Text

Evacuation Time Estimate Report for Cooper Nuclear Station
	ML22229A051
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	08/16/2022
From:	Dewhirst L; Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NLS2022035
	Download: ML22229A051 (331)
	v • d • e

H Nebraska Public Power District Always there w hen you need us NLS2022035 10 CFR 50, Appendix E August 16, 2022 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Evacuation Time Estimate Report for Cooper Nuclear Station Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.4, Nebraska Public Power District is submitting the enclosed 2022 Evacuation Time Estimate Report for Cooper Nuclear Station.

This submittal does not contain new commitments. Should you have any questions, please contact Phil Martin, Emergency Preparedness Manager, at (402) 825-2931.

Linda Dewhirst, Regulatory Affairs and Compliance Manager

/bk

Enclosure:

Cooper Nuclear Station Evacuation Time Estimate Report cc: Regional Administrator w/enclosure USNRC - Region IV Cooper Project Manager w/enclosure USNRC - NRR Project Directorate IV-1 Senior Resident Inspector w/enclosure USNRC- CNS NPG Distribution w/o enclosure CNS Records w/enclosure COOPER NUCLEAR STATION P.O. Box 98 / Brownville, NE 68321-0098 Telephone: (402) 825-3811 / Fax: (402) 825-5211 www.nppd.com

NLS2022035 Enclosure Cooper Nuclear Station Evacuation Time Estimate Report

Cooper Nuclear Station Development of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Nebraska Public Power District, by:

KLD Engineering, P.C.

1601 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 340 Islandia, NY 11749 Email: kweinisch@kldcompanies.com August 9, 2022 Final Report, Rev. 0 KLD TR - 1229

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 11 1.1 Overview of the ETE Process...................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The Cooper Nuclear 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 Estimate Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 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 3.1.1 Commuter College ............................................................................................................. 33 3.2 Shadow Population .................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 Transient Population .................................................................................................................. 34 3.4 Employees .................................................................................................................................. 34 3.5 Special Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.1 Medical Facilities ................................................................................................................ 35 3.5.2 Correctional Facilities ......................................................................................................... 35 3.6 Transit Dependent Population ................................................................................................... 35 3.7 School Population Demand........................................................................................................ 37 3.8 Special Event .............................................................................................................................. 38 3.9 External Traffic ........................................................................................................................... 39 3.10 Background Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.11 Summary of Demand ............................................................................................................... 310 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY................................................................................................ 41 4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections .............................................................. 42 4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of Highway ........................................................................ 44 4.3 Application to the CNS Study Area ............................................................................................ 46 4.3.1 TwoLane Roads ................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.2 Multilane Highway ............................................................................................................. 47 4.3.3 Freeways ............................................................................................................................ 47 4.3.4 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation .......................................................................................... 48 4.5 Boundary Condition ................................................................................................................... 49 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME .......................................................................................... 51 5.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 51 5.2 Fundamental Considerations ..................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ................................................... 54 Cooper Nuclear Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution ...................................................................... 55 5.4.1 Statistical Outliers .............................................................................................................. 55 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 ...................................................................................................................... 71 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation ..................................................................... 72 7.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 73 7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate Results ............................................................................................. 74 7.6 Staged Evacuation Results ......................................................................................................... 75 7.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ................................................................................................... 76 8 TRANSITDEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES ................................. 81 8.1 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People ....................................................... 82 8.2 Correctional Facilities ................................................................................................................. 88 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 A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERMS .................................................................................. A1 B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ......................................................... B1 B.1 Overview of Integrated Distribution and Assignment Model .................................................... B1 B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD .............................................................. B2 B.2.1 DTRAD Description ............................................................................................................. B2 B.2.2 Network Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... B4 C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIMULATION MODEL ............................................................................................... C1 C.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. C2 C.1.1 The Fundamental Diagram ................................................................................................. C2 C.1.2 The Simulation Model ........................................................................................................ C2 C.1.3 Lane Assignment ................................................................................................................ C6 C.2 Implementation ......................................................................................................................... C6 C.2.1 Computational Procedure .................................................................................................. C6 C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD) ..................................................... C7 D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY PROCEDURE .............................................................................. D1 E. FACILITY DATA .................................................................................................................................... E1 F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... F1 Cooper Nuclear Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... F1 F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan ....................................................................................... F1 F.3 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ F2 F.3.1 Household Demographic Results ........................................................................................... F2 F.3.2 Evacuation Response ............................................................................................................. F3 F.3.3 Time Distribution Results ....................................................................................................... F4 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................................... G1 G.1 Traffic Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.2 Access Control Points ................................................................................................................ G1 G.3 Analysis of Key TCP and ACP Locations ..................................................................................... G1 H. EVACUATION REGIONS ..................................................................................................................... H1 J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM ..................................... J1 K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .................................................................................................. K1 L. AREA BOUNDARIES ............................................................................................................................ L1 M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ............................................................................................. M1 M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times ............................................................................ M1 M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate ................. M1 M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population ......................................................................... M2 M.4 Effect of Changes in Average Household Size .......................................................................... M3 M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time .......................................................................................... M3 N. ETE CRITERIA CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................... N1 Note: Appendix I intentionally skipped Cooper Nuclear Station iii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

List of Figures Figure 11. CNS Location .......................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 12. CNS LinkNode Analysis Network .......................................................................................... 113 Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 31. Areas Comprising the CNS EPZ .............................................................................................. 316 Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector ............................................................................ 317 Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................ 318 Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector ................................................................................................ 319 Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................... 320 Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector.............................................................................................. 321 Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................. 322 Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector ............................................................................................. 323 Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................. 324 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. CNS EPZ Areas ......................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology ..................................................................................... 714 Figure 72. CNS Shadow Region .............................................................................................................. 715 Figure 73. Congestion Patterns at 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................................... 716 Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate .................. 717 Figure 75. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 35 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.................. 718 Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate.................. 719 Figure 77. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 1 for Region R03 ...................................................... 720 Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 ...................................................... 720 Figure 79. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 3 for Region R03 ...................................................... 721 Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 .................................................... 721 Figure 711. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 5 for Region R03 .................................................... 722 Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 .................................................... 722 Figure 713. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 7 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 .................................................... 723 Figure 715. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 9 for Region R03 .................................................... 724 Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 .................................................. 724 Figure 717. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 11 for Region R03 .................................................. 725 Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 .................................................. 725 Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 .................................................. 726 Figure 81. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations ...................................................................... 814 Figure 101. Evacuation Routes ............................................................................................................... 104 Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes ............................................................................................ 105 Figure 103. Reception Centers................................................................................................................ 106 Figure B1. Flow Diagram of SimulationDTRAD Interface........................................................................ B5 Cooper Nuclear Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 and Day Care/Preschools within the EPZ.................................................................... E4 Figure E2. Medical Facilities and Correctional Facilities within the EPZ ................................................... E5 Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ.............................................................................................. E6 Figure E4. Transient Facilities within the EPZ ........................................................................................... E7 Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ ....................................................................................................... F6 Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability ................................................................................................ F7 Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 6 Persons Households .................................................................... F7 Figure F4. Household Ridesharing Preference......................................................................................... F8 Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ ..................................................................................... F8 Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ ..................................................................................................... F9 Figure F7. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 ........................................................................................ F9 Figure F8. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs ......................................................... F10 Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation ............................................................................. F10 Figure F10. Preferred Shelter Locations ................................................................................................ F11 Figure F11. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals ......................................................................... F11 Figure F12. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College ............................................................. F12 Figure F13. Time to Commute Home from Work/College ..................................................................... F12 Figure F14. Preparation Time to Leave Home ....................................................................................... F13 Figure F15. Time to Remove 68 inches of Snow from Driveway .......................................................... F13 Figure G1. TCP and ACP Locations within the CNS EPZ ........................................................................... G4 Figure H1. Region R01.............................................................................................................................. H3 Figure H2. Region R02.............................................................................................................................. H4 Figure H3. Region R03.............................................................................................................................. H5 Figure H4. Region R04.............................................................................................................................. H6 Figure H5. Region R05.............................................................................................................................. H7 Figure H6. Region R06.............................................................................................................................. H8 Figure H7. Region R07.............................................................................................................................. H9 Figure H8. Region R08............................................................................................................................ H10 Figure H9. Region R09............................................................................................................................ H11 Figure H10. Region R10.......................................................................................................................... H12 Figure H11. Region R11.......................................................................................................................... H13 Figure H12. Region R12.......................................................................................................................... H14 Figure H13. Region R13.......................................................................................................................... H15 Figure H14. Region R14.......................................................................................................................... H16 Figure H15. Region R15.......................................................................................................................... H17 Figure H16. Region R16.......................................................................................................................... H18 Figure H17. Region R17.......................................................................................................................... H19 Figure H18. Region R18.......................................................................................................................... H20 Figure H19. Region R19.......................................................................................................................... H21 Figure H20. Region R20.......................................................................................................................... H22 Figure H21. Region R21.......................................................................................................................... H23 Figure J1.Network Sources/Origins .......................................................................................................... J5 Cooper Nuclear Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1) .............. J6 Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2) ............................... J6 Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3).............. J7 Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4) .............................. J7 Figure J6. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 5) ......................................................................................................... J8 Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6) ................ J8 Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7) ................................. J9 Figure J9. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario 8) ............................... J9 Figure J10. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 9) ............ J10 Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10) ........................... J10 Figure J12. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario 11) ......................... J11 Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12) ..................................................................................................... J11 Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13) .............................................................................. J12 Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) ........................................................................ J12 Figure K1. CNS 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 Cooper Nuclear Station vi KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 ............................................................................... K31 Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 ............................................................................... K32 Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 ............................................................................... K33 List of Tables Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction ........................................................................................................... 17 Table 12. Highway Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 17 Table 13. ETE Study Comparisons ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 28 Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather................................................................................. 28 Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population ..................................................................................... 311 Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Area ......................................................... 311 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector ........................................................................... 311 Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles ..................................................................... 312 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ ........................... 312 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 312 Table 37. Correctional Facility Transit Demand ..................................................................................... 312 Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates .............................................................................. 313 Table 39. Schools, Day Care/Preschool, Peru State College Population Demand Estimates ................ 313 Table 310. Cooper Nuclear Station EPZ External Traffic ......................................................................... 314 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand .......................................................................................... 314 Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand................................................................................................ 315 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 Leave Home ................................................ 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........................................................................................... 63 Table 62. Evacuation Scenario Definitions............................................................................................... 64 Table 63. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios ............................................ 65 Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario.................................................................................................. 66 Table 71. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population ........................... 79 Table 72. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population ....................... 710 Table 73. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region ............................ 711 Table 74. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2Mile Area within the Indicated Region .......................... 712 Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions......................................................................................... 713 Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources.................................................................................... 89 Table 82. School/Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .................................. 810 Table 83. School/Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ............................... 810 Table 84. School/Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow ..................................... 811 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather .......................................... 811 Cooper Nuclear Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 86. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow ....................................... 812 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow .............................................. 812 Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates .......................................................................... 813 Table 89. Correctional Facility Evacuation Time Estimate ..................................................................... 813 Table 101 Summary of TransitDependent Bus Routes .......................................................................... 103 Table 102 Bus Route Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 103 Table 103 School Reception Centers ...................................................................................................... 103 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 and Day Care/Preschools within the EPZ ..................................................................... E2 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ............................................................................................... E2 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E2 Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ ............................................................................................ E3 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ ............................................................................................... E3 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ........................................................................................ E3 Table F1. Cooper Demographic Survey Sampling Plan ............................................................................ F6 Table G1. List of Key TCP/ACP Locations ................................................................................................. G3 Table H1. Percent of Area Population Evacuating for Each Region ......................................................... H2 Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input ............................................................................................... J2 Table J2. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R03) ........................... J3 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)................................................................................... J3 Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 ......................... J4 Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control ............................................................................... K1 Table M1. ETE for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ............................................................................. M4 Table M2. ETE for Shadow Sensitivity Study ......................................................................................... M4 Table M3. ETE Variation with Population Change ................................................................................. M5 Table M4. ETE Results for Average Household Size............................................................................... M5 Table N1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist ................................................................................................. N1 Cooper Nuclear Station viii 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 Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

FEMA, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual (FEMA P1028),

December 2019.

Project Activities This project began in October 2020 and extended over a period of 16 months. The major activities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

Conducted a virtual kickoff meeting with NPPD personnel and emergency management personnel representing state and county governments.

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

Obtained the estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within the EPZ from NPPD and counties within the EPZ.

Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of the CNS, then conducted a detailed field survey of the highway network to observe any roadway changes relative to the previous ETE study done in 2011.

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

Conducted a random sample online demographic survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focused data needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database. The survey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite response organization (ORO) personnel prior to the survey.

A data needs matrix was provided to NPPD and the offsite agencies at the kickoff meeting. The data for major employers, transients, special facilities in the EPZ gathered for the previous ETE study were reviewed and confirmed or updated accordingly by the offsite response organizations (OROs).

Cooper Nuclear Station 1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Following federal guidelines, the existing 8 Areas within the EPZ were grouped within circular areas or keyhole configurations (circles plus radial sectors) that define a total of 21 Evacuation Regions (numbered R01 through R21).

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, Snow). One special event scenario - Memorial Day Weekend (Flea Market in Brownville and transients in Indian Cave Start Park was considered. One roadway impact scenario was considered - roadway closures along US 136 (between the Missouri River and I29) and 648A Avenue (between CNS and the Village of Brownville boundary) due to flooding for the duration of the evacuation.

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 CNS that quickly assumes the status of a general emergency, wherein evacuation is ordered promptly, and no early protective actions have been implemented such that the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE) is virtually coincident with the siren alert.

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

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

Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either rideshare with relatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in the county evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated with public transit, as needed: bus, van, or ambulance, as required. Separate ETE are calculated for the transitdependent evacuees, for correctional facility population, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Cooper Nuclear Station 2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Computation of ETE A total of 294 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 21 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14 Evacuation Scenarios (21 x 14 = 294). Separate ETE are calculated for transitdependent evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

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

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

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

The computational procedure is outlined as follows:

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

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

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

Conducted a "final" meeting with NPPD personnel and the OROs to present final results of the study.

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 Cooper Nuclear Station 3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Traffic Management This study reviewed and analyzed the comprehensive existing traffic management plans provided by Nemaha, Richardson, and Atchison Counties. Due to the limited traffic congestion within the EPZ, no additional traffic or access control measures have been identified as a result of this study. 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 Area based on the 2020 Census data.

Table 61 defines each of the 21 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groups of Area.

Table 62 defines the Evacuation Scenarios.

Tables 71 and 72 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clear the indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions, respectively. These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and of estimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from the Shadow Region.

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

Table 82 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather.

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

Table 88 presents ETE for the medical facilities.

Figure 61 displays a map of the CNS EPZ showing the layout of the 8 Areas 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Conclusions General population ETE were computed for 294 unique cases - a combination of 21 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 1:15 (hr:min) to 2:50. The 100th percentile range from 4:30 (hr:min) to 4:40 (for nonheavy snow scenarios) and 5:45 to 5:55 for heavy snow scenarios.

The comparison of Table 71 and Table 72 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE are significantly longer than those for the 90th percentile. This is the result of the long trip generation tail. As these stragglers mobilize, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand. Aa a result, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize. See Figures 77 through 720.

Inspection of Table 73 and Table 74 indicates that a staged evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees from within the 2Mile Region (compare Region R02, R04 through R08 with R16 and Regions R17 through Regions R21, respectively, in Tables 71 and 72).

See Section 7.6 for additional discussion.

The population center of Peru is the only area in the EPZ to exhibit traffic congestion.

This is a result of the concentration of student vehicles evacuating Peru State College.

All congestion within the EPZ clears by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 50 minutes after the ATE. See Section 7.3 and Figures 73 through 76.

The comparison of Scenarios 3 (summer, weekend, midday, with good weather) and 13 (summer, weekend, midday, special event) in Table 71 indicates that the additional transients within the EPZ reduces the 90th percentile ETE by as much as 15 minutes. In addition, there is no impact to the 100th percentile ETE for all scenarios. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 71 indicates that the roadway impact scenario - roadway closures along US 136 (between the Missouri River and I29) and 648A Avenue (between CNS and the Village of Brownville boundary) due to flooding -

has no impact on ETE at the 90th percentile and 100th percentile. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

Separate ETE were computed for schools/day care centers, medical facilities, transit dependent persons, and correctional facilities. The average singlewave ETE for these facilities, with the exception of the transitdependent ETE, are shorter than the general population ETE at the 90th percentile. See Section 8.

Table 81 indicates that there are enough buses available to evacuate the transit dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave. See Sections 8.1.

A reduction in the base trip generation time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months 30 minutes reduces the general population ETE at the 90th percentile ETE by 25 minutes. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months increases the 90th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . The general population 100th percentile ETE reduces by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and increases by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months when the trip mobilization is reduced and increased, respectively. See Appendix M and Table M1.

Cooper Nuclear Station 5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The general population ETE is insensitive to the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in the Shadow Region. There is no impact to the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs, with changes to the shadow population percentage. See Appendix M and Table M2.

An increase in permanent resident population (EPZ plus Shadow Region) of 50% or greater results in an increase in the longest 90th percentile ETE of 30 minutes for the 5 Mile Region (Region R02), which meets the federal criterion for performing a fully updated ETE study between decennial Censuses. See Section M.3.

Household size sensitivity study was conducted due to the difference between the Census data (2.55 people per household) and survey data (2.69 people per household, i.e., 5.5%

higher). Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of people and evacuating vehicles) by 5.5% has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by at most 5 minutes) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. See Section M.4.

Cooper Nuclear Station 6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Area 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 294 199 2 1,921 1,824 11 135 297 12 30 20 13E 65 54 13W 196 207 14 382 268 15 992 1,126 EPZ TOTAL 4,015 3,995 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 0.50%

Cooper Nuclear Station 7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Area Region Description 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R01 2Mile Region X X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R04 347 to 58 X X X X R05 59 to 76 X X X R06 77 to 148 X X X X R07 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R08 302 to 346 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R09 347 to 35 X X X X X X R10 36 to 58 X X X X X R11 59 to 76 X X X X N/A 77 to 148 Refer to R06 N/A 149 to 166 Refer to R07 R12 167 to 193 X X X X R13 194 to 279 X X X R14 280 to 346 X X X X X R15 347 to 350 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R16 5Mile Region X X X X X R17 347 to 58 X X X X R18 59 to 76 X X X R19 77 to 148 X X X X R20 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R21 302 to 346 X X X Area(s) ShelterinPlace until 90%

Area(s) Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace ETE for R01, then Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station 8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Memorial Day Weekend Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact and Flooding Scenario 1

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R02 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:40 1:40 2:20 2:05 1:25 1:50 R03 2:20 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:25 1:45 2:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:50 1:20 1:30 R05 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:45 1:20 1:25 R06 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:15 2:05 1:25 1:45 R07 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:40 1:40 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:10 2:00 1:25 1:40 R08 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:30 1:35 R10 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:20 1:35 R11 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:20 1:35 R12 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:50 2:25 1:45 2:15 R13 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:50 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:20 1:35 2:05 R14 2:05 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:50 1:50 1:50 2:40 2:15 1:35 2:05 R15 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:45 1:25 1:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:20 2:10 1:40 1:55 R17 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 1:20 1:35 R18 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:55 1:20 1:30 R19 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:05 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:50 1:55 2:15 2:05 1:40 1:55 R20 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:10 2:05 1:35 1:50 R21 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:40 1:15 1:25 Cooper Nuclear Station 10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R05 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R06 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R07 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R08 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R09 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R10 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R11 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R12 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R13 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R14 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R15 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R16 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R17 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R18 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R21 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 Cooper Nuclear Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R02 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R04 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R05 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R06 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R07 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R08 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R16 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R17 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R18 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R19 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R20 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R21 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 Cooper Nuclear Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R04 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R05 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R06 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R07 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R08 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R16 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R17 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R18 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R19 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R20 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R21 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 Cooper Nuclear Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School/Day Care Center Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) R.C.C. (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

ATCHISON SCHOOLS Atchison County Headstart 30 15 3.4 45.6 4 0:50 38.1 42 1:35 Rock Port RII School District 30 15 2.5 37.4 4 0:50 38.1 42 1:35 NEMAHA SCHOOLS Providence Mennonite School 30 15 3.0 55.0 3 0:50 Does Not Evacuate to R.C.

