ML22269A416

Attachment 10 - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station-Development of Evacuation Time Estimates

ML22269A416
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	08/02/2022
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: ML22269A416 (414)

Text

QUAD CITIES GENERATING STATION Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Constellation, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 mailto: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com August 2, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1255

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Quad Cities Generating Station Location ............................................................................ 13 1.3 Preliminary Activities ................................................................................................................. 13 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study .............................................................................................. 16 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................ 21 2.1 Data Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Methodological Assumptions .................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times .......................................................................................... 23 2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions ................................................................................................ 24 2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions .................................................................................... 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 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Special Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 34 3.5.1 Medical Facility .................................................................................................................. 35 3.5.2 Correctional Facility ........................................................................................................... 35 3.6 School Population Demand........................................................................................................ 35 3.6.1 Schools and Preschools ..................................................................................................... 35 3.6.2 Colleges and Universities ................................................................................................... 36 3.7 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 37 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 ............................................................................................................... 311 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 QDC Study Area ............................................................................................ 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Conditions .................................................................................................................. 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME.......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 Quad Cities Generating Station 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 .................................................................................... 75 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, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities .................... 82 8.2 ETEs for the Correctional Facilities ............................................................................................ 89 8.3 ETEs for the Access and/or Functional Needs Population ......................................................... 89 9 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................................................................... 91 9.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 92 9.2 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................................... 92 10 EVACUATION ROUTES AND RECEPTION CENTERS ........................................................................... 101 10.1 Evacuation Routes.................................................................................................................... 101 10.2 Reception Centers .................................................................................................................... 102 List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B1 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. FACILITY DATA.................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 Quad Cities Generating Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 TACP Locations ................................................................................................. G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES .................................................................................................................... L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in Permanent Resident Population ............................................................. M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 M.5 Effect of Changes in SubAreas for Region R13, R20, and R28 ................................................ M3 M.6 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M4 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Quad Cities Generating Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. QDC Site Location ................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 12. QDC LinkNode Analysis Network .......................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. SubAreas Comprising the QDC EPZ ...................................................................................... 321 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 322 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 323 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 324 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 325 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 326 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 327 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 328 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 329 Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 410 Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ............................................................ 516 Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities.................................................... 517 Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution ...................................................... 518 Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions.......................................................................... 519 Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region .................................................................................................... 520 Figure 61. QDC EPZ SubAreas .................................................................................................................. 69 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 718 Figure 72. QDC Shadow Region ............................................................................................................. 719 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 720 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................................................................................................................................ 721 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hour and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................................................................................................................................ 722 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................................................................................................................................ 723 Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate................................................................................................................................ 724 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 725 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 725 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 726 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 727 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 728 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 728 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 729 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 729 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 730 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 730 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 731 Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 731 Quad Cities Generating Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 824 Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes .................................................................................................... 106 Figure 102. QDC Transit Dependent Bus Routes ................................................................................... 107 Figure 103. General Population Reception Communities and Reception Center/School Relocation Centers.......................................................................................... 108 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 QDC EPZ ..................................................................................................... E9 Figure E2. Preschools within the QDC EPZ ............................................................................................ E10 Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the QDC EPZ ................................................................................... E11 Figure E4. Major Employers within the QDC EPZ ................................................................................... E12 Figure E5. Recreational Areas within the QDC EPZ................................................................................. E13 Figure E6. Lodging Facilities within the QDC EPZ.................................................................................... E14 Figure E7. Correctional Facilities within the QDC EPZ ............................................................................ E15 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F7 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 3 Person Households ...................................................................... F8 Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 4+ Person Households ........................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F9 Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic ........................................................ F10 Figure F8. Modes of Travel in the EPZ .................................................................................................... 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 Leaving ....................................................................................................................... F12 Figure F12. ShelterinPlace Characteristics .......................................................................................... F12 Figure F13. Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics ................................................................................. F13 Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations .................................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals ......................................................................... F14 Figure F16. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College .............................................................. F14 Figure F17. Work/College to Home Travel Time .................................................................................... F15 Figure F18. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation ................................................................................ F15 Figure F19. Time to Remove 68 inches of Snow from Driveway ........................................................... F16 Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Posts for QDC............................................................................... G4 Figure H1. Region R01 ............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H2. Region R02 ............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H3. Region R03 ............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H4. Region R04 ............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H5. Region R05 ............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H6. Region R06 ............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H7. Region R07 ........................................................................................................................... H10 Figure H8. Region R08 ........................................................................................................................... H11 Quad Cities Generating Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 ........................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H10. Region R10 ......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H11. Region R11 ......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H12. Region R12 ......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H13. Region R13 ......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H14. Region R14 ......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H15. Region R15 ......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H16. Region R16 ......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H17. Region R17 ......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H18. Region R18 ......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H19. Region R19 ......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H20. Region R20 ......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure H21. Region R21 ......................................................................................................................... H24 Figure H22. Region R22 ......................................................................................................................... H25 Figure H23. Region R23 ......................................................................................................................... H26 Figure H24. Region R24 ......................................................................................................................... H27 Figure H25. Region R25 ......................................................................................................................... H28 Figure H26. Region R26 ......................................................................................................................... H29 Figure H27. Region R27 ......................................................................................................................... H30 Figure H28. Region R28 ......................................................................................................................... H31 Figure H29. Region R29 ......................................................................................................................... H32 Figure H30. Region R30 ......................................................................................................................... H33 Figure H31. Region R31 ......................................................................................................................... H34 Figure H32. Region R32 ......................................................................................................................... H35 Figure H33. Region R33 ......................................................................................................................... H36 Figure H34. Region R34 ......................................................................................................................... H37 Figure H35. Region R35 ......................................................................................................................... H38 Figure H36. Region R36 ......................................................................................................................... H39 Figure H37. Region R37 ......................................................................................................................... H40 Figure H38. Region R38 ......................................................................................................................... H41 Figure H39. Region R39 ......................................................................................................................... H42 Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins.......................................................................................................... J7 Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) ......................................................................................................... J8 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) .......................................................................................................................... J8 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3) ......................................................................................................... J9 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .......................................................................................................................... J9 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ..................................................................................... J10 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ....................................................................................................... J10 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7) ..................................................................................................... J11 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Quad Cities Generating Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8) .......................................................................................... J11 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ....................................................................................................... J12 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10) ................................................................................................... J12 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11) ......................................................................................................... J13 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ................................................................................... J13 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend/Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) ............................................................ J14 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ........................................................................ J14 Figure K1. QDC 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 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 Quad Cities Generating Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 ................................................................................ K36 Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 ................................................................................ K37 Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 ................................................................................ K38 Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 ................................................................................ K39 Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 ................................................................................ K40 Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 ................................................................................ K41 Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 ................................................................................ K42 Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 ................................................................................ K43 Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 ................................................................................ K44 Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 ................................................................................ K45 Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 ................................................................................ K46 Figure M1. Region R40 ............................................................................................................................ M8 Figure M2. Region R41 ............................................................................................................................ M9 Figure M3. Region R42 .......................................................................................................................... M10 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 ...................................................................................... 312 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by SubArea ................................................... 313 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ............................................................................ 313 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ...................................................................... 314 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ............................ 314 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 315 Table 37. School, College/University and Preschool Population Demand Estimates .......................... 316 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 318 Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary .............................................................. 318 Table 310. External Traffic in the QDC Study Area ................................................................................. 318 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 319 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 320 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 Quad Cities Generating Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions ............................................................................................... 66 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................. 67 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario .................................................................................................. 68 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 t he Affected Population ............................................................................................................................ 712 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ................................................................................................................................ 714 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ................................................................................................................................ 715 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 716 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources .................................................................................. 811 Table 82. School and Preschool Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ..................................... 812 Table 83. School and Preschool Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow.................................. 814 Table 84. School and Preschool Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ........................................ 816 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 818 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 818 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 819 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather ............................................... 819 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ............................................ 820 Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ................................................. 822 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 823 Table 101. Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes ......................................................................... 103 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions ......................................................................................................... 103 Table 103. School and Preschool Relocation/Reception Centers ........................................................... 105 Table A1. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................... A1 Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................ C8 Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ........................................................................... C9 Table C3. Glossary ..................................................................................................................................C10 Table E1. Schools within the EPZ .............................................................................................................. E2 Table E2. Preschools within the EPZ ........................................................................................................ E3 Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E4 Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E5 Table E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E6 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E7 Table E7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ........................................................................................ E8 Table F1. QDC Demographic Survey Sampling Plan................................................................................. F6 Table G1. List of Key Manual TACP Locations .......................................................................................... G3 Table G2. ETE with No MTC ..................................................................................................................... G3 Table H1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region ................................................. H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... 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 Quad Cities Generating Station ix KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 ....................................... M5 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study .................................................... M5 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M5 Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size............................................................... M6 Table M5. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................................................................................................................... M7 Table M6. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ........................................................................................................................... M7 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Quad Cities Generating Station x 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 ANS Alert and Notification systems ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ATE Advisory to Evacuate ATIS Automated Traveler Information Systems BFFS Base Free Flow Speed CR County Road COVID19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 D Destination DDHV Directional Design Hourly Volume DHV Design Hour Volume DMS Dynamic Message Sign DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment DTRAD Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution DYNEV Dynamic Network Evacuation EAS Emergency Alert System EB Eastbound EPZ Emergency Planning Zone EPFAQ Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question ETA Estimated Time of Arrival ETE Evacuation Time Estimate EVAN Evacuation Animator FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFS Free Flow Speed FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HAR Highway Advisory Radio HCM Highway Capacity Manual HH Household I Interstate IL Illinois State Route ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems LOS Level of Service MOE Measures of Effectiveness mph Miles Per Hour MUTCD Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MTC Manual Traffic Control NB Northbound NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Quad Cities Generating Station AL1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ACRONYM DEFINITION O Origin OD OriginDestination ORO Offsite Response Organization PAR Protective Action Recommendation pcphpl passenger car per hour per lane PSL PathSizeLogit QDC Quad Cities Generating Station QDF Queue Discharge Flow RC Reception Center SB Southbound SR State Route SV Service Volume TA Traffic Assignment TACP Traffic and Access Control Post TD Trip Distribution TI Time Interval TMP Traffic Management Plan UNITES Unified Transportation Engineering System USDOT United States Department of Transportation US US Highway vph Vehicles Per Hour vpm Vehicles Per Minute WB Westbound Quad Cities Generating Station AL2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to develop Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Quad Cities Generating Station (QDC) located in Cordova, Illinois. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Constellation and offsite response organizations (OROs) with sitespecific information needed for protective action decisionmaking.

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

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

Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, February 2021 Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG 0654/ Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual, FEMA P1028, December 2019.

Project Activities This project began in October 2020 and extended over a period of approximately 21 months.

The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

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

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

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ1) and commute to work within the EPZ from Constellation and supplemented by the previous ETE study (confirmed by counties) extrapolated to 2020 using the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 .

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

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

Designed and conducted an online demographic survey of residents within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region), to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that 1

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station ES1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and ORO personnel prior to conducting the survey.

A data needs matrix (requesting data) was provided to Constellation and the OROs at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, and special facilities (schools, preschools, colleges/universities, medical facilities, Clinton County Jail) in each county were provided by Constellation and the OROs, the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), the emergency plans from the Counties of Clinton and Scott, supplemented by internet searches and phone calls to individual facilities where data was missing. If updated information was not provided and could not be obtained from online sources/direct phone calls to the facilities, the data gathered in the 2014 ETE study (reviewed and confirmed still accurate by the OROs) was used for this study.

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

The EPZ is subdivided into 18 existing SubAreas. Following federal guidelines, these SubAreas are grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 39 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R39).

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, Rain/Light Snow, Heavy Snow). One special event scenario - Grand River Tug Fest

- was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane on I80 westbound was closed from the junction with US67 (Exit 306) to US61 (Exit 295) and a single lane closure on I88 eastbound from the junction of Moline Rd to the end of the study area (approximately 5 miles east of the interchange Exit 18 - with Albany Rd).

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station ES2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

If the emergency occurs while schools and preschools are in session, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly to relocation or reception centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advised to not pick up their children at schools or preschools 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. Those in medical facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: by bus, wheelchair van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for access and/or functional needs population, and for those evacuated from medical facilities. Inmates at Clinton County Jail shelters in place, so no evacuees are considered for this facility.

Attended a meeting with Constellation personnel and the OROs to present results from the study.

Computation of ETE A total of 546 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 39 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (39 x 14 = 546). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including the children at schools and preschools for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station ES3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90% and 100%, respectively, of the population within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. These statistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats. The 90th percentile ETE 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 plans provided in IPRA, the QDCTraffic and Control Map (IPRAMap A) and the Counties of Clinton and Scott.

The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7.3 indicate that evacuation routes servicing the City of Clinton are oversaturated and experience pronounced traffic congestion during evacuation due to the limited capacity of the roadways and the large volume of evacuating traffic. When heavy traffic persists in competing directions, the traffic and access control posts (TACPs) within the EPZ do little to reduce the ETE for Region R03. As such, no additional TACPs are identified as a result of this study. See Section 9 and Appendix G.

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

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

Table 61 defines each of the 39 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of SubAreas.

Table 62 defines the 14 Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 71 and Table 72 are compilations of ETE for the general population. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90% and 100% of the population Quad Cities Generating Station ES4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region. These tables also include ETE results for staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region.

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 61 displays a map of the QDC EPZ showing the layout of the 18 Subareas 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 546 unique cases - a combination of 39 unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios. Table 71 and Table 72 document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles. The 90th percentile ETE range from 1:55 (hr:min) to 4:15. The 100th percentile ETE range from 5:00 to 6:10 and are dictated by the tip mobilization of residents (i.e., the time it takes to prepare to evacuate plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary).

The comparison of Table 71 and 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 those evacuees who take longer to mobilize and not congestion within the EPZ. See Figures 78 through 721.

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. See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenario 5 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening with good weather) and Scenario 13 (summer, midweek/weekend, evening, special event) in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that the Special Event - an event at Great River Tug Fest - has no impact on the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 14 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicate that roadway closure - i.e., single lane close on I80 and single lane closure on I88 (see Section 2.6, item 1 for additional information) - has no impact on ETE at the 90th or 100th percentiles. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Quad Cities Generating Station ES5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The majority of the congestion (LOS C or worse) is located beyond the 5Mile Region, near the City of Clinton, located in SubArea IA11. All traffic congestion within the EPZ clears by 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 77.

Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools, medical facilities, transit dependent persons, and the access and/or functional needs persons. No separate ETE were computed for Clinton County Jail, as per emergency plans provided by Clinton County, the inmates would shelter in place. The average singlewave ETE is 55 minutes shorter for school/preschool population, 10 minutes longer for the transitdependent persons, 20 minutes shorter for medical facility population, and 15 minutes longer for access and/or functional needs population when compared to the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances available to evacuate the transitdependent population within the EPZ in a single wave.

A reduction in the base trip generation time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> reduces the general population ETE at the 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE by 15 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively. An increase in mobilization by one hour increase the general population 90th and 100th percentile ETEs by 5 minutes and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively. As such, the general population ETE at the 90th percentile is insensitive to changes in the base trip generation time, whereas a significant change will impact the 100th percentile ETE. See Table M1.

The general population ETE is slightly impacted by the increase or decrease in voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region for 90th percentile ETE eliminating shadow evacuation decreases the ETE by 5 minutes, quadrupling and full shadow evacuation increases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 and 10 minutes respectively not a significant change. The 100th percentile ETE does not get impacted by any changes in the shadow evacuation percentages since it is dictated by the trip generation time. See Table M2.

A population increase of 24% or greater result in the longest 90th percentile ETE to increase by 30 minutes for the full EPZ (Region R03), which meets the federal criteria for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Appendix M.3 and Table M3.

Table M4 shows that increasing the Average Household Size to 2.91 (from demographic survey) instead of 2.39 (from Census data) will decrease the 90th percentile ETE (by at most 20 minutes), and have no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as it is dictated by the trip generation. See Appendix M.4 for additional information.

Table M5 and Table M6 show there are no impacts to the 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE, for all scenarios, when Region R13 and R28 evacuate without the evacuation of SubArea IA4 and Region R20 evacuates without the evacuation of Sub Area IA8 (creating additional Regions R40, R41, and R42), as requested by Constellation.

See Appendix M.5 for additional discussion Quad Cities Generating Station ES6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Subarea 2010 Population 2020 Population IA1 63 120 IA2 25 32 IA3 637 605 IA4 459 443 IA5 4,640 4,535 IA6 1,361 1,387 IA7 355 325 IA8 467 461 IA9 437 422 IA10 311 272 IA11 26,567 24,329 IA12 4,773 5,222 IL1 260 234 IL2 1,076 1,029 IL3 977 954 IL4 635 586 IL5 461 431 IL6 2,883 2,970 TOTAL 46,387 44,357 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 4.38%

Quad Cities Generating Station ES7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions SubArea Degrees Region Description in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 2Mile R01 N/A X X X Region 5Mile R02 N/A X X X X X X X X X Region R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R04 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R05 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R06 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R07 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R08 SSE 147º169º X X X X X R09 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R10 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R11 W 260°281° X X X X X X R12 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R13 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X3 X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R14 N 350°11° X X X X X X X X X R15 NNE, NE 12°56° X X X X X X X X X X R16 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X X X X X R17 E 80°101° X X X X X X X X X X X R18 ESE 102°124° X X X X X X X X X X R19 SE 125°146° X X X X X X X X X X R20 SSE 147°169° X X X X X X X X X R21 S 170°191° X X X X X X X X X X R22 SSW 192°214° X X X X X X X X X X R23 SW 215°237° X X X X X X X X X R24 WSW 238°259° X X X X X X X X R25 W 260°281° X X X X X X X X X X R26 WNW 282°304° X X X X X X X X R27 NW 305°326° X X X X X X X R28 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X X X3 X X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 3

Site specific Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) indicates that Sub-Area IA4 evacuates even if not within the plume.

Quad Cities Generating Station ES8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 5Mile R29 Region N/A X X X X X X X X X R30 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R31 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R32 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R33 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R34 SSE 147°169° X X X X X R35 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R36 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R37 W 260°281° X X X X X X R38 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R39 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X3 X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station ES9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season4 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Midweek, Special Event: Great 13 Summer Evening Good Weekend River Tug Fest Roadway Impact: Single 14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Lane Closure on I80 and I88 4

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).

Quad Cities Generating Station ES10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and Full EPZ R01 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R02 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R03 3:10 3:20 3:05 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:20 4:00 3:00 3:10 3:40 3:00 3:05 3:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 2:50 3:30 2:30 2:30 3:25 2:35 2:30 2:50 R05 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 R06 2:50 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:30 2:50 R07 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R08 2:55 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 2:55 R09 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R10 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 2:55 R11 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 3:00 3:40 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 3:00 R12 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 3:30 2:30 2:30 3:25 2:30 2:30 2:45 R13 2:55 2:55 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:25 R15 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R16 2:30 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:20 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:30 R17 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R18 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 3:00 R19 3:20 3:35 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:20 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:20 R20 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:35 3:20 3:25 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:20 3:20 R21 3:20 3:30 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:25 3:35 4:10 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:20 R22 3:15 3:25 3:10 3:25 3:15 3:20 3:30 4:10 3:10 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:15 3:15 R23 3:15 3:25 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:15 3:30 4:05 3:10 3:20 3:50 3:10 3:15 3:15 R24 3:15 3:25 3:10 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:25 4:15 3:00 3:15 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:15 R25 3:15 3:20 3:05 3:25 3:10 3:20 3:25 4:05 3:05 3:15 3:50 3:10 3:10 3:15 R26 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R27 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R28 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:20 2:20 2:20 Quad Cities Generating Station ES11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:40 3:00 3:00 3:10 R30 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:50 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:50 R31 2:55 2:55 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:35 2:40 2:40 2:55 R32 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:40 2:40 3:35 2:40 2:40 2:50 R33 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 R34 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:10 R35 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:10 R36 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 R37 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:40 3:00 3:00 3:05 R38 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 3:30 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:45 R39 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 Quad Cities Generating Station ES12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and Full EPZ R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R15 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R16 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R17 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R18 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R19 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R21 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R22 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R23 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R24 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R25 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R26 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R27 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R28 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Quad Cities Generating Station ES13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R29 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R30 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R31 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R32 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R33 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R34 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R35 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R36 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R37 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R38 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R39 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Quad Cities Generating Station ES14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R02 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R05 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R08 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R09 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R10 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R11 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R12 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R13 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R30 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R31 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R32 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R33 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R34 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R35 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R36 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R37 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R38 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R39 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 Quad Cities Generating Station ES15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R06 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R07 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R08 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R09 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R10 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R11 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R12 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R13 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R30 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R31 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R32 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R33 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R34 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R35 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R36 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R37 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R38 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R39 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Quad Cities Generating Station ES16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Riverdale Middle School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 Riverdale High School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 Riverdale Elementary School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Camanche Middle School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Camanche High School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Camanche Elementary School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Bluff Elementary School 90 15 12.1 55.0 13 2:00 21.9 24 2:25 Clinton High School 90 15 15.8 16.9 56 2:45 37.9 41 3:30 Whittier Elementary School 90 15 14.7 16.1 55 2:40 27.3 30 3:10 Jefferson Elementary School 90 15 14.7 16.1 55 2:40 27.3 30 3:10 Prince of Peace Catholic School 90 15 15.9 14.4 66 2:55 28.9 32 3:30 Clinton Middle School 90 15 13.0 17.1 46 2:35 22.6 25 3:00 Eagle Heights Elementary School 90 15 17.0 9.8 104 3:30 27.3 30 4:00 SCOTT COUNTY Virgil Grissom Elementary School 90 15 10.2 51.6 12 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Cody Elementary School 90 15 5.0 48.9 6 1:55 12.7 14 2:10 Bridgeview Elementary School 90 15 5.3 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 90 15 2.8 48.5 3 1:50 12.7 14 2:05 PRESCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Life's Little Miracles Inc. 90 15 2.4 43.6 3 1:50 16.8 18 2:10 Messiah Luthern Church Preschool 90 15 2.4 43.6 3 1:50 16.8 18 2:10 Quad Cities Generating Station ES17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Stay N Play 90 15 15.3 21.9 42 2:30 5.2 6 2:40 Unity Christian 90 15 15.3 21.9 42 2:30 5.2 6 2:40 Mercy Child & Preschool 90 15 15.3 22.1 42 2:30 6.3 7 2:40 YWCA Clinton 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Zion Child Care Preschool 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Ashford PreSchool 90 15 14.4 15.5 56 2:45 5.2 6 2:55 Clinton Head Start 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Wee School For Little People 90 15 13.6 15.2 54 2:40 6.3 7 2:50 YWCA Children's Center 90 15 3.3 6.1 33 2:20 21.3 23 2:45 St John Lutheran Preschool 90 15 3.3 6.1 33 2:20 21.3 23 2:45 SCOTT COUNTY North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 90 15 10.2 51.6 12 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 90 15 5.6 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 90 15 5.3 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 Maximum for EPZ: 3:30 Maximum: 4:00 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:40 Quad Cities Generating Station ES18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

IL1, IL3, & IL6 1 150 7.9 49.9 10 30 3:10 16.8 18 5 10 36 30 4:50 IL2, IL4, & IL5 1 150 6.9 46.1 9 30 3:10 8.9 10 5 10 26 30 4:35 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 1 150 15.3 51.2 18 30 3:20 3.9 4 5 10 38 30 4:50 IA3, IA5, & IA7 1 150 11.0 52.8 12 30 3:15 16.6 18 5 10 42 30 5:00 IA6 & IA12 1 150 11.0 50.3 13 30 3:15 11.8 13 5 10 38 30 4:55 IA9 & IA11 (1) 2 150 14.0 17.7 47 30 3:50 12.4 14 5 10 50 30 5:40 IA9 & IA11(2) 1 150 15.2 23.7 39 30 3:40 9.8 11 5 10 50 30 5:30 Maximum ETE: 3:50 Maximum ETE: 5:40 Average ETE: 3:25 Average ETE: 5:05 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Travel Time Rate Total to EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 31 30 11.9 13 2:15 Park Vista Retirement Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 18 20 11.9 13 2:05 Camanche Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.9 13 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 9 9 14.6 55 2:35 Mercy Living Center North Wheelchair bound 90 5 58 20 14.6 56 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 44 30 14.7 45 2:45 Sarah Harding Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 14.7 40 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 59 30 16.0 64 3:05 Park Towers Wheelchair bound 90 5 11 20 16.0 66 3:00 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 16.0 67 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 77 30 12.5 40 2:40 Prairie Hills at Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 12.5 32 2:15 Countryside of Clinton Ambulatory 90 1 33 30 13.5 53 2:55 Quad Cities Generating Station ES19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 90 1 27 27 12.8 45 2:45 Bickford of Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 12.8 42 2:35 Ambulatory 90 1 26 26 13.5 53 2:50 Village Cooperative Wheelchair bound 90 5 15 20 13.5 53 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 13.5 52 2:40 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 13.5 53 2:55 Alverno Health Care Facility Wheelchair bound 90 5 92 20 13.5 53 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 4 30 13.5 53 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 23 23 14.7 43 2:40 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Wheelchair bound 90 5 48 20 14.7 42 2:35 Hospice Bedridden 90 15 8 30 14.7 45 2:45 Ambulatory 90 1 43 30 14.6 54 2:55 MercyOne Clinton Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 19 20 14.6 56 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 4 2 14.6 53 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 41 30 20.4 98 3:40 Lyons Manor Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 20 20.4 115 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:45 Ambulatory 90 1 58 30 20.4 98 3:40 Eagle Point Health Care Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 20.4 115 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:45 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 2:55 Quad Cities Generating Station ES20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 22% 23% 24%

Population 55,119 67,245 67,796 68,348 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 22% 23% 24%

2MILE 2:40 2:55 2:55 2:55 5MILE 3:40 3:45 3:45 3:45 FULL EPZ 4:00 4:25 4:25 4:30 ETE for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 22% 23% 24%

2MILE 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 5MILE 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 FULL EPZ 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 Quad Cities Generating Station ES21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. QDC EPZ Subareas Quad Cities Generating Station ES22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Quad Cities Generating Station ES23 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 Quad Cities Generating Station (QDC), located in Rock Island County, Illinois. This ETE study provides Constellation, state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

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

The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by Constellation and local stakeholders who contributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required.

Table 11 presents a summary of stakeholders and interactions.

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended a project kickoff meeting with personnel from Constellation, the emergency planners of the Clinton County, Scott County, Whiteside County, Rock Island County, and the State of Illinois (Illinois Emergency Management Agency, IEMA) and the State of Iowa to discuss methodology, project assumptions and to identify issues to be addressed and resources available.

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

d. Reviewed existing county and state Emergency Operations Plans.

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

g. Obtained data (to the extent available) to update the database of special facilities (i.e., schools, preschools, colleges/universities, medical facilities and correctional facilities), major employers, transient attractions, access and/or functional needs population, transportation resources available, the special event, and other important information.

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

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

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

5. Used the 18 existing SubAreas which generally follow township boundaries and major roadways or rivers to define Evacuation Regions. Regions are groups of contiguous SubAreas for which ETE are calculated. The configurations of these Regions reflect wind direction and the radial extent of the impacted area. Each Region, other than those that approximate circular areas, approximates a keyhole section within the EPZ as recommended by NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at schools2, preschools, medical and Clinton County Jail, 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 county and state agencies, online sources, Constellation and from the demographic survey.

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

c. Applied the procedures specified in the 2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 20163) to the data acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highway segments comprising the evacuation routes.

