, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D outlined in Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 areas (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Keyhole Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 evacuation is discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Staged Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth N/A N/A 2020 Census used as the base year of to reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. the analysis

d. A sector diagram, similar to Figure 21, Population by Yes Figure 32 Sector, is included showing the population distribution for permanent residents.

2.1.1 Permanent Residents with Vehicles

a. The persons per vehicle value is between 1 and 3 or Yes Section 3.1, Appendix F justification is provided for other values.

2.1.2 Transient Population

a. A list of facilities that attract transient populations is Yes Section 3.3, Table E5 through Table E8 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E4 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The average population during the season is used, Yes Table 34, Table 35, and Appendix E itemize itemized and totaled for each scenario. the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population and employees by scenario - see Table 64.

d. The percentage of permanent residents assumed to be at Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 facilities is estimated.

e. The number of people per vehicle is provided. Numbers Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 may vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the (employees) population distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) Yes Section 3.7 used to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit Yes Section 8.1 dependent residents are used in the analysis.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The methodology used to determine the number of Yes Section 3.8 people with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is Yes Section 3.7, Table 39, Table 311 provided.

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 81 ambulances, or other transport assumed available to support evacuation is provided. The quantification of resources is detailed enough to ensure that double counting has not occurred.

2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, Yes Table E3 lists all medical facilities by facility and average population, are listed. Special facility staff is name, location, and average population.

included in the total special facility population.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles Yes Section 3.5, Table 36 assumed available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of Medical medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when No correctional facility within EPZ.

appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 37, Table 38, Table E1 (schools), Table population, and transportation resources required to E2 (preschools/daycares and day camps),

support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this Section 3.6 information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle Yes Section 3.6 schools are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use Yes Section 3.6 personal vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 no return trips are needed.

2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the Yes Section 3.9 event is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and Figure 7 with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow 1, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 59 (footnote) network is consistent with the trip generation time generated for the permanent resident population.

2.5.3 Background and Pass Through Traffic

a. The volume of background traffic and passthrough Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 traffic is based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough Yes Section 2.2 - Item 10 and 11 traffic is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.10 the EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 311, Table 312, and Table 64 populations and total vehicles used in the analysis for permanent residents, transients, transit dependent residents, special facilities, schools, shadow population, and passthrough demand in each scenario.

3.0 Roadway Capacity

a. The method(s) used to assess roadway capacity is Yes Section 4 discussed.

3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links Yes Appendix K of the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for Yes Section 4 the transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes Yes Appendix B and Appendix C and traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to N/A Static route choices are not used to assign assign evacuation routes. evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described Yes Appendix B and Appendix C including calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

b. The use of signal cycle timing, including adjustments for Yes Section 4, Appendix G manned traffic control, is discussed.

3.4 Adverse Weather

a. The adverse weather conditions are identified. Yes Item 2 and 3 of Section 2.6 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Yes Table 22 Table 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse for adverse weather conditions are described, if weather conditions.

applicable.

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is Yes Item 2 and 6 of Section 2.6, Table 22 considered and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, Appendix C used in the analysis is provided.

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation model ETE calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate was used.

the analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a Yes Section 2, Appendix J representative set of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of Yes Appendix F the survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are Yes Appendix F, Section 5 summarized.

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when Yes Appendix F There was no uncertainty when developing trip generation times are discussed, if developing trip generation times.

applicable.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. households with and without returning Trip generation time includes the assumption that a commuters.

percentage of residents will need to return home before Table 63 presents the percentage of evacuating. households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

Item 3 of Section 2.3 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and Yes Section 5 method to notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients Yes Section 5, Figure 51 potentially returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are Public Transportation is not provided for the expected is considered. special event and was therefore not considered.

4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes N/A Established bus routes provided by the risk are used in the ETE analysis. counties. Bus routes originate from the given staging areas.

Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit Dependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and non Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit ambulatory residents are discussed. Dependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle)

Section 8.2

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including Dependent Population (Residents without the expected means of travel to the pickup point, is access to a vehicle) described.

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2, Item 4 of Section 2.4 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return Yes Sections 8.1 and 8.2 - no return trips are trips, if necessary. needed except for those requiring an ambulance.

4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through times is provided. Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810 residents are discussed.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility Yes Section 8.1 residents are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

f. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through times is provided. Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 discussion is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA) 4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation averages average results is discussed. or random seeds for statistical confidence. For

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce N/A DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a mesoscopic simulation each ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on and uses dynamic traffic assignment model to the 90 percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different obtain the "average" (stable) network work random seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under flow distribution. This is different from Summer, Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo conditions. random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 the entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is based

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. on the time the last vehicle exits the

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not evacuation zone exiting the EPZ. 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one plot for

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and each scenario considered) evacuation curve identifying the cumulative 6. Table J3 percentage of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ.

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various Yes Figure 73 through Figure 78 times (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and Yes Table 71 and Table 72 100 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time the last discussed, if not based on the time the last vehicle exits vehicle exits the evacuation zone.

the evacuation zone.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data to members of the general public. Any reductions or eliminate statistical outliers truncated data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs Yes Table 73 and Table 74 similar to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of Yes Section 8 special facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved Yes Section 9, Appendix G the traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Analysis Comments (Yes/No/NA)

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that Yes Results of the ETE study were formally may affect the ETE. presented to state and local agencies at the final project meeting. Comments on the draft report were provided and were addressed in the final report. There are no unresolved issues.

5.4 Reviews and Updates

a. The criteria for when an updated ETE analysis is required Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 to be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of the conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario availability of US Census Bureau decennial variations. census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers Yes Figure 103 is provided.

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant N18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0