2 30 15 3.6 20.3 11 1:00 17.6 19 1:20 Peru State College Maximum for EPZ: 1:00 Maximum: 1:35 Average for EPZ: 0:55 Average: 1:30 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R. C. R. C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

TD 6 1 180 9.8 51.3 11 30 3:45 38.1 42 5 10 64 30 6:20 TD 7 1 180 10.8 52.8 12 30 3:45 14.5 16 5 10 40 30 5:30 TD 8 1 180 12.3 51.8 14 30 3:45 17.6 19 5 10 46 30 5:35 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 5:50 2

The ETE times represented for Peru State College are for those who require a van to evacuate.

Cooper Nuclear Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. CNS EPZ Areas Cooper Nuclear Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Cooper Nuclear Station 16 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 Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. This ETE study provides Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), state and local governments with sitespecific information needed for Protective Action decisionmaking.

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

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

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

FEMA, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual (FEMA P1028),

December 2019.

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

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

1. Information Gathering:

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

b. Attended meetings with emergency planners from Nebraska EMA, Missouri SEMA, the Counties of Nemaha, Atchison, Richardson, and Otoe Emergency Management Agencies (EMA) to discuss methodology and project assumptions and to identify resources available.

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

d. Obtained demographic data from the 2020 census (see Section 3.1).

e. Conducted a random sample demographic survey of EPZ residents.

f. Conducted a data collection effort to identify and describe schools, special facilities, major employers, transportation providers, and other important information.

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and state police in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic control is applied at specified Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) located within the EPZ.

5. Used existing Areas to define Evacuation Regions. The EPZ is partitioned into 8 Areas along jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. Regions are groups of contiguous areas 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 Special Facilities and for transit dependent persons at home.

7. Prepared the input streams for DYNEV II.

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

b. Updated the linknode representation of the evacuation network, 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 (HCM1) 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.

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, day care center, college, medical facilities, and correctional facilities) and for the transit dependent population.

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

1.2 The Cooper Nuclear Station Location The CNS is located in Brownville, Nemaha County, Nebraska, on the west bank of the Missouri River. The site is approximately 65 miles south of Omaha, Nebraska and 100 miles northwest of Kansas City, Missouri. The EPZ consists of parts of Nemaha and Richardson Counties in Nebraska and Atchison County in Missouri. Figure 11 shows the location of CNS relative to Omaha and Kansas City. This map also identifies the communities in the area and the major roads.

1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.

Field Surveys of the Highway Network In 2020, KLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region which consists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from the plant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded. These characteristics are shown in Table 12:

Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highway infrastructure. No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane width and shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recorded images were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highway sections. For example, Exhibit 157 in the HCM 2016 indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12 feet (the base value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph - not a material difference - for twolane highways. Exhibit 1546 in the HCM 2016 shows little sensitivity for the estimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity), with respect to FFS, for twolane highways.

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

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 or more 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 Cooper Nuclear Station 13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on twolane highways which are reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM 2016 Exhibit 1546. . Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes the ETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The procedure for applying DYNEV II 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE Study Table 13 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2012 ETE study (KLD TR520, Rev 1, dated November 2012). The 90th percentile ETE for the entire EPZ (Region R03) decreases by at most 25 minutes in scenarios during the midweek and in scenarios where heavy snow exists. The 90th percentile ETE for Region R03 for weekend and evening scenarios remain the same or increase by at most 30 minutes. The 100th percentile ETE for the full EPZ decreases by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 30 minutes for all scenarios except for heavy snow scenarios (15 minute decrease).

The factors contributing to the differences between the ETE values obtained in this study and those of the previous study are:

The permanent resident population in the EPZ decreased by 0.5%, resulting in slightly less vehicles, which can reduce the ETE.

The permanent resident population in the Shadow Region decreased by 1.9%. This population decrease results in less vehicles evacuating in the Shadow Region, which increases the available roadway capacity for EPZ evacuees and can decrease ETE.

The number of employees and transients commuting into the EPZ increased by 19.4%,

which results in an increase in vehicular demand that can decrease the 90th percentile ETE, as it will take quicker to reach an evacuation of 90% of the population. This is particularly true in scenarios where employees and transients are considered at its peak.

Tripgeneration time decreased by at most 90 minutes for permanent residents and by at most 30 minutes for employees/transients based on data collected from the demographic survey. As a result, vehicles are generated over a shorter period of time which can increase local congestion increasing the 90th percentile ETE. This trip generation decrease is directly correlated with the decrease of the 100th percentile ETE For this site, since all congestion clears prior to the end of the trip generation time, the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the time needed to mobilize (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary).

The various factors, discussed above, that can decrease ETE outweigh those that can increase the ETE, thereby explaining why the 90th percentile ETE decreased during the midweek, midday scenarios and heavy snow conditions and for the 100th percentile ETE for all scenarios. The reduced trip generation time of the permanent residents and the reduced number of employees during the midday weekend and evening scenarios, increases the 90th percentile ETE, which outweigh those factors that can decrease the ETE.

Cooper Nuclear Station 16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 11. Stakeholder Interaction Stakeholder Nature of Stakeholder Interaction Attended kickoff meeting to define methodology, and data requirements. Set up contacts with local government agencies. Provided recent CNS Nebraska Public Power District employee data. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and was informed of the study results.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss the project methodology, key project assumptions and to define Counties of Nemaha, Atchison, Richardson, Otoe data needs. Provided emergency plans, and existing Emergency Management Agencies traffic management plans. Provided/confirmed special facility and special event data. Reviewed and approved all project assumptions. Engaged in the ETE development and were informed of the study results.

Attended kickoff meeting to discuss project Nebraska, and Missouri State Emergency methodology, data requirements and key project Management Agencies assumptions, and provided the state emergency response plans.

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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Population Basis Population = 4,015 Population = 3,995 Vehicles = 2,413 Vehicles = 2,167 Resident 2.28 persons/household, 1.36 evacuating 2.55 persons/household, 1.56 evacuating Population vehicles/household yielding: 1.68 vehicles/household yielding: 1.63 Vehicle persons/vehicle. persons/vehicle.

Occupancy Employee estimates based on Employee estimates based on information provided about major information provided about major employers in EPZ. 1.10 employees per employers in EPZ. 1.07 employees per Employee vehicle based on telephone survey vehicle based on demographic survey Population results. results.

Employees = 591 Employees = 697 Vehicles = 538 Vehicles = 651 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 survey. A total of 3 people who do not Transit A total of 84 people who do not have have access to a vehicle, 3 buses was Dependent access to a vehicle, requiring 3 buses to used but 1 bus was required to evacuate.

Population evacuate. An additional 1 registered No access and/or functional needs homebound special needs person needs population was registered, so they were special transportation to evacuate. not considered in this study.

Transient estimates based upon Transient estimates based upon information provided about transient information provided about transient Transient attractions in EPZ. attractions in EPZ.

Population Transients = 584 Transients = 772 Transient Vehicles = 257 Transient Vehicles = 355 Special facility population based on Special facility population based on information provided by each county information provided by each county within the EPZ. within the EPZ.

Medical Facilities: Medical Facilities:

Special Facilities Current census = 56 Current census = 56 Population Buses Required = 2 Buses Required = 2 Correctional Facilities: Correctional Facilities:

Current Census = 12 Current Census = 12 Buses Required = 1 Buses Required = 1 Cooper Nuclear Station 18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School provided by each county within the EPZ. School enrollment = 1,405 Population School enrollment = 1,470 Buses required = 9 Buses required = 13 Vans for Peru College required = 3 Van for Mennonite School required = 1 ArcGIS software using 2010 US Census ArcGIS software using 2020 US Census blocks and projecting out to 2011 using blocks and projecting out to 2021 using the compound growth rate of 2000 the compound growth rate of 2010 Shadow Census and 2010 census data; area ratio Census and 2020 census data; area ratio Population method used. method used.

Shadow Population = 7,216 Shadow Population = 7,076 Vehicles = 4,344 Vehicles = 4,279 Voluntary evacuation from 20% of the population within the EPZ, 20% of the population within the EPZ, within EPZ in but not within the Evacuation Region but not within the Evacuation Region areas outside (see Figure 21) (see Figure 21) region to be evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ within 20% of people outside of the EPZ within Shadow the Shadow Region the Shadow Region Evacuation (see Figure 72) (see Figure 72)

Network Size 410 links; 373 nodes 579 links; 459 nodes Field surveys conducted in December 2020. Roads and intersections were Field surveys conducted in March 2012. video archived.

Roadway Roads and intersections were video archived. Aerial imagery used for additional Geometric Data roadways which were not included in the Road capacities based on HCM 2010. field surveys.

Road capacities based on the HCM 2016.

School Direct evacuation to designated Direct evacuation to designated Evacuation Reception Centers. Reception Centers.

50% of transitdependent persons will 86% of transitdependent persons will Ridesharing evacuate with a neighbor or friend. evacuate with a neighbor or friend.

Cooper Nuclear Station 19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Residents with commuters returning Residents with commuters returning leave between 30 and 360 minutes. leave between 30 and 270 minutes.

Trip Generation Residents without commuters returning Residents without commuters returning for Evacuation leave between 15 and 300 minutes. leave between 15 and 225 minutes.

Employees and transients leave between Employees and transients leave between 15 and 120 minutes. 15 and 90 minutes.

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

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

Modeling DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.9.0 DYNEV II System - Version 4.0.20.0 Memorial Day Weekend (Brownville Flea Memorial Day Weekend (Brownville Flea Market and peak holiday attendance at Market and peak holiday attendance at Indian Cave State Park) additional Indian Cave State Park)

Special Events transient vehicles additional transient vehicles Special Event Population = 10,150 Special Event Population = 10,062 Special Event Vehicles = 3,189 Special Event Vehicles = 3,043 26 Regions (central sector wind direction 21 Regions (central sector wind direction and each adjacent sector technique and each adjacent sector technique Evacuation Cases used) and 14 Scenarios producing 364 used) and 14 Scenarios producing 294 unique cases. unique cases.

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

Reporting Cooper Nuclear Station 110 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Topic Previous ETE Study Current ETE Study Winter, Midweek, Midday: Winter, Midweek, Midday:

Good Weather: 2:00 Good Weather: 2:10 Evacuation Time Rain: 2:00 Rain: 2:10 Estimates for the Snow: 2:30 Snow: 2:55 entire EPZ, 90th percentile Summer, Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 2:10 Good Weather: 2:20 Rain: 2:10 Rain: 2:20 Winter, Midweek, Midday: Winter, Midweek, Midday:

Good Weather: 6:10 Good Weather: 4:40 Rain: 6:10 Rain: 4:40 Evacuation Time Snow: 6:10 Snow: 5:55 Estimates for the entire EPZ, 100th percentile Summer, Weekend, Midday, Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather: 6:10 Good Weather: 4:40 Rain: 6:10 Rain: 4:40 Cooper Nuclear Station 111 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 11. CNS Location Cooper Nuclear Station 112 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 12. CNS LinkNode Analysis Network Cooper Nuclear 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 Estimate Assumptions

1. The permanent resident population are based upon 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 Area boundaries. It is assumed that the population is evenly distributed across a census block in order to employ the area ratio method. (See Section 3.1.)

2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and commute to work within the EPZ are based upon data from the previous study which was reviewed and updated by NPPD and by the counties within the EPZ and National Application Center2. (See Section 3.4.)

3. Population estimates at transient and special facilities are based on the data from the previous study, confirmed by the counties within the EPZ, supplemented internet searches, where data was missing.

4. The relationship between permanent resident population and evacuating vehicles is based on the 2020 U.S. Census population (see Section 3.1) and the results of the demographic survey (see Appendix F). Average values of 2.55 persons per household and 1.56 evacuating vehicles per household are used for the permanent resident population.

5. Employee vehicle occupancies are based on the results of the demographic survey. For this study, 1.07 employees per vehicle is used. In addition, it is assumed there are two people per carpool, on average. (See Figure F6)

6. The relationship between persons and vehicles for transients (see Section 3.3) and the special event (see Section 3.8) are as follows:

a. Indian Cave Park: an average of 2.27 people per vehicle.

b. Lodging facilities: an average of 1.92 people per vehicle

c. Special event: Assumed transients travel to the Brownsville Flea Market as families/households in a single vehicle and used the average household size of 2.55 persons to estimate the number of vehicles. Transients at Indian Cave Park was assumed 3.5 people per vehicle. In addition, it is assumed 75% of transients already considered at the park will be deducted from the total special event vehicles.

1 www.census.gov 2

https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

Cooper Nuclear Station 21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

d. Where data is not provided, the average household size will be assumed to be the vehicle occupancy rate for transient facilities and the special event.

7. The maximum bus speed assumed within the EPZ is 60 mph3 (in the State of Missouri)/55 mph4 (in the State of Nebraska) and the average posted speed limits on roadways within the EPZ.

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

2.2 Methodological Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accident that requires evacuation, and includes the 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 ATE.

2. The centerpoint of the plant is located at 40°21'44.1"N, 95°38'29.5"W.

3. The DYNEV II6 (Dynamic Network EVacuation) macroscopic simulation model is used to compute ETE in this study.

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

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

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

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

Twenty percent (20%) of the population within the Shadow Region and within Areas 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).

3 Revisor of Missouri: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=304.050 4

Nebraska Legislature: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=60-6,186 5

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

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

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

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

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 new DYNEV II model incorporates the latest technology in traffic simulation and in dynamic traffic assignment.

Cooper Nuclear Station 22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

10. The ETE also includes consideration of through (ExternalExternal) trips during the time that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. Normal traffic flow is assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

11. This study does not assume that roadways are empty at the start of the first time period. Rather, there is a 30minute initialization period (often referred to as fill time in traffic simulation) wherein the traffic volumes from the first time period are loaded onto roadways in the study area. The amount of initialization/fill traffic that is on the roadways in the study area at the start of the first time period depends on the scenario and the region being evacuated. See Section 3.10.

12. To account for boundary conditions beyond the study area, this study assumes a 25 percent (%) 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 will be more significant than the competing traffic volume at any downstream signalized intersections, thereby warranting a more significant percentage (75% in this case) of the signal green time. There is no reduction in capacity for freeways due to boundary conditions.

2.3 Assumptions on Mobilization Times

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

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

3. Commuter percentages (and percentage of residents awaiting the return of a commuter) are based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 77% of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Section F.3.1); approximately 61% of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuter before beginning their evacuation trip (see Section F.3.2).

Therefore, 47% (77% x 61% = 47%) of EPZ households will await the return of a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.

Cooper Nuclear Station 23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2.4 Transit Dependent Assumptions

1. The percentage of transitdependent people who will rideshare with a neighbor or friend is based on the results of the demographic survey. According to the survey results, approximately 86% of the transitdependent population will rideshare.

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

a. The Rock Port RII School District (K12) and the Atchison County Head Start

i. If schools and Atchison County Head Start are in session the facilities will close according to their normal early closure procedures. Transport (Buses) will evacuate children directly to the designated reception centers, if they have not been picked up or dropped off at home, as per the Atchison County RERP, dated April 2018.

ii. For this study, all children at the schools and day cares will evacuate to the reception center via buses, it is assumed no children will be picked up by their parents or dropped off home prior to the arrival of the buses.

iii. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

b. Peru State College

i. It is assumed students who live off campus evacuates in personal vehicles.

ii. Based on the National Application Center7, 70% of students live on campus have personally owned vehicles.

iii. Based on the demographic survey, approximately 86% of the transit dependent people would rideshare (see Appendix F.3.1). It is assumed that of those at Peru State College, 86% students without personal vehicles will also rideshare.

c. Mennonite School

i. Based on the discussion with Nemaha County, the Providence Mennonite School will use a van or personal vehicles driven by staff to evacuate their students and do not evacuate to the Reception Centers. As such, this study will assume all students will evacuate in a van and the estimated time of arrival to the Reception Center was not considered.

ii. It is assumed that no children will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the van.

d. Pleasant View Nursing Home

i. Buses will evacuate patients at Pleasant View Nursing Home, as needed.

ii. The percent breakdown of ambulatory, wheelchair bound and bedridden patients was confirmed by Atchison County.

e. Transitdependent permanent residents

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

7 https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

Cooper Nuclear Station 24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ii. Access and/or functional needs population may require county assistance (ambulance, bus or wheelchair transport) to evacuate. As per the counties within the EPZ, there are no registered access and/or functional needs population within the EPZ. As such, there is no sperate ETE calculations needed.

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

f. Atchison County Jail (Correctional Facility)

i. Inmates at Atchison County Jail will be transported by buses to Daviess/DeKalb Regional Jail.

ii. Data provided by the county will be used for the study.

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

h. 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 Atchison County Head Start and 50 students per bus for Rock Port RII School District.

b. Transitdependent permanent residents, ambulatory patients at the nursing home and Inmates at Atchison County Jail = 30 persons per bus

c. Vans for Peru State College = 8 people per van

d. Van for Mennonite School = 15 people per van

4. Transit vehicles mobilization times:

a. School and transit buses will arrive at schools and facilities to be evacuated within 30 minutes of the ATE.

b. Passenger van will arrive at Providence Mennonite School within 30 minutes of the ATE.

c. Transit dependent buses are mobilized when approximately 87% of residents with no commuters have completed their mobilization. If necessary, multiple waves of buses will be utilized to gather transit dependent people who mobilize more slowly.

d. Vehicles will arrive at Pleasant View Nursing Home and Atchison County Jail within 90 minutes of the ATE.

e. Vehicles will arrive at Atchison County Jail within 90 minutes of the ATE.

5. Transit Vehicle loading times:

a. School buses and the Providence Mennonite School van are loaded in 15 minutes.

b. Transit Dependent and Atchison County Jail buses require 1 minute of loading time per passenger/inmate.