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

2 Schools also include the commuter colleges/universities within the EPZ.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

1.2 The Quad Cities Generating Station Location The QDC site is located in Cordova, Rock Island County, in Illinois. The site is approximately 70 miles southwest of Rockford Illinois and 150 miles west of Chicago, Illinois. It is on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River opposite the mouth of the Wapsipinicon River. The EPZ consists of portions of Rock Island and Whiteside Counties in Illinois and the Counties of Clinton and Scott in Iowa. Figure 11 shows the location of the QDC site relative to Rockford and Chicago, 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Freeway: limited access highway, 2 or more lanes in each direction, high free flow speeds Freeway Ramp: ramp on to or off of a limited access highway Major Arterial: 3 or more lanes in each direction Minor Arterial: 2 lanes in each direction Collector: single lane in each direction Local Roadway: single lane in each direction, local road with low free flow speeds.

As documented on page 156 of the HCM 2016, the capacity of a twolane highway is 1,700 passenger cars per hour in one direction. For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles per hour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 1237 of the HCM 2016. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2016 Exhibit 1546. . Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II, which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

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

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 model 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used, and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the software product, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator), developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displays statistics output by DYNEV II, such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, 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 The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ increased by at most 30 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios and at most 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> for heavy snow scenarios when compared with the previous ETE study. The 100th percentile ETE (dictated by the trip generation time plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) for the full EPZ increases 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 for nonheavy snow scenarios and 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for heavy snow scenarios.

Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the previous ETE study (KLD TR 631, dated April 8, 2014). 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 decreased by 4.4%, which could result in less evacuating vehicles, but the permanent resident occupancy per vehicle decreased by approximately 11%, which resulted in an overall increase (8.2%) in the number of permanent resident vehicles, which can increase ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region has increased by 13.7%, and the number of Shadow Region permanent resident vehicles has increased by 27.7%,

which results in more evacutaing vehicles the Shadow Region and reduces the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees, which can increase ETE.

The number of employees commuting into the EPZ decreased significantly by 32.1%,

due to the updated NRCs criteria for major employers from 50 or more employees per Quad Cities Generating Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

shift to 200 or more employees per shift. A decrease in this quickly mobilizing population group can cause the 90th percentile ETE to increase as it will take longer to reach an evacuation of 90% of all vehicles. A decrease in the number of employee vehicles can decrease the 100th percentile ETE.

The number of transit dependent population requiring a bus has decreased by 70.5%, as the ridesharing percentage increased, 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.

The number of transients, patients at medical facilities and school/preschool enrollment has increased by 7.9%, 1.7% and 1.8% respectively. Additional people at these facilities, increases the number of vehicles within the EPZ which can increase the ETE.

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

o The permanent residents with commuters during nonheavy snow scenarios and heavy snow scenarios increased by 90 minutes and 60 minutes, respectively.

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

As the mobilization time dictates the ETE, as discussed in Section 7.3, these increases in mobilization can increase ETE.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define project methodology and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies. Provided recent QDC employee data. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions and Constellation draft report. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results and coordinated with OROs.

Attended final meeting where the ETE study results were presented.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define data Clinton County Office of Emergency needs. Provided emergency plans, traffic management Management plans and other information critical to the ETE study.

Reviewed, confirmed and provided special facility data and Scott County Emergency Management Agency transient data. Reviewed and approved all study assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was Rock Island County Sheriff Department & Rock informed of the study results. Attended final meeting Island County Emergency Management Agency where the ETE study results were presented.

Reviewed and confirmed special facility data and transient data. Reviewed and approved all study assumptions.

Iowa Homeland Security 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons Topic Previous (2014) 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 = 46,387 Population = 44,357 Vehicles = 26,287 Vehicles = 28,430 Resident 2.24 persons/household, 1.29 2.39 persons/household, 1.55 evacuating Population Vehicle evacuating vehicles/household yielding: vehicles/household yielding: 1.54 Occupancy 1.74 persons/vehicle persons/vehicle Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information extracted from the previous information provided about major ETE study using the US Census employers in EPZ, US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Employee Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census Population Dynamics and phone calls to some analysis tool. The values of 1.05 employers employees per vehicle based on Employees = 2,806 demographic survey results.

Vehicles = 2,806 Employees = 1,904 Vehicles = 1,813 ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census Shadow blocks; area ratio method used. blocks; area ratio method used.

Population 20% Population = 9,463 20% Population = 10,762 20% Vehicles = 5,319 20% Vehicles = 6,792 Estimates based upon U.S. Census data Estimates based upon U.S. Census data and the results of the telephone survey.

and the results of the demographic A total of 404 people who do not have survey. A total of 119 people who do not access to a vehicle, requiring 14 buses have access to a vehicle, requiring 8 TransitDependent to evacuate. An additional 85 buses to evacuate. An additional 169 Population homebound special needs persons access and/or functional needs persons require special transportation to require special transportation to evacuate (8 buses, 8 wheelchair vans evacuate (10 buses, 16 wheelchair vans and 1 ambulance - are required to and 3 ambulance).

evacuate this population).

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient information provided from the previous Transient attractions in EPZ. ETE study (confirmed or updated by Population Constellation, Scott County and IEMA.

Transients = 7,519 Transients = 7,600 Transient vehicles = 3,442 Transient Vehicles = 3,499 Quad Cities Generating Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous (2014) ETE Study Current ETE Study Special facility population based on information extracted from last study, Special facility population based on reviewed and confirmed by Constellation, information provided by Constellation and Clinton County Emergency Special Facilities Current Census = 724 Management, supplemented by internet Population Buses Required = 19 searches and direct phone calls Wheelchair Buses = 68 Current Census = 872 Ambulances = 11 Buses Required = 22 Wheelchair Buses = 77 Ambulances = 14 School population based on information School population based on information obtained from the Illinois Plan for provided by Constellation Radiological Accidents (IPRA) internet searches, and direct phone calls.

School Population School/Preschool enrollment = 9,311 in 332 buses School/Preschool enrollment = 9,477 in Colleges/Universities enrollment = 840 352 buses in 670 personal passenger vehicles Colleges/Universities = 840 in 670 personal passenger vehicles External Traffic (vehicles that travel External Traffic (vehicles that travel through the EPZ) is based on the through the EPZ) is based on the Average Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data from the External Traffic data from Federal Highway Illinois Department of Transportation Administration (HPMS, 2013). AADT website.

8,788 vehicles entering the EPZ as 9,264 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips externalexternal trips Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the 20 percent of the population within the within EPZ in areas EPZ, but not within the Evacuation EPZ, but not within the Evacuation outside region to Region (see Figure 21) Region (see Figure 21) 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)

Network Size 1,235 links; 969 nodes 1,460 links; 1,143 nodes Field surveys conducted in January Field surveys conducted in November Roadway 2014. Roads and intersections were 2020. Roads and intersections were video Geometric Data video archived. archived.

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

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

Approximately 88 percent of transit 50 percent of transitdependent dependent persons will evacuate with a Ridesharing persons will evacuate with a neighbor neighbor or friend based on results of the or friend.

demographic survey.

Quad Cities Generating Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous (2014) ETE Study Current ETE Study Based on residential telephone survey Based on residential demographic survey of specific pretrip mobilization of specific pretrip mobilization activities:

activities:

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 60 and 300 minutes (360 leave between 45 and 210 minutes (300 minutes with heavy snow).

minutes with heavy snow).

Trip Generation Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning for Evacuation leave between 30 and 255 minutes (330 leave between 15 and 150 minutes (210 minutes with heavy snow).

minutes with heavy snow).

Employees and transients leave between Employees and transients leave 15 and 105 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 Snow.

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

network are reduced by 10% in the in the event of rain, 15% in rain/light event of rain and 20% for snow.

snow and 25% for heavy snow.

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.18.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.21.0 MultiState Event - Great River Tug Fest MultiState Event - Great River Tug Fest Special Event Population = 2,500 Special Event Population = 2,500 Special Events additional transients additional transients Special Event Vehicles = 1,116 Special Event Vehicles = 1,046 36 Regions (central sector wind 39 Regions (central sector wind direction direction and each adjacent sector Evacuation Cases and 5 sector approach) and 14 Scenarios technique used) and 14 Scenarios producing 546 unique cases.

producing 504 unique cases.

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

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather: 3:15 Evacuation Time Good Weather: 2:45 Rain/Light Snow: 3:20 Estimates for the Rain: 3:00 Heavy Snow: 4:00 entire EPZ, 90th Snow: 3:20Summer, Weekend, Midday, percentile Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:35 Good Weather: 3:05 Rain: 2:55 Rain: 3:15 Winter Midweek Midday, Winter Midweek Midday, Good Weather: 4:00 Good Weather: 5:10 Evacuation Time Rain: 4:25 Rain/Light Snow: 5:10 Estimates for the Snow: 5:10 Heavy Snow: 6:10 entire EPZ, 100th percentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 3:50 Good Weather: 5:10 Rain: 4:10 Rain: 5:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. QDC Site Location Quad Cities Generating Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. QDC LinkNode Analysis Network Quad Cities Generating Station 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.

2.1 Data Estimates

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

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data provided by Constellation and supplemented by the old data from the previous ETE study, extrapolated to 2020 using the US Census Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics from the OnTheMap Census analysis tool2 (see Section 3.4).

3. Population estimates at special and transient facilities are based on the data received from Scott County and Constellation, ChildcareCenter.us3, the Health Resources and Service Administration website4 and the previous ETE study, supplemented by internet searches and phone call inquiries where data is missing.

4. The relationship between the permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles was based on the 2020 Census and the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F). Average values of 2.39 persons per household (Section F.3.1) and 1.55 evacuating vehicles per household (Section F.3.2) are used.

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: 2.03 people per vehicle

b. Golf Courses: 2.23 people per vehicle

c. Marinas: 2.23 people per vehicle

d. Parks: 2.23 people per vehicle

e. Other Recreational facilities: 2.25 people per vehicle

f. Lodging Facilities: 2.19 people per vehicle

g. Special Event (the Great River Tug Fest): Transients attending the event travel as families (households) in a single vehicle. As such, the average household size of 2.39 transient per vehicle was used.

1 www.census.gov 2

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

3 https://childcarecenter.us/

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

6. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. 1.05 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).

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

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

a. In accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, only those roadway construction projects that 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) were 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 following5 (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 Advisory to Evacuate.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at 41° 43' 35.04" N, 90° 18' 34.92" W.

3. The DYNEV II6 system is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

5. The existing EPZ and SubArea boundaries are used. (See Figure 31.)

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

5 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.

See Section 5.1 for more detail.

6 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 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 SubAreas of the EPZ not advised to evacuate will voluntarily evacuate, as shown in Figure 21, as per NRC guidance. Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).

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

9. The ETE are presented 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 ETE also includes consideration of through (ExternalExternal traffic that originates its trip outside of the study area and has its destination outside of the study area) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region (see Section 3.11).

11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the evacuation.

Rather, there is an initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the anticipated traffic volumes from the start of the evacuation is loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of 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 volume (main street) is more significant than the competing (side street) traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 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 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, 80.5% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.1); 65.3% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Appendix F, subsection F.3.2).

Therefore, 53% (80.5% x 65.3% = 52.6% rounded up to 53%) 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, 88.3% of the transitdependent population rideshare.

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

a. Schools and preschools

i. If schools and preschools are in session, transport (buses) evacuate students directly to the relocation/reception centers.

ii. Buses evacuate children at preschools (which includes daycare centers) within the EPZ, as needed.

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

iv. Children at schools and preschools, if in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

b. Medical Facilities

i. Buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances evacuate patients at medical facilities within the EPZ, as needed.

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory (63%), wheelchair bound (36%)

and bedridden patients (3%) from the other existing medical facilities was used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients at the medical facilities wherein new data was not provided.

c. Correctional Facility - Clinton County Jail

i. As per data in the state emergency plans, inmates at this facility shelters inplace. As such, no buses are considered for this study.

d. Transitdependent permanent residents

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

ii. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance Quad Cities Generating Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(ambulance, bus or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. The type of assistance breakdown was not provided, so percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound, and bedridden patients of the medical facilities was utilized. 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.

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

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

3. Transit vehicle capacities:

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

b. Buses used for transit dependent population, access and/or functional needs population and medical facility patients = 30 persons per bus

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

d. Wheelchair vans = 4 wheelchair bound persons

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

a. School and preschool buses arrive at these facilities to be evacuated within 90 minutes of the ATE.

b. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when 90% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization at 150 minutes if the ATE (see Figure 54). If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize slowly.

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

d. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

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

b. School buses are loaded in 15 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

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

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

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. Great River Tug Fest, located in Le Claire, Iowa and Port Byron, Illinois (SubAreas IA12 and IL6), 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. Any roadway closures that may occur during this event, is assumed that the roads will be reopened in the event of an emergency.

b. As per NRC guidance, one segment of one of the highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the closure of a single lane on Interstate (I)80 westbound, from the junction with US 67 (Exit 306) to US 61 (Exit 295) and I88 eastbound from Moline Road (Exit 10) to approximately 5 miles east of Albany Road (Exit 18) for the roadway impact scenario - Scenario 14.

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4. Some evacuees will need additional time for heavy snow scenarios to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system. The distribution of time for this activity was gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 135 minutes for permanent residents. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat the public roadway system.

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

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

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 and the EPAA11F06 Quad Cities PAR Flowchart, provided by Constellation. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the SubAreas included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Five adjoining sectors (as per PAR) are considered. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of SubAreas forming a Region that is issued an ATE will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord with the planned routes.

8. Due to the irregular shapes of the SubAreas, there are instances where a small portion of a SubArea (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the SubArea population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the SubArea 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 Constellation 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 R29 through R39 in Table 61.

Quad Cities Generating Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Day of Time of Scenario Season7 Week Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow Heavy 8 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Heavy 11 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Midweek, Special Event: Great River 13 Summer Evening Good Weekend Tug Fest Roadway Impact Lane:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on I80 and I88 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Mobilization Mobilization Free Time for Time for Special Highway Flow General Facility/Transit Loading Time for Loading Time for Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles School Buses Transit Buses8 Rain/Light 10minute 5minute 90% 90% No Effect 10minute increase Snow increase increase Clear driveway Heavy before leaving 20minute 10minute 75% 85% 20minute increase Snow home (See increase increase Figure F19)

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

7 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).

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Quad Cities Generating Station 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the population characteristics of the QDC 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 (shopping, recreation) and then leave the area.

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

Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each SubArea and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The QDC EPZ is subdivided into 18 SubAreas. The SubAreas comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Quad Cities Generating Station 31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1 Permanent Residents The primary source for estimating permanent population is the latest U.S. Census data with an availability date of September 16, 2021. The average household size (2.39 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census - See Section 2.1 and Appendix F). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.55 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was computed from the demographic survey results.

The permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the SubArea and EPZ boundaries using GIS software. A ratio of the original area of each census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total block population to estimate the population within the EPZ. This methodology (referred to as the area ratio method) assumes that the population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 31 provides permanent resident population within the EPZ, by SubArea, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by 4.38% since the 2010 Census.

To estimate the number of vehicles, the 2020 Census permanent resident population is divided by the average household size (2.39 persons/household) and multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.55 vehicles/household). Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and the permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from QDC. This population rose was constructed using GIS software. Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities, group homes, prisons, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. To avoid double counting vehicles, the vehicle estimates for these people have been removed. The resident vehicles in Table 32 and Figure 33 have been adjusted accordingly.

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

Shadow population characteristics (household size, evacuating vehicles per household, mobilization time) are assumed to be the same as 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at camping facilities, hotels and motels. Data for these facilities were provided by Constellation and by Scott County. When data was not provided, the number of transient vehicles was estimated based on the capacity of parking lots or number of hotel rooms, which was obtained from aerial imagery and facility websites. It is assumed that transients travel to the recreational areas as a family/household. As such, the average household size (2.39 - See Section 3.1) was used to estimate the transient population. The transient attractions within the QDC EPZ are summarized as follow:

Campgrounds - 539 transients and 266 vehicles; 2.03 transients per vehicle Golf Courses - 450 transients and 202 vehicles; 2.23 transients per vehicle Historical Site (Albany Mounds State Historic Site) - 0 transient and 0 vehicle (visitors at this facility are local residents and have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1, see discussion below for details)

Marinas - 796 transients and 357 vehicles; 2.23 transients per vehicle Parks - 800 transients and 358 vehicles; 2.23 transients per vehicle (NOTE: Local parks are not included; visitors to these facilities are local residents and have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1.)

Other Recreational Facilities - 3,503 transients and 1,556 vehicles; 2.25 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 1,512 transients and 732 vehicles; 2.19 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E5 presents the number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas, while Table E6 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) requested that the facilities identified in the EPZ county plans should be considered in this study. In addition to the major transient attractions discussed above, the following smaller facilities within the EPZ are listed in the county plans:

Albany Marina Albany Mounds State Historic Site Dolan Memorial Park Golden Meals Site Dorrance Park There are no transients considered at these facilities in this study. The people visiting these facilities have already been counted as permanent residents in Section 3.1 above.

In total, there are 7,600 transients evacuating in 3,471 vehicles (an average of 2.19 transients per vehicle). Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Sub Area. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.

Quad Cities Generating Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.4 Employees The estimate of employees commuting into the EPZ is based on the data from the previous ETE study extrapolated to 2020 using the shortterm employment projections obtained from the State of Illinois1, the State of Iowa2, and the 2018 LEHD (Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics) OriginDestination Employment Statistics (LODES) data3 provided by the U.S. Census Bureaus OnTheMap Census analysis tool4.

Data collected for the previous study included the maximum shift employment data for each facility. This data was extrapolated to 2020 using statewide shortterm employment projections based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as the major employers. As such, employers 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 2018 LEHD LODES data from OnTheMap website was then used to estimate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but live outside. This value, 53.4%, was applied to the maximum shift employee values to compute the number of people commuting to work in the EPZ at peak times. Note, the number of QDC employees who live outside of the EPZ was estimated based on the data provided by Constellation, as shown in Appendix E, Table E4.

There are a total of 1,904 employees commuting into the EPZ on a daily basis. To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy of 1.05 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1) was used for the major employer. Table 35 presents employees commuting into the EPZ and their vehicles by Sub Area. Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

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

Medical Facilities Correctional Facility - Clinton County Jail.

1 https://ides.illinois.gov/resources/labor-market-information/employment-projections 2

https://www.iowaworkforcedevelopment.gov/industry-projections 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/

4 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A total of 816 patients require transit vehicles in a total of 122 transit vehicles (buses, wheelchair vans and ambulances) are needed. No transit vehicles are needed for the 56 inmates within Clinton County Jail, as per the Clinton County emergency plans, all inmates will shelterinplace. Section 3.5.1 (Medical Facilities) and Section 3.5.2 (Correctional Facilities) below discuss the data in detail at each facility.

3.5.1 Medical Facility Data was reviewed and confirmed by Constellation and Clinton County Emergency Management for each of the medical facilities within the EPZ. In addition to the preexisting medical facilities included in the previous study, there are two new facilities - Park Vista Retirement Living in Camanche and Village Cooperative where the breakdown of patients was not available. It was assumed that the percent breakdown of the other existing medical facilities was used to determine the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients. Table E3 in Appendix E summarizes the data provided. Table 36 presents the census of medical facilities in the EPZ. A total of 816 people (501 ambulatory, 294 wheelchairbound and 21 bedridden) have been identified as living in, or being treated in, these facilities. The number and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' state of health.

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

36. The number of ambulance runs is determined by assuming that 2 patients can be accommodated per ambulance trip; the number of wheelchair van runs assumes 4 wheelchairs per trip and the number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip. As such, a total of 112 vehicles (22 buses, 77 wheelchair vans, and 13 ambulances) are required.

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

3.5.2 Correctional Facility As detailed in Table E7, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - the Clinton County Jail. The total inmate population at this facility is 56 persons, which was obtained by inquiring on Clinton County website. Based on the Clinton County Emergency Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the Clinton County Jail will not evacuate, all inmates will shelterinplace with an adequate of staff. Thus, no bus will be assigned to Clinton County Jail.

3.6 School Population Demand 3.6.1 Schools and Preschools Table 37 presents the school and preschool population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all facilities obtained from the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) and supplemented by internet searches and direct phone calls. The column in Table 37 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school and pre school under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

• No children at schools and preschools will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses.

Quad Cities Generating Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• While many high school students commute to school using private automobiles (as discussed in Section 2.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), the estimate of buses required for school evacuation do not consider the use of these private vehicles.

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

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

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

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

Buses for schools and preschools are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.6.2 Colleges and Universities There are three higher education facilities with the EPZ. It is assumed that students will evacuate using personal vehicles. Thus, no buses were considered for these facilities. The same trip generation distribution (see Section 5) as employees was used for those students evacuating in private vehicles as they are essentially commuters.

Clinton Community College Technology Center (located in Clinton, 8.0 miles northnortheast of QDC) has a total of 100 students according to enrollment data provided by Constellation. It is conservatively assumed that none of the students live within the EPZ. Each student is assumed to commute daily in a personal vehicle. Thus, 100 evacuating vehicles are considered for this school.

Clinton Community College (located in Clinton, 9.0 miles northeast of QDC) has a total of 400 students according to enrollment data provided by Constellation. It is conservatively assumed that all the students live outside of the EPZ. Each student is assumed to commute daily in a personal vehicle. Thus, 400 evacuating vehicles are considered for this school.

Ashford University Clinton Campus (located in Clinton, 11.1 miles northnortheast of QDC) has a total of 340 students according to enrollment data provided by Constellation. Aerial imagery was used to locate student parking lots and count parking spaces. A total of 170 evacuating vehicles are considered for this school based on the parking lot capacity. It is assumed that 50%

of students will rideshare such that all students can be evacuated in the 170 vehicles.

Quad Cities Generating Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

Table 38 presents estimates of transitdependent people. Note:

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

• It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario5 who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, 88% of the transit dependent population will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on an estimated average bus occupancy of 30 persons at the conclusion of the bus run. Transit vehicle seating capacities typically equal or exceed 60 children 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 percent. Thus, if the actual demand for service exceeds the estimates of Table 38 by 50 percent, the demand for service can still be accommodated by the available bus seating capacity.

2 20 10 40 1.5 1.00 3

Table 38 indicates that transportation must be provided for 119 people. Therefore, a total of 4 bus runs are required from a capacity standpoint. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have a least one bus drive through each of the designated assembly points, as per IPRA emergency plan, to pick up transit dependent people, 8 bus runs are used in the ETE calculations. These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to 5

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 BYR EPZ:

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 18,559 0.1554 1.57 1 0.8054 0.3475 0.4189 2.92 2 0.8054 0.3475 1020 1 0.88 30 0.12 1020 30 4 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 households (HH) with no vehicles, or with 1 or 2 vehicles that are away from home.

• The HH is computed by dividing the EPZ population by the average household size (44,357 ÷ 2.39) and is 18,559.

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

• The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (15.54%), who are at home, equal (1.571).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (18,559 x 0.1554 x 0.57 x 0.8054 x 0.3475), as 80.54% of EPZ households have a commuter, 34.75% 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 (41.89%), who are at home, equal (2.92 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 18,559 x 0.4189 x 0.92 x (0.8054 x 0.3475)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

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

3.8 Access and/or Functional Needs Population The access and/or functional needs population registered within the EPZ was provided by the State of Illinois Emergency Management Agency. Based on the data provided, there are a total of 169 access and/or functional needs people within the EPZ (127 from Clinton County and Scott County from State of Iowa, 22 from Whiteside County, and 20 from Rock Island County).

Details on the number of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden people was not Quad Cities Generating Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

available, so the percentage breakdown of the medical facilities was used. As such, 61% was considered ambulatory, 36% wheelchairbound and 3% bedridden. Thus, the 169 access and/or functional needs people are comprised of 103 ambulatory persons, 61 wheelchairbound persons and 5 bedridden persons (see Table 39).

The same occupancies that are assumed for vehicles used at medical facilities (as discussed in Subsection 3.5.1) are assumed for this population as well, however more vehicles are assumed to be dispatched. Table 39 shows the total number of people for access and/or functional needs by type of need. The table also estimates the number of transportation resources needed to evacuate these people in a timely manner. to evacuate these people in a reasonable amount of time. Buses needed to evacuate the access and/or functional needs population are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulations due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

3.9 Special Event A special event can attract large number of transits to the EPZ for short periods of time, creating a temporary surge in demand as per Section 2.5.1 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The counties and state emergency management agencies were polled regarding potential special events in the EPZ. The only potential special event (Scenario 13) identified by the county and state agencies (that attracts transients from outside the EPZ) is the Great River Tug Fest, which occurs annually in August (summer) over 3 days (Thursday through Saturday). The event occurs in Le Claire, Iowa (SubArea IA12) and Port Byron, Illinois (SubArea IL5).

The Great River Tug Fest personnel indicated the Friday night fireworks show has the peak attendance during the event and indicated the total attendance for the event is approximately 25,000 people for both sides of the river and over all three days. It is assumed that 40% of the total population is in attendance during the peak times. Thus, 10,000 people are within Le Claire and Port Byron during the Friday night fireworks show. It is assumed that the population is evenly split between the two cities, such that there are approximately 5,000 people within each city during the fireworks show. Tug Fest personnel indicated most of these people are local residents. Assuming 75% of these people are local residents and using the average household size of 2.39 people per household, there are 1,250 additional transients in 523 vehicles present in each city (2,500 total transients and 1,046 transient vehicles) during the Friday night fireworks show of the Great River Tug Fest.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.10 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips which have their origins and destinations outside of the EPZ) at the time of an accident. After the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is announced, these throughtravelers will also evacuate. These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing the EPZ - Interstate (I)80, I88 and State Route (SR) 5.

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

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation AADT website6 and the Iowa Department of Transportation AADT website7 to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor , which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vph. The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor , which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 310, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> since traffic and access control posts (TACPs) are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after the ATE to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 9,264 vehicles entering the EPZ as external external trips prior to the activation of the TACPs and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5, 12 and 13) as discussed in Section 6.

3.11 Background Traffic Section 5 discusses the time needed for the people in the EPZ to mobilize and begin their evacuation trips. As shown in Table 59, there are 14 time periods during which traffic is loaded on to roadways in the study area to model the mobilization time of people in the EPZ. Note, there is no traffic generated during the 15th time period, as this time period is intended to allow traffic that has already begun evacuating to clear the study area boundaries.

This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the evacuation (Time Period 1). Rather, there is an initialization time period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from Time Period 1 are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of Time Period 1 depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated (see Section 6). There are 1,802 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 6 (winter, midweek, midday, with good weather) conditions 6

https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/Traffic%20Counts/index.html 7

https://iowadot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0cce99afb78e4d3b9b24f8263717f910 Quad Cities Generating Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 78,431 people and 51,988 vehicles are considered in this study.