Cooper Nuclear Station 25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

c. Buses for Pleasant View Nursing Home require 1 minute of loading time per ambulatory passenger.

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

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

2.5 Traffic and Access Control Assumptions

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

2. TCP and ACP are assumed to be staffed approximately 60 minutes after the ATE, as per discussions with the client. It is assumed that no through traffic will enter the EPZ after this 60minute time period.

3. It is assumed that all transit vehicles and other responders entering the EPZ to support the evacuation are unhindered by personnel manning TCPs and ACPs.

2.6 Scenarios and Regions

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

a. Memorial Day Weekend (Brownville Flea Market and transients at Indian Cave State Park), located in Areas 11 and 15, is considered as the special event (single or multiday event that attracts a significant population into the EPZ; recommended by NRC guidance) for Scenario 13.

b. As per NRC guidance, one of the top 5 highest volume roadways must be closed or one lane outbound on a freeway must be closed for a roadway impact scenario. This study considers the road closures that have persisted for extended periods when the Missouri River has flooded in the past. These closures is implemented to form the basis of a modified roadway impact scenario that exceeds the minimum NRC guidance, while accomplishing the need to address the flooding issue in the report. The following conditions will constitute the roadway impact scenario Scenario 14:

i. US 136 is closed between the Missouri River and I29.

ii. 648A Ave is closed between CNS and the Village of Brownville.

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.

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The capacity and free flow speed are reduced by 10% in speed and capacity for rain and light snow and a speed and capacity reduction of 15% and 25%, respectively, for heavy snow, in accordance with Table 31 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. The factors are shown in Table 22.

4. It is assumed for heavy snow scenarios that some evacuees will need additional time to clear their driveways and access the public roadway system. The distribution of time for this activity is gathered through a demographic survey of the public and takes up to 165 minutes. It is assumed that the time needed by evacuees to remove snow from their driveways is sufficient time for snow removal crews to mobilize and clear/treat the public roadway system.

5. It is also assumed that mobilization and loading times for transit vehicles are slightly longer in adverse weather. It is assumed that mobilization times and loading times are 10 minutes (5 minutes for schools) and 20 minutes (10 minutes for schools) longer in rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

6. It is assumed that employment is reduced slightly (4%) in the summer for vacations.

7. Regions are defined by the underlying keyhole or circular configurations as specified in Section 1.4 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 and the CNS Protective Action Recommendations. These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Areas included within these underlying configurations. All 16 cardinal and intercardinal wind direction keyhole configurations are considered. Regions to be considered are defined in Table 61. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Areas 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 Areas, there are instances where a small portion of an Area (a sliver) is within the keyhole and the population within that small portion is low (less than 500 people or 10% of the Area population, whichever is less). Under those circumstances, the Area would not be included in the Region so as to not evacuate large numbers of people outside of the keyhole for a small number of people that are actually in the keyhole, unless otherwise stated in the PAR document.

9. Staged evacuation is considered as defined in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 - those people between 2 and 5 miles will shelterinplace until 90% of the 2Mile Region has evacuated, then they will evacuate. See Regions R16 through R21 in Table 61.

Cooper Nuclear Station 27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 21. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scenarios Season8 Day of Week Time of Day Weather Special 1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None 2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None 3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None 4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None Midweek, 5 Summer Evening Good None Weekend 6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None Rain/Light 7 Winter Midweek Midday None Snow 8 Winter Midweek Midday Heavy Snow None 9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None Rain/Light 10 Winter Weekend Midday None Snow 11 Winter Weekend Midday Heavy Snow None Midweek, 12 Winter Evening Good None Weekend Special Event: Memorial 13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Day Weekend Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact and Flooding Scenario Table 22. Model Adjustment for Adverse Weather Loading Mobilization Mobilization Time for Free Mobilization Time Time for and Loading Other Highway Flow for General Transit Time for Transit Scenario Capacity* Speed* Population Vehicles School Buses Vehicles Rain/Light 10minute 5minute 10minute 90% 90% No Effect Snow increase increase increase Clear driveway Heavy 20minute 10minute 20minute 75% 85% before leaving home Snow increase increase increase (See Figure F15)

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

Roads are assumed to be passable.

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 21. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Cooper Nuclear Station 29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

3. An estimate of potential doublecounting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates. Our primary source of population data, the 2020 Census, however, 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 CNS EPZ indicates the need to identify three distinct groups:

Permanent residents people who are year round 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 Area and by polar coordinate representation (population rose).

The CNS EPZ is subdivided into 8 Areas. The Areas comprising the EPZ are shown in Figure 31.

Cooper Nuclear 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 permanent resident population is estimated by cutting the census block polygons by the Area 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 what the population is 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 the permanent resident population within the EPZ, by Area, for 2010 and for 2020 (based on the methodology discussed above). As indicated, the permanent resident population within the EPZ has decreased by approximately 0.5% since the 2010 Census.

The year 2020 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size and then multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household to estimate the number of vehicles. The average household size (2.55 persons/household was estimated using the U.S. Census data - See Section 2.1). The number of evacuating vehicles per household (1.56 vehicles/household - See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.2) was adapted from the demographic survey.

Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates are presented in Table 32. Figure 32 and Figure 33 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from the CNS. This rose was constructed using GIS software.

Note, the 2020 Census includes residents living in group quarters, such as skilled nursing facilities, group homes, prisons, college/university student housing, etc. These people are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and are included in the special facility evacuation demand estimates. 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.

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

Assume 50 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

3.1.1 Commuter College There is one college - Peru State College - within the CNS EPZ. The data/information is summarized as follows:

Located in Area 15, 9.2 miles northwest of CNS.

According to Nemaha County Emergency Plans, Peru State College has an enrollment of approximately 1,000 students. There are 520 students living on campus and counted as group quarters population as discussed above. The remaining 480 students are assumed to commute to school.

Based on the information obtained from the National Application Center1 database, as of December 2019, 70% of students who live on campus have personally owned vehicles. As such, 364 (520 x 70%) oncampus students have access to private vehicles.

The remaining 156 (520 - 364) oncampus students without private vehicles are considered as transit dependent who would rideshare with a fellow classmate or evacuate in college vans. According to the demographic survey, approximately 86% of the transitdependent people would rideshare with a neighbor or friend (see Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1). As such, 134 (156 x 86%) students would rideshare with a fellow classmate, leaving 22 (156 - 134) students evacuated by college vans. Using a conservative assumed estimate of 8 people per van, the number of vans needed for this college is 3 (22 ÷ 8 = 3, rounded up).

It is conservatively assumed that all the 480 offcampus students live within the EPZ and also evacuate in personal vehicles. Applying the commuter vehicle occupancy rate (1.07

- See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1, Commuter Travel Modes), there are 449 (480 ÷ 1.07) commuter vehicles.

In summary, the 1,000 students will be evacuated in 813 (364 + 449) private vehicles and 3 college vans. The college students and evacuating vehicles are presented in the School, Day Care/Preschool, Peru State College column in Table 311 and Table 312.

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

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

1 https://www.nationalapplicationcenter.com/

Cooper Nuclear Station 33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 33 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.

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 from the previous ETE study was reviewed by the counties within the EPZ and confirmed it was still accurate. Atchison County identified three new lodging facilities within the EPZ and provided the estimates of transients and vehicles for each lodging facility. The transient facilities within the CNS EPZ are summarized as follows:

Recreational Areas - 584 transients and 257 vehicles; an average of 2.27 transients per vehicle Lodging Facilities - 188 transients and 98 vehicles; an average of 1.92 transients per vehicle Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was estimated for the EPZ. Table E4 presents the number of transients visiting recreational areas, while Table E5 presents the number of transients at lodging facilities within the EPZ.

Table 34 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Area. Figure 36 and Figure 37 present these data by sector and distance from the plant. There are a total of 772 transients evacuating in 355 vehicles - an average vehicle occupancy of 2.17 transients per vehicle.

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

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

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

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

The employment data from the previous ETE study was reviewed and updated by NPPD and by the counties within the EPZ. There are two major employers within the CNS EPZ; Cooper Nuclear Station and Peru State College. As per the NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 guidance, employers with 200 or more employees working in a single shift are considered as major employers.

According to the data received, both facilities have more than 200 employees during the maximum shift. As such, they are included in this study, as shown in Table E3 in Appendix E.

Cooper Nuclear Station 34 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To estimate the evacuating employee vehicles, a vehicle occupancy factor of 1.07 employees per vehicle obtained from the demographic survey (See Appendix F, Subsection F.3.1, Commuter Travel Modes) was used to determine the number of evacuating employee vehicles for all major employers.

Table 35 presents the employee and employee vehicles commuting into the EPZ by Area.

Figure 38 and Figure 39 present these data by sector.

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

Medical - Pleasant View Nursing Home, and Correctional - Atchison County Jail.

A total of 68 patients and inmates require transit vehicles. A total of three (3) buses are needed. 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 Facilities The CNS EPZ has only one medical facility - Pleasant View Nursing Home. The capacity, current census and general information for Pleasant View Nursing Home was confirmed by Atchison County.

Table 36 and Table E2 in Appendix E presents the census of the Pleasant View Nursing Home.

A total of 56 people has been identified as living in or being treated at Pleasant View Nursing Home. These people are considered ambulatory patients. The number of bus runs estimated assumes 30 ambulatory patients per trip, as shown in Table 36. As such, two buses 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 Facilities As detailed in Table E6 and Table 37, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ -

Atchison County Jail. The total inmate population at this facility is 12 people. A total of one (1) bus is needed to evacuate this facility, based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus. According to Atchison County Emergency Plan, the Atchison County Jail will normally relocate inmates to the Daviess/DeKalb Regional Jail in Pattonsburg at the declaration of a Site Area Emergency.

3.6 Transit Dependent Population The 2020 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 35 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 the estimated calculations transitdependent people. Note the following:

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

It is reasonable and appropriate to consider that many transitdependent persons will evacuate by ridesharing with neighbors, friends, or family. For example, nearly 80 percent of those who evacuated from Mississauga, Ontario who did not use their own cars, shared a ride with neighbors or friends. Other documents report that approximately 70 percent of transit dependent persons were evacuated via ride sharing. Based on the results of the demographic survey, approximately 86% of the transitdependent people will rideshare.

The estimated number of bus trips needed to service transitdependent persons is based on 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 3 people. Therefore, a total of one (1) bus run is required to transport this population to reception centers. In order to service all of the transit dependent population and have a least one bus drive through each Area picking up transit dependent people, 3 bus runs are used in the ETE calculations (even though only 1 bus is needed from a capacity standpoint). These buses are represented as two vehicles in the ETE simulation due to their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics, as discussed in Section 3.5.

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 CNS EPZ:

Cooper Nuclear Station 36 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Where, A = Percent of households with commuters C = Percent of households who will not await the return of a commuter 1,567 0.00 0.00 0.112 1.56 1 0.77 0.395 0.327 2.35 2 0.77 0.395 46 1 0.862 46 30 0.138 46 30 1 These calculations, based on the 2020 demographic survey results, are explained as follows:

There were no households (HH) with no vehicles, so the term 0.00 represents those who do not have access to a vehicle.

The members of HH with 1 vehicle away (11.2%), who are at home, equal (1.56 1).

The number of HH where the commuter will not return home is equal to (1,567 x 0.112 x 0.56 x 0.77 x 0.395), as 55% of EPZ households have a commuter, 52% 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 (32.7%), who are at home, equal (2.35 - 2). The number of HH where neither commuter will return home is equal to 1,567 x 0.418 x 0.35 x (0.77 x 0.395)2. The number of persons who will evacuate by public transit or rideshare is equal to the product of these two terms (the last term is squared to represent the probability that neither commuter will return).

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

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

The estimate of transitdependent population in Table 38 exceeds the number of registered transitdependent persons (access and/or functional needs population) in the EPZ. Currently, there are zero access and/or functional needs population registered, as per the counties. This is consistent with the findings of NUREG/CR6953, Volume 2, in that a large majority of the transitdependent population within the EPZs of U.S. nuclear plants does not register with their local emergency response agency.

3.7 School Population Demand Table 39 presents the school population and transportation requirements for the direct evacuation of all schools, day care/preschool, and Peru State College within the EPZ for the 20202021 school year. This information was provided by the local county emergency management agencies. The column in Table 39 entitled Buses Required specifies the number of buses required for each school, day care/preschool, and college under the following set of assumptions and estimates:

Cooper Nuclear Station 37 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

No students and children at day care/preschool will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. It is assumed that students/children will evacuate to Reception Centers.

Based on information provided by Nemaha County, the Providence Mennonite School will not evacuate to a Reception Center but to a different area outside of the EPZ.

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

Bus capacity, expressed in students per bus, is set to 70 students/children for primary schools and day care/preschool and 50 students for middle and high schools. The Providence Mennonite School van capacity is 15 students per van.

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.

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, it is assumed any Peru State College student without a vehicle would rideshare. Those students who do not rideshare or have a passenger vehicle, a van provided by the college will be used. The capacity of the van is assumed to be 8 people per van.

Implementation of a process to confirm individual school transportation needs prior to bus dispatch 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, can be gainfully assigned to service other facilities or those persons who do not have access to private vehicles or to ridesharing.

3.8 Special Event Based on discussions with NPPD and OROs, Memorial Day Weekend was chosen as the special event (Scenario 13) in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, because it has the largest transient population. This scenario is formed by two events which happen simultaneously, the Brownville Flea Market and the peak holiday weekend (Memorial Day) attendance at Indian Cave State Park. Data from the previous study, was confirmed by Nemaha County.

The flea market is held in Brownville, Nebraska (Area 11) and has a peak attendance of 3,500 people. It was assumed that families travel to the event as a household unit in a single vehicle; therefore, the average household size of 2.55 was used for vehicle occupancy. Using the average household size of 2.55, a total of 1,373 vehicles are assumed to be at the event.

According to Nemaha County, approximately 90% of people would travel from outside the EPZ.

Thus, a total of 3,150 transients and 1,236 transient vehicles were incorporated at various parking locations for this special event. The closure of Main Street within Brownsville occurs during the Flea Market from N 1st Street to S 7th Street.

Cooper Nuclear Station 38 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Memorial Day attendance, at Indian Cave State Park (Area 15) was confirmed by Richardson County. It was determined that 7,000 people and 2,000 vehicles inhabit the park during Memorial Day weekend. It is assumed that the vast majority of these visitors are from outside of the EPZ. The conservative assumption that 100% of park visitors are transients from outside of the EPZ was used for this study. In addition, this number also includes a significant portion of the transient vehicles already considered at Indian Cave State Park ( 257 transients). To avoid double counting, 75% of the transient vehicles are assumed to be already at Indian Cave State Park. Therefore, 193 vehicles (0.75 x 257) were deducted from the total of 2,000 vehicles. A total of 1,807 vehicles was considered for this portion of the special event.

A total of 10,062 people in 3,043 vehicles is considered in this study. No public transportation was considered for these events. The special event vehicle trips were generated utilizing the same mobilization distributions for transients.

3.9 External Traffic Vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ (externalexternal trips) at the time of an emergency event. 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

- I29. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the EPZ during the first 60 minutes following the ATE.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Missouri Department of Transportation to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on the aforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the KFactor, which is the proportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in the design hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 30th highest hourly traffic volume of the year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the DFactor, which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also known as the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV) and are presented in Table 310, for each of the routes considered. The DDHV is then multiplied by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months (access control points - ACP - are assumed to be activated within 60 minutes of the ATE) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysis network. As indicated, there are 1,610 vehicles entering the EPZ as externalexternal trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic. This number is reduced by 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.

3.10 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 58, 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 Time Period 1. Rather, Cooper Nuclear Station 39 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

there is a 30minute 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 836 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.

3.11 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 18,417 people and 9,504 vehicles are considered in this study.

Cooper Nuclear Station 310 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 31. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Area 2010 Population 2020 Population 1 294 199 2 1,921 1,824 11 135 297 12 30 20 13E 65 54 13W 196 207 14 382 268 15 992 1,126 EPZ TOTAL 4,015 3,995 EPZ Population Growth (20102020): 0.50%

Table 32. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Area 2020 2020 Population Area Resident Vehicles 1 199 122 2 1,824 1,087 11 297 181 12 20 11 13E 54 33 13W 207 127 14 268 165 15 1,126 441 EPZ TOTAL 3,995 2,167 Table 33. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector Sector 2020 Population Evacuating Vehicles N 44 28 NNE 54 33 NE 46 27 ENE 1,442 875 E 752 461 ESE 84 54 SE 24 16 SSE 95 58 S 114 72 SSW 111 69 SW 202 129 WSW 107 68 W 3,720 2,214 WNW 202 124 NW 71 46 NNW 8 5 TOTAL 7,076 4,279 Cooper Nuclear Station 311 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 34. Summary of Transients and Transient Vehicles Area Transients Transient Vehicles 1 80 40 2 108 58 11 0 0 12 0 0 13E 584 257 13W 0 0 14 0 0 15 0 0 EPZ TOTAL 772 355 Table 35. Summary of Employees and Employee Vehicles Commuting into the EPZ Area Employees Employee Vehicles 1 0 0 2 0 0 11 534 499 12 0 0 13E 0 0 13W 0 0 14 0 0 15 163 152 EPZ TOTAL 697 651 Table 36. Medical Facility Transit Demand Current Ambulatory Area Facility Name Municipality Capacity Census Patients Bus Runs Atchison County, MO 2 Pleasant View Nursing Home Rock Port 60 56 56 2 Atchison County Subtotal: 2 TOTAL: 60 56 56 2 Table 37. Correctional Facility Transit Demand Area Facility Name Municipality Capacity Buses Required Atchison County, MO 2 Atchison County Jail Rock Port 12 1 Atchison County Subtotal: 12 1 EPZ TOTAL: 12 1 Cooper Nuclear Station 312 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 38. TransitDependent Population Estimates Survey Average Survey Percent HH Size Survey Percent HH Survey Percent HH Total People Population with Indicated Estimated with Indicated No. of Percent HH with Non People Estimated Requiring Requiring 2020 EPZ No. 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 3,995 0.00 1.56 2.35 1,567 0.00% 11.20% 32.70% 77.0% 39.50% 46 86.2% 6 0.2%

Table 39. Schools, Day Care/Preschool, Peru State College Population Demand Estimates Buses Area School Name Enrollment Required2 Atchison County, MO 2 Atchison County Head Start 20 1 2 Rock Port RII School District (K12) 385 8 Atchison County Subtotal: 405 9 Nemaha County, NE 14 Providence Mennonite School 13 1 15 Peru State College 1,000 816 Atchison County Subtotal: 1,013 817 EPZ TOTAL: 1,418 826 2

The Buses Required also includes the number of vans provided by the college and personal vehicles used by the oncampus and offcampus students at Peru State College. It also includes the 1 van being used at the Providence Mennonite School.

Cooper Nuclear Station 313 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 310. Cooper Nuclear Station EPZ External Traffic Upstream Downstream Hourly External Node Node Road Name Direction AADT3 KFactor4 DFactor4 Volume Traffic 8185 185 I29 SB 13,886 0.116 0.5 805 805 8049 49 I29 NB 13,886 0.116 0.5 805 805 TOTAL 1,610 Table 311. Summary of Population Demand Schools, Day Care/Preschool, Transit Special Peru Sate Special Shadow External Area Residents Dependent Transients Employees Facilities5 College Event6 Population7 Traffic Total 1 199 1 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 280 2 1,824 0 108 0 68 405 0 0 0 2,405 11 297 1 0 534 0 0 3,500 0 0 4,332 12 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 13E 54 0 584 0 0 0 6,562 0 0 7,200 13W 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 14 268 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 281 15 1,126 1 0 163 0 1,0008 0 0 0 2,290 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,415 0 1,415 Total 3,995 3 772 697 68 1,418 10,062 1,415 0 18,433 3

https://www.modot.org/traffic-volume-maps 4

HCM 2016 5

Special Facilities include both medical and correctional facilities 6

Includes an event on Memorial Day in Brownville and at Indian Cave Park, where 75% of the transients at Indian Cave Park has been excluded to avoid double counting. (See Section 3.9) 7 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

8 Total number of Peru State College students is also accounted for in the Residents Column. See Section 3.1 and Sub-Section 3.1.1.

Cooper Nuclear Station 314 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 312. Summary of Vehicle Demand School, Day Care/Pres chool11, Transit Special Peru State Special Shadow External Area Residents Dependent9 Transients Employees Facilities10 College Event12 Population13 Traffic Total 1 122 2 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 2 1,087 0 58 0 6 18 0 0 0 1,169 11 181 2 0 499 0 0 1,236 0 0 1,918 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 13E 33 0 257 0 0 0 1,807 0 0 2,097 13W 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 14 165 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 166 15 44115 2 0 152 0 81616 0 0 0 1,411 Shadow Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 856 1,610 2,466 Total 2,167 6 355 651 6 835 3,043 856 1,610 9,529 9

Each bus is equivalent to two (2) passenger cars.

10 Special Facilities include both medical and correctional facilities Each bus is equivalent to 2 passenger cars.

11 Schools and day care/preschool buses is the equivalent to two (2) passenger vehicles.

12 Includes an event on Memorial Day in Brownville and an and Indian Cave Park event, where . 75% of the transients at in Indian Cave Park has been excluded to avoid double counting. (See Section 3.9 13 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

14 One (1) van was considered and the van is equivalent to a passenger car.

15 Total does not include vehicles utilized by the students at Peru State College.

16 The total number for Peru State College considers personal vehicles for on-campus and off campus students and vans provided by the college. Three vans are considered and each van is equivalent to a passenger car.

Cooper Nuclear Station 315 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 31. Areas Comprising the CNS EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station 316 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 32. Permanent Resident Population by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 317 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 33. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 318 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 34. Shadow Population by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 319 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 35. Shadow Vehicles by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 320 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 36. Transient Population by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 321 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 37. Transient Vehicles by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 322 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 38. Employee Population by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 323 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 39. Employee Vehicles by Sector Cooper Nuclear Station 324 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, a SV is the maximum traffic that can travel on a road and still maintain a certain perceived level of quality to a driver based on the A, B, C, rating system (LOS). Any additional vehicles above the SV would drop the rating to a lower letter grade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 41 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFS and capacity. The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicles speedometer and observing local traffic, under free flow conditions. Free flow speeds ranged from 25 to 75 mph.

Capacity is estimated from the procedures of the 2016 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 71(b) shows the sensitivity of SV at the upper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume 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 vehicle can travel when closely spaced, the higher the amount of flow.

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

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

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

4.1 Capacity Estimations on Approaches to Intersections Atgrade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy traffic volume conditions. This characteristic reflects the need to allocate access time to the respective competing traffic streams by exerting some form of control. During evacuation, control at critical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for that purpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices. The existing traffic management plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and were adopted without change. See Appendix G for more information.

Cooper Nuclear 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, Cooper Nuclear 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 SV, VF, under congested conditions.

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

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

Cooper Nuclear 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 and indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 which translates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 45 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

2016 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2016)

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

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

TwoLane roads: Local, State Multilane Highways (atgrade)

Freeways Each of these classifications will be discussed.

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

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

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

Most sections, of twolane roads within the 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 46 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 2,200 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 traffic with freespeeds in this range. The actual timevarying speeds computed by the simulation model reflect the demand and capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections. A conservative estimate of perlane capacity of 1,900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multilane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.

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

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

Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+

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

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

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 Cooper Nuclear Station 47 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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).

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. The type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are 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 an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions. The model utilized for this study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize that simulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM 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 Cooper Nuclear Station 48 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear Station 410 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIME Federal guidance (see NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1) specify that the Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) study estimate the distributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the public to prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity is represented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public. The quantification of these activitybased distributions relies largely on the results of the demographic survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the Trip Generation Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

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

1. Unusual Event

2. Alert

3. Site Area Emergency

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

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

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

3. The ETE are measured relative to the ATE.

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

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

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

It is likely that a longer time will elapse between the various classes of an emergency. For example, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the ATE. In this case, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public during this onehour period. As a result, the population within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) will be lower when the ATE is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many will engage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an advisory will be broadcasted. Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of people remaining to evacuate the EPZ after the ATE, will both be somewhat less than the estimates presented in this Cooper Nuclear Station 51 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

The notification process consists of two events:

1. Transmitting information using the alert notification systems (ANS) available within the EPZ (e.g., sirens, tone alerts, EAS broadcasts, loud speakers).

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

The population within the EPZ is dispersed over an area of approximately 324 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 accident.

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

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

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

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

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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 52 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in series (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 Table 51:

These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuter returning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after the preparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization Cooper Nuclear Station 53 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for many households, but that assumption is not made in this study.

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

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process: Activity 1 2 Federal regulations (10CFR50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate, [t]he design objective of the prompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. Furthermore, the 2019 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program Manual Part V Section B.1 Bullet 3 states that arrangements will be made to assure 100 percent coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ.

Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the assumed presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100 percent 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. The distribution is plotted in Figure 52.

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

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

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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 54 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated with snow clearance. It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during the snowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snowplowing efforts are generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snow accumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.

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

Note that those respondents (21.9%) who answered that they would not take time to clear their driveway were assumed to be ready immediately at the start of this activity. Essentially, they would drive through the snow on the driveway to access the roadway and begin their evacuation trip.

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

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

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

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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 55 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months 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, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the mean noted, c) the histogram of the data is inspected, and d) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, taking special note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in the histogram display.

In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowed to be considered outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected. However, other flagged Cooper Nuclear Station 56 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

values between 3.5 and 4 standard deviations from the mean are also removed based on a careful consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g., commuter returning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, using weighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 54 presents the combined trip generation distributions 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.

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.

Cooper Nuclear Station 57 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumptions

1. The EPZ population in Areas beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the 2 to 5Mile Region; that is, they will first shelter then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region, with the exception of the 20% noncompliance,.

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

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

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

Procedure

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 58 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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, however, that was not the case for this site.

NUREG/CR7002, Rev.1, uses the statement approximately 90th percentile as the time to end staging and begin evacuating. The value of TScen* on average is 1:25 (hrs:mins) for all scenarios (see Region R01 in Table 71).

d. Note: Since approximately 96% of the 2Mile Region (Areas 1 and 11) is comprised of plant employees, the TScen* 1:25 is dictated by the trip generation of employees as opposed to the trip generation of permanent residents.

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

a. Residents with returning commuters

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 55 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and without returning commuters and employees/transients. The average 90th percentile twomile evacuation time is 85 minutes for all scenarios. At TScen*, 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.

Table 510 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

Cooper Nuclear Station 59 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational Areas Annex E of the Atchison County Radiological Plan states that the warning system is composed of fixed siren locations and have sirens at key positions within the Brickyard Hill Conservation Area and along the Missouri River. Annex J states that Access control on the Missouri River within the 10mile EPZ will be accomplished by the U.S. Coast Guard. Exclusion of rail and air traffic will be accomplished according to the SEMA Watch Center Notification Procedures.

As discussed in Section 2.3, this study assumes a rapidly escalating general emergency. As indicated in Table 52, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes which is consistent with the 2019 FEMA REP Manual. Table 59 indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 90 minutes. It is assumed that this 90minute timeframe is sufficient for boaters, campers and other transients to return to their vehicles or lodging facilities and begin their evacuation trip.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Cumulative Percent (Minutes) Employees Leaving Work (Minutes) Employees Leaving Work 0 0.0% 35 94.1%

5 33.2% 40 96.3%

10 51.1% 45 98.7%

15 69.7% 50 98.9%

20 79.0% 55 98.9%

25 82.2% 60 100.0%

30 90.4%

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

Cooper Nuclear 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 Returning (Minutes) Returning Home (Minutes) Home 0 0.0% 35 92.1%

5 16.8% 40 94.8%

10 25.7% 45 95.8%

15 49.2% 50 96.6%

20 70.9% 55 96.6%

25 83.0% 60 97.9%

30 89.0% 75 100.0%

NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response Table 55. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Leave Home Cumulative Cumulative Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Percent Ready to (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Evacuate 0 0.0% 120 90.7%

15 3.5% 135 93.3%

30 21.7% 150 94.2%

45 36.1% 165 95.5%

60 63.6% 180 98.1%

75 74.8% 195 99.4%

90 79.2% 210 100.0%

105 83.1%

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 56. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"8" of Snow Cumulative Cumulative Percent Elapsed Time Percent Ready to Elapsed Time Completing Snow (Minutes) Evacuate (Minutes) Removal 0 21.9% 90 90.6%

15 47.8% 105 92.3%

30 63.6% 120 95.6%

45 73.7% 135 98.3%

60 84.2% 150 99.7%

75 89.6% 165 100.0%

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

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

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

to begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 513 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 59. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for UnStaged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period Residents Residents With Residents with Without Commuters Residents Without Time Duration Employees Transients Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow Period (Min) (Distribution A) (Distribution A) (Distribution C) (Distribution D) (Distribution E) (Distribution F) 1 15 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2 15 31% 31% 0% 3% 0% 1%

3 30 56% 56% 4% 26% 1% 11%

4 15 6% 6% 9% 19% 4% 11%

5 15 1% 1% 13% 19% 6% 14%

6 30 0% 0% 33% 14% 22% 22%

7 60 0% 0% 30% 14% 39% 26%

8 15 0% 0% 3% 2% 6% 4%

9 30 0% 0% 4% 3% 9% 6%

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

11 15 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1%

12 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%

13 15 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

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

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

NOTE:

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

Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.

Cooper Nuclear Station 514 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 510. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Percent of Total Trips Generated Within Indicated Time Period1 Residents Residents with Without Residents With Residents Without Time Duration Commuters Commuters Commuters Snow Commuters Snow 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 15 2% 4% 1% 3%

5 15 12% 23% 6% 14%

6 30 44% 48% 26% 40%

7 60 30% 14% 39% 26%

8 15 3% 2% 6% 4%

9 30 4% 3% 9% 6%

10 30 3% 0% 7% 3%

11 15 1% 0% 2% 1%

12 30 0% 0% 2% 0%

13 15 0% 0% 1% 1%

14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%

15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%

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

Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear Station 516 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Mobilization Activities 100%

Percent of Population Completing Mobilization Activity 80%

60%

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

0%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)

Figure 52. Time Distributions for Evacuation Mobilization Activities Cooper Nuclear Station 517 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

Cumulative Percentage (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

112.5 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 Center of Interval (minutes)

Cumulative Data Cumulative Normal Figure 53. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution Cooper Nuclear Station 518 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Figure 54. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions Cooper Nuclear Station 519 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow) 100 80 Percent of Population Evacuating 60 40 20 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 Cooper Nuclear 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 Areas that forms either a keyhole sector based 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 21 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Areas considered.

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

Each keyhole sectorbased area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant, and three adjoining sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev.

1 guidance. The central sector coincides with the wind direction. These sectors extend to 5 miles from the plant (Regions R04 through R08) or to the EPZ boundary (Regions R09 through R15), as per the Nebraska Public Power District Operations Manual Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure 5.7.20.

Regions R01, R02 and R03 represent evacuations of circular areas with radii of 2, 5 and 10 miles, respectively. Regions R16 through R21 are identical to Regions R02, and R04 through R08, respectively; however, those Areas between 2 miles and 5 miles are staged until 90% of the 2 Mile Region (Region R01) has evacuated.

A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions. Thus, there are a total of 21 x 14= 294 evacuation cases. Table 62 is a description of all Scenarios.

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

These peak values are adjusted depending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Region specific percentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. The scenario percentages are presented in Table 63, while the regional percentages are provided in Table H1. Table 64 presents the vehicle counts for each scenario for an evacuation of Region R03 - the entire EPZ, based on the scenario percentages in Table

63. 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 47%, the product of 77% (the number of households with at least one commuter - see Section F.3.1) and approximately 61% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuter prior to evacuating - See Section F.3.2). See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It is estimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters (47%) will have a commuter at work during those times or approximately 5% (10% x 47% = 4.7%, rounds to 5%) of households.

Cooper Nuclear Station 61 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 less (65%)

during the week. Indian Cave State Park offers camping and RV accommodations (see Appendix E); thus, transient activity is estimated to be approximately 60% in the evenings during the winter and summer. Transient activity on winter weekends is estimated to be 70% and 30%

during the winter weekday.

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

625 20% 1 26%

1,019 1,148 One special event scenario -Memorial Day Weekend - was considered as Scenario 13. Thus, the special event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

Schools and day care/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 the regular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios. School and day care/preschools are not in session during weekends and evenings, thus no buses for children at these facilities are needed under those circumstances.

Buses for the transitdependent and special facility population (at Pleasant View Nursing Home and Atchison County Jail) are set to 100% for all scenarios as it is assumed that the transit dependent and the special facility population are present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

External traffic is estimated to be reduced by 60% during evening scenarios and is 100% for all other scenarios.

Cooper Nuclear Station 62 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 61. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Area Region Description 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R01 2Mile Region X X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R04 347 to 58 X X X X R05 59 to 76 X X X R06 77 to 148 X X X X R07 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R08 302 to 346 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R09 347 to 35 X X X X X X R10 36 to 58 X X X X X R11 59 to 76 X X X X N/A 77 to 148 Refer to R06 N/A 149 to 166 Refer to R07 R12 167 to 193 X X X X R13 194 to 279 X X X R14 280 to 346 X X X X X R15 347 to 350 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R16 5Mile Region X X X X X R17 347 to 58 X X X X R18 59 to 76 X X X R19 77 to 148 X X X X R20 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R21 302 to 346 X X X Area(s) ShelterinPlace until 90%

Area(s) Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace ETE for R01, then Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station 63 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

13 Summer Weekend Midday Good Memorial Day Weekend Roadway Impact:

14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Roadway Impact and Flooding Scenario 1

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 64 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 Special School Transit Through Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Buses Buses Traffic 1 47% 53% 96% 65% 26% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

2 47% 53% 96% 65% 26% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

3 5% 95% 10% 100% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

4 5% 95% 10% 100% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

5 5% 95% 10% 60% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%

6 47% 53% 100% 30% 26% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

7 47% 53% 100% 30% 26% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

8 47% 53% 100% 30% 26% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

9 5% 95% 10% 70% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

10 5% 95% 10% 70% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

11 5% 95% 10% 70% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100%

12 5% 95% 10% 60% 21% 0% 100% 0% 100% 40%

13 5% 95% 10% 100% 21% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

14 47% 53% 96% 65% 26% 0% 100% 10% 100% 100%

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

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

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

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

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

Special Facilities .........................................Vehicle equivalent present on the road during evacuation servicing Pleasant View Nursing Home patients and Atchison County Jail inmates (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

School Buses ..............................................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles), Peru State College (passenger cars and vans are equivalent to 1 passenger vehicle), Providence Mennonite School (vans are equivalent to 1 passenger vehicle).

Transit Buses ..............................................Vehicleequivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing transitdependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic .............................Traffic passing through the EPZ on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation. This traffic is stopped by access control approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months after the evacuation begins.

Cooper Nuclear Station 65 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 64. Vehicle Estimates by Scenario2 Households Households With Without External Total Returning Returning Special Special School Transit Through Scenario Scenario Commuters Commuters Employees Transients Shadow Event Facilities Buses3 Buses Traffic Vehicles 1 1,019 1,148 625 231 1,103 0 6 84 6 1,610 5,832 2 1,019 1,148 625 231 1,103 0 6 84 6 1,610 5,832 3 102 2,065 65 355 881 0 6 0 6 1,610 5,090 4 102 2,065 65 355 881 0 6 0 6 1,610 5,090 5 102 2,065 65 213 881 0 6 0 6 644 3,982 6 1,019 1,148 651 107 1,113 0 6 835 6 1,610 6,495 7 1,019 1,148 651 107 1,113 0 6 835 6 1,610 6,495 8 1,019 1,148 651 107 1,113 0 6 835 6 1,610 6,495 9 102 2,065 65 249 881 0 6 0 6 1,610 4,984 10 102 2,065 65 249 881 0 6 0 6 1,610 4,984 11 102 2,065 65 249 881 0 6 0 6 1,610 4,984 12 102 2,065 65 213 881 0 6 0 6 644 3,982 13 102 2,065 65 355 881 3,043 6 0 6 1,610 8,133 14 1,019 1,148 625 231 1,103 0 6 84 6 1,610 5,832 2

Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) 3 Bus estimates for also include the vans and passenger vehicles used during the evacuation of Peru State College & the Providence Mennonite School.

Cooper Nuclear Station 66 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 61. CNS EPZ Areas Cooper Nuclear Station 67 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 21 Evacuation Regions within the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and the 14 Evacuation Scenarios discussed in Section 6.

The ETE for all Evacuation Cases are presented in Table 71 and Table 72. These tables present the estimated times to clear the indicated population percentages from the Evacuation Regions for all Evacuation Scenarios. The ETE of the 2Mile 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 System outputs which are generated at 5minute intervals.

7.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation Voluntary evacuees are permanent residents within the EPZ in Areas 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 CNS EPZ addresses the issue of voluntary evacuees in the manner shown in Figure 71. Within the EPZ, 20 percent of permanent residents located in Areas outside of the Evacuation Region who are not advised to evacuate, are assumed to elect to evacuate.

Similarly, it is assumed that 20% of those permanent residents in the Shadow Region will 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 permanent residents within the EPZ (see Section 3.1). As discussed in Section 3.2, it is estimated that a total of 7,076 permanent residents reside in the Shadow Region; 20% of them would evacuate. See Table 64 for the number of evacuating vehicles from the Shadow Region.

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 71 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Areas 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 5 miles is advised to begin evacuating when approximately 90% of those originally within the 2Mile Region evacuate across the 2 Mile 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 76 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 scenario 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):

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

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

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

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

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

At 35 minutes after the ATE, Figure 73 displays congestion within the population center of Peru, as a result of the traffic generated from Peru State College. A stop sign exists at the intersection of Park Ave and SR 67, causing bottlenecks which delays evacuees accessing SR 67.