Quad Cities Generating Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population SubArea 2010 Population 2020 Population IA1 63 120 IA2 25 32 IA3 637 605 IA4 459 443 IA5 4,640 4,535 IA6 1,361 1,387 IA7 355 325 IA8 467 461 IA9 437 422 IA10 311 272 IA11 26,567 24,329 IA12 4,773 5,222 IL1 260 234 IL2 1,076 1,029 IL3 977 954 IL4 635 586 IL5 461 431 IL6 2,883 2,970 EPZ TOTAL 46,387 44,357 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 4.38%

Quad Cities Generating Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by SubArea SubArea 2020 Population 2020 Resident Vehicles IA1 120 80 IA2 32 20 IA3 605 390 IA4 443 286 IA5 4,535 2,907 IA6 1,387 904 IA7 325 211 IA8 461 298 IA9 422 271 IA10 272 177 IA11 24,329 15,479 IA12 5,222 3,388 IL1 234 151 IL2 1,029 668 IL3 954 617 IL4 586 377 IL5 431 283 IL6 2,970 1,923 EPZ TOTAL 44,357 28,430 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 374 242 NNE 483 313 NE 4,440 2,849 ENE 381 250 E 351 228 ESE 2,034 1,317 SE 612 401 SSE 713 464 S 2,296 1,490 SSW 9,757 5,592 SW 19,222 12,352 WSW 3,515 2,277 W 3,390 2,200 WNW 5,828 3,717 NW 206 133 NNW 207 133 TOTAL 53,809 33,958 Quad Cities Generating Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles SubArea Transients Transient Vehicles IA1 245 110 IA2 50 23 IA3 0 0 IA4 0 0 IA5 348 166 IA6 5 2 IA7 0 0 IA8 0 0 IA9 0 0 IA10 0 0 IA11 5,251 2,402 IA12 727 332 IL1 300 134 IL2 0 0 IL3 0 0 IL4 0 0 IL5 0 0 IL6 674 302 EPZ TOTAL 7,600 3,471 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ SubArea Employees Employee Vehicles IA1 0 0 IA2 0 0 IA3 0 0 IA4 0 0 IA5 461 439 IA6 0 0 IA7 0 0 IA8 0 0 IA9 0 0 IA10 0 0 IA11 926 882 IA12 0 0 IL1 517 492 IL2 0 0 IL3 0 0 IL4 0 0 IL5 0 0 IL6 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 1,904 1,813 Quad Cities Generating Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Wheel Wheel Current Ambu chair Bed Bus chair Van Ambulance SubArea Facility Name Municipality Census latory Bound ridden Runs Runs Runs Clinton County IA5 Park Vista Retirement Living Camanche Camanche 50 31 18 1 2 5 1 IA11 Mercy Living Center North Clinton 67 9 58 0 1 15 0 IA11 Sarah Harding Home Clinton 47 44 3 0 2 1 0 IA11 Park Towers Clinton 71 59 11 1 2 3 1 IA11 Prairie Hills at Clinton Clinton 79 77 2 0 3 1 0 IA11 Countryside of Clinton Clinton 33 33 0 0 2 0 0 IA11 Bickford of Clinton Clinton 37 27 10 0 1 3 0 IA11 Village Cooperative Clinton 42 26 15 1 1 4 1 IA11 Alverno Health Care Facility Clinton 126 30 92 4 1 23 2 IA11 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Hospice Clinton 79 23 48 8 1 12 4 IA11 MercyOne Clinton Medical Center Clinton 66 43 19 4 2 5 2 IA11 Lyons Manor Clinton 50 41 8 1 2 2 1 IA11 Eagle Point Health Care Center Clinton 69 58 10 1 2 3 1 TOTAL: 816 501 294 21 22 77 13 Quad Cities Generating Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 37. School, College/University and Preschool Population Demand Estimates Sub Buses Area School, College/University, Preschool Name Enrollment Required School and College/University ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL6 Riverdale Middle School 244 5 IL6 Riverdale High School 355 8 IL6 Riverdale Elementary School 561 9 Rock Island County Subtotal: 1,160 22 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA5 Camanche Middle School 350 7 IA5 Camanche High School 300 6 IA5 Camanche Elementary School 375 6 IA11 Clinton Community College Technology Center 100 0 IA11 Bluff Elementary School 500 8 IA11 Clinton Community College 400 0 IA11 Clinton High School 1,500 30 IA11 Whittier Elementary School 400 6 IA11 Jefferson Elementary School 370 6 IA11 Prince of Peace Catholic School 350 7 IA11 Clinton Middle School 600 12 IA11 Ashford University Clinton Campus 340 0 IA11 Eagle Heights Elementary School 530 8 Clinton County Subtotal: 6,115 96 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA IA6 Virgil Grissom Elementary School 200 3 IA12 Cody Elementary School 434 7 IA12 Bridgeview Elementary School 376 6 IA12 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 838 17 Scott County Subtotal: 1,848 33 School and College University Subtotal: 9,123 151 PreSchool ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL6 Life's Little Miracles Inc. 80 2 IL6 Messiah Lutheran Church Preschool 60 1 Rock Island County Subtotal: 140 3 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA11 Stay N Play 52 1 IA11 Unity Christian 50 1 IA11 Mercy Child & Preschool 147 3 IA11 YWCA Clinton 146 3 IA11 Zion Child Care Preschool 115 2 IA11 Ashford PreSchool 50 1 IA11 Clinton Head Start 88 2 IA11 Wee School For Little People 90 2 Quad Cities Generating Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sub Buses Area School, College/University, Preschool Name Enrollment Required IA11 YWCA Children's Center 92 2 IA11 St John Lutheran Preschool 24 1 Clinton County Subtotal: 854 18 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA IA6 North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 43 1 IA12 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 105 2 IA12 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 52 1 Scott County Subtotal: 200 4 PreSchool Subtotal: 1,194 25 SCHOOLS, COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES, AND PRESCHOOLS TOTAL: 10,317 176 Quad Cities Generating Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average HH Survey Percent Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated No. Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ of Vehicles No. of Vehicles with Returning Requiring Ridesharing Public Public Population 0 1 2 Households 0 1 2 Commuters Commuters Transport Percentage Transit Transit 44,357 0.00 1.57 2.92 18,559 0.00% 15.54% 41.89% 80.54% 34.75% 1,020 88% 119 0.3%

Table 39. Access and/or Functional Needs Demand Summary Population Group Vehicle Type Population Vehicles deployed Ambulatory Buses 103 10 Wheelchair Bound Wheelchair Vans 61 16 Bedridden Ambulances 5 3 Total: 169 29 Table 310. External Traffic in the QDC Study Area Upstream Downstream Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction AADT8 KFactor9 DFactor9 Volume Traffic 8095 1063 I88 Westbound 14,100 0.116 0.5 818 1,636 8058 58 SR 5 Eastbound 14,100 0.116 0.5 818 1,636 8050 50 I80 Westbound 28,000 0.107 0.5 1,498 2,996 8028 28 I80 Eastbound 28,000 0.107 0.5 1,498 2,996 TOTAL: 9,264 8

Illinois Department of Transportation - Annual Average Daily Traffic - https://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/Traffic%20Counts/index.html Iowa Department of Transportation - Annual Average Daily Traffic - https://iowadot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0cce99afb78e4d3b9b24f8263717f910 9

HCM 2016 Quad Cities Generating Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 311. Summary of Population Demand10 Schools Transit Special Colleges/ and Special Shadow External SubArea Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities11 Universities Preschools Event Population12 Traffic Total IA1 120 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 IA2 32 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 IA3 605 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 607 IA4 443 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 444 IA5 4,535 12 348 461 50 0 1,025 0 0 0 6,431 IA6 1,387 4 5 0 0 0 243 0 0 0 1,639 IA7 325 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 326 IA8 461 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 IA9 422 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 IA10 272 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 IA11 24,329 65 5,251 926 822 840 5,104 0 0 0 37,337 IA12 5,222 14 727 0 0 0 1,805 1,250 0 0 9,018 IL1 234 1 300 517 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,052 IL2 1,029 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,032 IL3 954 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 IL4 586 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 587 IL5 431 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432 IL6 2,970 8 674 0 0 0 1,300 1,250 0 0 6,202 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,762 0 10,762 Total 44,357 119 7,600 1,904 872 840 9,477 2,500 10,762 0 78,431 10 Since the spatial distribution of the access and/or functional needs population is unknown, vehicles needed to evacuate access and/or functional needs population are not included in this table 11 Special Facilities include medical facilities and the Clinton County Jail.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand Schools Transit Special Colleges/ and Special Shadow External SubArea Residents Dependent13 Transients Employees Facilities14 Universities Preschools 15 Event Population16 Traffic Total IA1 80 2 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 IA2 20 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 IA3 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 390 IA4 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 286 IA5 2,907 2 166 439 10 0 38 0 0 0 3,562 IA6 904 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 914 IA7 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 IA8 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 IA9 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271 IA10 177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 IA11 15,479 6 2,402 882 124 670 190 0 0 0 19,753 IA12 3,388 2 332 0 0 0 66 523 0 0 4,311 IL1 151 2 134 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 779 IL2 668 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 670 IL3 617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 617 L4 377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 IL5 283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 IL6 1,923 0 302 0 0 0 50 523 0 0 2,798 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,792 9,264 16,056 Total 28,430 16 3,471 1,813 134 670 352 1,046 6,792 9,264 51,988 13 Sub-Areas IA2, IA4, IA8, IA10 buses are considered with Sub-Area 1A1. Sub-Areas IA3 and AI7 buses are considered with Sub-Area IA5. Sub-Area IA12 buses is considered with Sub-Area IA6. Sub-Areas IL3 and IL6 buses are considered with Sub-Area IL1. Sub-Areas IL4 and IL5 buses is considered with Sub-Area IL2. See Section 10. Buses for the transit-depended population are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.7 for additional information.

14 Vehicles for special facilities include wheelchair vans, ambulances and buses. No vehicles are considered for the Clinton County Jail as it shelters-in-place.

15 Buses evacuating children from schools and pre-schools are represented as two passenger vehicles. Refer to Section 3.6 for additional information.

16 Vehicles for shadow population have been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Quad Cities Generating Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. SubAreas Comprising the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 324 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 325 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 326 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 327 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 328 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Quad Cities Generating Station 329 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)

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).

Quad Cities Generating Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

3600 3600 where:

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

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

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

Formally, we can write, where:

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The value of VF can be expressed as:

where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

reduction in capacity is based on the prevalence of actuated traffic signals in the study area and the fact that the evacuating traffic volume (main street) will be more significant than the competing (side street) traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

Quad Cities Generating Station 49 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kopt kj ks Figure 41. Fundamental Diagrams Quad Cities Generating Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) recommends that the 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 one hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 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 alert and notification systems available within the EPZ (e.g., sirens, tone alerts, Emergency Alert System (EAS) tv and radio broadcasts, loud speakers, media outlets - in Iowa).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 367 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 the time of day families will be united in the evenings but dispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that arrangements will be made to assure 100% coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ can be notified within 45 minutes. The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population is provided in Table 52 and 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow removal 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. This data is 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 (10.1%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

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

To calculate the time distribution of an event that is dependent on two sequential activities, it is necessary to sum the distributions associated with these prior activities. The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly 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.

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

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

In assessing outliers, there are three alternatives to consider:

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

2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <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;

4) To eliminate outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from the responses, Quad Cities Generating Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.0 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 3.5 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

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, 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in SubAreas beyond 5 miles will shelter in place, with the exception of the 20% noncompliance.

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

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

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

Procedure

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

ii. No additional trips are generated until time TScen*

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

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

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

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

The value of TScen* is 2:00 for rain and rain/light snow scenarios and approximately 2:50 for heavy snow scenarios.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and heavy snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and heavy snow conditions Figure 55 and Table 510 present the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters, employees and transients. The 90th percentile 2Mile Region evacuation time is approximately 120 minutes for nonheavy snow scenarios and approximately 170 minutes for heavy snow scenarios. (Note that 170 minutes occurs at the midpoint of Time Period 8. Traffic volumes are distributed throughout the time period. As such, the staged loading for heavy snow scenario is shown in Time Period 8.) At the approximate 90th percentile evacuation time for the 2Mile Region, approximately 20% of the permanent resident population (who normally would have completed their mobilization activities for an unstaged evacuation) advised to shelter has nevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory. Also included on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to the regions advised to evacuate immediately.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Chapter 2, Item number 4 of Part D of the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) indicates the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is responsible for warning and/or evacuating visitors at Mississippi River. The Counties of Clinton and Scott radiological emergency response plans shows special news broadcast messaging that lets those in recreational areas (which includes the Mississippi Rivers and islands on the Iowa side from the Wapsipinicon to Eagle Point Park) to immediately leave the area.

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes, which is consistent with the FEMA REP Manual. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 510 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

5 7.1%

10 13.3%

15 26.5%

20 46.9%

25 66.3%

30 86.7%

35 91.8%

40 96.9%

45 100.0%

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 0.0% 35 93.3%

5 40.2% 40 94.3%

10 63.2% 45 95.2%

15 74.6% 50 95.7%

20 82.8% 55 95.7%

25 84.2% 60 100.0%

30 90.9%

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 511 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 54. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Elapsed Time Percent (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Returning Home 0 0.0% 40 91.4%

5 20.7% 45 92.8%

10 35.6% 50 95.5%

15 53.2% 55 95.9%

20 67.6% 60 98.6%

25 81.1% 65 99.1%

30 84.7% 70 99.5%

35 89.2% 75 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the Dont know response Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent (Minutes) Ready to Evacuate 0 0.0%

15 7.0%

30 23.1%

45 37.1%

60 60.8%

75 75.5%

90 79.0%

105 81.8%

120 87.4%

135 93.7%

150 95.1%

165 95.1%

180 95.8%

195 96.5%

210 98.6%

225 100.0%

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Percent Completing Elapsed Time (Minutes)

Snow Removal 0 10.1%

15 25.9%

30 51.8%

45 64.7%

60 83.5%

75 92.1%

90 95.0%

105 96.4%

120 98.6%

135 100.0%

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

2 15 35% 35% 0% 4% 0% 1%

3 30 50% 50% 6% 26% 1% 7%

4 30 7% 7% 23% 36% 8% 21%

5 15 1% 1% 15% 10% 8% 13%

6 15 0% 0% 15% 4% 10% 12%

7 30 0% 0% 18% 10% 23% 19%

8 60 0% 0% 17% 6% 33% 19%

9 30 0% 0% 2% 3% 7% 4%

10 15 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 1%

11 30 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 2%

12 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation2 Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period*

Residents with Residents Without Residents With Residents Without Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Time Period (Min) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 0% 1% 0% 0%

3 30 1% 5% 0% 2%

4 30 5% 7% 2% 4%

5 15 3% 2% 1% 2%

6 15 3% 1% 2% 3%

7 30 65% 74% 5% 4%

8 60 17% 6% 73% 77%

9 30 2% 3% 7% 4%

10 15 1% 1% 3% 1%

11 30 2% 0% 3% 2%

12 15 1% 0% 1% 0%

13 30 0% 0% 2% 1%

14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 515 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1 2 3 4 5 Residents Households wait 1

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

5. Depart on evacuation trip Activities Consume Time 1

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

2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 51. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip Quad Cities Generating Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

80%

60%

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

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 0%

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

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Quad Cities Generating Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

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

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Quad Cities Generating Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Quad Cities Generating Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Figure 55. Comparison of Staged and Unstaged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5Mile Region Quad Cities Generating Station 520 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The definitions of Region and Scenario are as follows:

Region A grouping of contiguous evacuating SubAreas that forms either a keyhole sectorbased area, or a circular area within the 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 39 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of SubAreas considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 61. The SubArea configurations are identified in Figure 6

1. Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and five adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance and the Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) determination flowchart on page 1 of the Constellation Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Quad Cities Generating Station. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R13) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R14 through R28).

Each SubArea that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the PAR determination flowchart, such as SubArea IA4 that evacuates even if not within the keyhole. There are instances when a small portion of a SubArea is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (500 people or 10% of SubArea population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the SubArea would not be included in the Region.

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R29, and R30 through R39 are geographically identical to Regions R02, and R04 through R13, respectively; however, those SubAreas between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 39 x 14 = 546 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 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 53%, which is the product of 80.5% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Figure F6) and 65.3% (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 (53%) will have a commuter at work during those times, or approximately 5% (10% x 53% = 5.3% rounded to 5%) of households overall.

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

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

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

10 percent of the population is on vacation during each twoweek interval.

Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.

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

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

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

Transient activity is estimated to be at its peak (100%) during summer weekends and is less (55%) during the week. Transient activity is estimated to be slightly less during winter weekends and weekdays, 75% and 40%, respectively, due to the large number of golf courses, parks, and marinas within the EPZ that are closed during winter months. Due to the casino, the large number of lodging facilities and campgrounds offering overnight accommodations, transient activity during the evening is estimated to be 80% in the summer and 65% in the winter.

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, Quad Cities Generating Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

using the values provided in Table 64 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed as follows:

1,740 20% 1 21%

14,938 13,492 One special event - the Great River Tug Fest - was considered as Scenario 13 (during the summer, midweek/weekend, evening with good weather). Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

As discussed in Section 7, schools and preschools 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. Schools/ preschools are not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for school/preschool children are needed under those circumstances. The commuter colleges - Ashford College, Clinton Community College, and Clinton Community College Technology Center - are assumed to have the same scenario percentages as schools/preschools within the EPZ.

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

External traffic is estimated to be 100% for all midday scenarios, while it is significantly less (40%) during the evening scenarios 5 and 12.

Quad Cities Generating Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions SubArea Degrees Region Description in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 2Mile R01 N/A X X X Region 5Mile R02 N/A X X X X X X X X X Region R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R04 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R05 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R06 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R07 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R08 SSE 147º169º X X X X X R09 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R10 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R11 W 260°281° X X X X X X R12 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R13 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X1 X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R14 N 350°11° X X X X X X X X X R15 NNE, NE 12°56° X X X X X X X X X X R16 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X X X X X R17 E 80°101° X X X X X X X X X X X R18 ESE 102°124° X X X X X X X X X X R19 SE 125°146° X X X X X X X X X X R20 SSE 147°169° X X X X X X X X X R21 S 170°191° X X X X X X X X X X R22 SSW 192°214° X X X X X X X X X X R23 SW 215°237° X X X X X X X X X R24 WSW 238°259° X X X X X X X X R25 W 260°281° X X X X X X X X X X R26 WNW 282°304° X X X X X X X X R27 NW 305°326° X X X X X X X R28 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X X X1 X X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 1

Site specific Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) indicates that Sub-Area IA4 evacuates even if not within the plume.

Quad Cities Generating Station 64 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees Region From: in PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 5Mile R29 Region N/A X X X X X X X X X R30 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R31 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R32 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R33 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R34 SSE 147°169° X X X X X R35 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R36 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R37 W 260°281° X X X X X X R38 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R39 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X1 X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenario Season2 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None 7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain/Light Snow None 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None 10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain/Light Snow None 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Midweek, Special Event: Great 13 Summer Evening Good Weekend River Tug Fest Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Single Lane Closure on I80 and I88 2

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios Households Households With Without External Returning Returning Special Medical Commuter School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Colleges Buses3 Buses Traffic 1 53% 47% 96% 55% 21% 0% 100% 10% 10% 100% 100%

2 53% 47% 96% 55% 21% 0% 100% 10% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

5 5% 95% 10% 80% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%

6 53% 47% 100% 40% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 53% 47% 100% 40% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 53% 47% 100% 40% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 5% 95% 10% 75% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

10 5% 95% 10% 75% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

11 5% 95% 10% 75% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100%

12 5% 95% 10% 65% 20% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%

13 5% 95% 10% 80% 20% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 40%

14 53% 47% 96% 55% 21% 0% 100% 10% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

Commuter CollegesColleges wherein all students drive themselves and would evacuate using their personal vehicles.

School, Medical Facilities &Transit Buses.... Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and preschools, medical facilities, and the transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

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

3 School buses also include buses used for preschool children during an evacuation.

Quad Cities Generating Station 67 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario4 Households Households With Without External Total Returning Returning Special Medical Commuter School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities5 Colleges Buses6 Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 14,938 13,492 1,740 1,924 7,207 0 134 67 35 16 9,264 48,817 2 14,938 13,492 1,740 1,924 7,207 0 134 67 35 16 9,264 48,817 3 1,494 26,936 181 3,499 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 9,264 48,359 4 1,494 26,936 181 3,499 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 9,264 48,359 5 1,494 26,936 181 2,799 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 3,706 42,101 6 14,938 13,492 1,813 1,400 7,225 0 134 670 352 16 9,264 49,304 7 14,938 13,492 1,813 1,400 7,225 0 134 670 352 16 9,264 49,304 8 14,938 13,492 1,813 1,400 7,225 0 134 670 352 16 9,264 49,304 9 1,494 26,936 181 2,624 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 9,264 47,484 10 1,494 26,936 181 2,624 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 9,264 47,484 11 1,494 26,936 181 2,624 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 9,264 47,484 12 1,494 26,936 181 2,274 6,835 0 134 0 0 16 3,706 41,576 13 1,494 26,936 181 2,799 6,835 1,046 134 0 0 16 3,706 43,147 14 14,938 13,492 1,740 1,924 7,207 0 134 67 35 16 9,264 48,817 4

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

5 Medical facilities represent vehicles used for medical facilities only, as Clinton County Jail shelters in place and buses are not considered in this study.

6 Vehicles estimates include school and preschool buses.

Quad Cities Generating Station 68 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. QDC EPZ SubAreas Quad Cities Generating Station 69 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES (ETE)

This section presents the ETE results of the computer analyses using the DYNEV II System described in Appendices B, C and D. These results cover the 39 Evacuation Regions within the QDC EPZ and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 53,809 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20 percent of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 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. SubAreas comprising the 2Mile Region are advised to evacuate immediately.

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

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

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5Mile Region is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Region 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 77 illustrate the patterns of traffic congestion that arise for the case when the entire EPZ (Region R03) is advised to evacuate during the winter, midweek, midday period under good weather conditions (Scenario 6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73 displays the traffic congestion within the EPZ at 30 minutes after the ATE. At this time, only 2% of permanent residents and about 42% of transients and employees have begun their evacuation trips. Minor congestion (LOS C) begins to develop on Illinois State Route (IL) 84 near the population center of Albany. Minor to significant congestion (LOS D or worse) exists within Clinton, Iowa (located in SubArea IA 11) - the most densely populated area of the EPZ on major egress roadways, such as US 30 and US 67. Congestion also exists on IL 84 and US 30 eastbound near Fulton, Illinois within the Shadow Region. All other areas of the EPZ are operating at LOS B or better. At this time, traffic volume (LOS B) is visible within the 2Mile Region, which clears 10 minutes later at 40 minutes after the ATE.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 displays that traffic congestion within the EPZ has intensified with city of Clinton and now exists within Le Claire. At this time, nearly 55%

of evacuees have begun their evacuation trip and approximately 45% have successfully evacuated the EPZ. Camanche located in SubArea IA5, is now experiencing some congestion, as evacuees try to gain access to US 30. All routes in Clinton are now experiencing significant congestion (LOS E or worse). Congestion on IL 136 within Fulton has also intensified - SR 136 eastbound is operating at LOS F from the intersection with IL 84 and US 30 across the bridge into Clinton as evacuees from Clinton cross into Illinois. This results in traffic congestion along US 30 eastbound as vehicles approach the City of Morrison outside of the study area. Elvira Rd (County Route F12 - CR F12) is congested at the intersection with 380th Ave (CR Z36) as evacuees from Clinton travel westbound and then turn northbound on CR Z36 to leave the EPZ and travel toward the reception center in Goose Lake. SR 136 and 442nd Ave, north of Clinton within the Shadow Region is experiencing high traffic volumes (LOS B) and minor congestion (LOS C) as evacuees from Clinton travel toward Goose Lake. Wisconsin St eastbound and US 67 southbound are congested in Le Claire, Iowa. There is increased congestion (LOS C) in portions of I80.

At 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 75, congestion is beginning to dissipate. At this time, congestion within the 5Mile Region has completely cleared. The traffic congestion on I80, in Le Claire and Camanche have cleared as well. Significant congestion continues within Clinton. There is also significant congestion in the Shadow Region (CR Z36 northbound and SR 136 eastbound in Fulton) and beyond (190th St near Welton, Iowa, and US 30 towards Morrison, Illinois). At this time, approximately 90% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips, and approximately 82% have evacuated.

At 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 40 minutes after the ATE, Figure 76 shows that all congestion in the EPZ has cleared, except a small portion of Clinton near the EPZ boundary on US 67. Portions of the Shadow Region still remain congested on SR 136 and US 67. At this time, approximately 97% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips, and approximately 96% have evacuated. Congestion beyond the Shadow Region persists - US30 eastbound towards Morrison, CR Z36 northbound toward the reception center in Goose Lake and along 190th Street towards Welton.

At 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE, as shown in Figure 77, congestion in the entire EPZ has cleared and is now operating at a LOS A. At this time, approximately 99% of vehicles have begun their evacuation trips and about 99% have evacuated. Therefore, this indicates that the Quad Cities Generating Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

trip generation time (plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) is dictating the 100th percentile ETE, as evacuees who depart at this time are encountering no traffic congestion or delays within the EPZ. The only remaining congestion exists within the Shadow Region on a small portion of CR Z36 northbound toward the reception center in Goose Lake and outside the study area on US 30 eastbound towards Morrison, Illinois, which clears 35 minutes later at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 45 minutes after the ATE.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 78 through Figure 721. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 78 through Figure 721, there is typically a long "tail" to these distributions due to the mobilization. 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 relatively few evacuation routes servicing the remaining demand.

The rate of egress for the 2Mile and 5Mile Regions remains relatively constant after the first hour of the evacuation. As discussed in Section 7.3, there is minimal to no congestion within 5 miles of the plant. The rate of egress is equal to the mobilization time for the population in this area. The long tail of the evacuation plots is due to the relatively few stragglers within 5 miles who take significantly longer to mobilize Conversely, the rate of egress for the Entire EPZ decreases sharply after the first 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes of the evacuation as a result of the pronounced congestion within Clinton. The long tail for this curve is due to the heavy congestion resulting from a surplus of demand relative to available roadway capacity until 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes and then the relatively few stragglers who take significantly longer to mobilize.

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 the 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 36 Evacuation Regions and all 14 Evacuation Scenarios. Table 73 and Table 74 present the ETE values for the 2Mile Region for both staged and unstaged keyhole regions downwind to 5 miles. The tables are organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

77. Any congestion within the 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region are minimal. As such, the mobilization time dictates the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs. It takes approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 5 minutes to mobilize 90% of the population within the EPZ for nonheavy snow scenarios, and up to 50 minutes longer in heavy snow scenarios. The majority of the congestion are located beyond the 5Mile Region, near the 10Mile Region in Clinton, and congestion is clear within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE. This implies that both the 90th and 100th percentile ETE are dictated by congestion until 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes and then is dictated by the mobilization time plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary for the evacuation of the full EPZ. This is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R01 (2Mile Region) are 35 to 65 minutes shorter than Region R02 (5Mile Region) for good weather and rain/light snow and range from 1:55 (hr:min) to 2:05 for all scenarios except for heavy snow scenarios which range between 2:40 and 2:55 for heavy snow scenarios. The 100th percentile ETE are equal to the mobilization time of 5:00 (6:00 for heavy snow).

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 (5Mile Region) are on average approximately 35 minutes shorter than for Region R03 (full EPZ) due to the prevalence of traffic congestion in SubArea IA11 in Clinton, and range from 2:40 to 3:00 for all scenarios except for heavy snow scenarios which range between 3:30 and 3:40. The 100th percentile ETE are dictated by the trip generation time (mobilization time plus 5 minutes travel time) - 5:05 for good weather and rain/light snow, 6:05 for heavy snow scenarios.

Quad Cities Generating Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 (full EPZ) generally range between 3:00 and 3:20 for all nonheavy snow scenarios and range between 3:40 and 4:00 for heavy scenarios.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and all Scenarios are equal to trip generation time as the significant congestion within Clinton dissipates (no speed and capacity reductions exist) at 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE, as displayed in Figure 77 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 5:00 to 5:10 (mobilization time plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary) for nonheavy snow scenarios and 6:00 to 6:10 for heavy snow scenarios.

Comparison of Scenarios 5 and 13 in Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the Special Event - a Friday evening with fireworks at the Great River Tug Fest - does not have an impact on ETE at the 90th or 100th percentiles. The additional 1,046 vehicles present for the event increases local congestion in Le Claire; however, the traffic congestion in Clinton lasts longer and dictates the ETE. The special event has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

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

- a single lane closure on I80 westbound from the junction with US 67 (Exit 306) to US 61 (Exit 295) and I88 eastbound from Moline Road (Exit 10) to approximately 5 miles east of Albany Road (Exit 18) - has no impact on the 90th percentile ETE as there is only minor to no congestion on I80 and I88 that exists for a short time during the evacuation. The roadway closure has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus the travel time to the EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

The results of the roadway impact scenario indicate that events such as adverse weather or traffic accidents which closes a major evacuation route, does not impact ETE.

7.6 Staged Evacuation Results Table 73 and Table 74 present a comparison of the ETE compiled for the concurrent (un staged) and staged evacuation results. Note that Regions R29, R30 through R39 are geographically identical to Regions R02 and R04 through R13, respectively. The times shown in Table 73 and Table 74 are when the 2Mile Region is 90% clear and 100% clear, respectively.

The objective of a staged evacuation is to show that the ETE for the 2Mile Region can be significantly reduced (30 minutes or 25%, whichever is less) without significantly impacting people beyond the regions between 2 miles and 5 miles. As shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region was not impacted when a staged evacuation is implemented for all scenarios. As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 77, there is no congestion within the 2Mile Region and the closest congestion is within Camanche, Iowa, which doesnt penetrate into the 2Mile Region, so evacuees from within the 2Mile Region are not impacted.

Therefore, staging the evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region. The 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented for all scenarios, as the trip mobilization (plus the travel time to EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

Quad Cities Generating Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on the residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R02 and R04 through R13 are compared to Regions R29, R30 through R39, 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 at most 25 minutes for the 90th percentile ETE and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE. This 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 trip, beyond the 2Mile Region. 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 significantly, rerouting and prolonged ETE. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as the trip generation (plus 10minute travel time to EPZ boundary) dictates the ETE.

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

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

Identify the applicable Scenario (Step 1):

• Season Summer Winter (also Autumn and Spring)

• Day of Week Midweek Weekend

• Time of Day Midday Evening

• Weather Condition Good Weather Rain/Light Snow Heavy Snow

• Special Event Great River Tug Fest Roadway Impact A single lane closure on I80 westbound from the junction with US 67 (Exit 306) to US 61 (Exit 295) and I88 eastbound from Moline Road (Exit 10) to approximately 5 miles east of Albany Road (Exit 18).

Quad Cities Generating Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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 and rain/light snow apply, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, and R04 through R13)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R14 through R28)

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

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

• The columns of Table 71 through Table 74 are labeled with the Scenario numbers.

Identify the proper column in the selected Table using the Scenario number determined in Step 1.

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

Quad Cities Generating Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

• 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 (summer, weekend, evening).

• It is raining.

• Wind direction is from the northeast (NE).

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

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

• A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from the NE and read Region R15 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 R15. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R15; it contains the ETE value of 2:10.

Quad Cities Generating Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and Full EPZ R01 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R02 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R03 3:10 3:20 3:05 3:15 3:05 3:15 3:20 4:00 3:00 3:10 3:40 3:00 3:05 3:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 2:50 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 2:50 3:30 2:30 2:30 3:25 2:35 2:30 2:50 R05 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 R06 2:50 2:50 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:30 2:50 R07 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R08 2:55 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 2:55 R09 3:00 3:00 2:40 2:40 2:40 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:40 3:00 R10 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 2:55 R11 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 3:00 3:40 2:35 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 3:00 R12 2:45 2:45 2:30 2:30 2:30 2:45 2:45 3:30 2:30 2:30 3:25 2:30 2:30 2:45 R13 2:55 2:55 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R14 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:25 2:25 2:25 R15 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R16 2:30 2:30 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:30 2:30 3:20 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:30 R17 2:25 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:10 2:10 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R18 3:00 3:00 2:35 2:35 2:35 3:00 3:00 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:30 2:40 2:35 3:00 R19 3:20 3:35 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:20 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:20 R20 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:35 3:20 3:25 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:20 3:20 R21 3:20 3:30 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:25 3:35 4:10 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:20 R22 3:15 3:25 3:10 3:25 3:15 3:20 3:30 4:10 3:10 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:15 3:15 R23 3:15 3:25 3:15 3:30 3:15 3:15 3:30 4:05 3:10 3:20 3:50 3:10 3:15 3:15 R24 3:15 3:25 3:10 3:20 3:15 3:20 3:25 4:15 3:00 3:15 3:55 3:15 3:15 3:15 R25 3:15 3:20 3:05 3:25 3:10 3:20 3:25 4:05 3:05 3:15 3:50 3:10 3:10 3:15 R26 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:25 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:15 2:15 3:00 2:25 2:25 2:25 R27 2:25 2:25 2:15 2:15 2:20 2:25 2:25 3:15 2:15 2:15 2:55 2:25 2:20 2:25 R28 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:20 2:20 2:20 Quad Cities Generating Station 710 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R29 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:40 3:00 3:00 3:10 R30 2:50 2:50 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:50 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:50 R31 2:55 2:55 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:55 2:55 3:40 2:40 2:40 3:35 2:40 2:40 2:55 R32 2:50 2:50 2:40 2:40 2:40 2:50 2:50 3:35 2:40 2:40 3:35 2:40 2:40 2:50 R33 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 R34 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:10 R35 3:10 3:10 3:00 3:05 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:10 R36 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:05 R37 3:05 3:05 3:00 3:00 3:00 3:05 3:05 3:45 3:00 3:00 3:40 3:00 3:00 3:05 R38 2:45 2:45 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:45 2:45 3:30 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:45 R39 2:55 2:55 2:35 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 Quad Cities Generating Station 711 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and Full EPZ R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R03 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R06 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R07 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R08 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R09 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R10 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R11 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R12 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary R14 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R15 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R16 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R17 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R18 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R19 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R21 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R22 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R23 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R24 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R25 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R26 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R27 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R28 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles R29 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R30 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R31 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R32 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R33 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R34 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R35 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R36 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R37 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R38 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R39 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Quad Cities Generating Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R02 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R04 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R05 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R06 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R07 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R08 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R09 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R10 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R11 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R12 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R13 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R30 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R31 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R32 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R33 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R34 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R35 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R36 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R37 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R38 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 R39 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:05 2:05 2:55 2:05 2:05 1:55 Quad Cities Generating Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Rain Rain Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R02 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R04 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R05 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R06 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R07 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R08 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R09 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R10 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R11 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R12 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R13 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R29 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R30 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R31 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R32 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R33 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R34 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R35 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R36 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R37 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R38 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 R39 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 6:00 5:00 5:00 5:00 Quad Cities Generating Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions SubArea Degrees in Region Description PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 2Mile R01 N/A X X X Region 5Mile R02 N/A X X X X X X X X X Region R03 Full EPZ N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees in Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R04 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R05 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R06 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R07 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R08 SSE 147º169º X X X X X R09 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R10 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R11 W 260°281° X X X X X X R12 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R13 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X1 X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind SubArea Direction Degrees in Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R14 N 350°11° X X X X X X X X X R15 NNE, NE 12°56° X X X X X X X X X X R16 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X X X X X R17 E 80°101° X X X X X X X X X X X R18 ESE 102°124° X X X X X X X X X X R19 SE 125°146° X X X X X X X X X X R20 SSE 147°169° X X X X X X X X X R21 S 170°191° X X X X X X X X X X R22 SSW 192°214° X X X X X X X X X X R23 SW 215°237° X X X X X X X X X R24 WSW 238°259° X X X X X X X X R25 W 260°281° X X X X X X X X X X R26 WNW 282°304° X X X X X X X X R27 NW 305°326° X X X X X X X R28 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X X X1 X X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace 1

Site specific Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) indicates that Sub-Area IA4 evacuates even if not within the plume.

Quad Cities Generating Station 716 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind SubArea Direction Degrees in Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 5Mile R29 Region N/A X X X X X X X X X R30 N, NNE, NE 350°56° X X X X X X R31 ENE 57°79° X X X X X X X R32 E, ESE 80°124° X X X X X X R33 SE 125°146° X X X X X X R34 SSE 147°169° X X X X X R35 S, SSW 170°214° X X X X X X R36 SW, WSW 215°259° X X X X X R37 W 260°281° X X X X X X R38 WNW, NW 282°326° X X X X X R39 NNW 327°349° X X X X X X2 X SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 2

Site specific Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) indicates that Sub-Area IA4 evacuates even if not within the plume.

Quad Cities Generating Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Quad Cities Generating Station 718 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. QDC Shadow Region Quad Cities Generating Station 719 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 720 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 721 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 2 Hour and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 3 Hours and 40 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 723 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 77. Congestion Patterns at 4 Hours and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Quad Cities Generating Station 724 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 725 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 726 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 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 727 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 714. 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 728 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 716. 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 729 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%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 718. 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 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 730 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, 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 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 Elapsed Time After Evacuation Recommendation (h:mm)

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

50 45 40 Vehicles Evacuating 35 30 25 (Thousands) 20 15 10 5

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

Figure 721. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station 731 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, preschools, and medical facilities (Note, there is only one correctional facility within EPZ - Clinton County Jail. Based on Clinton County Emergency Plan, Clinton County Jail will shelterinplace when an emergency occurs);

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 buses in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs. This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc. Wheelchair vans and ambulances are treated as one pc.

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

Specifically:

Bus drivers must be alerted They must travel to the bus depot They must be briefed there and assigned to a route or facility These activities consume time. It is estimated that bus mobilization time will average approximately 90 minutes for school buses, medical facility transport vehicles, and access and/or functional needs transport vehicles extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when buses first arrive at the facility to be evacuated. Bus depots were not identified in this study. Rather, it assumed that the location of the depots and the distances to the EPZ is factored into the mobilization time. It is assumed transit dependent buses are mobilized when about 90% of the residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization activities at 150 minutes after the ATE, as discussed in Section 2.

During this mobilization period, other mobilization activities are taking place. One of these is the action taken by parents, neighbors, relatives and friends to pick up children from school prior to the arrival of buses, so that they may join their families. Virtually all studies of evacuations have concluded that this bonding process of uniting families is universally prevalent during emergencies and should be anticipated in the planning process. The current public information brochure accessible to residents of the QDC EPZ indicates that schoolchildren will be evacuated to relocation centers1 if an evacuation were ordered, and that 1

In the most recent state of the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents, relocation centers are also called receiving locations and reception centers. Any reference to relocation centers, will refer to the facilities used for receiving evacuees from schools and pre-schools.

Quad Cities Generating Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

parents should pick up schoolchildren at the relocation centers. This is also assumed for those children attending preschools.

As discussed in Section 2, this study assumes a rapidly escalating accident, wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) to present an upper bound estimate of buses required. Picking up children at school could add to traffic congestion at the schools and preschools, delaying the departure of the buses evacuating the children at these facilities, which may have to return in a subsequent wave to the EPZ to evacuate the transitdependent population.

The procedure for computing transitdependent ETE is to:

• Estimate demand for transit service (discussed in Section 3)

• Estimate time to perform all transit functions

• Estimate route travel times to the EPZ boundary and to the relocation centers for schools, preschools and medical facilities and reception centers for the general population The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather conditions. Figure 81 presents the chronology of events relevant to transit operations. The elapsed time for each activity will now be discussed with reference to Figure 81.

8.1 ETEs for Schools/Preschools, Transit Dependent People, and Medical Facilities The EPZ bus resources are assigned to evacuating schoolchildren (if schools are in session at the time of the ATE) as the first priority in the event of an emergency. In the event that the allocation of buses dispatched from the depots to the various facilities and to the bus routes is somewhat inefficient, or if there is a shortfall of available drivers, then there may be a need for some buses to return to the EPZ from the reception or relocation center 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. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

The number of available transportation resources was based on the previous study that was reviewed, updated, or confirmed still accurate by the offsite agencies. Table 81 summarizes the capacity of transportation resources. Also included in the table is the number of buses needed (transportation resources) to evacuate schools, preschools, medical facilities, transit dependent population, and access and/or functional needs population (discussed below in Section 83. These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate everyone in a single wave for schools/preschools, transitdependent population, medical Quad Cities Generating Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

facilities, and access and/or functional needs population. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

When school or preschool evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the pickup points.

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

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

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

A loading time of 15 minutes for good weather (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school and preschool buses is used.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

The buses servicing the schools and preschools are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 105 minutes after the ATE - 90 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather. The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school or preschool being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate relocation center. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school/preschool to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Table 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 ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

Quad Cities Generating Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools and preschools in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school and pre school evacuation, in Table 85 through Table 87 for the transit vehicles evacuating transit dependent persons, and Table 88 through Table 810 for transport vehicles for medical facility patients, which are discussed in detail later in this Section. 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 Relocation Center was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 47 mph for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph, as the school bus speed limit for state routes in Illinois and Iowa is 55 mph.

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following ETEs (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools and preschools 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 Relocation Center (R.C.).

The evacuation time out of the EPZ can be computed as the sum of times associated with Activities ABC, CD, and DE (For example: 90 minutes + 15 + 4 = 1:50 for Riverdale Elementary School, in good weather, rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes).

The average ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 20 minutes) for a singlewave evacuation of schools and pre schools is 55 minutes less than the 90th percentile ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes) for evacuation of the general population for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.

The evacuation time to the Relocation Center is determined by adding the time associated with Activity EF (discussed below), to this EPZ evacua on me.

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

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

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

A detailed computation of the transit dependent population was done and is discussed in Section 3.7. The total number of transit dependent people per SubArea was determined using a weighted distribution based on population (see Table 311). The number of buses required to evacuate this population was determined by the capacity of 30 people per bus and assuming at least one route per SubArea. KLD designed 7I bus routes to service the major evacuation routes in each SubArea, for the purposes of this study. The bus routes (as discussed in Section Quad Cities Generating Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10) are 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. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along the nearest route to flag down a passing bus and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 150minute bus mobilization time (good weather). It should be noted that two unique routes were developed for Subarea IA11, due to the high population density within Clinton.

The ETEs for the transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather 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: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

The 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 when the buses begin their routes, at approximately 150 minutes after the ATE for good weather. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 160 minutes in rain/light snow and 170 in heavy snow conditions.

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 miles per hour (mph) = 37 feet/second (ft/sec)

• a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Quad Cities Generating Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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/light snow or heavy snow resulting in a total loading time of 40 minutes per bus in rain/light snow and 50 minutes in heavy snow.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

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

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

For example, the ETE for bus route IL1, IL3, & IL6 servicing SubArea IL1, SubArea IL3, and Sub Area IL6 is computed as 150 + 10 + 30 = 3:10 for good weather. Here, 10 minutes is the time to travel 7.9 miles at 49.9 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 150 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 25 minutes) for the transit dependent population is 10 minutes longer than the 90th percentile ETE for the general population (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes) for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6). This 10 minute difference is not significant enough to impact the protective action decision making.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the reception center. The reception centers are mapped in Figure 103. For a singlewave evacuation, this travel time outside the EPZ does not contribute to the ETE. For a secondwave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately, since it could exceed the ETE for the general population. Assumed bus speeds of 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 SecondWave 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 Quad Cities Generating Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the reception center. Bus travel times within the EPZ are computed using average speeds computed by DYNEV, using the aforementioned methodology that was used for school evacuation.

The second wave ETE for bus route IL1, IL3, & IL6 is computed as follows for good weather:

• Bus arrives at reception center at 3:28 in good weather (3:10 to exit EPZ + 18 minute travel time to reception center).

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

• Bus returns to EPZ and completes secondwave service along the route: 18 minutes (equal to travel time to reception center) + 36 minutes (7.9 miles @ 55 mph

[assumed speed since bus is traveling against traffic] to return to the start of the route) + 7.9 miles @ 51.3 mph [route specific speed output from the model at this time]) = 36 minutes

• Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

• Bus exits EPZ at time 3:10 + 0:18 + 0:15 + 0:36 + 0:30 = 4:50 (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

The ETE for the completion of the second wave for all transitdependent bus routes are provided in Table 85 through Table 87. The average ETE (5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> and 5 minutes) for a second wave evacuation of transitdependent population 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 longer on average than the ETE for the general population at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, with good weather conditions (Scenario 6) conditions and could impact protective action decision making.

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

Evacuation of Medical Facilities The evacuation of medical facilities is similar to those for school and preschool evacuation except:

• Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients.

• Wheelchair vans can accommodate 4 patients.

• Ambulances can accommodate 2 patients.

Table 36 indicates that 22 bus runs, 77 wheelchair van runs, and 13 ambulance runs are needed to service all of the medical facilities in the EPZ. According to Table 81, the counties can collectively provide 403 buses, 122 wheelchair vans, and 76 ambulances. Thus, there are ample resources to evacuate the ambulatory, wheelchairbound and bedridden patients from the medical facilities in a single wave.

Quad Cities Generating Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

As discussed in Section 2.4, it is estimated that the mobilization time for medical facilities average 90 minutes in good weather, 100 minutes in rain/light snow, and 110 minutes in heavy snow. Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. Additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90 minute timeframe.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

Item 5 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle loading times for medical facilities. Loading times are assumed to be 1 minute per ambulatory passenger, 5 minutes per wheelchair bound passenger, and 15 minutes per bedridden passenger for buses, wheelchair accessible vans, and ambulances, respectively. Item 3 of Section 2.4 discusses transit vehicle capacities to cap loading times per vehicle type. Loading times were not adjusted for rain/light snow and heavy snow weather for medical facilities.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

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

Table 88 through Table 810 summarize the ETE for medical facilities within the EPZ for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow. The distances shown 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/light snow and 47 mph for heavy snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ. Concurrent loading on multiple buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances at capacity is assumed. All ETE are rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for Park Vista Retirement Living at Camanche with 31 ambulatory residents during good weather conditions is:

ETE: 90 + (31 x 1) + 13 = 134 minutes or 2:15 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes)

It is assumed that the medical facility population is directly evacuated to special care relocation center2 outside of the EPZ. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the reception center before arriving at the relocation center are not considered in this analysis.

2 The Clinton County Emergency Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) states medical facilities will evacuate to the appropriate relocation centers.

Quad Cities Generating Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The average singlewave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes) for medical facilities in the EPZ does not exceed the 90th percentile ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes) for the general population for a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6). Therefore, ETE is not likely to impact protective action decision making.

8.2 ETEs for the Correctional Facilities As detailed in Table E7 and discussed in Section 3.5.2, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ - the Clinton County Jail. The total inmate population at this facility is 56 persons, which was obtained by inquiring on Clinton County website. Based on the Clinton County Emergency Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the Clinton County Jail will not evacuate, all inmates will shelterinplace adequate number of staff, if an evacuation were ordered. Thus, ETE are not computed for this facility.

8.3 ETEs for the Access and/or Functional Needs Population The access and/or functional needs population registered within the EPZ was provided by offsite agencies and discussed in Section 3.8. Table 811 summarizes the ETE for access and/or functional needs people who would need transportation assistance in the event of an emergency. The table is categorized by type of vehicle required and then broken down by weather condition. The table takes into consideration the deployment of multiple vehicles (not filled to capacity) to reduce the number of stops per vehicle.

Due to the limitations on driving for access and/or functional needs persons, it assumed they will be picked up from their homes. Furthermore, it is conservatively assumed that ambulatory and wheelchair bound access and/or functional needs households are spaced 3 miles apart and bedridden households are spaced 5 miles apart. Van and bus speeds approximate 20 mph between households and ambulance speeds approximate 30 mph in good weather (10% slower in rain/light snow, 20% slower in heavy snow). Loading times of 1 minute per person are assumed for ambulatory people, 5 minutes per person for wheelchair bound people and 15 minutes per person are assumed for bedridden people. The mobilization time of 90 minutes was used (100 minutes and 110 minutes for rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively). The last household (HH) is assumed to be 5 miles from the EPZ boundary, and the networkwide average speed, capped at 55 mph (50 mph and 47 mph for rain and snow, respectively), is used to compute travel time after the last pick up.

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

For example, assuming no more than one access and/or functional needs person per HH implies that 103 ambulatory households need to be serviced. While only 4 buses are needed from a capacity perspective, if 10 buses are deployed to service these HH, then each would require at most 11 stops.

Quad Cities Generating Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

For example, the ETE for access and/or functional needs ambulatory people in good weather is computed as follows (similar calculations are performed for the wheelchair bound population:

1. Assume 10 buses are deployed, each with about 11 stops, to service a total of 103 HH.

2. ETE is equal to the total time to complete the following activities:

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

b. Load HH members at first pickup: 1 minute

c. Travel to subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 9 minutes = 90 minutes

d. Load HH members at subsequent pickup locations: 10 @ 1 minute = 10 minutes

e. Travel to EPZ boundary: 15 minutes (5 miles @ 20.1mph).

ETE: 90 + 1 + 90 + 10 + 15 = 3:30 rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes Table 81 indicates that there are sufficient transportation resources available in the EPZ to evacuate the medical facilities and the access and/or functional needs population simultaneously.

The average ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes) for a single wave evacuation of the ambulatory access and/or functional needs population is approximately 15 minutes longer than the general population ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes) at the 90th percentile for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, good weather (Scenario 6) conditions. This 5 minute difference is not significant enough to impact the protective action decisionmaking.

Quad Cities Generating Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Resource Buses Vans Ambulances Resources Available Clinton County, IA 50 60 9 Scott County, IA 149 60 22 Rock Island, IL 100 2 10 Whiteside, IL 104 0 35 TOTAL: 403 122 76 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 36): 22 77 13 Schools (Table 37): 176 0 0 Access and/or Functional Needs (Section 39): 10 16 3 TransitDependent Population (Section 3.7): 8 0 0 Correctional Facilities (Section 3.5): ShelterInPlace TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 216 93 16 Quad Cities Generating Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Riverdale Middle School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 Riverdale High School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 Riverdale Elementary School 90 15 3.8 55.0 4 1:50 27.9 30 2:20 IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Camanche Middle School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Camanche High School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Camanche Elementary School 90 15 11.9 54.7 13 2:00 24.6 27 2:30 Bluff Elementary School 90 15 12.1 55.0 13 2:00 21.9 24 2:25 Clinton High School 90 15 15.8 16.9 56 2:45 37.9 41 3:30 Whittier Elementary School 90 15 14.7 16.1 55 2:40 27.3 30 3:10 Jefferson Elementary School 90 15 14.7 16.1 55 2:40 27.3 30 3:10 Prince of Peace Catholic School 90 15 15.9 14.4 66 2:55 28.9 32 3:30 Clinton Middle School 90 15 13.0 17.1 46 2:35 22.6 25 3:00 Eagle Heights Elementary School 90 15 17.0 9.8 104 3:30 27.3 30 4:00 SCOTT COUNTY Virgil Grissom Elementary School 90 15 10.2 51.6 12 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Cody Elementary School 90 15 5.0 48.9 6 1:55 12.7 14 2:10 Bridgeview Elementary School 90 15 5.3 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 90 15 2.8 48.5 3 1:50 12.7 14 2:05 PRESCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Life's Little Miracles Inc. 90 15 2.4 43.6 3 1:50 16.8 18 2:10 Messiah Luthern Church Preschool 90 15 2.4 43.6 3 1:50 16.8 18 2:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Stay N Play 90 15 15.3 21.9 42 2:30 5.2 6 2:40 Unity Christian 90 15 15.3 21.9 42 2:30 5.2 6 2:40 Mercy Child & Preschool 90 15 15.3 22.1 42 2:30 6.3 7 2:40 YWCA Clinton 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Zion Child Care Preschool 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Ashford PreSchool 90 15 14.4 15.5 56 2:45 5.2 6 2:55 Clinton Head Start 90 15 15.3 14.3 64 2:50 5.2 6 3:00 Wee School For Little People 90 15 13.6 15.2 54 2:40 6.3 7 2:50 YWCA Children's Center 90 15 3.3 6.1 33 2:20 21.3 23 2:45 St John Lutheran Preschool 90 15 3.3 6.1 33 2:20 21.3 23 2:45 SCOTT COUNTY North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 90 15 10.2 51.6 12 2:00 4.5 5 2:05 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 90 15 5.6 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 90 15 5.3 55.0 6 1:55 12.1 13 2:10 Maximum for EPZ: 3:30 Maximum: 4:00 Average for EPZ: 2:20 Average: 2:40 Quad Cities Generating Station 813 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

SCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Riverdale Middle School 100 20 3.8 50.0 5 2:05 27.9 33 2:40 Riverdale High School 100 20 3.8 50.0 5 2:05 27.9 33 2:40 Riverdale Elementary School 100 20 3.8 50.0 5 2:05 27.9 33 2:40 IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Camanche Middle School 100 20 11.9 49.2 15 2:15 24.6 30 2:45 Camanche High School 100 20 11.9 49.2 15 2:15 24.6 30 2:45 Camanche Elementary School 100 20 11.9 49.2 15 2:15 24.6 30 2:45 Bluff Elementary School 100 20 12.1 50.0 15 2:15 21.9 26 2:45 Clinton High School 100 20 15.8 15.1 63 3:05 37.9 45 3:50 Whittier Elementary School 100 20 14.7 14.5 61 3:05 27.3 33 3:40 Jefferson Elementary School 100 20 14.7 14.5 61 3:05 27.3 33 3:40 Prince of Peace Catholic School 100 20 15.9 13.6 70 3:10 28.9 35 3:45 Clinton Middle School 100 20 13.0 14.0 56 3:00 22.6 27 3:30 Eagle Heights Elementary School 100 20 17.0 11.0 93 3:35 27.3 33 4:10 SCOTT COUNTY Virgil Grissom Elementary School 100 20 10.2 46.5 13 2:15 4.5 5 2:20 Cody Elementary School 100 20 5.0 44.3 7 2:10 12.7 15 2:25 Bridgeview Elementary School 100 20 5.3 50.0 6 2:10 12.1 15 2:25 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 100 20 2.8 46.0 4 2:05 12.7 15 2:20 PRESCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Life's Little Miracles Inc. 100 20 2.4 39.2 4 2:05 16.8 20 2:25 Messiah Luthern Church Preschool 100 20 2.4 39.2 4 2:05 16.8 20 2:25 Quad Cities Generating Station 814 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Facility Name Time (min) Time (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Stay N Play 100 20 15.3 16.8 55 2:55 5.2 6 3:05 Unity Christian 100 20 15.3 16.8 55 2:55 5.2 6 3:05 Mercy Child & Preschool 100 20 15.3 16.9 54 2:55 6.3 8 3:05 YWCA Clinton 100 20 15.3 13.6 67 3:10 5.2 6 3:20 Zion Child Care Preschool 100 20 15.3 13.6 67 3:10 5.2 6 3:20 Ashford PreSchool 100 20 14.4 14.3 61 3:05 5.2 6 3:15 Clinton Head Start 100 20 15.3 13.6 67 3:10 5.2 6 3:20 Wee School For Little People 100 20 13.6 13.7 59 3:00 6.3 8 3:10 YWCA Children's Center 100 20 3.3 5.3 38 2:40 21.3 26 3:10 St John Lutheran Preschool 100 20 3.3 5.3 38 2:40 21.3 26 3:10 SCOTT COUNTY North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 100 20 10.2 46.5 13 2:15 4.5 5 2:20 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 100 20 5.6 42.7 8 2:10 12.1 15 2:25 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 100 20 5.3 50.0 6 2:10 12.1 15 2:25 Maximum for EPZ: 3:35 Maximum: 4:10 Average for EPZ: 2:40 Average: 3:00 Quad Cities Generating Station 815 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

SCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Riverdale Middle School 110 25 3.8 46.8 5 2:20 27.9 36 3:00 Riverdale High School 110 25 3.8 46.8 5 2:20 27.9 36 3:00 Riverdale Elementary School 110 25 3.8 46.8 5 2:20 27.9 36 3:00 IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Camanche Middle School 110 25 11.9 46.8 15 2:30 24.6 32 3:05 Camanche High School 110 25 11.9 46.8 15 2:30 24.6 32 3:05 Camanche Elementary School 110 25 11.9 46.8 15 2:30 24.6 32 3:05 Bluff Elementary School 110 25 12.1 46.8 16 2:35 21.9 28 3:05 Clinton High School 110 25 15.8 26.5 36 2:55 37.9 49 3:45 Whittier Elementary School 110 25 14.7 26.6 33 2:50 27.3 35 3:25 Jefferson Elementary School 110 25 14.7 26.6 33 2:50 27.3 35 3:25 Prince of Peace Catholic School 110 25 15.9 25.1 38 2:55 28.9 37 3:35 Clinton Middle School 110 25 13.0 27.4 29 2:45 22.6 29 3:15 Eagle Heights Elementary School 110 25 17.0 7.5 136 4:35 27.3 35 5:10 SCOTT COUNTY Virgil Grissom Elementary School 110 25 10.2 44.7 14 2:30 4.5 6 2:40 Cody Elementary School 110 25 5.0 42.8 7 2:25 12.7 16 2:45 Bridgeview Elementary School 110 25 5.3 46.8 7 2:25 12.1 16 2:45 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 110 25 2.8 42.4 4 2:20 12.7 16 2:40 PRESCHOOLS ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND COUNTY Life's Little Miracles Inc. 110 25 2.4 36.7 4 2:20 16.8 22 2:45 Quad Cities Generating Station 816 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Messiah Luthern Church Preschool 110 25 2.4 36.7 4 2:20 16.8 22 2:45 IOWA CLINTON COUNTY Stay N Play 110 25 15.3 32.4 28 2:45 5.2 7 2:55 Unity Christian 110 25 15.3 32.4 28 2:45 5.2 7 2:55 Mercy Child & Preschool 110 25 15.3 32.7 28 2:45 6.3 8 2:55 YWCA Clinton 110 25 15.3 24.9 37 2:55 5.2 7 3:05 Zion Child Care Preschool 110 25 15.3 24.9 37 2:55 5.2 7 3:05 Ashford PreSchool 110 25 14.4 26.2 33 2:50 5.2 7 3:00 Clinton Head Start 110 25 15.3 24.9 37 2:55 5.2 7 3:05 Wee School For Little People 110 25 13.6 27.3 30 2:45 6.3 8 2:55 YWCA Children's Center 110 25 3.3 4.8 42 3:00 21.3 27 3:30 St John Lutheran Preschool 110 25 3.3 4.8 42 3:00 21.3 27 3:30 SCOTT COUNTY North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 110 25 10.2 44.7 14 2:30 4.5 6 2:40 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 110 25 5.6 36.5 9 2:25 12.1 16 2:45 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 110 25 5.3 46.8 7 2:25 12.1 16 2:45 Maximum for EPZ: 4:35 Maximum: 5:10 Average for EPZ: 2:45 Average: 3:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 817 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

IL1, IL3, & IL6 1 150 7.9 49.9 10 30 3:10 16.8 18 5 10 36 30 4:50 IL2, IL4, & IL5 1 150 6.9 46.1 9 30 3:10 8.9 10 5 10 26 30 4:35 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 1 150 15.3 51.2 18 30 3:20 3.9 4 5 10 38 30 4:50 IA3, IA5, & IA7 1 150 11.0 52.8 12 30 3:15 16.6 18 5 10 42 30 5:00 IA6 & IA12 1 150 11.0 50.3 13 30 3:15 11.8 13 5 10 38 30 4:55 IA9 & IA11 (1) 2 150 14.0 17.7 47 30 3:50 12.4 14 5 10 50 30 5:40 IA9 & IA11(2) 1 150 15.2 23.7 39 30 3:40 9.8 11 5 10 50 30 5:30 Maximum ETE: 3:50 Maximum ETE: 5:40 Average ETE: 3:25 Average ETE: 5:05 Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow SingleWave SecondWave Route Travel Route Number Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup of Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. to R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Route Number Buses (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

IL1, IL3, & IL6 1 160 7.9 46.0 10 40 3:30 16.8 20 5 10 40 40 5:25 IL2, IL4, & IL5 1 160 6.9 43.5 10 40 3:30 8.9 11 5 10 29 40 5:05 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 1 160 15.3 47.2 19 40 3:40 3.9 5 5 10 42 40 5:25 IA3, IA5, & IA7 1 160 11.0 47.2 14 40 3:35 16.6 20 5 10 47 40 5:40 IA6 & IA12 1 160 11.0 45.7 14 40 3:35 11.8 14 5 10 42 40 5:30 IA9 & IA11 (1) 2 160 14.0 16.1 52 40 4:15 12.4 15 5 10 53 40 6:20 IA9 & IA11(2) 1 160 15.2 22.0 41 40 4:05 9.8 12 5 10 55 40 6:10 Maximum ETE: 4:15 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 5:40 Quad Cities Generating Station 818 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

IL1, IL3, & IL6 1 170 7.9 43.3 11 50 3:55 16.8 22 5 10 43 50 6:05 IL2, IL4, & IL5 1 170 6.9 41.1 10 50 3:50 8.9 11 5 10 30 50 5:40 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 1 170 15.3 44.8 21 50 4:05 3.9 5 5 10 45 50 6:00 IA3, IA5, & IA7 1 170 11.0 46.1 14 50 3:55 16.6 21 5 10 50 50 6:15 IA6 & IA12 1 170 11.0 43.3 15 50 3:55 11.8 15 5 10 45 50 6:00 IA9 & IA11 (1) 2 170 14.0 9.6 87 50 5:10 12.4 16 5 10 56 50 7:30 IA9 & IA11(2) 1 170 15.2 18.3 50 50 4:30 9.8 13 5 10 59 50 6:50 Maximum ETE: 5:10 Maximum ETE: 7:30 Average ETE: 4:15 Average ETE: 6:20 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather Loading Travel Time Rate Total to EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 90 1 31 30 11.9 13 2:15 Park Vista Retirement Living Wheelchair bound 90 5 18 20 11.9 13 2:05 Camanche Bedridden 90 15 1 15 11.9 13 2:00 Ambulatory 90 1 9 9 14.6 55 2:35 Mercy Living Center North Wheelchair bound 90 5 58 20 14.6 56 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 44 30 14.7 45 2:45 Sarah Harding Home Wheelchair bound 90 5 3 15 14.7 40 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 59 30 16.0 64 3:05 Park Towers Wheelchair bound 90 5 11 20 16.0 66 3:00 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 16.0 67 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 77 30 12.5 40 2:40 Prairie Hills at Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 2 10 12.5 32 2:15 Quad Cities Generating Station 819 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Countryside of Clinton Ambulatory 90 1 33 30 13.5 53 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 27 27 12.8 45 2:45 Bickford of Clinton Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 12.8 42 2:35 Ambulatory 90 1 26 26 13.5 53 2:50 Village Cooperative Wheelchair bound 90 5 15 20 13.5 53 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 13.5 52 2:40 Ambulatory 90 1 30 30 13.5 53 2:55 Alverno Health Care Facility Wheelchair bound 90 5 92 20 13.5 53 2:45 Bedridden 90 15 4 30 13.5 53 2:55 Ambulatory 90 1 23 23 14.7 43 2:40 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Wheelchair bound 90 5 48 20 14.7 42 2:35 Hospice Bedridden 90 15 8 30 14.7 45 2:45 Ambulatory 90 1 43 30 14.6 54 2:55 MercyOne Clinton Medical Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 19 20 14.6 56 2:50 Ambulatory 90 1 4 2 14.6 53 2:25 Ambulatory 90 1 41 30 20.4 98 3:40 Lyons Manor Wheelchair bound 90 5 8 20 20.4 115 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:45 Ambulatory 90 1 58 30 20.4 98 3:40 Eagle Point Health Care Center Wheelchair bound 90 5 10 20 20.4 115 3:45 Bedridden 90 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:45 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 2:55 Table 89. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Loading Travel Time Rate Total to EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 100 1 31 30 11.9 14 2:25 Park Vista Retirement Living Wheelchair bound 100 5 18 20 11.9 15 2:15 Camanche Bedridden 100 15 1 15 11.9 14 2:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 820 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 100 1 9 9 14.6 61 2:50 Mercy Living Center North Wheelchair bound 100 5 58 20 14.6 61 3:05 Ambulatory 100 1 44 30 14.7 54 3:05 Sarah Harding Home Wheelchair bound 100 5 3 15 14.7 52 2:50 Ambulatory 100 1 59 30 16.0 67 3:20 Park Towers Wheelchair bound 100 5 11 20 16.0 70 3:10 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 16.0 71 3:10 Ambulatory 100 1 77 30 12.5 50 3:00 Prairie Hills at Clinton Wheelchair bound 100 5 2 10 12.5 40 2:30 Countryside of Clinton Ambulatory 100 1 33 30 13.5 57 3:10 Ambulatory 100 1 27 27 12.8 53 3:00 Bickford of Clinton Wheelchair bound 100 5 10 20 12.8 53 2:55 Ambulatory 100 1 26 26 13.5 57 3:05 Village Cooperative Wheelchair bound 100 5 15 20 13.5 60 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 13.5 59 2:55 Ambulatory 100 1 30 30 13.5 57 3:10 Alverno Health Care Facility Wheelchair bound 100 5 92 20 13.5 60 3:00 Bedridden 100 15 4 30 13.5 57 3:10 Ambulatory 100 1 23 23 14.7 54 3:00 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Wheelchair bound 100 5 48 20 14.7 53 2:55 Hospice Bedridden 100 15 8 30 14.7 54 3:05 Ambulatory 100 1 43 30 14.6 60 3:10 MercyOne Clinton Medical Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 19 20 14.6 61 3:05 Ambulatory 100 1 4 2 14.6 61 2:45 Ambulatory 100 1 41 30 20.4 98 3:50 Lyons Manor Wheelchair bound 100 5 8 20 20.4 115 3:55 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:55 Ambulatory 100 1 58 30 20.4 98 3:50 Eagle Point Health Care Center Wheelchair bound 100 5 10 20 20.4 115 3:55 Bedridden 100 15 1 15 20.4 117 3:55 Maximum ETE: 3:55 Average ETE: 3:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 821 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 810. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow Loading Travel Time Rate Total to EPZ Mobilization (min per Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Medical Facility Patient (min) person) People Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Ambulatory 110 1 31 30 11.9 15 2:35 Park Vista Retirement Living Camanche Wheelchair bound 110 5 18 20 11.9 15 2:25 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 11.9 15 2:20 Ambulatory 110 1 9 9 14.6 30 2:30 Mercy Living Center North Wheelchair bound 110 5 58 20 14.6 32 2:45 Ambulatory 110 1 44 30 14.7 28 2:50 Sarah Harding Home Wheelchair bound 110 5 3 15 14.7 26 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 59 30 16.0 40 3:00 Park Towers Wheelchair bound 110 5 11 20 16.0 38 2:50 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 16.0 37 2:45 Ambulatory 110 1 77 30 12.5 23 2:45 Prairie Hills at Clinton Wheelchair bound 110 5 2 10 12.5 22 2:25 Countryside of Clinton Ambulatory 110 1 33 30 13.5 32 2:55 Ambulatory 110 1 27 27 12.8 28 2:45 Bickford of Clinton Wheelchair bound 110 5 10 20 12.8 26 2:40 Ambulatory 110 1 26 26 13.5 32 2:50 Village Cooperative Wheelchair bound 110 5 15 20 13.5 29 2:40 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 13.5 27 2:35 Ambulatory 110 1 30 30 13.5 32 2:55 Alverno Health Care Facility Wheelchair bound 110 5 92 20 13.5 29 2:40 Bedridden 110 15 4 30 13.5 32 2:55 Ambulatory 110 1 23 23 14.7 27 2:40 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Hospice Wheelchair bound 110 5 48 20 14.7 26 2:40 Bedridden 110 15 8 30 14.7 28 2:50 Quad Cities Generating Station 822 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Ambulatory 110 1 43 30 14.6 34 2:55 MercyOne Clinton Medical Center Wheelchair bound 110 5 19 20 14.6 32 2:45 Ambulatory 110 1 4 2 14.6 29 2:25 Ambulatory 110 1 41 30 20.4 142 4:45 Lyons Manor Wheelchair bound 110 5 8 20 20.4 158 4:50 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 20.4 159 4:45 Ambulatory 110 1 58 30 20.4 142 4:45 Eagle Point Health Care Center Wheelchair bound 110 5 10 20 20.4 158 4:50 Bedridden 110 15 1 15 20.4 159 4:45 Maximum ETE: 4:50 Average ETE: 3:05 Table 811. Access and/or Functional Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates Mobiliza Loading Total Loading Travel Time People tion Time at Travel to Time at to EPZ Vehicle Requiring Vehicles Weather Time 1st Stop Subsequent Subsequent Boundary ETE Type Vehicle deployed Stops Conditions (min) (min) Stops (min) Stops (min) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 90 15 3:30 Buses 103 10 11 Rain/Light Snow 100 1 100 10 18 3:50 Heavy Snow 110 110 22 4:15 Good 90 27 18 2:35 Wheelchair 61 16 4 Rain/Light Snow 100 5 30 15 22 2:55 Vans Heavy Snow 110 33 18 3:05 Good 90 10 15 2:25 Ambulances 5 3 2 Rain/Light Snow 100 15 11 15 21 2:45 Heavy Snow 110 13 17 2:50 Maximum ETE: 4:15 Average ETE: 3:10 Quad Cities Generating Station 823 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

(Subsequent Wave)

A B C D E F G Time Event A Advisory to Evacuate B Bus Dispatched from Depot C Bus Arrives at Facility/Pickup Route D Bus Departs for Reception Center E Bus Exits Region F Bus Arrives at Reception Center/Relocation Center G Bus Available for Second Wave Evacuation Service Activity AB Driver Mobilization BC Travel to Facility or to Pickup Route CD Passengers Board the Bus DE Bus Travels Towards Region Boundary EF Bus Travels Towards Reception Center Outside the EPZ FG Passengers Leave Bus; Driver Takes a Break Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations Quad Cities Generating Station 824 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 and Access Control Post (TACP) locations, provides necessary details and is documented in a format that is readily understood by those assigned to perform traffic control.

The functions to be performed in the field are:

1. Facilitate evacuating traffic movements that safely expedite travel out of the 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 QDC Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), the QDCTraffic and Access Control Map (IPRAMap A),

and the Clinton County and Scott County Emergency Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1.

Quad Cities Generating Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TACP locations in the QDC IPRA and the SOPs for the Counties of Clinton and Scott as being controlled by actuated signals. In Appendix K, Table K1 identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TACPs.

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

4. Prioritization of TACPs

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

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

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

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

The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation.

The ETE calculations reflect the assumptions that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 120 minutes have elapsed from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), by TACPs along the major highways traversing the EPZ.

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

Study assumptions 1 through 3 in Section 2.5 discuss TACPs operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce the manpower and equipment needs, while still facilitating the evacuation process. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) can also be placed within the EPZ to provide information to travelers regarding traffic conditions, route selection, and reception center information. DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from Quad Cities Generating Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicles stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information. Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station 93 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

• Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, preschools, commuter colleges, medical facilities, employees, transients, or permanent residents who do no own or have access to private vehicles) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers located within reception communities.

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

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible.

See Appendices B through D for further discussion.

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

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers, within receiving communities, is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The seven (7) bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101, were designed by KLD to service major routes through each SubArea. It is assumed that residents will walk to and congregate along these routes to flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the route within the 150minute bus mobilization time (good weather). Due to the high transitdependent population of the City of Clinton, Iowa, more buses are required for SubArea IA11 than any other SubArea (Table 8 10). As such, two unique routes were developed for SubArea IA11.

Schools, preschools, and medical facilities were routed along the most likely path from the facility being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the nearest relocation school (also referred as reception center in the State of Illinois) for ETE computations. The QDC Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) and the emergency plans of Clinton County and Scott County lists all the schools/preschools with their designated relocation center (reception center in IPRA). Based on the Clinton County Emergency Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), all inmates at Clinton County Jail will shelterinplace if there is an incident at QDC; thus a bus route to a reception center was not needed and was not considered in this study.

Quad Cities Generating Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented 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 congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

10.2 Reception Centers According to the current public information for EPZ residents, evacuees will be directed to reception communities based on the SubArea being evacuated. The QDC IPRA lists the specific reception centers within these reception communities. Figure 103 displays the location of the reception centers. Transitdependent evacuees and medical facility patients are transported to the nearest reception center for each SubArea for ETE computations.

Table 103 presents a list of the relocation school (also referred to as reception centers) for each school and preschool in the EPZ. Children will be transported to these reception/relocation centers where they will be subsequently retrieved by parents or guardians. The QDC IPRA indicates evacuees can receive congregate care at reception centers.

Quad Cities Generating Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

IL1, IL3, & IL6 1 Services SubArea IL1, IL3, and IL6 7.9 IL2, IL4, &IL5 1 Services SubArea IL2, IL4, and IL5 6.9 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 1 Services SubArea IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, and IA10 15.3 IA3, IA5, & IA7 1 Services SubArea IA3, IA5, and IA7 11.0 IA6 & IA12 1 Services SubArea IA6 and IA12 11.0 IA9 & IA11 (1) 2 Services SubArea IA9 and IA11 (1) 14.0 IA9 & IA11 (2) 1 Services SubArea IA9 and IA11 (2) 15.2 Total: 8 Table 102. Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary Camanche Middle School Camanche High School 848, 938, 623, 1090, 192, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 1066, 1

Camanche Elementary School 1038, 97, 96, 100, 401, 101, 1014, 102, 103 Park Vista Retirement Living Camanche Mercy Living Center North 753, 414, 1083, 413, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 2

MercyOne Clinton Medical Center 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 Sarah Harding Home 611, 615, 758, 759, 761, 602, 767, 768, 408, 358, 998, 3 MercyOne Clinton Home Care and 402, 784, 403 Hospice 4 Bickford of Clinton 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 Countryside of Clinton 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 5 Village Cooperative 403 Alverno Health Care Facility Eagle Point Health Care Center 6 579, 1080, 555, 556, 1119, 557, 583, 558, 559 Lyons Manor 127, 128, 129, 130, 742, 131, 132, 133, 414, 1083, 413, 7 Park Towers 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 8 Prairie Hills at Clinton 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 Riverdale Middle School 9 Riverdale High School 797, 800, 439, 503 Riverdale Elementary School Virgil Grissom Elementary School 376, 378, 379, 377, 380, 375, 374, 287, 280, 303, 281, 10 North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 891 11 Bluff Elementary School 605, 604, 98, 97, 96, 100, 401, 101, 1014, 102, 103 12 Eagle Heights Elementary School 1081, 1080, 555, 556, 1119, 557, 583, 558, 559 Whittier Elementary School 611, 615, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 13 Jefferson Elementary School 402, 784, 403 Quad Cities Generating Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 751, 130, 742, 131, 132, 133, 414, 1083, 413, 412, 988, 14 Prince of Peace Catholic School 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 15 Pleasant Valley Junior High School 292, 293, 294, 255 Bridgeview Elementary School 16 443, 175, 164, 442, 40, 39, 38, 445 SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 17 Cody Elementary School 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 255 757, 610, 611, 615, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 18 Clinton High School 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 Clinton Head Start 131, 132, 133, 414, 1083, 413, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 19 YWCA Clinton 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 Zion Child Care Preschool 612, 413, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 20 Ashford PreSchool 402, 784, 403 Stay N Play 731, 607, 608, 762, 761, 602, 767, 768, 408, 358, 998, 21 Unity Christian 402, 784, 403 22 Life's Little Miracles/Messiah Preschool 841, 232, 233, 234, 235 23 Kiddie Karrasel Academy 161, 162, 163, 176, 175, 164, 442, 40, 39, 38, 445 413, 412, 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 24 Wee School for Little People 784, 403 25 Clinton Middle School 988, 411, 410, 409, 768, 408, 358, 998, 402, 784, 403 610, 611, 615, 758, 759, 761, 602, 767, 768, 408, 358, 26 Mercy Child & Preschool 998, 402, 784, 403 YWCA Children's Center 27 986, 136, 579, 1080, 555, 556, 1119, 557, 583, 558, 559 St John Lutheran Preschool 28 IL2, IL4, & IL5 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 527, 528, 889 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 841, 232, 29 IL1, IL3, & IL6 233, 234, 235 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 30 IA6 & IA12 163, 176, 175, 164, 442, 40, 39, 38, 445 619, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 354, 355, 356, 100, 401, 31 IA3, IA5, & IA7 101, 1014, 102, 103 355, 96, 97, 1039, 98, 604, 625, 99, 1044, 109, 110, 111, 32 IA9 & IA11 (1) 730, 844, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 132, 133, 134, 135, 986, 136, 987, 953, 137, 1117, 138, 139, 140, 141 355, 96, 97, 1039, 98, 604, 625, 99, 1044, 109, 110, 111, 112, 922, 113, 114, 115, 1015, 116, 127, 128, 129, 130, 33 IA9 & IA11 (2) 742, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 133, 414, 1083, 413, 412, 988, 411, 580, 557, 583, 558, 559 1071, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 999, 376, 378, 379, 34 IA1, IA2, IA4, IA8, & IA10 377, 380, 375, 374, 287, 280, 303, 281, 891 Quad Cities Generating Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 103. School and Preschool Relocation/Reception Centers School Relocation/Reception Center ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS Riverdale Middle School Riverdale High School Riverdale Elementary School Rock Island High School Life's Little Miracles Inc.

Messiah Luthern Church Preschool CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA Camanche Middle School Camanche High School Central High School Camanche Elementary School Clinton Community College Technology Center Clinton Community College Northeast Senior High School Ashford University Clinton Campus Clinton High School West High School - Davenport Bluff Elementary School Whittier Elementary School North High School - Davenport Jefferson Elementary School Eagle Heights Elementary School Clinton Middle School Calamus/Wheatland Jr./Sr. High School - Wheatland Prince of Peace Catholic School Wood Intermediate Stay N Play Unity Christian Mercy Child & Preschool YWCA Clinton Zion Child Care Preschool Central DeWitt Middle School Ashford PreSchool Clinton Head Start Wee School for Little People YWCA Children's Center St John Lutheran Preschool SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA Virgil Grissom Elementary School Cody Elementary School Bridgeview Elementary School Pleasant Valley Junior High School North Scott Junior High School North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom Kiddie Karrasel Academy SCFYBridgeview Kids Club Quad Cities Generating Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Major Evacuation Routes Quad Cities Generating Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. QDC Transit Dependent Bus Routes Quad Cities Generating Station 107 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. General Population Reception Communities and Reception Center/School Relocation Centers Quad Cities Generating Station 108 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vehicles per hour (vph).

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Quad Cities Generating Station A1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Term Definition Signal Phase A set of signal indications (and intervals) which services a particular combination of traffic movements on selected approaches to the intersection. The phase duration is expressed in seconds.

Traffic (Trip) Assignment A process of assigning traffic to paths of travel in such a way as to satisfy all trip objectives (i.e., the desire of each vehicle to travel from a specified origin in the network to a specified destination) and to optimize some stated objective or combination of objectives. In general, the objective is stated in terms of minimizing a generalized "cost". For example, "cost" may be expressed in terms of travel time.

Traffic Density The number of vehicles that occupy one lane of a roadway section of specified length at a point in time, expressed as vehicles per mile (vpm).

Traffic (Trip) Distribution A process for determining the destinations of all traffic generated at the origins. The result often takes the form of a Trip Table, which is a matrix of origindestination traffic volumes.

Traffic Simulation A computer model designed to replicate the realworld operation of vehicles on a roadway network, so as to provide statistics describing traffic performance. These statistics are called Measures of Effectiveness (MOE).

Traffic Volume The number of vehicles that pass over a section of roadway in one direction, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vehicles per hour (vph) or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Quad Cities Generating Station A2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX B DTRAD: Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution Model

B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL This appendix describes the integrated dynamic trip assignment and distribution model named DTRAD (Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution) that is expressly designed for use in analyzing evacuation scenarios. DTRAD employs logitbased pathchoice principles and is one of the models of the DYNEV II System. The DTRAD module implements pathbased Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) so that time dependent OriginDestination (OD) trips are assigned to routes over the network based on prevailing traffic conditions.

To apply the DYNEV II System, the analyst must specify the highway network, link capacity information, the timevarying volume of traffic generated at all origin centroids and, optionally, a set of accessible candidate destination nodes on the periphery of the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) for selected origins. DTRAD calculates the optimal dynamic trip distribution (i.e., trip destinations) and the optimal dynamic trip assignment (i.e., trip routing) of the traffic generated at each origin node traveling to its set of candidate destination nodes, so as to minimize evacuee travel cost.

B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model The underlying premise is that the selection of destinations and routes is intrinsically coupled in an evacuation scenario. That is, people in vehicles seek to travel out of an area of potential risk as rapidly as possible by selecting the best routes. The model is designed to identify these best routes in a manner that realistically distributes vehicles from origins to destinations and routes them over the highway network, in a consistent and optimal manner, reflecting evacuee behavior.

For each origin, a set of candidate destination nodes is selected by the software logic and by the analyst to reflect the desire by evacuees to travel away from the power plant and to access major highways. The specific destination nodes within this set that are selected by travelers and the selection of the connecting paths of travel, are both determined by DTRAD. This determination is made by a logitbased path choice model in DTRAD, so as to minimize the trip cost, as discussed later.

The traffic loading on the network and the consequent operational traffic environment of the network (density, speed, throughput on each link) vary over time as the evacuation takes place.

The DTRAD model, which is interfaced with the DYNEV simulation model, executes a succession of sessions wherein it computes the optimal routing and selection of destination nodes for the conditions that exist at that time.

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified Quad Cities Generating Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

DTRAD executes the Traffic Assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

Quad Cities Generating Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as where is the generalized cost for link and , , and, are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 15 miles, the outer distance of the EPZ. Note that the supplemental cost, sa, of link, a, is (high, low), if its downstream node, n, is (near, far from) the power plant.

Quad Cities Generating Station B3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2.2 Network Equilibrium In 1952, John Wardrop wrote:

Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in congested networks in such a way that no individual tripmaker can reduce his path costs by switching routes.

The above statement describes the User Equilibrium definition, also called the Selfish Driver Equilibrium. It is a hypothesis that represents a [hopeful] condition that evolves over time as drivers search out alternative routes to identify those routes that minimize their respective costs. It has been found that this equilibrium objective to minimize costs is largely realized by most drivers who routinely take the same trip over the same network at the same time (i.e.,

commuters). Effectively, such drivers learn which routes are best for them over time. Thus, the traffic environment settles down to a nearequilibrium state.

Clearly, since an emergency evacuation is a sudden, unique event, it does not constitute a long term learning experience which can achieve an equilibrium state. Consequently, DTRAD was not designed as an equilibrium solution, but to represent drivers in a new and unfamiliar situation, who respond in a flexible manner to realtime information (either broadcast or observed) in such a way as to minimize their respective costs of travel.

Quad Cities Generating Station B4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Start of next DTRAD Session A

Set T0 Clock time.

Archive System State at T0 Define latest Link Turn Percentages Execute Simulation Model from B time, T0 to T1 (burn time)

Provide DTRAD with link MOE at time, T1 Execute DTRAD iteration; Get new Turn Percentages Retrieve System State at T0 ;

Apply new Link Turn Percents DTRAD iteration converges?

No Yes Next iteration Simulate from T0 to T2 (DTA session duration)

Set Clock to T2 B A Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface Quad Cities Generating Station B5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX C DYNEV Traffic Simulation Model

C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL This appendix describes the DYNEV traffic simulation model. The DYNEV traffic simulation model is a macroscopic model that describes the operations of traffic flow in terms of aggregate variables: vehicles, flow rate, mean speed, volume, density, queue length, on each link, for each turn movement, during each Time Interval (simulation time step). The model generates trips from sources and from Entry Links and introduces them onto the analysis network at rates specified by the analyst based on the mobilization time distributions. The model simulates the movements of all vehicles on all network links over time until the network is empty. At intervals, the model outputs Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) such as those listed in Table C1.