Major congestion (LOS D) is visible on US 136 and 648A Avenue. This is due to the large number of plant employees utilizing 648A Avenue to evacuate northbound. Minimal delays (LOS B) exist Cooper Nuclear Station 72 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

along US 136, as evacuees head eastbound towards I26. At this point, approximately 37% of employees and transients have begun their evacuation trip.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 minutes after the ATE, Figure 74 displays significant congestion (LOS F) persisting on 8th St/Park Ave in Peru and increased congestion (LOS C) is now visible on SR 67 and US 75 as more students evacuating from Peru State College access SR 67 and US 75. The population center of Rock Port also shows minimal delays (LOS B), as more permanent residents begin to mobilize. Congestion that existed in Brownville along US 136 and 648A Avenue has cleared. The 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region is also clear of congestion. At this point, the majority (99%) of employees and transients as mobilized, while only 50% of the permanent resident population has begun their evacuating trip.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes after the ATE, Figure 75 shows that the delays within Rock Port is now clear and the only significant congestion (LOS F) that exists is along 8th St/Park Avenue due to the stop sign at the intersection with SR 67. At this point, all employees/transients (100%)

and the majority (71%) of permanent resident population have mobilized and 78% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ.

At 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 45 minutes after the ATE, Figure 76 displays that the significant congestion in Peru along 8th St/Park Avenue no longer exists. Minimal delays (LOS B) exist on SR 67 within the EPZ, which clears 5 minutes later (at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE). Therefore, any evacuees who depart after this time encounters no traffic congestion or delay within the EPZ.

At this time, approximately 80% of the evacuees have mobilized and 83% of evacuees have successfully evacuated the EPZ. This indicates that the trip generation plus the time to travel to EPZ boundary (4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 40 minutes) is dictating the 100th percentile ETE. The only congestion (LOS E and LOS C) visible is on SR 67 and US 75 within the Shadow Region, which clears 10 minutes later at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 55 minutes after the ETE.

7.4 Evacuation Rates Evacuation is a continuous process, as implied by Figure 77 through Figure 720. These figures display the rate at which traffic flows out of the indicated areas for the case of an evacuation of the full EPZ (Region R03) under the indicated conditions. One figure is presented for each scenario considered.

As indicated in Figure 77 through Figure 720, there is typically a long tail to these distributions due to mobilization and not congestion (low population demand). Vehicles begin to evacuate an area slowly at first, as people respond to the ATE at different rates. Then traffic demand builds rapidly (slopes of curves increase). When the system becomes congested, traffic exits the EPZ at rates somewhat below capacity until some evacuation routes have cleared. As more routes clear, the aggregate rate of egress slows since many vehicles have already left the EPZ. Towards the end of the process, relatively few evacuation routes service the remaining demand.

This decline in aggregate flow rate, towards the end of the process, is characterized by these curves flattening and gradually becoming horizontal. Ideally, it would be desirable to fully Cooper Nuclear Station 73 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

saturate all evacuation routes equally so that all will service traffic near capacity levels and all will clear at the same time. For this ideal situation, all curves would retain the same slope until the end of mobilization time - thus minimizing evacuation time. In reality, this ideal is generally unattainable reflecting the spatial variation in population density, mobilization rates and in highway capacity over the EPZ.

7.5 Evacuation Time Estimate Results Table 71 and Table 72 present the ETE values for all 21 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 71 a Region, to evacuate from that Region. All Scenarios are considered, as well as Staged Evacuation scenarios.

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

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

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

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

76. There is minimal traffic congestion within the EPZ, which results in ETE values which parallel mobilization time; this is reflected in the ETE statistics:

The 2Mile Region (Region R01) consists of mostly plant employees and transients.

Minimal (LOS C) to no congestion exists within this region, as plant employees exit the site and access 648A Avenue. As such, the 90th percentile ETE for this region is between 1:15 (hr:min) and 1:35 for all scenarios which mimics the rapidly mobilizing employees and transients.

The 5Mile Region (Region R02) has minimal delays (LOS B) along US 136 between Brownville and I29 and some minor congestion on 648A Avenue within Brownville.

Region R02 has more permanent resident vehicles than Region R01, which increases mobilization time (see Figure 54 - mobilization time is longer for permanent residents than for employees/transients). As a result, the 90th percentile ETE for Region R02 ranges between 1:25 and 2:20 and is dictated by the time to mobilize rather than congestion within the 5Mile Region.

Cooper Nuclear Station 74 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The 90th percentile ETE for the full EPZ (Region R03) ranges between 1:45 and 2:55. This is up to 30 minutes longer than Region R02 in all scenarios except for scenario 8 (45 minutes longer). This is due to the additional population located in Area 15 from Peru State College and congestion on 8th St/Park Ave.

The 100th percentile ETE for all Regions for all Scenarios parallel mobilization time, as the minimal congestion within the EPZ dissipates, no speed and capacity reductions exist, as displayed in Figure 76 and discussed in Section 7.3. The 100th percentile ETE ranges from 4:30 to 4:40 (mobilization time plus 10 minutes to travel out of the EPZ) for all nonsnow conditions (5:45 to 5:55 for snow conditions).

Comparison of Scenarios 3 and 13 in Table 71 indicates that the Special Event - Memorial Day Weekend (Brownville Flea Market concurrent with the peak attendance at Indian Cave State Park) - reduces the ETE for the 90th percentile and has no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

The additional 3,043 vehicles considered for the special event will increase congestion and the number of transients locally in Brownville and near Indian Cave State Park. The increased number of transients, who mobilize quicker, allows the 90th percentile ETE to be reached sooner. In addition, there is no overall impact to the 90th ETE as there is excess capacity to service the additional traffic demand. There is no impact to 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 indicates that the roadway impact - roadway closures along US 136 (between the Missouri River and I29) and 648A Avenue (between CNS and the Village of Brownville boundary) due to flooding - has no impact on the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for all Regions. As these roadways experience little to no congestion, as shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, there is excess capacity to service the vehicles unable to use the closed portions of US 136 and 648A Avenue.

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 studies. Note that Regions R16 through R21 are the same geographic areas as Regions R02, and R04 through R08, 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 affecting the area between 2 miles and 5 miles from the plant. In all cases, as shown in Table 73 and Table 74, the 90th and 100th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region is unchanged when a staged evacuation is implemented for all scenarios. As discussed in Section 7.3 and as shown in Figure 73, congestion that occurs in Peru does not extend upstream to the extent that it penetrates within the 2Mile Region. In addition, any delay that exists within the 2Mile Region and 5Mile Region does not last longer than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 minutes (see Figure 74) which is considerably less than the 90th percentile ETE for the 2Mile Region.

Cooper Nuclear Station 75 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

To determine the effect of staged evacuation on residents beyond the 2Mile Region, the ETE for Regions R02, R04 through R08 are compared to R16 through R21, respectively in Table 71.

A comparison of ETE between these similar regions reveals that staging increases the ETE for those in the 2 to 5mile area by at most 20 minutes in the 90th percentile and has no impact on the 100th percentile. The increase in the 90th percentile ETE is due to the evacuating vehicles, beyond the 2Mile Region, sheltering and delaying the start of their evacuation. As shown in Figure 55, staging the evacuation causes a significant spike (sharp increase) in mobilization (tripgeneration rate) or evacuating vehicles. This spike oversaturates evacuation routes, which increases traffic congestion and prolongs ETE.

Therefore, staging the evacuation provides no benefits to evacuees within the 2Mile Region and adversely impacts evacuees located beyond the 2 miles radially from the plant.

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 Memorial Day weekend (Flea Market at Brownville and Transients at Indian Cave Park)

Roadway Impact Road Closures due to Flooding Conditions (US 136 between the Missouri River and I29 and 648A Avenue between CNS and the Village of Brownville)

Evacuation Staging No, Staged Evacuation is not considered Yes, Staged Evacuation is considered Cooper Nuclear Station 76 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

While these Scenarios are designed, in aggregate, to represent conditions throughout the year, some further clarification is warranted:

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

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

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

The seasons are defined as follows:

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

Winter (includes Spring and Autumn) considers that 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 in degrees (0° is North).

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

2 Miles (Region R01)

To 5 Miles (Region R02, R04 and R08)

To EPZ Boundary (Regions R03, R09 through R20)

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 77 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Sunday, August 10th at 4:00 AM.

It is raining.

Wind direction is from 50°.

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

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

A staged evacuation is not desired.

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

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

2. Enter Table 75 and locate the Region described as Evacuate 2Mile Region and Keyhole to the EPZ Boundary for wind direction from 50 and read Region R10 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 R10. This data cell is in column (4) and in the row for Region R10; it contains the ETE value of 1:30.

Cooper Nuclear Station 78 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R02 1:50 1:50 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:40 1:40 2:20 2:05 1:25 1:50 R03 2:20 2:20 2:00 2:00 2:25 2:10 2:10 2:55 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:25 1:45 2:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R04 1:30 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:50 1:20 1:30 R05 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:35 1:45 1:20 1:25 R06 1:45 1:45 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:35 1:35 2:15 2:05 1:25 1:45 R07 1:40 1:40 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:40 1:40 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:10 2:00 1:25 1:40 R08 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 2Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ Boundary R09 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:30 1:35 R10 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:20 1:35 R11 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:35 1:35 2:05 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:55 1:20 1:35 R12 2:15 2:15 2:00 2:00 2:25 2:05 2:05 2:50 2:00 2:00 2:50 2:25 1:45 2:15 R13 2:05 2:05 1:55 1:55 2:20 2:05 2:05 2:50 1:55 1:55 2:40 2:20 1:35 2:05 R14 2:05 2:05 1:50 1:50 2:15 2:05 2:05 2:50 1:50 1:50 2:40 2:15 1:35 2:05 R15 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:50 1:25 1:25 1:40 1:45 1:25 1:25 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5 Miles R16 1:55 1:55 1:55 1:55 2:10 1:50 1:50 2:10 1:55 1:55 2:20 2:10 1:40 1:55 R17 1:35 1:35 1:30 1:35 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:35 1:35 1:55 1:55 1:20 1:35 R18 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:55 1:30 1:30 1:40 1:30 1:30 1:45 1:55 1:20 1:30 R19 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 2:05 1:45 1:45 2:05 1:50 1:55 2:15 2:05 1:40 1:55 R20 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:50 2:05 1:40 1:40 2:00 1:50 1:50 2:10 2:05 1:35 1:50 R21 1:25 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:40 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:25 1:25 1:30 1:40 1:15 1:25 Cooper Nuclear Station 79 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Entire 2Mile Region, 5Mile Region, and EPZ R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R03 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R04 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R05 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R06 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R07 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R08 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 2Mile Region and Downwind to EPZ Boundary R09 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R10 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R11 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R12 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R13 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R14 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 R15 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 5:55 4:40 4:40 4:40 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles R16 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R17 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R18 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R19 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R20 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 R21 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 5:50 4:35 4:35 4:35 Cooper Nuclear Station 710 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Unstaged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R02 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R04 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R05 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R06 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R07 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R08 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 Staged Evacuation - 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R16 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R17 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R18 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R19 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R20 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 R21 1:20 1:25 1:20 1:25 1:35 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:15 1:20 Cooper Nuclear Station 711 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 Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Midweek Weekend Weekend Scenario: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday Midday Rain/ Rain/

Region Good Good Good Good Heavy Good Heavy Good Special Roadway Rain Rain Light Light Weather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Snow Weather Event Impact Snow Snow Unstaged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R01 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R02 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R04 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R05 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R06 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R07 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R08 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region and Keyhole to 5Miles R16 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R17 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R18 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R19 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R20 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 R21 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 5:45 4:30 4:30 4:30 Cooper Nuclear Station 712 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 75. Description of Evacuation Regions Radial Regions Area Region Description 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R01 2Mile Region X X R02 5Mile Region X X X X X R03 Full EPZ X X X X X X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R04 347 to 58 X X X X R05 59 to 76 X X X R06 77 to 148 X X X X R07 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R08 302 to 346 X X X Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R09 347 to 35 X X X X X X R10 36 to 58 X X X X X R11 59 to 76 X X X X N/A 77 to 148 Refer to R06 N/A 149 to 166 Refer to R07 R12 167 to 193 X X X X R13 194 to 279 X X X R14 280 to 346 X X X X X R15 347 to 350 X X X X X Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Area Region Wind From (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R16 5Mile Region X X X X X R17 347 to 58 X X X X R18 59 to 76 X X X R19 77 to 148 X X X X R20 149 to 193 X X X N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R21 302 to 346 X X X Area(s) ShelterinPlace until 90%

Area(s) Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace ETE for R01, then Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station 713 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 71. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Cooper Nuclear Station 714 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 72. CNS Shadow Region Cooper Nuclear Station 715 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 74. Congestion Patterns at 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 10 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station 717 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 76. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 45 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station 719 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%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

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

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

Figure 78. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 2 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 720 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%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

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

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

Figure 710. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 4 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 721 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%

4 3.5 3

Vehicles Evacuating 2.5 2

(Thousands) 1.5 1

0.5 0

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

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

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

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

Figure 712. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 6 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 722 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 0

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

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

7 6

Vehicles Evacuating 5

4 (Thousands) 3 2

1 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 714. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 8 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 723 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%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

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

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

Figure 716. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 10 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 724 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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 717. 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%

4 3.5 3

Vehicles Evacuating 2.5 2

(Thousands) 1.5 1

0.5 0

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

Figure 718. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 12 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 725 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

9 8

7 Vehicles Evacuating 6

5 4

(Thousands) 3 2

1 0

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

Figure 719. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 13 for Region R03 Evacuation Time Estimates Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14) 2Mile Region 5Mile Region Entire EPZ 90% 100%

6 5

Vehicles Evacuating 4

3 (Thousands) 2 1

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

Figure 720. Evacuation Time Estimates Scenario 14 for Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station 726 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 and passenger vans). The demand for transit service reflects the needs of three population groups:

residents with no vehicles available; residents of special facilities such as schools, day care centers, colleges, medical facilities, and correctional facilities.

These transit vehicles mix with the general evacuation traffic that is comprised mostly of passenger cars (pcs). The presence of each transit vehicle in the evacuating traffic stream is represented within the modeling paradigm described in Appendix D as equivalent to two pcs.

This equivalence factor represents the longer size and more sluggish operating characteristics of a transit vehicle, relative to those of a pc. Vans for Peru State College are considered as single pcs in this analysis.

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. Based on discussion with the offsite agencies, it is estimated that mobilization time will average approximately 30 minutes for school, day care center buses, Providence Mennonite School passenger vans and Peru State College vans, 90 minutes for vehicles arriving at Pleasant View Nursing Home and Atchison County Jail extending from the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), to the time when buses/vans 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.

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. As per the Atchison County RERP, dated April 2018, if schools and day cares are in session the facilities will close according to their normal early closure procedures. Transport (Buses) will evacuate children directly to the designated reception centers (R.C.) if they have not been picked up or dropped off at home. For this study, it is assumed that no children at these facilities will be picked up by their parents prior to the arrival of the buses. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transit vehicles.

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 81 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Therefore, children are evacuated directly to R.C. (alternate locations for the Providence Mennonite School) Picking up children at these facilities could add to traffic congestion at the facility delaying the departure of the buses evacuating schoolchildren, which may have to return in a subsequent wave into the Study Area to evacuate the transitdependent population. This report provides estimates of buses under the assumption that no children will be picked up by their parents (in accordance with NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1), to present an upper bound estimate of buses required.

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 R.C.

8.1 Evacuation Time Estimates for Transit Dependent People 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 R.C. 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 singlewave transit evacuation and for two waves. Of course, if the impacted Evacuation Region is other than R03 (the entire EPZ), then there will likely be ample transit resources relative to demand in the impacted Region and this discussion of a second wave would likely not apply.

When school evacuation needs are satisfied, subsequent assignments of buses to service the transitdependent should be sensitive to their mobilization time. Clearly, the buses should be dispatched after people have completed their mobilization activities and are in a position to board the buses when they arrive at the various routes shown graphically in Figure 102.

Currently, there are no (0) access and/or functional needs population registered for assistance, as per counties. As such, no additional ETE calculations for the access and/or functional needs population is provided.

The ETEs for transit trips were developed using both good weather and adverse weather (rain/light snow and heavy snow) 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.

Activity: Mobilize Drivers (ABC)

Mobilization time is the elapsed time from the ATE until the time the buses arrive at the facility to be evacuated or to their designated route. Based on discussions with the offsite agencies and discussed above, for a rapidly escalating radiological emergency with no observable indication before the fact, school/day care center bus drivers and van drivers would likely require 30 minutes to be contacted, to travel to the depot, be briefed, and to travel to the transit Cooper Nuclear Station 82 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

dependent facilities. Mobilization time is slightly longer in adverse weather - 40 minutes when raining/light snowing, 50 minutes when heavy snowing. Drivers arrive at Pleasant View Nursing Home and Atchison County Jail within 90 minutes (100 minutes when raining/light snowing, 110 minutes when snowing heavily).

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 87%

of the evacuees will have completed their mobilization when the buses will begin their routes, approximately 180 minutes after the ATE. Mobilization time is 10 minutes longer in rain and 20 minutes longer is snow to account for slower travel speeds and reduced roadway capacity.

Activity: Board Passengers (CD)

As discussed in Section 2.4, a loading time of 15 minutes (20 minutes for rain/light snow and 25 minutes for heavy snow) for school/day care center buses is assumed.

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

2 ,

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

Assigning reasonable estimates:

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

v = 25 mph = 37 ft/sec

a = 4 ft/sec/sec, a moderate average rate Then, P 1 minute per stop. Allowing 30 minutes pickup time per bus run implies 30 stops per run, for good weather. It is assumed that bus acceleration and speed will be less in rain/light snow; resulting in 40 minutes of pickup time per bus in rain/light snow, 50 minutes in heavy snow.

Activity: Travel to EPZ Boundary (DE)

Transportation resources, as shown in Table 81, was reviewed by the counties within the EPZ and was confirmed that there is no change to the transportation resources available. As such, the data from the previous study was used for this study. Also included in the table is the Cooper Nuclear Station 83 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

transportation resource capacity needed to evacuate schools/day care centers, Pleasant View Nursing Home, transitdependent population and the Atchison County Jail (discussed below in Section 8.2). These numbers indicate there are sufficient resources available to evacuate all the transitdependent population in the EPZ in a single wave. It is assumed that there are enough drivers available to man all resources listed in Table 81.

Evacuation of Schools, Day Care Centers and Peru State College The buses servicing the schools and day care centers (vans in Peru State College and Providence Mennonite School) are ready to begin their evacuation trips at 45 minutes after the ATE - 30 minutes mobilization time plus 15 minutes loading time - in good weather.