Model Features Include:

Explicit consideration is taken of the variation in density over the time step; an iterative procedure is employed to calculate an average density over the simulation time step for the purpose of computing a mean speed for moving vehicles.

Multiple turn movements can be serviced on one link; a separate algorithm is used to estimate the number of (fractional) lanes assigned to the vehicles performing each turn movement, based, in part, on the turn percentages provided by the Dynamic TRaffic Assignment and Distribution (DTRAD) model.

At any point in time, traffic flow on a link is subdivided into two classifications: queued and moving vehicles. The number of vehicles in each classification is computed. Vehicle spillback, stratified by turn movement for each network link, is explicitly considered and quantified. The propagation of stopping waves from link to link is computed within each time step of the simulation. There is no vertical stacking of queues on a link.

Any link can accommodate source flow from zones via side streets and parking facilities that are not explicitly represented. This flow represents the evacuating trips that are generated at the source.

The relation between the number of vehicles occupying the link and its storage capacity is monitored every time step for every link and for every turn movement. If the available storage capacity on a link is exceeded by the demand for service, then the simulator applies a metering rate to the entering traffic from both the upstream feeders and source node to ensure that the available storage capacity is not exceeded.

A path network that represents the specified traffic movements from each network link is constructed by the model; this path network is utilized by the DTRAD model.

A twoway interface with DTRAD: (1) provides link travel times; (2) receives data that translates into link turn percentages.

Provides MOE to animation software, EVacuation Animator (EVAN)

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

Quad Cities Generating Station C1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To provide an efficient framework for defining these specifications, the physical highway environment is represented as a network. The unidirectional links of the network represent roadway sections: rural, multilane, urban streets or freeways. The nodes of the network generally represent intersections or points along a section where a geometric property changes (e.g. a lane drop, change in grade or free flow speed).

Figure C1 is an example of a small network representation. The freeway is defined by the sequence of links, (20,21), (21,22), and (22,23). Links (8001, 19) and (3, 8011) are Entry and Exit links, respectively. An arterial extends from node 3 to node 19 and is partially subsumed within a grid network. Note that links (21,22) and (17,19) are gradeseparated.

C.1 Methodology C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram It is necessary to define the fundamental diagram describing flowdensity and speeddensity relationships. Rather than settling for a triangular representation, a more realistic representation that includes a capacity drop, (IR)Qmax, at the critical density when flow conditions enter the forced flow regime, is developed and calibrated for each link. This representation, shown in Figure C2, asserts a constant free speed up to a density, k , and then a linear reduction in speed in the range, k k k 45 vpm, the density at capacity. In the flowdensity plane, a quadratic relationship is prescribed in the range, k k 95 vpm which roughly represents the stopandgo condition of severe congestion. The value of flow rate, Q , corresponding to k , is approximated at 0.7 RQ . A linear relationship between k and k completes the diagram shown in Figure C2. Table C3 is a glossary of terms.

The fundamental diagram is applied to moving traffic on every link. The specified calibration values for each link are: (1) Free speed, v ; (2) Capacity, Q  ; (3) Critical density, k 45 vpm ; (4) Capacity Drop Factor, R = 0.9 ; (5) Jam density, k . Then, v , k k

. Setting k k k , then Q RQ k for 0 k k 50 . It can be shown that Q 0.98 0.0056 k RQ for k k k , where k 50 and k 175.

C.1.2 The Simulation Model The simulation model solves a sequence of unit problems. Each unit problem computes the movement of traffic on a link, for each specified turn movement, over a specified time interval (TI) which serves as the simulation time step for all links. Figure C3 is a representation of the unit problem in the timedistance plane. Table C3 is a glossary of terms that are referenced in the following description of the unit problem procedure.

The formulation and the associated logic presented below are designed to solve the unit problem for each sweep over the network (discussed below), for each turn movement serviced on each link that comprises the evacuation network, and for each TI over the duration of the evacuation.

Quad Cities Generating Station C2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Given Q , M , L , TI , E , LN , G C , h , L , R , L , E , M Compute O , Q , M Define O O O O ; E E E

1. For the first sweep, s = 1, of this TI, get initial estimates of mean density, k , the R - factor, R and entering traffic, E , using the values computed for the final sweep of the prior TI.

For each subsequent sweep, s 1 , calculate E P O S where P , O are the relevant turn percentages from feeder link, i , and its total outflow (possibly metered) over this TI; S is the total source flow (possibly metered) during the current TI.

Set iteration counter, n = 0, k k , and E E .

2. Calculate v k such that k 130 using the analytical representations of the fundamental diagram.

Q TI G Calculate Cap C LN , in vehicles, this value may be reduced 3600 due to metering Set R 1.0 if G C 1 or if k k ; Set R 0.9 only if G C 1 and k k L

Calculate queue length, L Q LN

3. Calculate t TI . If t 0 , set t E O 0 ; Else, E E .

4. Then E E E ; t TI t

5. If Q Cap , then O Cap , O O 0 If t 0 , then Q Q M E Cap Else Q Q Cap End if Calculate Q and M using Algorithm A below

6. Else Q Cap O Q , RCap Cap O

7. If M RCap , then t Cap

8. If t 0, O M ,O min RCap M , 0 TI Q E O If Q 0 , then Quad Cities Generating Station C3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

10. Else t 0 M M If M ,

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

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

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

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

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

End if Quad Cities Generating Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

When t 0 and Q Cap:

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

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

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

TI LN Quad Cities Generating Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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.

Quad Cities Generating Station C6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e. the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all measures of effectiveness for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run. Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end Quad Cities Generating Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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 Quad Cities Generating Station C8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model HIGHWAY NETWORK Links defined by upstream and downstream node numbers Link lengths Number of lanes (up to 9) and channelization Turn bays (1 to 3 lanes)

Destination (exit) nodes Network topology defined in terms of downstream nodes for each receiving link Node Coordinates (X,Y)

Nuclear Power Plant Coordinates (X,Y)

GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES On all entry links and source nodes (origins), by Time Period TRAFFIC CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Traffic signals: linkspecific, turn movement specific Signal control treated as fixed time or actuated Location of traffic control points (these are represented as actuated signals)

Stop and Yield signs Rightturnonred (RTOR)

Route diversion specifications Turn restrictions Lane control (e.g. lane closure, movementspecific)

DRIVERS AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Drivers (vehiclespecific) response mechanisms: freeflow speed, discharge headway Bus route designation.

DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Candidate destination nodes for each origin (optional)

Duration of DTA sessions Duration of simulation burn time Desired number of destination nodes per origin INCIDENTS Identify and Schedule of closed lanes Identify and Schedule of closed links Quad Cities Generating Station C9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C3. Glossary The maximum number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that can discharge Cap from a link within a time interval.

The number of vehicles, of a particular movement, that enter the link over the E

time interval. The portion, ETI, can reach the stopbar within the TI.

The green time: cycle time ratio that services the vehicles of a particular turn G/C movement on a link.

h The mean queue discharge headway, seconds.

k Density in vehicles per lane per mile.

The average density of moving vehicles of a particular movement over a TI, on a k

link.

L The length of the link in feet.

The queue length in feet of a particular movement, at the [beginning, end] of a L ,L time interval.

The number of lanes, expressed as a floating point number, allocated to service a LN particular movement on a link.

L The mean effective length of a queued vehicle including the vehicle spacing, feet.

M Metering factor (Multiplier): 1.

The number of moving vehicles on the link, of a particular movement, that are M ,M moving at the [beginning, end] of the time interval. These vehicles are assumed to be of equal spacing, over the length of link upstream of the queue.

The total number of vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a O

link over a time interval.

The components of the vehicles of a particular movement that are discharged from a link within a time interval: vehicles that were Queued at the beginning of O ,O ,O the TI; vehicles that were Moving within the link at the beginning of the TI; vehicles that Entered the link during the TI.

The percentage, expressed as a fraction, of the total flow on the link that P

executes a particular turn movement, x.

Quad Cities Generating Station C10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The number of queued vehicles on the link, of a particular turn movement, at the Q ,Q

[beginning, end] of the time interval.

The maximum flow rate that can be serviced by a link for a particular movement in the absence of a control device. It is specified by the analyst as an estimate of Q

link capacity, based upon a field survey, with reference to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2016.

R The factor that is applied to the capacity of a link to represent the capacity drop when the flow condition moves into the forced flow regime. The lower capacity at that point is equal to RQ .

RCap The remaining capacity available to service vehicles of a particular movement after that queue has been completely serviced, within a time interval, expressed as vehicles.

S Service rate for movement x, vehicles per hour (vph).

t Vehicles of a particular turn movement that enter a link over the first t seconds of a time interval, can reach the stopbar (in the absence of a queue down stream) within the same time interval.

TI The time interval, in seconds, which is used as the simulation time step.

v The mean speed of travel, in feet per second (fps) or miles per hour (mph), of moving vehicles on the link.

v The mean speed of the last vehicle in a queue that discharges from the link within the TI. This speed differs from the mean speed of moving vehicles, v.

W The width of the intersection in feet. This is the difference between the link length which extends from stopbar to stopbar and the block length.

Quad Cities Generating Station C11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

8011 8009 2 3 8104 8107 6 5 8008 8010 8 9 10 8007 8012 12 11 8006 8005 13 14 8014 15 25 8004 16 24 8024 17 8003 23 22 21 20 8002 Entry, Exit Nodes are 19 numbered 8xxx 8001 Figure C1. Representative Analysis Network Quad Cities Generating Station C12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Volume, vph Capacity Drop Qmax R Qmax Qs Density, vpm Flow Regimes Speed, mph Free Forced vf R vc Density, vpm kf kc kj ks Figure C2. Fundamental Diagrams Distance OQ OM OE Down Qb vQ Qe v

v L

Mb Me Up t1 t2 Time E1 E2 TI Figure C3. A UNIT Problem Configuration with t1 > 0 Quad Cities Generating Station C13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sequence Network Links Next Timestep, of duration, TI A

Next sweep; Define E, M, S for all B

Links C Next Link D Next Turn Movement, x Get lanes, LNx Service Rate, Sx ; G/Cx Get inputs to Unit Problem:

Q b , Mb , E Solve Unit Problem: Q e , Me , O No D Last Movement ?

Yes No Last Link ? C Yes No B Last Sweep ?

Yes Calc., store all Link MOE Set up next TI :

No A Last Time - step ?

Yes DONE Figure C4. Flow of Simulation Processing (See Glossary: Table C3)

Quad Cities Generating Station C14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX D Detailed Description of Study Procedure

D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE This appendix describes the activities that were performed to compute Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE). The individual steps of this effort are represented as a flow diagram in Figure D1. Each numbered step in the description that follows corresponds to the numbered element in the flow diagram.

Step 1 The first activity was to obtain the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a Geographic Information System (GIS) base map. The base map extends beyond the Shadow Region which extends approximately 15 miles (radially) from the power plant location.

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

Step 2 The 2020 Census block information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Transient, employment, and special facility data were obtained from Constellation, the state and county emergency management agencies, and phone calls to individual facilities, the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA), the emergency plans from the Counties of Clinton and Scott, and the old data from the previous study which were reviewed and confirmed by the state and county emergency management agencies as still accurate, supplemented by internet searches, and phone calls to individual facilities, where data was missing. In addition, transportation resources available from 2014 ETE study were reviewed, confirmed, and also updated by the counties within the EPZ.

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

Step 4 Next, a physical survey of the roadway system in the study area was conducted to determine any changes to the roadway network since the previous study. This survey included consideration of 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 Quad Cities Generating Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the study area was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated 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 18 SubAreas. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of SubAreas) that may be advised to evacuate), were developed.

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Step 10 The results generated by the prototype evacuation case are critically examined. The examination includes observing the animated graphics (using the EVAN software - see Section 1.3 which operates on data 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Step 15 All evacuation cases are executed using the DYNEV II System to compute ETE. Once results are available, quality control procedures are used to assure the results are consistent, dynamic routing is reasonable, and traffic congestion/bottlenecks are addressed properly. 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, hospitals, and other special facilities.

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

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

Quad Cities Generating Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 10 Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN Step 1 and Create GIS Base Map DYNEV II Output Step 2 Results Satisfactory Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Step 11 Study Area Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Step 3 Traffic Control Treatments Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Step 12 Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Step 4 Evacuation Case Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Step 5 B Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Step 13 Develop Trip Generation Characteristics Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Step 6 Routes and Update DYNEVII Database Update and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Step 14 Network Step 7 Generate DYNEVII Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Use DYNEVII to Simulate All Evacuation Cases and Compute ETE Create and Debug DYNEVII Input Stream Step 16 Use DYNEVII Results to Estimate Transit and Step 9 Special Facilities Evacuation Time Estimates B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Quad Cities Generating Station D5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX E Facility Data

E. FACILITY DATA The following tables list population information, as of June 2022, for special facilities, transient attractions and major employers that are located within the QDC EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, preschools, medical facilities, and correctional facilities. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas (campgrounds, golf courses, historical sites, marinas, parks, other recreational facilities) and lodging facilities. Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Each table is grouped by county and state.

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, medical facility, correctional facility, recreational area (campground, golf course, historical site, marina, park, other recreational facility), lodging facility, and major employer are also provided.

Quad Cities Generating Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools within the EPZ Sub Distance Direc Enroll Area (miles) tion School Name Street Address Municipality ment ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS IL6 7.4 SSE Riverdale Middle School 9822 256th St N Port Byron 244 IL6 7.8 SSE Riverdale High School 9622 256th St N Port Byron 355 IL6 8.0 SSE Riverdale Elementary School 9494 256th St N Port Byron 561 Rock Island County Subtotal: 1,160 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA5 4.9 NNE Camanche Middle School 1400 9th St Camanche 350 IA5 4.9 NNE Camanche High School 937 9th Ave Camanche 300 IA5 5.3 NNE Camanche Elementary School 500 11th Pl Camanche 375 IA11 8.0 NNE Clinton Community College Technology Center 1951 Manufacturing Dr Clinton 100 IA11 8.6 NNE Bluff Elementary School 1421 S Bluff Blvd Clinton 500 IA11 9.0 NE Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Blvd Clinton 400 IA11 9.3 NE Clinton High School 817 8th Ave Clinton 1,500 IA11 9.5 NNE Whittier Elementary School 1310 2nd Ave S Clinton 400 IA11 9.8 NE Jefferson Elementary School 720 4th Ave S Clinton 370 IA11 10.1 NE Prince of Peace Catholic School 312 S 4th St Clinton 350 IA11 10.4 NNE Clinton Middle School 1350 N 14th St Clinton 600 IA11 11.1 NNE Ashford University Clinton Campus 1310 19th Ave NW Clinton 340 IA11 11.7 NNE Eagle Heights Elementary School 1350 Main Ave Clinton 530 Clinton County Subtotal: 6,115 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA IA6 3.9 SSW Virgil Grissom Elementary School 500 Lost Grove Rd Princeton 200 IA12 8.5 SSW Cody Elementary School 2100 Territorial Rd Le Claire 434 IA12 9.4 SSW Bridgeview Elementary School 316 S 12th St Le Claire 376 IA12 9.7 SSW Pleasant Valley Junior High School 604 Belmont Rd Bettendorf 838 Scott County Subtotal: 1,848 EPZ TOTAL: 9,123 Quad Cities Generating Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E2. Preschools within the EPZ Sub Distance Direc Enroll Area (miles) tion School Name Street Address Municipality ment ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL6 7.5 S Life's Little Miracles Inc. 205 11th St Port Byron 80 IL6 7.6 S Messiah Lutheran Church Preschool 302 11th St Port Byron 60 Rock Island County Subtotal: 140 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA11 7.7 NNE Stay N Play 1811 27th Ave S Clinton 52 IA11 8.5 NE Unity Christian 407 22nd Pl Clinton 50 IA11 9.3 NNE Mercy Child & Preschool 638 S Bluff Blvd Clinton 147 IA11 9.9 NE YWCA Clinton 317 7th Ave S Clinton 146 IA11 10.0 NE Zion Child Care Preschool 430 3rd Ave S Clinton 115 IA11 10.3 NE Ashford PreSchool 400 N Bluff Blvd Clinton 50 IA11 10.5 NE Clinton Head Start 350 5th Ave N Clinton 88 IA11 10.5 NNE Wee School For Little People 949 12th Ave N Clinton 90 IA11 11.8 NE YWCA Children's Center 250 20th Ave N Clinton 92 IA11 12.0 NNE St John Lutheran Preschool 416 Main Ave Clinton 24 Clinton County Subtotal: 854 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA IA6 3.9 SSW North Scott Child Care Virgil Grissom 500 Lost Grove Rd Princeton 43 IA12 8.9 SSW Kiddie Karrasel Academy 328 N Cody Rd Le Claire 105 IA12 9.4 SSW SCFYBridgeview Kids Club 316 S 12th St Le Claire 52 Scott County Subtotal: 200 EPZ TOTAL: 1,194 Quad Cities Generating Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E3. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Sub Distance Direc Current atory chair ridden Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Census Patients Patients Patients CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA5 5.0 NNE Park Vista Retirement Living Camanche 1810 Park Vista Dr Camanche 50 31 18 1 IA11 9.3 NNE MercyOne Clinton Home Care and Hospice 638 S Bluff Blvd Clinton 79 23 48 8 IA11 9.7 NNE Sarah Harding Home 308 S Bluff Blvd Clinton 47 44 3 0 IA11 9.9 NE Park Towers 329 6th Ave S Clinton 71 59 11 1 IA11 10.2 NNE Prairie Hills at Clinton 1701 13th Ave N Clinton 79 77 2 0 IA11 10.4 NNE Countryside of Clinton 1130 N 11th St Clinton 33 33 0 0 IA11 10.5 NNE Bickford of Clinton 1150 13th Ave N Clinton 37 27 10 0 IA11 10.6 NNE Village Cooperative 1160 14th Ave NW Clinton 42 26 15 1 IA11 10.9 NNE Alverno Health Care Facility 849 13th Ave N Clinton 126 30 92 4 IA11 11.2 NNE Mercy Living Center North 600 14th Ave N Clinton 67 9 58 0 IA11 11.2 NE MercyOne Clinton Medical Center 1410 N 4th St Clinton 66 43 19 4 IA11 12.1 NNE Lyons Manor 318 Main Ave Clinton 50 41 8 1 IA11 12.1 NNE Eagle Point Health Care Center 801 28th Ave N Clinton 69 58 10 1 Clinton County Subtotal: 816 501 294 21 EPZ TOTAL: 816 501 294 21 Quad Cities Generating Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Major Employers within the EPZ

% Employee Employees Employees Vehicles Sub Distance Direc Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL1 Quad Cities Generating Station 22710 206th Ave Cordova 450 79.1% 356 339 IL1 1.8 NE 3M Co 22614 IL 84 N Cordova 324 53.4% 161 153 Rock Island County Subtotal: 774 517 492 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA5 5.7 N Equistar Chemicals LP 3400 Anamosa Rd Clinton 327 53.4% 175 167 IA5 8.0 NE ADM 1251 Beaver Channel Pkwy Clinton 535 53.4% 286 272 IA11 7.5 NNE RockTenn Co 2301 S 21st St Clinton 273 53.4% 146 139 IA11 8.0 NNE Collis Inc 2005 S 19th St Clinton 262 53.4% 140 133 IA11 8.0 NNE Nestle Purina Pet Care Co 2000 Manufacturing Dr Clinton 233 53.4% 124 118 IA11 10.9 NNE Medical Associates Clinic 915 13th Ave N Clinton 244 53.4% 130 124 IA11 11.1 NNE Data Dimensions 19th Ave NW Clinton 286 53.4% 153 146 IA11 11.4 NE CustomPak 86 Sixteenth Ave N Clinton 436 53.4% 233 222 Clinton County Subtotal: 2,596 1,387 1,321 EPZ TOTAL: 3,370 1,904 1,813 Quad Cities Generating Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E5. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Sub Distance Direc Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles ROCK ISLAND COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL1 1.1 SE Cordova Dragway 19425 IL 84 Cordova Other, Not Listed 300 134 IL6 5.9 SSW Camp Hauberg 12928 IL 84 Port Byron Campground 474 212 IL6 7.9 S Byron Hills Golf Course 23316 94th Ave N Port Byron Golf Course 200 90 IL6 7.9 S Dorrance Park1 401 Agnes St Port Byron Park Local residents only Rock Island County Subtotal: 974 436 WHITESIDE COUNTY, ILLINOIS IL2 5.6 NE Albany Mounds State Historic Site1 12th Ave S Albany Historical Site Local residents only IL2 5.7 NE Dolan Memorial Park1 IL 84 S Albany Park Local residents only IL2 6.4 NE Albany Marina1 2nd Ave N & Water St Albany Marina Local residents only Whiteside County Subtotal: 0 0 CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA1 2.1 NNW Rock Creek Marina & Campground 3942 291st St Camanche Marina 245 110 181 Cedar Heights IA5 4.6 NNE Cedar Heights Mobile Home Park2 Trailer Ct Camanche Campground Local residents only IA5 5.1 NE Camanche Marina 115 4th Ave Camanche Marina 150 67 IA5 6.1 NNE Lloyd's Mobile Home Park2 110 21st St Camanche Campground Local residents only IA11 6.9 NNE Wild Rose Casino & Resort 777 Wild Rose Dr Clinton Other, Not Listed 1,500 670 IA11 7.4 NNE Valley Oaks Golf Course 3330 Harts Mill Rd Clinton Golf Course 250 112 IA11 10.4 NE Riverview Park 101 S 1st St Clinton Park 750 335 IA11 10.6 NE Showboat Theatre 303 Riverview Dr Clinton Other, Not Listed 180 81 IA11 10.6 NE NelsonCorp Field 537 Ball Park Dr Clinton Other, Not Listed 1,200 536 IA11 10.7 NE Clinton Marina 511 Riverview Dr Clinton Marina 296 133 IA11 10.8 NE Riverview Recreation Vehicle Park 511 Riverview Dr Clinton Campground 65 54 Clinton County Subtotal: 4,636 2,098 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA Highway 67, 285th IA2 1.8 WSW Princeton Wildlife Management Area Ave & 266th St Princeton Park 50 23 1

These small facilities are included in the Illinois Plans for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) for QDC; however, the visitors at these facilities are likely local residents that have been counted as permanent residents discussed in Section 3.1. Therefore, no transients or transient vehicles were assigned to these facilities.

2 The 2020 Census indicates that residents at Cedar Heights Mobile Home Park and Lloyd's Mobile Home Park are permanent residents that have been included in Section 3.1.

Therefore, no transients or transient vehicles were assigned to these two mobile home parks.

Quad Cities Generating Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Sub Distance Direc Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Facility Type Transients Vehicles IA6 3.8 SSW Princeton Beach Marina 203 River Dr Princeton Marina 5 2 IA12 9.0 S Riverboat Twilight and Buffalo Bill Museum Front St Le Claire Other, Not Listed 323 135 IA12 10.5 SSW Green Gable Marina 2315 Canal Shore Dr Le Claire Marina 100 45 Scott County Subtotal: 478 205 EPZ TOTAL: 6,088 2,739 Table E6. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Sub Distance Direc Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA5 7.1 NNE Timber Motel 2225 Lincoln Way Clinton 72 36 IA5 7.5 NE Super 8 by Wyndham Clinton 1711 Lincoln Way Clinton 126 63 IA11 6.9 NNE Hampton Inn Clinton 2781 Wild Rose Dr Clinton 152 76 IA11 7.1 NNE Wild Rose Casino & Resort3 777 Wild Rose Dr Clinton See Table E5 IA11 7.1 NNE Holiday Inn Express & Suites Clinton 2800 S 25th St Clinton 134 67 IA11 7.1 NNE Country Inn & Suites by Radisson 2224 Lincoln Way Clinton 126 63 IA11 7.4 NNE Travelodge by Wyndham Clinton Valley West Court 2300 Valley W Ct Clinton 294 123 IA11 7.7 NE More Stay 1522 Lincoln Way Clinton 200 100 IA11 10.0 NE Travel Inn 302 6th Ave S Clinton 104 52 Clinton County Subtotal: 1,208 580 SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA IA12 9.8 SSW Super 8 by Wyndham Le Claire/Quad Cities 1552 Welcome Center Ct Le Claire 64 32 IA12 9.9 SSW Comfort Inn & Suites Riverview 902 Mississippi View Ct Le Claire 108 54 IA12 10.1 SSW Holiday Inn Express Le Claire RiverfrontDavenport 1201 Canal Shore Dr SW Le Claire 132 66 Scott County Subtotal: 304 152 EPZ TOTAL: 1,512 732 3

Transients staying overnight at the resort have already been included with the transient data for the casino in Table E-5.

Quad Cities Generating Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E7. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Sub Distance Direc Capa Current Area (miles) tion Facility Name Street Address Municipality city Census CLINTON COUNTY, IOWA IA11 10.7 NE Clinton County Jail 241 Seventh Ave N Clinton 59 56 Clinton County Subtotal: 59 56 EPZ TOTAL: 59 56 Quad Cities Generating Station E8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Preschools within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Medical Facilities within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Major Employers within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E5. Recreational Areas within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E6. Lodging Facilities within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E7. Correctional Facilities within the QDC EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station E15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of ETE for the Quad Cities Generating Station (QDC) 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; however, 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 for this study. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received, and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein was performed in 2021 prior to the release of the 2020 Census data, the 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of approximately 463 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-4.5% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using GIS software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each zip code was identified, as shown in Figure F1.

A total of 140 completed samples within the EPZ were obtained, corresponding to a sampling error of approximately +/-8.25% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census. The number of samples obtained was significantly less than the sampling plan. Due to the sparse population within the EPZ, the zip codes considered was expanded into the Shadow Region, as the demographics are similar. As shown in Table F1, this increased the total to 149 completed survey forms in the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region), and yields results with a sampling error of +/-8.00% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census data. This is still more than the Quad Cities Generating Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.5% sampling error, as per the sampling plan. This was discussed with Constellation personnel, and the 8.00% sampling error with the use of the Shadow Region zip codes 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 Decline to State entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the decline to state responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the study area (EPZ and Shadow Region) based on the responses to the demographic survey. The average household contains 2.91 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.39 people. The difference between the 2020 Census data and survey data is 21.8%, which exceeds the demographic surveys margin of error of 8.00%. This difference was discussed with Constellation, and it was decided that the U.S. Census estimate of 2.39 people per household should be used for this study. This results in a more conservative estimate when determining the number of households and evacuating vehicles. A sensitivity study to determine the impact to ETE of using the survey data was conducted and is documented in Appendix M.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the study area is 2.46. It should be noted that all households within the study area have access to an automobile, according to the demographic survey. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2, Figure F3 and Figure F4 present the automobile availability by household size.

Quad Cities Generating Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Ridesharing The majority (88.3%) of the households surveyed responded that they would share a ride with a neighbor, relative, or friend if a car was not available to them when advised to evacuate in the event of an emergency, as shown in Figure F5.

Commuters Figure F6 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household. Commuters are defined as household members who travel to work or college on a daily basis. The data shows an average of 1.50 commuters in each household in the study area, and 80.5% of households have at least one commuter.

Impact of COVID19 on Commuters Figure F7 presents the distribution of the number of commuters in each household that were temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic. The data shows and average of 0.96 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Approximately 49% of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F8 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work. The data shows an average of 1.05 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F9 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation needs. The survey results show that even though a majority of EPZ residents would not require assistance, it is important to note that 6.7% of households will. Of those with access and/or functional transportation needs, 7 homes require a bus, about one home requires a medical bus/van, one home requires a wheelchair accessible van, and one home requires 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 of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F10. On average, evacuating households would use 1.55 vehicles.

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

Of the survey participants who responded, 65.3% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and 34.7% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members before evacuating, as shown in Figure F11.

Emergency officials advise you to shelterinplace in an emergency because you are not in the area risk. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with Quad Cities Generating Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

instructions to shelterinplace. The results indicate that 92.4% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 7.6% would choose to evacuate the area, as shown in Figure F12.

Note the baseline ETE study assumes 20% of households will not comply with the shelter advisory, as per Section 2.5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev 1. Thus, the noncompliance rate obtained above is considerably lower than the federal guidance recommendation. 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 71.5% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the other 28.5% would choose to begin evacuating immediately, as shown in Figure F13.

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. Approximately 52% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 3.4% to a reception center, 15.1% to a hotel, motel or campground, 4.1% to a second or seasonal home, 0.7% said they would not evacuate, and the remaining 24.7%

answered other/dont know to this question, as shown in Figure F14.

If you had a household pet, would you take your pet with you if you were asked to evacuate the area? Based on the responses to the survey, 70.3% of households have a family pets or farm animals. Of the households with pets, 25.5% of them indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 69.6% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else and only 4.9% would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F15. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, 100% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s).

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, about 92% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, fish, etc.), about 5% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goose, duck, etc.), and about 3% 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 F7, slightly more than half (51.4%) of respondents indicated no commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; therefore, the Quad Cities Generating Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

results for the time distribution of commuters (time to prepare to leave work/college and time to travel home from work/college) were used as is in this study.

The mobilization distributions provided below are the result of having applied the analysis described in Section 5.4.1 on the component activities of the mobilization.

How long does it take the commuter to complete preparation for leaving work or school?

Figure F16 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by about 60 minutes. Nearly 90% can leave within 30 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F17 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 93% of commuters can arrive home within about 45 minutes of leaving work; all within 75 minutes.

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F18 presents the time required to prepare for leaving on an evacuation trip. In many ways this activity mimics a familys preparation for a short holiday or weekend away from home.

Hence, the responses represent the experience of the responder in performing similar activities.

Approximately 87% of households can be ready to leave home within 120 minutes; the remaining households 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 45 minutes.

How much time, on average, would it take you to clear 68 inches of snow accumulation to move the car from the driveway to begin the evacuation trip assuming the roads are passable?

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 F19 presents the time required to clear the snow accumulation and begin the evacuation trip.

Approximately, 92% of households can have their car cleared and the driveway passable within 75 minutes; the remaining households would require up to an additional hour to begin their evacuation trip, as seen in Figure F19. Note, that those respondents (10.1%) who answered that they wouldnt 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. QDC Demographic Survey Sampling Plan EPZ Households EPZ Population Desired Actual Location Zip Code Within Zip Code (2010) Samples Sample (2010) 52722 23 11 1 11 52730 4,950 2,134 42 10 52732 26,936 11,273 222 54 52742 607 221 4 12 52748 336 126 3 3 52750 5 1 1 2 52753 4,958 1,971 39 3 52756 358 135 3 0 52757 201 82 2 2 52758 199 79 2 0 EPZ 52768 1,426 567 11 0 52807 96 40 1 3 61230 1,232 519 10 3 61242 1,145 475 9 0 61250 295 110 2 1 61251 63 24 1 3 61252 582 226 4 32 61257 291 122 2 0 61275 2,674 1,074 21 1 61278 10 3 1 0 EPZ Total: 46,387 19,193 381 140 61244 4,411 1,324 2 Shadow 61270 377 148 N/A 5 Region 52731 35 13 2 Shadow Region Total: 4,823 1,485 N/A 9 Study Area (EPZ &

51,210 20,678 381 149 Shadow Region) Total:

Quad Cities Generating Station 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 EPZ Vehicle Availability 50%

41.9%

40%

Percent of Households 29.1%

30%

20%

15.5%

10% 8.1%

5.4%

0.0%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Quad Cities Generating Station F7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 13 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 3 Person Households Distribution of Vehicles by HH Size 47+ Person Households 4 People 5 People 6 People 7+ People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 Vehicles Figure F4. Vehicle Availability 4+ Person Households Quad Cities Generating Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Rideshare with Neighbor/Friend 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes No Figure F5. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters Per Household 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F6. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

COVID19 Impact to Commuters 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F7. Impact to Commuters due to the COVID19 Pandemic Travel Mode to Work 100%

92.82%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

5.26%

0.48% 0.48% 0.96%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F8. Modes of Travel in the EPZ Quad Cities Generating Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 8

7 7

6 Number of Households 5

4 3

2 1 1 1 1

0 Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Ambulance Vehicle Figure F9. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

53.37%

39.19%

40%

20%

5.41%

0.68% 1.35%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F10. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Quad Cities Generating Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Yes, would await return No, would evacuate Figure F11. Percent of Households that Await Returning Commuter Before Leaving Shelter in Place Characteristics 100%

Percent of Households 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter Evacuate Figure F12. ShelterinPlace Characteristics Quad Cities Generating Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

Shelter, then Evacuate Evacuate Immediately Figure F13. Shelter then Evacuate Characteristics Shelter Locations 60%

52.0%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30% 24.7%

20%

15.1%

10%

3.4% 4.1%

0.7%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Center Hotel, Motel, A Would not Other/Don't Home or Campground Second/Seasonal Evacuate Know Home Figure F14. Study Area Evacuation Destinations Quad Cities Generating Station F13 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 F15. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Time to Prepare to Leave Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F16. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College Quad Cities Generating Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Commute Home From Work/College 100%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Travel Time (min)

Figure F17. Work/College to Home Travel Time Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 60 120 180 240 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F18. Time to Prepare Home for Evacuation Quad Cities Generating Station F15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time (min)

Figure F19. Time to Remove 68 inches of Snow from Driveway Quad Cities Generating Station F16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Quad Cities Generating Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Kÿ;%LM/&%N 0123425617859 1225624 27 2 5 425101234232 2235 25 4251 723 45 512 859 122 24 27



ÿÿÿ!

()*%

+%,)*%

-%.*/0%ÿ#2ÿ3#)#%

4

5

ÿÿÿ!

"67 89" 8:;77

+"<;

+=>7 3=?

37>76 7=@:8 6=67ÿ";ÿ(";7 A7;"ÿB6"67C

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87 G

ÿÿÿ!

H73 6"

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87 I

ÿÿÿ!

"67 89" 8:;77

+"<;

+=>7 3=?

37>76 7=@:8 6=67ÿ";ÿ(";7 A7;"ÿB6"67C

=ÿ9"<E-ÿ7>FD<F87ÿJHÿJ=DHDE7

=ÿ9"<E-ÿ7>FD<F87ÿJHÿJ<3

-7DE=67ÿ8"ÿ38F87

01 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739





































ÿÿ

 ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ)

• 1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

+







ÿ!ÿ

 ÿÿ!

"5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ,

-1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

+ "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ./

 "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ0

 "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ12

 "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ11

ÿÿ "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ13

 ÿÿ! "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ./

41 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ$ 4ÿ475

678 9:; 68<=97>?>8@ A7B@ÿ!8CD@ 6AECC8FGÿCAÿHCA@ÿE@CE8@ CDIJÿ<DCK CHH:J@AÿL "5#$ÿ%7ÿ&' (%#78ÿ1/

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

'567 /89 157:;/6<=<7> 2?6@>ÿ07AB> 35?CAA7*ÿA?ÿDA?>ÿC>AC7> 2ABEFÿ:BAG 3ADD8F>?ÿ0 3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ

3ADD8F>?ÿ+

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿ !"#$%ÿ&'ÿ($%%

)*01ÿ !"#$%

00*0ÿ !"#$%

0)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)*+1ÿ !"#$%

+0*+ÿ !"#$%

+)*1ÿ !"#$%

0*ÿ !"#$%

)ÿ*ÿ0ÿ,&"'

&-$'ÿ0ÿ,&"'.ÿ/"#ÿ($%%ÿ#,0!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0)ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ1ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ0ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ+ÿ !"#$%

/$#1$$!ÿ0ÿ,&"'ÿ+)ÿ !"#$%ÿ0!2ÿÿ,&"'%

&-$'ÿÿ,&"'%

2$3(!$ÿ#&ÿ%#0#$

0+2 7>5@>ÿH75B:ÿ6Iÿ=A8?ÿ5B9G>?ÿIA?ÿJ8>9F6ABÿK*0.ÿ69ÿ8BL>?ÿÿMA8?92

6ÿ8ÿ 89ÿ44

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿD0"ÿ:@ÿ>8E4?ÿÿF=>?@2 0(2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

0001ÿ

0ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

ÿ

01ÿ

1ÿ

1011ÿ

1ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ01ÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿD"ÿ:@ÿ>8E4?ÿÿF=>?@2

• 6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ10#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ1#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿB1"ÿ8>ÿ<6C2=ÿ0ÿD;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

01ÿ

11ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿB"ÿ8>ÿ<6C2=ÿ0ÿD;<=>2

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ*0#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿ0ÿ=56782 0*2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ*#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿ0ÿ=56782

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 23453ÿ62478ÿ9:ÿ;<=>ÿ47?@3>ÿ:<>ÿA=3?B9<7ÿC"ÿ9?ÿ=7D3>ÿÿE<=>?2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ01ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 23453ÿ62478ÿ9:ÿ;<=>ÿ47?@3>ÿ:<>ÿA=3?B9<7ÿ11"ÿ9?ÿ=7D3>ÿÿE<=>?2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ01

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿ"ÿ:@ÿ>8D4?ÿÿE=>?@2 0(2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 34564ÿ73589ÿ:;ÿ<=>?ÿ58@A4?ÿ;=?ÿB>4@C:=8ÿ"ÿ:@ÿ>8D4?ÿÿE=>?@2

• 6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

)*+,*ÿ-)+./ÿ01ÿ2345ÿ+.67*5ÿ135ÿ84*6903.ÿ#ÿ06ÿ4.:*5ÿÿ;34562

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

002 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ1"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

11ÿ

10ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

1. %ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782 0*2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2

+,-.,ÿ/+-01ÿ23ÿ4567ÿ-089,7ÿ357ÿ:6,8;250ÿ#ÿ28ÿ60<,7ÿÿ=56782

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

0ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

1110ÿ

1ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

ÿ

10ÿ

0ÿ

0100ÿ

0ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1. %ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ1"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 02 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿ $ÿ10ÿ

10ÿ

10ÿ

ÿÿÿ1ÿ

1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ10ÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿÿ

1ÿÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ10ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

0ÿÿÿ0ÿÿÿ

0ÿÿ1ÿÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ

%ÿÿ!$'$

&'ÿÿ$

02 12342ÿ51367ÿ89ÿ:;<=ÿ36>?2=ÿ9;=ÿ@<2>A8;6ÿ11"ÿ8>ÿ<6B2=ÿÿC;<=>2

001 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿ0ÿ

0ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ !

ÿ !ÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !ÿ0ÿ

ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ"ÿ !

"ÿ !ÿ ÿ"ÿ !ÿ0ÿ

"ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ"ÿ !ÿÿ

"ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿ"ÿ !ÿ0ÿ

"ÿ !ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !

 #ÿ$ÿ ÿ %ÿ

%!ÿÿ !

&'ÿ ÿ

01 062=6ÿ<028Cÿ39ÿA./7ÿ28:-67ÿ9.7ÿD/6:43.8ÿ"#ÿ3:ÿ/8167ÿÿ5./7:1 0(1 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ) 4ÿ47*

  "   .76ÿ4528ÿ

E/:

613>20ÿE/:F%28

$5660>5237

>>6::3<06ÿ%653>06

;</028>6 4567 0+1 0,1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿ-./01ÿ2-234ÿ456ÿ764/78ÿ.9ÿ5./:65.01ÿ;6;<67:ÿ4.ÿ6=2>/246ÿ4.?645671

ÿ-./01ÿ6=2>/246ÿ3816@6816840Aÿ281ÿ;664ÿ.4567ÿ5./:65.01ÿ;6;<67:ÿ024671

&6>0386ÿ4.ÿ4246

1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

!B'

%'

&'ÿ ÿ

1 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

!B'

%'

&'ÿ ÿ

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿ

ÿ!ÿÿÿ "#

ÿ$ÿ

%#ÿÿ#

&ÿ'%

ÿ()*+,-.ÿ/*0123

ÿÿ

042 052 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

6



ÿÿ

072

<= >6ÿ4ÿ?=4?ÿ4@@ 

"



/

 





'

"

"

ÿÿ$ÿ()*+,-.ÿ/*0123

ÿ"ÿ$ÿ()*+,-.ÿ/*0123

89*:;

002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿ

0A2 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

'ÿÿ%ÿÿÿÿ

'ÿÿ%ÿÿ%ÿ

ÿÿÿ

ÿÿ

012 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84





ÿÿ



APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic and Access Control Posts (TACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) were provided by Clinton and Scott Counties and by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

These plans were reviewed, and the TACPs were modeled accordingly. An analysis of the TACP locations was performed, and it was determined to model the ETE simulations with existing TACPs that were provided in the state and county radiological emergency plans, with no additional TACPs.

G.1 Manual Traffic Control The TACPs are forms of Manual Traffic Control (MTC). As discussed in Section 9, TMC at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TACP, the control type was changed to an actuated signal in the DYNEV II system, in accordance with Section 3.3 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. MTCs at existing actuated traffic signalized intersections were essentially left alone.

Table K1 provides the number of nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TACP, the control type is indicated as TACP in Table K1. The TACPs within the TMP are mapped as green dots in Figure G1. The TACPs are concentrated along major evacuation routes along SubArea boundaries and would be staffed during evacuation by traffic guides who would direct evacuees in the proper direction away from the plant, facilitate the flow of traffic through the intersections and stop the flow of traffic into the EPZ. No additional locations for MTC are suggested in this study, as a result of the ETE simulations.

It is assumed that the ACPs will be established within 120 minutes of the advisory to evacuate (ATE) to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the study area. As discussed in Section 3.10, external traffic was considered on Interstate (I)80, I88 and State Route (SR) 5 in this analysis.

G.2 Analysis of Key TACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, MTC at intersections could benefit from the ETE analysis. The MTC locations contained within the traffic management plans (TMPs) were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and could be readily implemented. As previously mentioned, signalized intersections that were actuated based on field data collection were essentially left as actuated traffic signals in the model, with modifications to green time allocation as needed. Other controlled intersections (pretimed signals, stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the TMPs.

Quad Cities Generating Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The majority of the TACPs identified in the TMP were located at intersections with stop control.

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as MTC points in the TMPs that were not previously actuated signals, including the type of control that currently exists at each location. To determine the impact of MTC at these locations, a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather scenario (Scenario 6) evacuation of the 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region and entire EPZ (Regions R01, R02, and R03, respectively) were simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7 and are shown in Table G2. The 90th percentile ETE and the 100th percentile ETEs remained unchanged when compared to the base case wherein these controlled intersections were modeled as actuated signals (with MTC) for Regions R01,R02 and R03, during Scenario 6 conditions.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 77 and discussed in Section 7.3, there is no congestion (LOS B or better) within the 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region. There is significant congestion (LOS C or worse) beyond the 5miles radius along the routes leaving the City of Clinton (in Sub Area IA11). The congestion in the EPZ lasts for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE. During this time, the major evacuation routes have persistent congestion. When heavy traffic persists in competing directions, MTC provides little benefit since both approaches need equal amounts of green time. As a result, the TACPs within the EPZ do little to reduce the ETE for Region R03. In addition, congestion within the EPZ clears prior to the completion of the trip generation time (the time to mobilize, plus travel time to EPZ boundary); as a result, the MTC has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

Although there is no reduction in ETE when MTC is implemented, traffic and access control can be beneficial in the reduction of localized congestion and driver confusion, can be extremely helpful for fixed point surveillance, the prevention of vehicles entering various SubAreas (as the majority of TACPs are located at SubArea boundaries) that may be at risk, amongst other things. Should there be a shortfall of personnel to staff the TACPs, the list of locations provided in Table G1 could be considered as priority locations when implementing the TMP, as these locations do not have existing actuated traffic signals.

Quad Cities Generating Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key Manual TACP Locations Type of Control TACP Number Node Number (Prior to being a TACP)

S11/C 205 Stop Control RI27/G 490 Stop Control S44/C 120 Stop Control W57/F 499 Stop Control RI63/G 440 Stop Control RI64/G 503 Stop Control RI67/H 648 Stop Control S610/J 236 Stop Control Clinton 39 401 Stop Control Clinton 515 97 Stop Control Clinton 720 101 Stop Control Clinton 722 103 Stop Control Clinton 723 399 Stop Control Clinton 1142 557 Stop Control Clinton 1143 555 Stop Control Scott 45 381 Stop Control Scott 1230 294 Stop Control Table G2. ETE with No MTC Scenario 6 Region 90th Percentile ETE 100th Percentile ETE Base No MTC Difference Base No MTC Difference R01 (2Mile Region) 1:55 1:55 0:00 5:00 5:00 0:00 R02 (5Mile Region) 3:00 3:00 0:00 5:05 5:05 0:00 R03 (Full EPZ) 3:15 3:25 0:00 5:10 5:10 0:00 Quad Cities Generating Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. Traffic and Access Control Posts for QDC Quad Cities Generating Station G4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX H Evacuation Regions

H. EVACUATION REGIONS This appendix presents the evacuation percentages for each Evacuation Region (Table H1) and maps of all Evacuation Regions (Figure H1 through Figure H39). 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Subarea Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Degrees in SubArea Region Description PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R01 2Mile Region 0°359° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 0°359° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R03 Full EPZ 0°359° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Degrees in SubArea Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R04 N, NNE, NE 350°56° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R05 ENE 57°79° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R06 E, ESE 80°124° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R07 SE 125°146° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R08 SSE 147º169º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R09 S, SSW 170°214° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R10 SW, WSW 215°259° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R11 W 260°281° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R12 WNW, NW 282°326° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R13 NNW 327°349° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind Direction Degrees in SubArea Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R14 N 350°11° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100%

R15 NNE, NE 12°56° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100%

R16 ENE 57°79° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100%

R17 E 80°101° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%

R18 ESE 102°124° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

R19 SE 125°146° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R20 SSE 147°169° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R21 S 170°191° 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R22 SSW 192°214° 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R23 SW 215°237° 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20%

R24 WSW 238°259° 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R25 W 260°281° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R26 WNW 282°304° 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace Quad Cities Generating Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Wind Direction Degrees in SubArea Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R27 NW 305°326° 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R28 NNW 327°349° 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100%1 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind Direction Degrees in SubArea Region From: PAR IL1 IL2 IL3 IL4 IL5 IL6 IA1 IA2 IA3 IA4 IA5 IA6 IA7 IA8 IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 R29 5Mile Region 0°359° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R30 N, NNE, NE 350°56° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R31 ENE 57°79° 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R32 E, ESE 80°124° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R33 SE 125°146° 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R34 SSE 147º169º 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R35 S, SSW 170°214° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R36 SW, WSW 215°259° 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R37 W 260°281° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R38 WNW, NW 282°326° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R39 NNW 327°349° 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

SubArea(s) Evacuate SubArea(s) ShelterinPlace ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for R01, then Evacuate 1

Site specific Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) indicates that Sub-Area IA4 evacuates even if not within the plume.

Quad Cities Generating Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Quad Cities Generating Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Quad Cities Generating Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Quad Cities Generating Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Quad Cities Generating Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Quad Cities Generating Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Quad Cities Generating Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Quad Cities Generating Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Quad Cities Generating Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Quad Cities Generating Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Quad Cities Generating Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Quad Cities Generating Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Quad Cities Generating Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Quad Cities Generating Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Quad Cities Generating Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Quad Cities Generating Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Quad Cities Generating Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Quad Cities Generating Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Quad Cities Generating Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Quad Cities Generating Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H20. Region R20 Quad Cities Generating Station H23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H21. Region R21 Quad Cities Generating Station H24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H22. Region R22 Quad Cities Generating Station H25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H23. Region R23 Quad Cities Generating Station H26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H24. Region R24 Quad Cities Generating Station H27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H25. Region R25 Quad Cities Generating Station H28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H26. Region R26 Quad Cities Generating Station H29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H27. Region R27 Quad Cities Generating Station H30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H28. Region R28 Quad Cities Generating Station H31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H29. Region R29 Quad Cities Generating Station H32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H30. Region R30 Quad Cities Generating Station H33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H31. Region R31 Quad Cities Generating Station H34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H32. Region R32 Quad Cities Generating Station H35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H33. Region R33 Quad Cities Generating Station H36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H34. Region R34 Quad Cities Generating Station H37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H35. Region R35 Quad Cities Generating Station H38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H36. Region R36 Quad Cities Generating Station H39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H37. Region R37 Quad Cities Generating Station H40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H38. Region R38 Quad Cities Generating Station H41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H39. Region R39 Quad Cities Generating Station H42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX J Representative Inputs to and Outputs from the DYNEV II System

J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM This appendix presents data input to and output from the DYNEV II System.

Table J1 provides source (vehicle loading) and destination information for several roadway segments (links) in the analysis network. In total, there are a total of 347 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 4.17 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 EPZ (Region R03) for each scenario. As expected, adverse weather scenarios (Scenarios 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10), exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays, and longer average travel times when compared to the corresponding good weather scenarios. Scenario 11 (heavy snow) is somewhat anomalous in that the average speed (25.6 mph) is higher than the average speed (23.6 mph) for the comparable rain/light snow scenario (Scenario 10). This anomaly is caused by the elongation of the mobilization time for heavy snow scenarios shown graphically in Figure 54. The elongation of mobilization time (caused by the snow removal from the driveway activity) spreads the evacuation demand over a longer time resulting in less congestion, less delay, and higher travel speeds. This anomaly does not happen when comparing Scenarios 7 and 8 because those are midweek scenarios and schools, preschools and colleges/universities are considered at normal enrollment which causes additional congestion within the EPZ.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Interstate (I) 88, I80, I74, US Route (US) 61 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 77, there is minimal to no congestion (LOS C or better) on the aforementioned major evacuation routes. As such, the speeds are relatively close to the free flow speed on these routes for the entirety of the evacuation.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. Refer to the figures in Appendix K for a map showing the geographic location of each link.

Figure J2 through Figure J15 plot the trip generation time versus the ETE for each of the 14 Scenarios considered. The distance between the trip generation and ETE curves is the travel time. Plots of trip generation versus ETE are indicative of the level of traffic congestion during evacuation. For low population density sites, the curves are close together, indicating short travel times and minimal traffic congestion. For higher population density sites, the curves are farther apart indicating longer travel times and the presence of traffic congestion.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Quad Cities Generating Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are spatially separated as a result of the traffic congestion within Clinton, but then are close together as a result of the traffic congestion in the EPZ clearing before the completion of the trip generation, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8024 3,800 1364 1071 147 21 W 8028 4,500 8027 4,275 8125 1,275 836 612 613 102 NE 8221 1,700 8145 1,700 8125 1,275 1120 856 1123 330 NE 8221 1,700 8145 1,700 8125 1,275 331 195 196 60 NE 8221 1,700 8145 1,700 8484 1,700 362 222 223 166 SE 8058 2,850 8050 4,500 3 2 478 20 E 8484 1,700 488 324 325 91 NW 8024 3,800 740 533 534 11 NE 8125 1,275 937 703 285 128 W 8286 1,575 8125 1,275 1409 1114 1115 29 NE 8221 1,700 Quad Cities Generating Station J2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03)

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NetworkWide Average 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.4 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.3 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 29.9 24.8 26.1 22.6 23.8 28.5 24.7 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 51,854 51,958 51,388 51,522 43,995 52,370 52,419 Exiting Network Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.0 Travel Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.9 Delay Time (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average 24.2 27.5 23.6 25.6 24.2 23.7 29.6 Speed (mph)

Total Vehicles 52,698 50,357 50,588 50,814 43,269 45,059 51,823 Exiting Network Quad Cities Generating Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 5:10 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Travel Route Name (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time US 61 South 23.2 68.5 20.3 68.2 20.4 68.5 20.3 60.4 23.1 67.6 20.6 69.0 20.2 US 61 North 23.2 69.1 20.1 68.4 20.3 68.9 20.2 69.0 20.2 68.2 20.4 69.1 20.1 I80 Eastbound 17.8 70.9 15.1 70.7 15.1 71.3 15.0 71.3 15.0 71.2 15.0 71.3 15.0 I80 Westbound 17.8 71.3 15.0 71.1 15.0 71.3 15.0 71.3 15.0 71.0 15.0 71.3 15.0 I74 Eastbound 4.7 74.5 3.8 74.5 3.8 74.5 3.8 74.5 3.8 74.4 3.8 74.5 3.8 I74 Westbound 4.7 70.0 4.0 69.9 4.0 70.0 4.0 70.0 4.0 70.0 4.0 70.0 4.0 I88 Westbound 24.2 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 73.7 19.7 74.8 19.4 I88 Eastbound 24.2 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 74.8 19.4 Quad Cities Generating Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 5:10 Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Upstream Downstream Road Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 301 1,242 1,600 1,716 1,758 1,759 US 61 Southbound 26 27 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3%

1,528 3,715 4,794 5,134 5,252 5,254 I80 Westbound 29 28 15% 13% 11% 10% 10% 10%

1,774 4,100 4,932 5,101 5,151 5,152 I80 Southbound 49 50 18% 14% 12% 10% 10% 10%

740 1,851 2,834 3,502 3,582 3,587 SR 84 Northbound 220 221 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7%

70 575 874 989 1,027 1,028 E 53rd St Westbound 311 312 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

74 347 497 553 574 574 Lincoln Hwy Westbound 341 342 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

214 1,271 2,451 3,443 3,467 3,467 SR 136 Westbound 361 578 2% 4% 6% 7% 7% 7%

64 331 482 539 558 558 SR 92 Eastbound 471 472 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

594 1,743 2,893 4,042 4,716 4,731 US 30 Eastbound 898 951 6% 6% 7% 8% 9% 9%

100 727 1,129 1,282 1,336 1,339 I74 Southbound 904 946 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

68 577 911 1,040 1,079 1,080 Middle Rd Southbound 916 926 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

825 1,999 2,970 3,857 3,946 3,951 432nd Ave Northbound 1001 596 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8%

1,132 2,830 4,528 6,072 6,376 6,402 US 67 Northbound 1002 145 11% 10% 11% 12% 12% 12%

Quad Cities Generating Station J5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Elapsed Time (hours) 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 5:10 Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Upstream Downstream Road Name Node Node Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time 30 206 306 342 354 354 Moline Rd Eastbound 1004 484 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

24 174 260 291 303 304 Erie Rd Southbound 1005 635 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

60 342 497 555 573 574 SR 82 Southbound 1006 660 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

1,008 2,367 2,972 3,055 3,075 3,075 SR 5 Southbound 1007 58 10% 8% 7% 6% 6% 6%

92 558 825 926 957 958 SR 84 Southbound 1008 664 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

222 1,315 2,364 3,195 3,257 3,259 US 61 Northbound 1009 920 2% 4% 6% 6% 6% 6%

894 1,952 2,436 2,482 2,493 2,494 I88 Eastbound 1032 1063 9% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5%

33 293 450 512 535 536 E Le Claire Rd Westbound 1033 286 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

141 806 1,215 1,364 1,411 1,413 US 67 Westbound 1064 925 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Quad Cities Generating Station J6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1. Network Sources/Origins Quad Cities Generating Station J7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Quad Cities Generating Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Quad Cities Generating Station J9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Quad Cities Generating Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 8)

Quad Cities Generating Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain/Light Snow (Scenario 10)

Quad Cities Generating Station J12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 3:30 4:00 4:30 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Heavy Snow (Scenario 11)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Quad Cities Generating Station J13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend/Evening, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Quad Cities Generating Station J14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX K Evacuation Roadway Network

K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK As discussed in Section 1.3, a linknode analysis network was constructed to model the roadway network within the study area. Figure K1 provides an overview of the linknode analysis network. The figure has been divided up into 44 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K45) 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, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic and access control post [TACP], uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 829 Pretimed 0 Actuated 104 Stop 135 TACP 68 Yield 7 Total: 1,143 Quad Cities Generating Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. QDC LinkNode Analysis Network Quad Cities Generating Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Quad Cities Generating Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Quad Cities Generating Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Quad Cities Generating Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Quad Cities Generating Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Quad Cities Generating Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Quad Cities Generating Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Quad Cities Generating Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Quad Cities Generating Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Quad Cities Generating Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Quad Cities Generating Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Quad Cities Generating Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Quad Cities Generating Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Quad Cities Generating Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Quad Cities Generating Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Quad Cities Generating Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Quad Cities Generating Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Quad Cities Generating Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Quad Cities Generating Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Quad Cities Generating Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Quad Cities Generating Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Quad Cities Generating Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Quad Cities Generating Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Quad Cities Generating Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Quad Cities Generating Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Quad Cities Generating Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Quad Cities Generating Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Quad Cities Generating Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Quad Cities Generating Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Quad Cities Generating Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Quad Cities Generating Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Quad Cities Generating Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K33. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 32 Quad Cities Generating Station K34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K34. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 33 Quad Cities Generating Station K35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K35. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 34 Quad Cities Generating Station K36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K36. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 35 Quad Cities Generating Station K37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K37. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 36 Quad Cities Generating Station K38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K38. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 37 Quad Cities Generating Station K39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K39. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 38 Quad Cities Generating Station K40 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K40. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 39 Quad Cities Generating Station K41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K41. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 40 Quad Cities Generating Station K42 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K42. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 41 Quad Cities Generating Station K43 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K43. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 42 Quad Cities Generating Station K44 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K44. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 43 Quad Cities Generating Station K45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K45. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 44 Quad Cities Generating Station K46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L SubArea Boundaries

L. SUBAREA BOUNDARIES SubArea IL1 County: Rock Island Defined as the area within the following boundary: The Cordova Township boundary, north of 171st Ave N.