The UNITES software discussed in Section 1.3 was used to define bus routes along the most likely path from a school being evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate R.C. This is done in UNITES by interactively selecting the series of nodes from the school to the EPZ boundary. Each bus route is given an identification number and is written to the DYNEV II input stream. DYNEV computes the route length and outputs the average speed for each 5minute interval, for each bus route. The specified bus routes are documented in Section 10 in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the 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., 40 to 45 minutes after the ATE for good weather) were used to compute the average speed for each route, as follows:

60 .

1 .

. 60 .

. . 1 .

The average speed computed (using this methodology) for the buses servicing each of the schools and day care centers in the EPZ is shown in Table 82 through Table 84 for school/day care center and Peru State College evacuation, and in through Table 87 for the transit dependent persons, which are discussed later. 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 R.C. was computed assuming an average speed of 55 mph, 50 mph, and 45 mph for good weather, rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively. Speeds were reduced in Table 82 through Table 84 and in through Table 87 to 55 mph (50 mph for rain/light snow - 10%

decrease - and 45 mph for heavy snow - 20% decrease) for those calculated bus speeds which exceed 55 mph. The school bus speed limit for state routes in Nebraska is 55 mph and in Missouri is 60 mph. For this study, we assumed a maximum speed of 55 mph.

Cooper Nuclear Station 84 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 82 (good weather), Table 83 (rain/light snow) and Table 84 (heavy snow) present the following evacuation time estimates (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes) for schools/day care centers and Peru State College 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 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: 30 minutes + 15 + 4 = 0:50 for Atchison County Headstart, with good weather).

The average singlewave percentile ETE (55 minutes) for schools, day care centers and Peru State College, is significantly less (1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes) than the 90th percentile ETE for evacuation of the general population in the entire EPZ (Region R03) under winter, midweek, midday, with good weather (Scenario 6) conditions and will not impact protective action decision making.

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

Evacuation of TransitDependent Population The county emergency plans do not define bus routes to service the transit dependent population. KLD developed a set of transit routes that would encompass the most populated areas of the EPZ along major evacuation routes. Buses servicing the transitdependent evacuees will first travel along these routes, then proceed out of the EPZ. Buses will travel along the major evacuation routes in the EPZ as described in Table 102 and shown graphically in Figure 102. These routes are only used in this study for the purpose of computing ETE, as no pre established bus routes exist the county emergency plans.

As discussed in Section 3.6, three (3) buses are needed to service the transit dependent population, as shown in Table 101, which ensures there is one bus service for each Area within the EPZ.

, Table 86, and Table 87 present the transitdependent population ETEs for each bus route calculated using the above procedures (as discussed under School Evacuation) for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow respectively.

As previously discussed, a pickup time of 30 minutes (good weather) is estimated for 30 individual stops to pick up passengers, with an average of one minute of delay associated with each stop. Longer pickup times of 40 minutes and 50 minutes are used for rain/light snow and heavy snow, respectively.

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 evacuation.

Cooper Nuclear Station 85 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

For example, the ETE for Route Number TD 6 servicing Areas 1 and 2 is computed as 180 + 11 +

30 = 3:45 for good weather (rounded up to nearest 5 minutes). Here, 11 minute is the time to travel 9.8 miles at 51.3 mph, the average speed output by the model for this route starting at 180 minutes.

The average singlewave ETE (3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 45 minutes) for transitdependent people is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 35 minutes longer than the general population 90th percentile ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 10 minutes) for the evacuation of the entire EPZ for Scenario 6 conditions and could impact the protective action decision making.

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

Activity: Travel to Reception Centers (EF)

The distances from the EPZ boundary to the RCs are measured using GIS software along the most likely route from the EPZ exit point to the RC. The RCs 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, will be applied for this activity for buses servicing the transit dependent population.

For a secondwave evacuation, the ETE for buses must be considered separately since it could exceed the ETE for the general population.

Activity: Passengers Leave Bus (FG)

A bus can empty within 5 minutes. The driver takes a 10 minute 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 evacuees along the route. The travel time back to the EPZ is equal to the travel time to the RCC.

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 secondwave ETE for Route Number TD 6 servicing Areas 1 and 2 is computed as follows for good weather:

Bus arrives at R.C. at 4:27 in good weather (3:45 to exit EPZ + 42 minute travel time to R.C.).

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

Cooper Nuclear Station 86 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Bus returns to EPZ and completes secondwave evacuation along the route: 42 minutes (bus returns to EPZ boundary equal to travel time to RC) + 11 minutes (bus returns to start of the route traveling counter to evacuation traffic, 9.8 miles @ 54.3 mph) + 11 minutes (bus completes secondwave service along route, 9.8 miles @

54.3 mph - average speed along route output by DYNEV at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months and 20 minutes when the bus begins secondwave evacuation along route) = 64 minutes

Bus completes pickups along route: 30 minutes.

Bus exits EPZ at time 3:45 + 0:42 + 0:15 + 1:04 + 0:30 = 6:20 (rounded to nearest 5 minutes) after the ATE.

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

The average ETE (5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months and 50 minutes) for a secondwave evacuation of transitdependent people is 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 40 minutes longer 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) and could impact the protective action decision making.

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

Evacuation of Medical Facilities The transit operations for these facilities are similar to those for school evacuation except:

Buses are assigned on the basis of 30 patients to allow for staff to accompany the patients.

The passenger loading time will be longer at approximately one minute per ambulatory person to account for the time to move patients from inside the facility to the vehicles.

Table 36, in Section 3, indicates that two (2) buses are needed to service the Pleasant View Nursing Home in the EPZ. According to Table 81, the counties can collectively provide 33 buses.

Thus, there are sufficient resources to evacuate the ambulatory persons from Pleasant View Nursing Home in a singlewave evacuation.

As previously discussed, it is estimated that mobilization time averages 90 minutes (100 in rain/light snow and 110 in heavy snow). Specially trained medical support staff (working their regular shift) will be on site to assist in the evacuation of patients. It is assumed additional staff (if needed) could be mobilized over this same 90 minute timeframe.

Table 88 summarizes the ETE for Pleasant View Nursing Home within the EPZ for good weather, rain/light snow, and heavy snow, respectively. The distances from the Pleasant View were estimated using GIS software. A loading time of 1 minute is assumed for ambulatory patients. 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 45 mph for heavy snow), are used to compute travel time to EPZ boundary. The travel time to the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station 87 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

boundary is computed by dividing the distance to the EPZ boundary by the average travel speed. The ETE is the sum of the mobilization time, total passenger loading time, and travel time out of the EPZ boundary. Concurrent loading on multiple buses at capacity is assumed such that the maximum loading times for buses is 30 minutes. The ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

For example, the calculation of ETE for the Pleasant View Nursing Home with 56 ambulatory residents during good weather is:

ETE: 90 + (30 x 1) + 3 = 123 min. or 2:05 (rounded up to the nearest 5 minutes).

It is assumed that Pleasant View Nursing Home population is directly evacuated to appropriate host medical facility. Relocation of this population to permanent facilities and/or passing through the R.C. before arriving at the host facility are not considered in this analysis.

The average single wave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 15 minutes) for Pleasant View Nursing Home is greater (than the ETE for the generation population for Region R03 during good weather and rain/light snow conditions (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 10 minutes) at the 90th percentile ETE and lesser in heavy snow conditions, 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months and 55 minutes), shown in Table 71. This 5minute difference (40minute decrease in the heavy snow scenario) is not significant enough to impact the protective action decision making.

8.2 Correctional Facilities As detailed in Table 37 and Table E6, there is one correctional facility within the EPZ -

Atchison County Jail. The total inmate population at this facility is 12 persons. One bus is needed to evacuate this facility, based on a capacity of 30 inmates per bus. Mobilization time is assumed to be 90 minutes (100 minutes in rain/light snow and 110 minutes in heavy snow). It is estimated that it takes 1 minute to load one inmate onto a bus. Thus, the total loading time is estimated at approximately 12 minutes. Using GIS software, the shortest route from the facility to the EPZ boundary, traveling away from the plant, is 2.6 miles. The travel time to traverse 2.6 miles is 4 minutes in good weather and rain/light snow and 5 minutes in heavy snow conditions.

All ETE are rounded to the nearest 5 minutes.

ETE: 90 + 24 + 4 = 1:50 Rain/Light Snow ETE: 100 + 24 + 4 = 2:00 Heavy Snow ETE: 110 + 24 + 5 = 2:10 The average single wave ETE (2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ) for Atchison County Jail is less than the ETE for the generation population for Region R03 at the 90th percentile ETE, shown in Table 71. As such, there is no impact to the protective action decision making.

Cooper Nuclear Station 88 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 81. Summary of Transportation Resources Transportation Wheelchair Resource Buses Vans Buses Ambulances Resources Available Auburn Public Schools 6 3 0 0 Johnson Public Schools 6 0 0 0 Tarkio Schools 9 0 0 0 Fairfax High School 5 0 0 0 Rock Port RII School District 7 0 0 0 AtchisonHolt Ambulance District 1 0 0 4 Nodaway County Ambulance 0 0 0 3 Tiffany Care Center 0 0 4 0 Providence Mennonite School 0 1 0 0 TOTAL: 33 3 4 7 Resources Needed Medical Facilities (Table 38): 2 0 0 0 1

Schools, Day care Centers, College (Table 310): 9 4 0 0 Correctional Facilities (Section 312): 1 0 0 0 TransitDependent Population (Table 101): 3 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS: 15 4 0 0 1

The resources needed for Peru State College represent the students that require a van for an evacuation.

Cooper Nuclear Station 89 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School/Day Care Center (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

ATCHISON COUNTY SCHOOLS Atchison County Headstart 30 15 3.4 45.6 4 0:50 38.1 42 1:35 Rock Port RII School District 30 15 2.5 37.4 4 0:50 38.1 42 1:35 NEMAHA COUNTY SCHOOLS Providence Mennonite School 30 15 3.0 55.0 3 0:50 Does Not Evacuate to R.C.

Peru State College2 30 15 3.6 20.3 11 1:00 17.6 19 1:20 Maximum for EPZ: 1:00 Maximum: 1:35 Average for EPZ: 0:55 Average: 1:30 Table 83. School/Day Care Center Evacuation Time Estimates - Rain/Light Snow Travel Driver Dist. Travel Dist. EPZ Time from Mobilization Loading To EPZ Average Time to Bdry to EPZ Bdry ETA to Time Time Bdry Speed EPZ Bdry ETE R.C. to R.C. R.C.

School/Day Care Center (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

ATCHISON COUNTY SCHOOLS Atchison County Headstart 40 20 3.4 41.7 5 1:05 38.1 46 1:55 Rock Port RII School District 40 20 2.5 34.6 4 1:05 38.1 46 1:55 NEMAHA COUNTY SCHOOLS Providence Mennonite School 40 20 3.0 49.6 4 1:05 Does Not Evacuate to R.C.

Peru State College2 40 20 3.6 20.2 11 1:15 17.6 21 1:40 Maximum for EPZ: 1:15 Maximum: 1:55 Average for EPZ: 1:10 Average: 1:50 2

The ETE times represented for Peru State College are for those who require a van to evacuate.

Cooper Nuclear Station 810 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

School/Day Care Center Time (min) (min) (mi) (mph) (min) (hr:min) (mi.) (min) (hr:min)

ATCHISON COUNTY SCHOOLS Atchison County Headstart 50 25 3.4 37.2 5 1:20 38.1 51 2:15 Rock Port RII School District 50 25 2.5 32.7 5 1:20 38.1 51 2:15 NEMAHA COUNTY SCHOOLS Providence Mennonite School 50 25 3.0 45.0 4 1:20 Does Not Evacuate to R.C.

Peru State College3 50 25 3.6 33.1 7 1:25 17.6 23 1:50 Maximum for EPZ: 1:25 Maximum: 2:15 Average for EPZ: 1:25 Average: 2:10 Table 85. TransitDependent Evacuation Time Estimates Good Weather OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. to R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

TD 6 1 180 9.8 51.3 11 30 3:45 38.1 42 5 10 64 30 6:20 TD 7 1 180 10.8 52.8 12 30 3:45 14.5 16 5 10 40 30 5:30 TD 8 1 180 12.3 51.8 14 30 3:45 17.6 19 5 10 46 30 5:35 Maximum ETE: 3:45 Maximum ETE: 6:20 Average ETE: 3:45 Average ETE: 5:50 3

The ETE times represented for Peru State College are for those who require a van to evacuate.

Cooper Nuclear Station 811 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

TD 6 1 190 9.8 44.9 13 40 4:05 38.1 46 5 10 69 40 6:55 TD 7 1 190 10.8 47.4 14 40 4:05 14.5 17 5 10 42 40 6:00 TD 8 1 190 12.3 46.1 16 40 4:10 17.6 21 5 10 49 40 6:15 Maximum ETE: 4:10 Maximum ETE: 6:55 Average ETE: 4:10 Average ETE: 6:25 Table 87. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates - Heavy Snow OneWave TwoWave Route Travel Route Route Travel Pickup Distance Time to Driver Travel Pickup Route Bus Mobilization Length Speed Time Time ETE to R.C. R.C. Unload Rest Time Time ETE Number Number (min) (miles) (mph) (min) (min) (hr:min) (miles) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (hr:min)

TD 6 1 200 9.8 43.6 14 50 4:25 38.1 51 5 10 75 50 7:40 TD 7 1 200 10.8 43.8 15 50 4:25 14.5 19 5 10 45 50 6:35 TD 8 1 200 12.3 43.7 17 50 4:30 17.6 23 5 10 53 50 6:55 Maximum ETE: 4:30 Maximum ETE: 7:40 Average ETE: 4:30 Average ETE: 7:05 Cooper Nuclear Station 812 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table 88. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Correctional Weather Mobilization (min per Number of Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Facility Patient Conditions (min) person) Patients Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 3 2:05 Rain/Light Pleasant View 2:15 Ambulatory Snow 100 1 56 30 2.2 3 Nursing Home Heavy 2:25 Snow 110 4 Maximum ETE: 2:25 Average ETE: 2:15 Table 89. Correctional Facility Evacuation Time Estimate Travel Loading Time to Rate Total EPZ Weather Mobilization Number (min per Number of Loading Dist. To EPZ Boundary ETE Correctional Facility Conditions (min) of Buses person) Inmates Time (min) Bdry (mi) (min) (hr:min)

Good 90 4 1:05 Rain/Light Atchison County Jail 1 1 12 12 2.6 2:00 Snow 100 4 Heavy Snow 110 5 2:10 Maximum ETE: 2:10 Average ETE: 2:00 Cooper Nuclear Station 813 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 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 Cooper Nuclear Station 814 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 of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S.D.O.T. provides guidance for Traffic Control Devices to assist these personnel in the performance of their tasks. All state and most county transportation agencies have access to the MUTCD, which is available online:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov which provides access to the official PDF version.

A written plan that defines all Traffic Control Point (TCP) and Access Control Point (ACP) locations, provides necessary details 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 MoNAP Nuclear Power Plant Accident Plan, dated December 2019 and the State of Nebraska Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Nuclear Power Station Incidents, dated April 30, 2015, serve as the basis of the traffic management plan, as per NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1.

Cooper Nuclear Station 91 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

2. Evacuation simulations were run using DYNEV II to predict traffic congestion during evacuation (see Figures 73 through 76). 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 plans are examined. As discussed in Section 7.3, any congestion within the EPZ is clear by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE and the 100th percentile ETE is dictated by the trip generation plus the time to travel to the EPZ boundary. As such, no additional TCPs or ACPs were identified as part of this study.

3. Prioritization of TCPs:

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

These priorities should be assigned by state/county emergency management representatives and by law enforcement personnel.

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

9.1 Assumptions The ETE calculations documented in Sections 7 and 8 assume that the TMP is implemented during evacuation. The ETE calculations reflect the assumption that all externalexternal trips are interdicted and diverted after 60 minutes have elapsed from the ATE. Refer to Section 3.9.

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

The ETE analysis treated all controlled intersections that are existing TCP locations in the offsite agency plans as being controlled by actuated signals. Appendix K identifies the number of intersections that were modeled as TCPs.

Study Assumptions 2 and 3 in Section 2.5 discuss ACP and TCP operations.

9.2 Additional Considerations The use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies can reduce 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. As stated earlier, DMS placed outside of the EPZ will warn motorists to avoid using routes that may conflict with the flow of evacuees away from the power plant. Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can be used to broadcast information to evacuees during egress through their vehicle stereo systems. Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) can also be used to provide evacuees with information.

Cooper Nuclear Station 92 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Internet websites can provide traffic and evacuation route information before the evacuee begins their trip, while the on board navigation systems (GPS units) and smartphones can be used to provide information during the evacuation trip.

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

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

Cooper Nuclear 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 an Area being evacuated to the boundary of the Evacuation Region and thence out of the EPZ.

Routing of transitdependent evacuees (schools, day care/preschools, residents, employees or transients who do no town or have access to a private vehicle) from the EPZ boundary to reception centers.

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

This expectation is met by the DYNEV II model routing traffic away from the location of the plant to the extent practicable. The DTRAD model satisfies this behavior by routing traffic so as to balance traffic demand relative to the available highway capacity to the extent possible. See Appendices B through D for further discussion. The major evacuation routes for the EPZ are presented in Figure 101. These routes will be used by the general population evacuating in private vehicles, and by the transitdependent population evacuating in buses. Transit dependent evacuees will be routed to reception centers. General population may evacuate to either a reception center or some alternate destination (e.g., lodging facility, relatives home, campground) outside the EPZ.

The routing of transitdependent evacuees from the EPZ boundary to reception centers is designed to minimize the amount of travel outside the EPZ, from the points where these routes cross the EPZ boundary. The three (3) bus routes shown graphically in Figure 102 and described in Table 101 were designed by KLD to service the major routes through each Area for this study, in order to compute ETE; this does not imply that these exact routes would be used in an emergency. It is assumed that residents will walk to the nearest major roadway and flag down a passing bus, and that they can arrive at the roadway within the 180minute bus mobilization time (good weather).

Schools and special facilities (Pleasant View Nursing Home and Atchison County Jail) were routed along the most likely path from the facility evacuated to the EPZ boundary, traveling toward the appropriate reception center or host facility, except for the Providence Mennonite School. The Providence Mennonite School will not evacuate to a Reception Center, as per information provided by Nemaha County. As such, they were routed to the closest EPZ boundary.

The specified bus routes for all the transitdependent population are documented in Table 102 (refer to the maps of the linknode analysis network in Appendix K for node locations). This study does not consider the transport of evacuees from reception centers to congregate care centers if the counties do make the decision to relocate evacuees.

Cooper Nuclear Station 101 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

10.2 Reception Centers According to current public information issued to EPZ residents, evacuees living in Area 1 and 2 (within the State of Missouri) will be directed to the reception center in Maryville. Evacuees living in Areas 11, 12, 13E, 13W and 12will be directed to reception centers in Falls City, while evacuees living in Area 15 will be directed to reception centers in Nebraska City. The State of Nebraska Radiological Emergency Response Plan and current public information lists the reception centers. Figure 103 presents a map showing the reception centers for evacuees who would choose the reception centers over the alternate destination (i.e., lodging facility, relatives home, campground, etc.) outside the EPZ.

Transitdependent evacuees are transported to the nearest reception center for each county. It is assumed that all special facility evacuees will be taken to the appropriate Reception Centers or host facility. Table 103 presents a list of the school reception centers for each school in the EPZ. It is assumed that all school evacuees will be taken to the appropriate school reception center and will be subsequently picked up by parents or guardians, except for the Providence Mennonite School. As per discussions with Nemaha County, students at Providence Mennonite School do not evacuate to a Reception Center.

Cooper Nuclear Station 102 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

TD 6 1 Servicing communities in Areas 1 and 2 9.8 Servicing communities in Areas 11, 12, TD 7 1 13E, 13W, and 14 10.8 TD 8 1 Servicing communities in Area 15 12.3 Total 3 Table 102 Bus Route Descriptions Bus Route Number Description Nodes Traversed from Route Start to EPZ Boundary 1 Atchison County Head Start 169, 260, 434, 168, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267 3 Rock Port RII School District 167, 165, 168, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267 4 Pleasant View Nursing Home 219, 168, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267 5 Atchison County Jail 167, 165, 168, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267 111, 110, 109, 113, 351, 172, 170, 171, 220, 433, 169, 260, 434, 6 Transit Route Areas 1 & 2 168, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267 7 Transit Route Areas 11, 12, 13e, 13w, 14, 15 105, 419, 420, 86, 87, 340, 341, 421, 342, 339, 345, 319, 327 8 Transit Route Area 15 98, 103, 102, 101, 83, 445, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 57, 65, 56, 7 9 Peru University 68, 67, 66, 65, 56, 7 10 Providence Mennonite School 50, 78, 350, 19 Table 103 School Reception Centers School Reception Center Atchison County Head Start Northwest Missouri State University/Lamkin Activity Center Rock Port RII School District (K12) Northwest Missouri State University/Lamkin Activity Center Peru State College Nebraska City Middle School Providence Mennonite School Not Applicable - Does Not Evacuate to a Reception Center Cooper Nuclear Station 103 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 101. Evacuation Routes Cooper Nuclear Station 104 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 102. TransitDependent Bus Routes Cooper Nuclear Station 105 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure 103. Reception Centers Cooper Nuclear Station 106 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX A Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service Volume Maximum number of vehicles which can pass over a section of roadway in one direction during a specified time period with operating conditions at a specified Level of Service (The Service Volume at the upper bound of Level of Service, E, equals Capacity).

Service Volume is usually expressed as vph.

Signal Cycle Length The total elapsed time to display all signal indications, in sequence.

The cycle length is expressed in seconds.

Signal Interval A single combination of signal indications. The interval duration is expressed in seconds. A signal phase is comprised of a sequence of signal intervals, usually green, yellow, red.

Cooper Nuclear 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 vph. Where applicable, traffic volume may be stratified by turn movement.

Travel Mode Distinguishes between private auto, bus, rail, pedestrian and air travel modes.

Trip Table or Origin A rectangular matrix or table, whose entries contain the number Destination Matrix of trips generated at each specified origin, during a specified time period, that are attracted to (and travel toward) each of its specified destinations. These values are expressed in vph or in vehicles.

Turning Capacity The capacity associated with that component of the traffic stream which executes a specified turn maneuver from an approach at an intersection.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station B1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

B.2 Interfacing the DYNEV Simulation Model with DTRAD The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. An algorithm was developed to support the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next. Another algorithm executes a mapping from the specified geometric network (linknode analysis network) that represents the physical highway system, to a path network that represents the vehicle [turn] movements. DTRAD computations are performed on the path network: DYNEV simulation model, on the geometric network.

B.2.1 DTRAD Description DTRAD is the DTA module for the DYNEV II System.

When the road network under study is large, multiple routing options are usually available between trip origins and destinations. The problem of loading traffic demands and propagating them over the network links is called Network Loading and is addressed by DYNEV II using macroscopic traffic simulation modeling. Traffic assignment deals with computing the distribution of the traffic over the road network for given OD demands and is a model of the route choice of the drivers. Travel demand changes significantly over time, and the road network may have time dependent characteristics, e.g., timevarying signal timing or reduced road capacity because of lane closure, or traffic congestion. To consider these time dependencies, DTA procedures are required.

The DTRAD DTA module represents the dynamic route choice behavior of drivers, using the specification of dynamic origindestination matrices as flow input. Drivers choose their routes through the network based on the travel cost they experience (as determined by the simulation model). This allows traffic to be distributed over the network according to the timedependent conditions. The modeling principles of DTRAD include:

It is assumed that drivers not only select the best route (i.e., lowest cost path) but some also select less attractive routes. The algorithm implemented by DTRAD archives several efficient routes for each OD pair from which the drivers choose.

The choice of one route out of a set of possible routes is an outcome of discrete choice modeling. Given a set of routes and their generalized costs, the percentages of drivers that choose each route is computed. The most prevalent model for discrete choice modeling is the logit model. DTRAD uses a variant of PathSizeLogit model (PSL). PSL overcomes the drawback of the traditional multinomial logit model by incorporating an additional deterministic path size correction term to address path overlapping in the random utility expression.

Cooper Nuclear Station B2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

DTRAD executes the Traffic Assignment (TA) algorithm on an abstract network representation called "the path network" which is built from the actual physical link node analysis network. This execution continues until a stable situation is reached: the volumes and travel times on the edges of the path network do not change significantly from one iteration to the next. The criteria for this convergence are defined by the user.

Travel cost plays a crucial role in route choice. In DTRAD, path cost is a linear summation of the generalized cost of each link that comprises the path. The generalized cost for a link, a, is expressed as Where is the generalized cost for link and , , and, are cost coefficients for link travel time, distance, and supplemental cost, respectively. Distance and supplemental costs are defined as invariant properties of the network model, while travel time is a dynamic property dictated by prevailing traffic conditions. The DYNEV simulation model computes travel times on all edges in the network and DTRAD uses that information to constantly update the costs of paths. The route choice decision model in the next simulation iteration uses these updated values to adjust the route choice behavior. This way, traffic demands are dynamically reassigned based on time dependent conditions.

The interaction between the DTRAD traffic assignment and DYNEV II simulation models is depicted in Figure B1. Each round of interaction is called a Traffic Assignment Session (TA session). A TA session is composed of multiple iterations, marked as loop B in the figure.

The supplemental cost is based on the survival distribution (a variation of the exponential distribution). The Inverse Survival Function is a cost term in DTRAD to represent the potential risk of travel toward the plant:

sa = ln (p), 0 p l ; 0 p=

dn = Distance of node, n, from the plant d0 =Distance from the plant where there is zero risk

= Scaling factor The value of do = 12 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear 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 dataintensive. Table C2 outlines the necessary input data elements.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear Station C4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

When t 0 and Q Cap:

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

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

L t such that 0 t TI t E L v

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

Cooper Nuclear Station C5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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

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

Experience has shown that the system converges (i.e., the values of E, M and S settle down for all network links) in just two sweeps if the network is entirely undersaturated or in four sweeps in the presence of extensive congestion with link spillback. (The initial sweep over each link uses the final values of E and M, of the prior TI). At the completion of the final sweep for a TI, the procedure computes and stores all MOEs for each link and turn movement for output purposes. It then prepares for the following time interval by defining the values of Q and M for the start of the next TI as being those values of Q and M at the end of the prior TI. In this manner, the simulation model processes the traffic flow over time until the end of the run.

Note that there is no spacediscretization other than the specification of network links.

C.2.2 Interfacing with Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTRAD)

The DYNEV II system reflects NRC guidance that evacuees will seek to travel in a general direction away from the location of the hazardous event. Thus, an algorithm was developed to identify an appropriate set of destination nodes for each origin based on its location and on the expected direction of travel. This algorithm also supports the DTRAD model in dynamically varying the Trip Table (OD matrix) over time from one DTRAD session to the next.

Figure B1 depicts the interaction of the simulation model with the DTRAD model in the DYNEV II system. As indicated, DYNEV II performs a succession of DTRAD sessions; each such session computes the turn link percentages for each link that remain constant for the session duration, T , T , specified by the analyst. The end product is the assignment of traffic volumes from each origin to paths connecting it with its destinations in such a way as to minimize the networkwide cost function. The output of the DTRAD model is a set of updated link turn percentages which represent this assignment of traffic.

As indicated in Figure B1, the simulation model supports the DTRAD session by providing it with operational link MOE that are needed by the path choice model and included in the DTRAD cost function. These MOE represent the operational state of the network at a time, T T , which lies within the session duration, T , T . This burn time, T T , is selected by the analyst. For each DTRAD iteration, the simulation model computes the change in network operations over this burn time using the latest set of link turn percentages computed by the DTRAD model. Upon convergence of the DTRAD iterative procedure, the simulation model accepts the latest turn percentages provided by the Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) model, returns to the origin time, T , and executes until it arrives at the end of the DTRAD session duration at time, T . At this time the next DTA session is launched and the whole process repeats until the end of the DYNEV II run.

Additional details are presented in Appendix B.

Cooper Nuclear Station C7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table C1. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II Measure Units Applies To Vehicles Discharged Vehicles Link, Network, Exit Link Speed Miles/Hours (mph) Link, Network Density Vehicles/Mile/Lane Link Level of Service LOS Link Content Vehicles Network Travel Time Vehiclehours Network Evacuated Vehicles Vehicles Network, Exit Link Trip Travel Time Vehicleminutes/trip Network Capacity Utilization Percent Exit Link Attraction Percent of total evacuating vehicles Exit Link Max Queue Vehicles Node, Approach Time of Max Queue Hours: minutes Node, Approach Length (mi); Mean Speed (mph); Travel Route Statistics Route Time (min)

Mean Travel Time Minutes Evacuation Trips; Network Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear 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 Cooper Nuclear 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)

Cooper Nuclear 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 verify the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) boundary information and create a Geographical 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 population information was obtained in GIS format. This information was used to estimate the permanent resident population within the EPZ and Shadow Region and to define the spatial distribution and demographic characteristics of the population within the study area. Data for employees, transients, schools, and other special facilities were obtained from the previous study which was confirmed, updated or added by the county emergency management departments or NPPD, the Atchison County Emergency Plans and supplemented by internet searchers, where new data was not available.

Step 3 A kickoff meeting was conducted with major stakeholders (state and county emergency managers and onsite and offsite NPPD 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 state and county emergency officials and the NPPD 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 necessary observations needed to estimate realistic values of roadway capacity. Roadway characteristics were also verified using aerial imagery.

Cooper Nuclear Station D1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Step 5 A demographic survey of households within the EPZ was conducted to identify household dynamics, trip generation characteristics, and evacuationrelated demographic information of the EPZ population. This information was used to determine important study 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 updated using the most recent UNITES software (see Section 1.3) developed by KLD. Once the updated 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 linknode analysis network was imported into a GIS map. The 2020 permanent resident population estimates (Step 2) were overlaid in the map, and origin centroids where trips would be generated during the evacuation process were assigned to appropriate links.

Step 7 The EPZ is subdivided into 8 Areas. Based on wind direction and speed, Regions (groupings of Areas) that may be advised to evacuate, were developed.

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

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

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

The model assigns destinations to all origin centroids consistent with a (general) radial evacuation of the EPZ and Shadow Region. The analyst may optionally supplement and/or replace these modelassigned destinations, based on professional judgment, after studying the topology of the analysis highway network. The model produces link and networkwide measures of effectiveness as well as estimates of evacuation time.

Cooper Nuclear Station D2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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) 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 users judgment and experience based upon the results obtained in previous applications of the model and a comparison of the results of the latest prototype evacuation case iteration with the previous ones. If the results are satisfactory in the opinion of the user, then the process continues with Step 13. Otherwise, proceed to Step 11.

Step 11 There are many treatments available to the user in resolving apparent problems. These treatments range from decisions to reroute the traffic by assigning additional evacuation destinations for one or more sources, imposing turn restrictions where they can produce significant improvements in capacity, changing the control treatment at critical intersections so as to provide improved service for one or more movements, adding minor routes (which are paved and traversable) that were not previously modelled but may assist in an evacuation and increase the available roadway network capacity, or in prescribing specific treatments for channelizing the flow so as to expedite the movement of traffic along major roadway systems.

Such treatments take the form of modifications to the original prototype evacuation case input stream. All treatments are designed to improve the representation of evacuation behavior.

Step 12 As noted above, the changes to the input stream must be implemented to reflect the modifications undertaken in Step 11. At the completion of this activity, the process returns to Step 9 where the DYNEV II System is again executed.

Step 13 Evacuation of transitdependent evacuees and special facilities are included in the evacuation analysis. Fixed routing for transit buses, school buses, ambulatory buses, buses for Atchison County Jail, and vans introduced into the final prototype evacuation case data set. DYNEV II Cooper Nuclear Station D3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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.

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, medical facilities, and other special facilities.

Step 17 The simulation results are analyzed, tabulated, and graphed. 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 changes in some base evacuation conditions and model assumptions. 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station D4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

A Step 1 Step 10 Create GIS Base Map Examine Prototype Evacuation Case using EVAN and DYNEV II Output Step 2 Gather Census Block and Demographic Data for Results Satisfactory Study Area Step 11 Step 3 Modify Evacuation Destinations and/or Develop Conduct Kickoff Meeting with Stakeholders Traffic Control Treatments Step 4 Step 12 Field Survey of Roadways within Study Area Modify Database to Reflect Changes to Prototype Evacuation Case Step 5 Conduct and Analyze Demographic Survey and Develop Trip Generation Characteristics B

Step 13 Step 6 Establish Transit and Special Facility Evacuation Create and Calibrate LinkNode Analysis Network Routes and Update DYNEV II Database Step 14 Step 7 Generate DYNEV II Input Streams for All Evacuation Cases Develop Evacuation Regions and Scenarios Step 15 Step 8 Execute DYNEV II to Compute ETE for All Create and Debug DYNEV II Input Stream Evacuation Cases Step 16 Step 9 Use DYNEV II Average Speed Output to Compute ETE for Transit and Special Facility Routes B Execute DYNEV II for Prototype Evacuation Case Step 17 Documentation A Step 18 Complete ETE Criteria Checklist Figure D1. Flow Diagram of Activities Cooper Nuclear 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 September 2021, for special facilities, major employers and transient facilities that are located within the CNS EPZ. Special facilities are defined as schools, day care/preschools, medical facilities, and correctional facilities.

Employment data is included in the table for major employers. Transient population data is included in the tables for recreational areas and lodging facilities.

Each table is grouped by county. The location of the facility is defined by its straightline distance (miles) and direction (magnetic bearing) from the center point of the plant. Maps of each school, day care/preschool, medical facility, correctional facility, major employer, recreational area and lodging facility are also provided.

Cooper Nuclear Station E1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E1. Schools and Day Care/Preschools within the EPZ Distance Dire Enroll Area (miles) ction School Name Street Address Municipality ment Atchison County, MO 2 6.5 NE Atchison County Head Start 16635 US Hwy 136 Rock Port 20 2 7.3 ENE Rock Port RII School District 600 Nebraska St Rock Port 385 Atchison County Subtotal: 405 Nemaha County, NE 14 7.4 WNW Providence Mennonite School 64233 US Hwy 136 Auburn 13 15 9.2 NW Peru State College 600 Hoyt St Peru 1,000 Nemaha County Subtotal: 1,013 EPZ TOTAL: 1,418 Table E2. Medical Facilities within the EPZ Ambul Wheel Bed Distance Dire Cap Current atory chair ridden Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Census Patients Patients Patients Atchison County, MO 2 7.7 ENE Pleasant View Nursing Home 470 Rainbow Dr Rock Port 60 56 56 0 0 Atchison County Subtotal: 60 56 56 0 0 EPZ TOTAL: 60 56 56 0 0 Table E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Employee

% Employees Employees Vehicles Distance Dire Employees Commuting Commuting Commuting Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality (Max Shift) into the EPZ into the EPZ into the EPZ Nemaha County, NE 11 Cooper Nuclear Station 72676 648A Ave Brownville 621 86.0% 534 499 15 9.2 NW Peru State College 600 Hoyt St Peru 204 80.0% 163 152 Nemaha County Subtotal: 825 697 651 EPZ TOTAL: 825 697 651 Cooper Nuclear Station E2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table E4. Recreational Areas within the EPZ Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles Richardson County, NE 13E 8.3 SE Indian Cave State Park 65296 720 Rd Shubert 584 257 Richardson County Subtotal: 584 257 EPZ TOTAL: 584 257 Table E5. Lodging Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality Transients Vehicles Atchison County, MO 1 5.4 NE Super 8 Motel US 1301 Hwy 136 W Rock Port 80 40 2 5.7 NE Rock Port Inn 1200 Hwy 136 West Rock Port 72 40 2 7.6 ENE Rock Port Cabins 210 W 4th St Rock Port 36 18 Atchison County Subtotal: 188 98 EPZ TOTAL: 188 98 Table E6. Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Distance Dire Cap Area (miles) ction Facility Name Street Address Municipality acity Atchison County, MO 2 7.3 ENE Atchison County Jail 511 West Clay St Rock Port 12 Atchison County Subtotal: 12 EPZ TOTAL: 12 Cooper Nuclear Station E3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E1. Schools and Day Care/Preschools within the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station E4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E2. Medical Facilities and Correctional Facilities within the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station E5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E3. Major Employers within the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station E6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure E4. Transient Facilities within the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station E7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX F Demographic Survey

F. DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY F.1 Introduction The development of evacuation time estimates for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)

Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) requires the identification of travel patterns, car ownership and household size of the population within the EPZ. Demographic information can be obtained from Census data. The use of this data has several limitations when applied to emergency planning. First, the Census data do not encompass the range of information needed to identify the time required for preliminary activities (mobilization) that must be undertaken prior to evacuating the area. Secondly, Census data do not contain attitudinal responses needed from the population of the EPZ and consequently may not accurately represent the anticipated behavioral characteristics of the evacuating populace.

These concerns are addressed by conducting a demographic survey of a representative sample of the EPZ population. The survey is designed to elicit information from the public concerning family demographics and estimates of response times to well defined events. The design of the survey includes a limited number of questions of the form What would you do if ? and other questions regarding activities with which the respondent is familiar (How long does it take you to ?)

F.2 Survey Instrument and Sampling Plan Attachment A presents the final survey instrument used for the demographic survey. A draft of the instrument was submitted to stakeholders for comment. Comments were received and the survey instrument was modified accordingly, prior to conducting the survey.

Following the completion of the instrument, a sampling plan was developed. Since the demographic survey discussed herein began in December 2020 and the 2020 Census data had not been released, 2010 Census data was used to develop the sampling plan.

A sample size of approximately 351 completed survey forms yields results with a sampling error of +/-5.0% at the 95% confidence level. The sample must be drawn from the EPZ population.

Consequently, a list of zip codes in the EPZ was developed using geographic information system (GIS) software. This list is shown in Table F1. Along with each zip code, an estimate of the population and number of households in each area was determined by overlaying 2010 Census data and the EPZ boundary, again using GIS software. The proportional number of desired completed survey interviews for each area was identified, as shown in Table F1. Note that the average household size computed in Table F1 was an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study.