SubArea IL2 County: Whiteside County Defined as the area within the following boundary: The Albany Township boundary.

SubArea IL3 County: Rock Island Defined as the area within the following boundary: Consists of portions of the Coe Township, north of 129th Avenue North and 122nd Avenue North, the Cordova Township, south of 171st Avenue North and the Port Byron Township, north of 129th Avenue north. The northern boundary is 171st Ave N, the eastern boundary is the Albany/Cordova Township boundary and continues to the Coe/Canoe Creek Township boundary. The southern boundary is 122nd Avenue North to 256th Street North and 129th Avenue North. The western boundary is the Mississippi River..

SubArea IL4 County: Whiteside County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Consists of a portion of Garden Plain Township. The northern boundary is Holly Road, the eastern boundary is Sand Road, the southern boundary is the Garden Plain/Newton Township boundary and the western boundary is the Mississippi River and the Garden Plain/Albany Township boundary.

SubArea IL5 County: Whiteside County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Consists of all of Newton Township and a portion of Erie Township northwest of Interstate 88. The northern boundary is the Newton/Garden Plain Township boundary. The eastern boundary is the Newton/Fenton Township boundary. The southern boundary is the Newton/Fenton Township boundary, then following Interstate 88 westbound to the Erie/Canoe Creek Township boundary and continues to follow the Erie/Canoe Creek Township boundary. e. The western boundary is the Newton/Albany Township boundary.

Quad Cities Generating Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

SubArea IL6 County: Rock Island County Defined as the area within the following boundary: Consists of portions of the Coe Township, north of 129th Avenue North and 122nd Avenue North, the Cordova Township, south of 171st Avenue North and the Port Byron Township, north of 129th Avenue North. The northern boundary is 129th Ave N eastbound from the Mississippi River to 256th St N southbound and 122nd Ave N eastbound to the Coe/Canoe Creek Township boundary. It then follows the Coe/Canoe Creek Township boundary north to the Canoe Creek/Erie Township boundary and continues to the eastern boundary. The eastern boundary is Interstate 88, the southern boundary is the Coe/Zuma Township boundary and the western boundary is the Mississippi River.

SubArea IA1 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of U.S. Highway 67, north of the Wapsipinicon River, west of the Mississippi River, and south of the Camanche City Limits. This includes the Mississippi River channel and islands on the Iowa side from the Wapsipinicon to the southern Camanche City limits, and Rock Creek Park. This area also includes all of the city of Folletts.

SubArea IA2 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 283rd Avenue east to the Mississippi River, and from the north of the Princeton city limits to the Wapsipinicon River. Includes the Princeton State Wildlife Management Area and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge.

SubArea IA3 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of 350th Avenue, north of the Wapsipinicon River, west of 400th Avenue and U.S. Highway 67 and south of U.S. Highway 30.

SubArea IA4 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 240th Avenue east to 283rd Avenue and from Bluff Road north to the Wapsipinicon River. Includes all of the McCausland city limits.

SubArea IA5 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of 400th Avenue, west of the Mississippi River and south of U.S. Highway 30. This includes all of the Camanche City Limits. This also includes the Mississippi River channel and islands on the Iowa side from the southern Camanche City limits to the Highway 30 bridge.

Quad Cities Generating Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

SubArea IA6 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 240th Avenue east to the Mississippi River and from 235th street north to Bluff Road. Includes all of the Princeton city limits.

SubArea IA7 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of 300th Avenue, north of the Wapsipinicon River, west of 350th Avenue and south of U.S. Highway 30.

SubArea IA8 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 200th Avenue east to 240th Avenue and from 250th Street north to the Wapsipinicon River.

SubArea IA9 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of 320th Avenue, north of U.S. Highway 30, west of 400th Avenue, and south of 210th Street.

SubArea IA10 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 200th Avenue east to 240th Avenue and from 220th Street north to 250th Street. Includes those residents between the northern city limits of Bettendorf and south of 220th Street.

SubArea IA11 County: Clinton Defined as the area within the following boundary: East of 400th Avenue, north of U.S. Highway 30, west of the Mississippi River, south of 210th Street and including all of the city of Clinton including north of Main Avenue. This also includes the Mississippi River channel and islands on the Iowa side from the Highway 30 Bridge to Eagle Point Park.

SubArea IA12 County: Scott Defined as the area within the following boundary: From 240th Avenue east to the Mississippi River and from I80 north to 235th Street. Includes all of the LeClaire city limits.

Quad Cities Generating Station L3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX M Evacuation Sensitivity Studies

M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES This appendix presents the results of a series of sensitivity analyses. These analyses are designed to identify the sensitivity of the 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 EPZ. Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly), or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuees to limit the demand during peak times), how would the ETE be affected? The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. Table M1 presents the results of this study.

If evacuees mobilize one hour quicker, the 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 15 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively - a minimal change for the 90th percentile ETE and a significant change for the 100th percentile ETE. If evacuees mobilize one hour slower, the 90th percentile and 100th percentile ETE increases by 5 minutes and by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, respectively - also a minimal change for the 90th percentile ETE and a significant change for the 100th percentile ETE.

As discussed in Section 7.3, traffic congestion persists within the EPZ for about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE, before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 90th and 100th percentile ETE until 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes after the ATE. After this time, the ETE are dictated by the trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary).

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating (0%) shadow evacuation decreases the ETE by 5 minutes. Quadrupling the shadow evacuation (80%) or a full shadow evacuation (100%) increases the 90th percentile ETE by 5 and 10 minutes respectively - not a significant change. The 100th percentile ETE does not get impacted by any changes in the shadow evacuation percentages since it is dictated by the trip generation time.

Note the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F indicate that approximately 8% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs significantly from the base Quad Cities Generating Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

assumption of 20% noncompliance suggested in the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was run using 8% shadow evacuation and the results indicate the 90th percentile ETE is reduced by 5 minutes and there is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE.

The Shadow Region for QDC is sparsely populated, except for population centers of Bettendorf, DeWitt, Fulton, Hampton, East Moline and portions of the City of Clinton. As shown in Figures 73 through 77, Clinton is the last area in the EPZ to clear of congestion, as a large portion of evacuees use US 67, State Route (SR) 136 eastbound towards Fulton and SR 136 westbound towards Goose Lake to evacuate the area. In addition, Fulton, Illinois is located within the Shadow Region of QDC, as evacuees are leaving the Fulton area, the roadways outside the EPZ, specifically on SR 136 are congested, where it propagates within the EPZ until 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 10 minutes. As such, any additional Shadow Region residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate may further delay the evacuation of those from within Clinton impacting the 90th percentile ETE. The 100th percentile ETE is not impacted, as it is dictated by the trip generation time.

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) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 90th percentile ETE of 25% or 30 minutes, whichever is less. The sensitivity study must use the scenario with the longest 90th percentile ETE (excluding the roadway impact scenario and the special event scenario if it is a one day per year special event).

Thus, the sensitivity study was conducted using the following planning assumptions:

1. The percent change in population within the study area was increased by up to 24%.

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).

Quad Cities Generating Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 of the aforementioned Regions 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 percent of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes.

Therefore, 30 minutes is the lesser and is the criterion for updating ETE.

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE to change greater than or equal to 30 minutes are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 24% or greater increase in the full EPZ permanent resident population (includes 20% of the Shadow permanent resident population). Constellation will have to estimate the full EPZ population on an annual basis. If the EPZ population increases by 24% or more, an updated ETE analysis will be needed.

M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size As discussed in Appendix F, the average household size obtained from the survey contains 2.91 people. The estimated household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.39 people. The difference between the Census data and survey data is 21.8%, which exceeds the sampling error of 8%.

Upon discussions with Constellation, it was decided that the U.S. Census estimate of 2.39 people per household would be used in this study. A sensitivity study was performed to determine how sensitive the ETE is to changes in the average household size. It should be noted that only resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study. The case considered was Scenario 6, a winter, midweek, midday with good weather evacuation of the 2 Mile Region (R01), 5Mile Region (R02), and entire EPZ (R03). Table M4 presents the results of this study.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles) by 21.8% has minimal impacts (by at most 20 minutes) on the 90th percentile ETE. because the traffic congestion is minimal except for within Clinton and reducing the number of vehicles in the EPZ and Shadow Region, increases the roadway capacity for evacuees. There is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, as it is dictated by the trip generation.

M.5 Effect of Changes in SubAreas for Region R13, R20, and R28 A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE of evacuating an additional SubArea for Region R13, R20, and R28 based on discussions with Constellation. The following are the base case regions and what the sensitivity study considers:

Region R13 includes the evacuation of SubAreas IL1, IL2, IL3, IA1, IA2, IA4, and IA6 (See Figure H13). This sensitivity study considers the evacuation of SubAreas IL1, IL2, IL3, IA1, IA2, IA4, and IA6 (Region R13), without the evacuation of SubArea IA4, which has been identified as Region R40 for this analysis.

Region R20 includes the evacuation of SubAreas IL1, IA1, IA2, IA3, IA5, IA7, IA8, IA9, and IA11 (See Figure H20). This sensitivity study considers the evacuation of Region Quad Cities Generating Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

R20, without the evacuation of SubArea IA8, which has been identified as Region R41 for this analysis.

Region R28 includes the evacuation of SubAreas IL1, IL2, IL3, IL5, IL6, IA1, IA2, IA4, IA6, and IA12 (See Figure H28). This sensitivity study considers the evacuation of Region R28, without the evacuation of SubArea IA4, which has been identified as Region R42 for this analysis.

Figure M1 through Figure M3 show the configurations of Region R40, R41, and R42.

Table M5 and Table M6 compare the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for Region R13, R20, R28, and Region R40, R41, R42. As shown in Table 311 and Table 312, SubArea IA4 contains 444 total evacuees (286 evacuating vehicles), which was removed in Regions R13 and R28. SubArea IA8 has 462 evacuees (298 evacuating vehicles), which were removed within Region R20. The reductions in vehicles are minimal and because congestion is located outside of SubAreas IA4 and IA 8, there is no impact on the 90th percentile ETE. The 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the trip generation time (plus 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), thus explaining why the 100th percentile ETE were not impacted.

M.6 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 significantly impacts the 100th percentile ETE since trip generation dictates ETE for this low population site (Section M.1). Thus, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly or in a timely manner will decrease ETE.

Shadow evacuation has no impact on ETE (Section M.2). Nonetheless, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to inform those 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.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of evacuating vehicles), has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by at most 20 minutes) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Appendix M.4). Thus, 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 the 90th percentile ETE.

Quad Cities Generating Station M4 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 3:00 4:20 5 Hours (Base) 3:15 5:10 6 Hours 3:20 6:10 Table M2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Shadow Evacuating Shadow Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Evacuation Vehicles1 th 90 Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 3:10 5:10 8 2,890 3:10 5:10 20 (Base) 7,225 3:15 5:10 40 14,449 3:15 5:10 60 21,675 3:15 5:10 80 28,900 3:20 5:10 100 36,125 3:25 5:10 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change EPZ and 20% Shadow Population Change Base Permanent Resident 22% 23% 24%

Population 55,119 67,245 67,796 68,348 ETE (hrs:mins) for the 90th Percentile Population Change Region Base 22% 23% 24%

2MILE 2:40 2:55 2:55 2:55 5MILE 3:40 3:45 3:45 3:45 FULL EPZ 4:00 4:25 4:25 4:30 ETE for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 22% 23% 24%

2MILE 6:00 6:00 6:00 6:00 5MILE 6:05 6:05 6:05 6:05 FULL EPZ 6:10 6:10 6:10 6:10 1

The Evacuating Shadow Vehicles, in Table M-2, represent the residents and employees who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation. The basis, for the base values shown, is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees. See Section 6 for further discussion.

Quad Cities Generating Station M5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M4. ETE Results for Change in Average Household Size EPZ and 20% Base Case Sensitivity Case Shadow Average Household Size Average Household Size Permanent (2.39 people per (2.91 people per Resident household) household)

Population 55,119 people 45,269 people ETE for the 90th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 1:55 1:50 5MILE 3:00 3:00 FULL EPZ 3:15 2:55 ETE for the 100th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 5:00 5:00 5MILE 5:05 5:05 FULL EPZ 5:10 5:10 Quad Cities Generating Station M6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table M5. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek, Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Region Weather Rain Weather Rain Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R13 2:55 2:55 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 R40 2:55 2:55 2:30 2:35 2:35 2:55 2:55 3:35 2:35 2:35 3:25 2:35 2:35 2:55 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R20 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:35 3:20 3:25 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:20 3:20 R41 3:20 3:30 3:15 3:35 3:20 3:25 3:35 4:15 3:15 3:25 3:55 3:10 3:20 3:20 R28 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:20 2:20 2:20 R42 2:20 2:20 2:10 2:10 2:20 2:20 2:20 3:05 2:10 2:10 2:45 2:20 2:20 2:20 Table M6. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Summer Summer Midweek Midweek Midweek, Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Weekend Midweek Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Evening Midday Good Good Good Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Rain/Light Heavy Good Special Roadway Region Weather Rain Weather Rain Weather Weather Snow Snow Weather Snow Snow Weather Event Impact Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R13 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 R40 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 6:05 5:05 5:05 5:05 Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R20 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R41 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R28 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 R42 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 6:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 Quad Cities Generating Station M7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure M1. Region R40 Quad Cities Generating Station M8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure M2. Region R41 Quad Cities Generating Station M9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure M3. Region R42 Quad Cities Generating Station M10 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 Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.0 Introduction

a. The emergency planning zone (EPZ) and surrounding area is Yes Section 1.2 described.

b. A map is included that identifies primary features of the site Yes Figures 11, 31, 61 including major roadways, significant topographical features, boundaries of counties, and population centers within the EPZ.

c. A comparison of the current and previous ETE is provided Yes Section 1.4, Table 13 including information similar to that identified in Table 11, ETE Comparison.

1.1 Approach

a. The general approach is described in the report as outlined Yes Section 1.1, Section 1.3, Appendix D in Section 1.1, Approach.

1.2 Assumptions

a. Assumptions consistent with Table 12, General Yes Section 2 Assumptions, of NUREG/CR7002 are provided and include the basis to support use.

1.3 Scenario Development

a. The scenarios in Table 13, Evacuation Scenarios, are Yes Table 21, Section 6, Table 62 developed for the ETE analysis. A reason is provided for use of other scenarios or for not evaluating specific scenarios.

Quad Cities Generating Station N1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 1.4 Evacuation Planning Areas

a. A map of the EPZ with emergency response planning areas Yes Figure 31, Figure 61 (ERPAs) is included.

1.4.1 Keyhole Evacuation

a. A table similar to Table 14 Evacuation Areas for a Keyhole Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table H1 Evacuation, is provided identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

1.4.2 Staged Evacuation

a. The approach used in development of a staged evacuation is Yes Section 7.2, Section 5.4.2 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 61, Table 75, Table 73, Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying Table 74, Table H1 the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

2.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. The U.S. Census is the source of the population values, or Yes Section 3.1 another credible source is provided.

b. The availability date of the census data is provided. Yes Section 3.1

c. Population values are adjusted as necessary for growth to N/A N/A - 2020 Census used as the base reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. year of the analysis Quad Cities Generating Station N2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

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, Table E6 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E4

c. The average population during the season is used, itemized Yes Table 34, Table 35 and Appendix E and totaled for each scenario. itemize the peak transient population and employee estimates. These estimates are multiplied by the scenario specific percentages provided in Table 63 to estimate average transient population 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 may Yes Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 vary by scenario, and if so, reasons for the variation are discussed.

Quad Cities Generating Station N3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

f. A sector diagram is included, similar to Figure 21, Yes Figure 36 (transients) and Figure 38 Population by Sector, is included showing the population (employees) distribution for the transient population.

2.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. The methodology (e.g., surveys, registration programs) used Yes Section 3.7 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.8 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs who may need assistance and do not reside in special facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.7, Table 38, Table 39, Table 311

f. A summary table showing the total number of buses, Yes Table 39, 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.

Quad Cities Generating Station N4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.3 Special Facility Residents

a. Special facilities, including the type of facility, location, and Yes Table E3 and Table E7 list all medical average population, are listed. Special facility staff is facilities and correctional facility by included in the total special facility population. facility name, location, and average population. Staff estimates were not provided.

b. The method of obtaining special facility data is discussed. Yes Section 3.5

c. An estimate of the number and capacity of vehicles assumed Yes Table 36 available to support the evacuation of the facility is provided.

d. The logistics for mobilizing specially trained staff (e.g., Yes Section 8.1 - under Evacuation of medical support or security support for prisons, jails, and Medical Facilities other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate. Section 8.2 - Inmates at Clinton County Jail will shelter in place 2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Section 3.6, Table 37, Table E1 population, and transportation resources required to (schools), Table E2 (preschools) support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.6 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.6 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

Quad Cities Generating Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 no return trips are needed 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.9 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.9 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.9 is estimated.

2.5.2 Shadow Evacuation

a. A shadow evacuation of 20 percent is included consistent Yes Item 7 of Section 2.2, Figure 21 and with the approach outlined in Section 2.5.2, Shadow Figure 71, Section 3.2 Evacuation.

b. Population estimates for the shadow evacuation in the Yes Section 3.2, Table 33, Figure 34 shadow region beyond the EPZ are provided by sector.

c. The loading of the shadow evacuation onto the roadway Yes Section 5 - Table 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 traffic is Yes Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Quad Cities Generating Station N6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

b. The method of reducing background and passthrough traffic Yes Section 2.2 - Assumptions 10 and 11 is described. Section 2.5 Section 3.10 and Section 3.11 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.10 EPZ about two (2) hours after the initial notification.

2.6 Summary of Demand Estimation

a. A summary table is provided that identifies the total Yes Table 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 discussed. Yes Section 4 3.1 Roadway Characteristics

a. The process for gathering roadway characteristic data is Yes Section 1.3, Appendix D described including the types of information gathered and how it is used in the analysis.

b. Legible maps are provided that identify nodes and links of Yes Appendix K the modeled roadway network similar to Figure A1, Roadway Network Identifying Nodes and Links, and Figure A2, Grid Map Showing Detailed Nodes and Links.

Quad Cities Generating Station N7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 3.2 Model Approach

a. The approach used to calculate the roadway capacity for the Yes Section 4 transportation network is described in detail, and the description identifies factors that are expressly used in the modeling.

b. Route assignment follows expected evacuation routes and Yes Appendix B and Appendix C traffic volumes.

c. A basis is provided for static route choices if used to assign N/A Static route choices are not used to evacuation routes. assign evacuation routes. Dynamic traffic assignment is used.

d. Dynamic traffic assignment models are described including Yes Appendix B and Appendix C calibration of the route assignment.

3.3 Intersection Control

a. A list that includes the total numbers of intersections Yes Table K1 modeled that are unsignalized, signalized, or manned by response personnel is provided.

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 Assumption 2 and 3 of Section 2.6

b. The speed and capacity reduction factors identified in Table Yes Table 22 31, Weather Capacity Factors, are used or a basis is provided for other values, as applicable to the model.

c. The calibration and adjustment of driver behavior models for N/A Driver behavior is not adjusted for adverse weather conditions are described, if applicable. adverse weather conditions.

Quad Cities Generating Station N8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. The effect of adverse weather on mobilization is considered Yes Assumption 6 of Section 2.6, Table 22 and assumptions for snow removal on streets and driveways are identified, when applicable.

4.0 Development of Evacuation Times 4.1 Traffic Simulation Models

a. General information about the traffic simulation model used Yes Section 1.3, Table 13, Appendix B, in the analysis is provided. Appendix C

b. If a traffic simulation model is not used to perform the ETE N/A Not applicable since a traffic simulation calculation, sufficient detail is provided to validate the model was used.

analytical approach used.

4.2 Traffic Simulation Model Input

a. Traffic simulation model assumptions and a representative Yes Section 2, Appendix J set of model inputs are provided.

b. The number of origin nodes and method for distributing Yes Appendix J, Appendix C vehicles among the origin nodes are described.

c. A glossary of terms is provided for the key performance Yes Appendix A, Table C1, Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5 Quad Cities Generating Station N9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. The trip generation time for each population group is Yes Section 5 developed from sitespecific information.

e. The methods used to reduce uncertainty when developing N/A There was no uncertainty when trip generation times are discussed, if applicable. developing trip generation times.

4.3.1 Permanent Residents and Transient Population

a. Permanent residents are assumed to evacuate from their Yes Section 5 discusses trip generation for homes but are not assumed to be at home at all times. Trip households with and without returning generation time includes the assumption that a percentage commuters.

of residents will need to return home before evacuating. Table 63 presents the percentage of households with returning commuters and the percentage of households either without returning commuters or with no commuters.

Appendix F presents the percent households who will await the return of commuters.

Section 2.3, Assumption 3

b. The trip generation time accounts for the time and method Yes Section 5 to notify transients at various locations.

c. The trip generation time accounts for transients potentially Yes Section 5, Figure 51 returning to hotels before evacuating.

d. The effect of public transportation resources used during Yes Section 3.9 special events where a large number of transients are There is no provided transportation, expected is considered. considered for the special event.

Quad Cities Generating Station N10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.2 Transit Dependent Permanent Residents

a. If available, existing and approved plans and bus routes are N/A Established bus routes do not exist.

used in the ETE analysis. Basic bus routes were developed for the ETE analysis Section 8.1 under Evacuation of TransitDependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle)

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of residents are discussed. TransitDependent Population (Residents without access to a vehicle),

Section 8.3

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the TransitDependent Population expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described. (Residents without access to a vehicle)

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 8.3 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Section 8.1 and 8.3 necessary.

Quad Cities Generating Station N11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.3.3 Special Facilities

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Section 8.2, provided. Table 88 through Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Section 8.2, Table 88 residents are discussed. through Table 810

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Section 8.2, Table 88 through Table 810

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1, Section 8.2, evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

e. Discussion is provided on whether special facility residents Yes Section 8.1, Section 8.2, 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, Section 8.2, elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.3.4 Schools

a. Information on evacuation logistics and mobilization times is Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 provided. through Table 84

b. Time for loading of students is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84

c. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 evacuation can be completed in a single trip or if additional trips are needed.

Quad Cities Generating Station N12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA)

d. If used, reception centers should be identified. A discussion Yes Section 8.1, Table 103 is provided on whether students are expected to pass through the reception center before being evacuated to their final destination.

e. Supporting information is provided to quantify the time Yes Section 8.1, Table 82 through Table 84 elements for each trip, including destinations if return trips are needed.

4.4 Stochastic Model Runs

a. The number of simulation runs needed to produce average N/A DYNEV does not rely on simulation results is discussed. averages or random seeds for statistical

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 mesoscopic simulation and uses percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random dynamic traffic assignment model to seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, obtain the "average" (stable) network Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. work flow distribution. This is different from microscopic simulation, which is montecarlo random sampling by nature relying on different seeds to establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

Quad Cities Generating Station N13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.5 Model Boundaries

a. The method used to establish the simulation model Yes Section 4.5 boundaries is discussed.

b. Significant capacity reductions or population centers that Yes Section 4.5 may influence the ETE and that are located beyond the evacuation area or shadow region are identified and included in the model, if needed.

4.6 Traffic Simulation Model Output

a. A discussion of whether the traffic simulation model used Yes Appendix B must be in equilibration prior to calculating the ETE is provided.

b. The minimum following model outputs for evacuation of the Yes 1. Appendix J, Table J2 entire EPZ are provided to support review: 2. Table J2

1. Evacuee average travel distance and time. 3. Table J4

2. Evacuee average delay time. 4. None and 0%. 100 percent ETE is

3. Number of vehicles arriving at each destination node. based on the time the last

4. Total number and percentage of evacuee vehicles not vehicle exits the evacuation exiting the EPZ. zone

5. A plot that provides both the mobilization curve and 5. Figures J2 through J15 (one evacuation curve identifying the cumulative percentage plot for each scenario of evacuees who have mobilized and exited the EPZ. considered)

6. Average speed for each major evacuation route that exits 6. Table J3 the EPZ.

c. Color coded roadway maps are provided for various times Yes Figure 73 through Figure 77 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

Quad Cities Generating Station N14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 4.7 Evacuation Time Estimates for the General Public

a. The ETE includes the time to evacuate 90 percent and 100 Yes Table 71 and Table 72 percent of the total permanent resident and transient population.

b. Termination criteria for the 100 percent ETE are discussed, if N/A 100 percent ETE is based on the time not based on the time the last vehicle exits the evacuation the last vehicle exits the evacuation zone. zone.

c. The ETE for 100 percent of the general public includes all Yes Section 5.4.1 - truncating survey data members of the general public. Any reductions or truncated to eliminate statistical outliers data is explained. Table 72 - 100th percentile ETE for general population

d. Tables are provided for the 90 and 100 percent ETEs similar Yes Table 73 and Table 74 to Table 43, ETEs for a Staged Evacuation, and Table 44, ETEs for a Keyhole Evacuation.

e. ETEs are provided for the 100 percent evacuation of special Yes Section 8 facilities, transit dependent, and school populations.

5.0 Other Considerations 5.1 Development of Traffic Control Plans

a. Information that responsible authorities have approved the Yes Section 9, Appendix G traffic control plan used in the analysis are discussed.

b. Adjustments or additions to the traffic control plan that Yes Section 9, Appendix G affect the ETE is provided.

5.2 Enhancements in Evacuation Time

a. The results of assessments for enhancing evacuations are Yes Appendix M provided.

Quad Cities Generating Station N15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 5.3 State and Local Review

a. A list of agencies contacted is provided and the extent of Yes Table 11 interaction with these agencies is discussed.

b. Information is provided on any unresolved issues that may Yes Results of the ETE study were formally 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 to Yes Appendix M, Section M.3 be performed and submitted to the NRC is discussed.

5.4.1 Extreme Conditions

a. The updated ETE analysis reflects the impact of EPZ N/A This ETE is being updated as a result of conditions not adequately reflected in the scenario the availability of US Census Bureau variations. decennial census data.

5.5 Reception Centers and Congregate Care Center

a. A map of congregate care centers and reception centers is Yes Figure 103 provided.

Quad Cities Generating Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0