The results of the survey was slightly less than the sampling plan. A total of 322 completed samples were obtained corresponding to a sampling error of +/-5.24% at the 95% confidence level based on the 2010 Census data. the number of samples obtained within each zip code, is also shown in Table F1.

Cooper Nuclear Station F1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

F.3 Survey Results The results of the survey fall into two categories. First, the household demographics of the area can be identified. Demographic information includes such factors as household size, automobile ownership, and automobile availability. The distributions of the time to perform certain pre evacuation activities are the second category of survey results. These data are processed to develop the trip generation distributions used in the evacuation modeling effort, as discussed in Section 5.

A review of the survey instrument reveals that several questions have a dont know or decline to state entry for a response. It is accepted practice in conducting surveys of this type to accept the answers of a respondent who offers a dont know/decline to state response for a few questions or who refuses to answer a few questions. To address the issue of occasional dont know/decline to state responses from a large sample, the practice is to assume that the distribution of these responses is the same as the underlying distribution of the positive responses. In effect, the dont know/decline to state responses are ignored, and the distributions are based upon the positive data that is acquired.

F.3.1 Household Demographic Results Household Size Figure F1 presents the distribution of household size within the EPZ based on the responses to the demographic survey. According to the responses, the average household contains 2.69 people. The estimated average household size from the 2020 Census data is 2.55 people. The difference between the Census data and survey data is 5.5%. This issue was discussed with Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and it was decided that the Census estimate of 2.55 people per household should be used for this study, as it results in a more conservative number evacuating vehicles (see Section 3.1 - the number of evacuating vehicles is determined by dividing population by average household size and then multiplying by the number of vehicles per household. Using a smaller average household size will results in a larger number of evacuating vehicles). A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of using the demographic survey household size on ETE - see Appendix M.

Automobile Ownership The average number of automobiles available per household in the EPZ is 2.82. It should be noted that all households within the EPZ have access to an automobile according to the demographic survey. The distribution of automobile ownership is presented in Figure F2.

Figure F3 present the automobile availability by household size. As expected, nearly all households of 2 or more people have access to at least one vehicle.

Ridesharing The majority (86%) 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 Figure F4.

Cooper Nuclear Station F2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Commuters Figure F5 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 1.22 commuters per household in the EPZ, and approximately 77% of households have at least one commuter.

Commuter Travel Modes Figure F6 presents the mode of travel that commuters use on a daily basis. The vast majority (90%) of commuters use their private automobiles to travel to work or college. The data shows an average of 1.07 employees per vehicle, assuming 2 people per vehicle - on average - for carpools.

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 an average of 0.71 commuters per household were affected by the COVID19 pandemic. Thirtyeight percent (38%)

of households indicated someone in their household had a work and/or school commute that was temporarily impacted by the COVID19 pandemic.

Functional or Transportation Needs Figure F8 presents the distribution of the number of individuals with functional or transportation need. The survey results show that approximately 3.4% of households have functional or transportation needs. Of those with functional or transportation needs, 27%

require a bus, 9% require a medical bus/van, 46% require a wheelchair accessible van, and 18%

require an ambulance.

F.3.2 Evacuation Response Several questions were asked to gauge the populations response to an emergency. These are now discussed:

How many of the vehicles would your household use during an evacuation? The response is shown in Figure F9. On average, evacuating households would use 1.56 vehicles.

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

Of the survey participants who responded, approximately 61% said they would await the return of other family members before evacuating and approximately 39% indicated that they would not await the return of other family members.

Emergency officials advise you to take shelterinplace (stay at home, work on current location) in an emergency. Would you? This question is designed to elicit information regarding compliance with instructions to shelter in place. The results indicate that 92% of households who are advised to shelter in place would do so; the remaining 8% would choose to evacuate the area.

Cooper Nuclear Station F3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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. Thus, the compliance rate obtained through the survey is significantly higher (92%) than the federal guidance recommendation. A sensitivity study was conducted to estimate the impact of shadow evacuation (noncompliance to a shelter advisory) on ETE - see 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 75% of households would follow instructions and delay the start of evacuation until so advised, while the balance of 25% would choose to begin evacuating immediately.

Emergency officials advise you to evacuate due to an emergency. Where would you evacuate to? This question is designed to elicit information regarding the destination of evacuees in case of an evacuation. Approximately 53% of households indicated that they would evacuate to a friend or relatives home, 5% to a reception center, 17% to a hotel, motel or campground, 3%

to a second or seasonal home, and the remaining 22% answered other/dont know to this question, as shown in Figure F10. It should be noted that no households (0%) indicated they would not evacuate, according to the survey.

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, 77% of households have a family pet. Of the households with pets, 32% of them indicated that they would take their pets with them to a shelter, 60% indicated that they would take their pets somewhere else and only 8% would leave their pet at home, as shown in Figure F11. Of the households that would evacuate with their pets, 90% indicated that they have sufficient room in their vehicle to evacuate with their pet(s)/animal(s) and 6% would use a trailer.

What type of pet(s) and/or animal(s) do you have? Based on responses from the survey, 77% of households have a household pet (dog, cat, bird, reptile, or fish), 20% of households have farm animals (horse, chicken, goat, pig, etc.), 1% have a miniature horse, and 2% 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, the majority (62%) of respondents indicated no commuters were impacted by the COVID19 pandemic; therefore the 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station F4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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/college?

Figure F12 presents the cumulative distribution; in all cases, the activity is completed by 60 minutes. Approximately, 90% can leave within 30 minutes.

How long would it take the commuter to travel home? Figure F13 presents the work to home travel time for the EPZ. About 89% of commuters can arrive home within about 30 minutes of leaving work; all within 75 minutes (1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 15 minutes).

How long would it take the family to pack clothing, secure the house, and load the car?

Figure F14 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 91% of households can be ready to leave home within 120 minutes; the remaining households require up to an additional 90 minutes.

How long would it take you to clear 6 to 8 inches of snow from your driveway? During adverse, snowy weather conditions, an additional activity must be performed before residents can depart on the evacuation trip. Although snow scenarios assume that the roads and highways have been plowed and are passable (albeit at lower speeds and capacities), it may be necessary to clear a private driveway prior to leaving the home so that the vehicle can access the street.

Figure F15 presents the time distribution for removing 6 to 8 inches of snow from a driveway.

Approximately, 91% percent of driveways are passable within 90 minutes, the remaining households would require up to an additional 75 minutes to begin their evacuation trip. Note that those respondents (approximately 22%) 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station F5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table F1. Cooper Demographic Survey Sampling Plan Population Households Required Obtained Zip Code within EPZ within Samples Samples (2010) EPZ(2010) 64446 118 50 10 3 64482 1,948 857 169 80 64491 0 0 0 3 64496 149 62 12 0 68305 250 104 21 80 68321 311 149 30 57 68355 6 3 1 3 68414 256 119 24 32 68421 697 290 58 30 68437 234 111 22 28 68442 46 22 4 6 Total EPZ 4,015 1,767 351 322 1

Average HH Size : 2.27 Household Size 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 People Figure F1. Household Size in the EPZ 1

It is an estimate for sampling purposes and was not used in the ETE study Cooper Nuclear Station F6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Vehicle Availability 40%

33% 32%

30%

Percent of Households 20%

15%

11%

9%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles Figure F2. Household Vehicle Availability Distribution of Vehicles by Household Size 16 Person Households 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

1 2 3 4 5+

Vehicles c

Figure F3. Vehicle Availability 1 to 6 Persons Households Cooper Nuclear Station F7 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 F4. Household Ridesharing Preference Commuters per Household 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F5. Commuters in Households in the EPZ Cooper Nuclear Station F8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Travel Mode to Work 100%

90.3%

80%

Percent of Commuters 60%

40%

20%

7.0%

0.5% 1.1% 1.1%

0%

Rail Bus Walk/Bike Drive Alone Carpool (2+)

Mode of Travel Figure F6. Modes of Travel in the EPZ COVID19 Impact to Commuters 70%

62%

60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

9%

10% 5%

4%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Commuters Figure F7. Commuters Impacted by COVID19 Cooper Nuclear Station F9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Functional Vehicle Transportation Needs 50%

40%

Percent of Households 30%

20%

10%

0%

Bus Medical Bus/Van Wheelchair Accessible Ambulance Vehicle Figure F8. Households with Functional or Transportation Needs Evacuating Vehicles Per Household 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60% 55%

40% 36%

20%

6%

0% 3%

0%

0 1 2 3 4+

Vehicles Figure F9. Number of Vehicles Used for Evacuation Cooper Nuclear Station F10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Shelter Locations 60%

50%

Percent of Households 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Friend/Relative's Reception Center Hotel, Motel, or Second/Seasonal Other/Don't Know Home Campground Home Figure F10. Preferred Shelter Locations 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 F11. Households Evacuating with Pets/Animals Cooper Nuclear Station F11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 F12. Time Required to Prepare to Leave Work/College 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 F13. Time to Commute Home from Work/College Cooper Nuclear Station F12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Time to Prepare to Leave Home 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 Preparation Time (min)

Figure F14. Preparation Time to Leave Home Time to Remove Snow from Driveway 100%

80%

Percent of Households 60%

40%

20%

0%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 Time (min)

Figure F15. Time to Remove 68 inches of Snow from Driveway Cooper Nuclear Station F13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ATTACHMENT A Demographic Survey Instrument Cooper Nuclear Station F14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

9 9 !r9 8! 9

sÿdNtuXONv 0123456 789 98 9998 9997898998 9989889 9 9 !99999

99989999 9 9 9" 9 99 9999 9 99#$%&'%()$*+(,-$%.%()%'/01%*-%02(/'%2($3#$%&'%2&1%.2%2%&3(4

.2%2(/'%2($3567*%&0'(0($3%08+(,-$%.%.2%'/01%*999 9 9 9:89 9;998< 9 99

=> wx8 99y

?@ABÿDEFGÿDEHÿDI@FJ QRSN TNURSN VNWSXYNÿL[ÿ\LRLN KLMNOP

]> zx8 89{ 9yl

^> }~?:8 : 89 9899 9898 98y

?@ABÿDEFGÿDEHÿDI@FJ K_`

abK acd``

TKed Tfg`

\fh

\`g`_

`fica

_f_`ÿKdÿQKd`

j`dKÿk_K_`l V`mnf_`ÿaKÿ\aoa`

p> }?999: 9 9 899898:99: 9y

?@ABÿDEFGÿDEHÿDI@FJ q`\

_K V`mnf_`ÿaKÿ\aoa`

01 ABCD:EC;FGHCI>JKLM>@CE:<MNCH:<?CJ:<@>J:MNC<@>CN<?KGOCFGC>IFL<F=K:GP 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿ

ÿ

ÿ!"ÿ#$#ÿ%&ÿ%$&$!

ÿ!"ÿ#$#ÿ%&ÿ%

"$!ÿÿ#

'1 QBCD:EC;FGHCR>:RM>C<@<FMMHCMKI>CKGC=JK@CJ:<@>J:MNP 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

!

ÿÿ

"$!ÿÿ#

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ/

01234567 81 SBCD:EC;FGHCR>:RM>CKGCH:<?CJ:<@>J:MNCJFI>CFCE:?TCFGNU:?C@LJ::MCL:;;<=>C=JF=CJF@CV>>GC=>;R:?F?KMHCK;RFL=>NCN<>C=:C=J>C01234567CRFGN>;KLP 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿ

"$!ÿÿ#

(5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ9 0:;;<=>?@

01 EF1=.G1>5HI1J0.J701KH1LM01M.NO0M.7/1P.>>NL01L.151Q.RS1.41L.1P.770D01.H151/5K7I1R5OKOT1U 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

! 5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

"#ÿÿ% 5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ&

'()*ÿÿ+, 5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

-./01.21345607 81 VF13MKHAKHD15R.NL105PM1P.>>NL04S1M.G1/.0O105PM1J04O.H1NON577I1L456071L.1G.4A1.41P.770D0T 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ 4ÿ479

WXY Z[\ WY]^ZX_`_Ya 'bXcaÿ,Ydea (WbfddYg<ÿdbÿhdbaÿfadfYa 'deijÿ]edk (dhh[jabÿ:

5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

-./01.21345607

1 VF13MKHAKHD15R.NL105PM1P.>>NL04S1M.G1/.0O105PM1J04O.H1NON577I1L456071L.1G.4A1.41P.770D0T 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ 4ÿ479

WXY Z[\ WY]^ZX_`_Ya 'bXcaÿ,Ydea (WbfddYg<ÿdbÿhdbaÿfadfYa 'deijÿ]edk (dhh[jabÿ:

(dhh[jabÿ<

5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

-./01.21345607

1 VF13MKHAKHD15R.NL105PM1P.>>NL04S1M.G1/.0O105PM1J04O.H1NON577I1L456071L.1G.4A1.41P.770D0T 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ 4ÿ479

WXY Z[\ WY]^ZX_`_Ya 'bXcaÿ,Ydea (WbfddYg<ÿdbÿhdbaÿfadfYa 'deijÿ]edk (dhh[jabÿ:

(dhh[jabÿ<

(dhh[jabÿl

5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ

-./01.21345607

<1 VF13MKHAKHD15R.NL105PM1P.>>NL04S1M.G1/.0O105PM1J04O.H1NON577I1L456071L.1G.4A1.41P.770D0T 2345ÿ789ÿ78 ÿ739ÿ 4ÿ479

WXY Z[\ WY]^ZX_`_Ya 'bXcaÿ,Ydea (WbfddYg<ÿdbÿhdbaÿfadfYa 'deijÿ]edk (dhh[jabÿ:

(dhh[jabÿ<

(dhh[jabÿl (dhh[jabÿm

5ÿ7ÿ 78ÿ&

3456071=.>01?4.>1@.4ABC.770D0

012 @ABC678D69EFG6HI9468J623412?4K6D8E5L6IH6H2<46>899EH416MB6H86H123456G8946N1896D81<6816F8554?4O 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

101ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ10ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 PN6Q3416R678E1S6N816TE4SHI8J6@ABK6UV4FINW67414 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿÿkbcde2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ//

012345678946:1896;81<=>8554?4 02 @ABC678D69EFG6HI9468J623412?4K6D8E5L6IH6H2<46>899EH416MB6H86H123456G8946N1896D81<6816F8554?4O 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

101ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿ10ÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿÿÿ

%ÿ0ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 PN6Q3416R678E1S6N816TE4SHI8J6@ABK6UV4FINW67414 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿÿkbcde2

012 DEFG9:;H9<IJK9LM<79;N956745B7O9H;I8P9ML9L5?79A;<<IL749QF9L;9L456789K;<79R4;<9H;4?9;49J;887B7S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2 TR9U6749F9:;I4V9R;49WI7VLM;N9DEFO9XY7JMRZ9:747

[\]^\ÿ_[]`aÿbcÿdefgÿ]`hi\gÿcegÿjf\hkbe`ÿC#ÿbhÿf`l\gÿÿmefgh2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 3456789:;<79=4;<9>;4?@A;887B7 0C2 DEnG9:;H9<IJK9LM<79;N956745B7O9H;I8P9ML9L5?79A;<<IL749Qn9L;9L456789K;<79R4;<9H;4?9;49J;887B7S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

0ÿ

000ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

ÿÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿ0ÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2 TR9U6749F9:;I4V9R;49WI7VLM;N9DEnO9XY7JMRZ9:747

[\]^\ÿ_[]`aÿbcÿdefgÿ]`hi\gÿcegÿjf\hkbe`ÿC0#ÿbhÿf`l\gÿÿmefgh2

012 ABCD789E7:FGH7IJ:579K734523@5L7E9F6M7JI7I3=57?9::FI527NC7I97I234567H9:57O29:7E92=7927G9665@5P 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

10ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

002 QO7R4527C789F2S7O927TF5SIJ9K7ABCL7UV5GJOW78525 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi0"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿ0ÿkbcde2 02 ABlD789E7:FGH7IJ:579K734523@5L7E9F6M7JI7I3=57?9::FI527Nl7I97I234567H9:57O29:7E92=7927G9665@5P 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

10ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 QO7R4527C789F2S7O927TF5SIJ9K7ABlL7UV5GJOW78525 XYZ[Yÿ\XZ]^ÿ_`ÿabcdÿZ]efYdÿbdÿgcYeh_b]ÿi"ÿ_eÿc]jYdÿ0ÿkbcde2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 123456789:57;29:7<92=>?9665@5

012 *+,-./01.2345.6728.09.:;8<:=8>.103?@.76.6:A8.B022368<.C,.60.6<:;8?.5028.D<02.10<A.0<.40??8=8E 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 FD.G;8<.H./03<I.D0<.J38I6709.*+,>.KL847DM./8<8 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ_"ÿU[ÿYS`OZÿ0ÿaXYZ[2 0(2 *+H-./01.2345.6728.09.:;8<:=8>.103?@.76.6:A8.B022368<.CH.60.6<:;8?.5028.D<02.10<A.0<.40??8=8E 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ0ÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 FD.G;8<.H./03<I.D0<.J38I6709.*+H>.KL847DM./8<8 NOPQOÿRNPSTÿUVÿWXYZÿPS[\OZÿVXZÿ]YO[^UXSÿ_0"ÿU[ÿYS`OZÿ0ÿaXYZ[2

012 CDEF;G9H;IJKL;78I4;9:;6=436B4M;H9J<N;87;76?4;A9IIJ743;OE;79;736=4<;L9I4;P39I;H93?;93;K9<<4B4Q 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2 RP;S=43;T;G9J3U;P93;VJ4U789:;CDEM;W54K8PX;G434 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿ1#ÿfÿd^jZeÿ0ÿkcdef2

2 CDlF;G9H;IJKL;78I4;9:;6=436B4M;H9J<N;87;76?4;A9IIJ743;Ol;79;736=4<;L9I4;P39I;H93?;93;K9<<4B4Q 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿ0ÿ!

"ÿ0ÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

02 RP;S=43;T;G9J3U;P93;VJ4U789:;CDlM;W54K8PX;G434 YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿ1#ÿfÿd^jZeÿ0ÿkcdef2

)6*+ÿ,8ÿ-. /,*89ÿ01 2345636789:;79;<46=4;>93?@A9<<4B4

001 BCDBE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:OB:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>:82:M8;;3A3:42782:68:Q652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3R 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

01 SP:T<32:U:V8L2Q:P82:WL3Q6789:BCDBX:Y43M7PI:V323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿ"ÿagÿe_k[fÿÿldefg1 (5)*ÿ+7ÿ,- .+)78ÿ/0 12345256789:68:;35<3:=82>?@8;;3A3 01 BCDBE:F4428G7H563;I:J8K:HLMJ:67H3:K8L;N:76:65>3:@8HHL632:OB:68:M8H4;363:42345256789:P82:;35<79A:K82>:82:M8;;3A3:42782:68:Q652679A:6J3:6274:J8H3R 2345ÿ789ÿ78ÿ739

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

01 SP:T<32:U:V8L2Q:P82:WL3Q6789:BCDBX:Y43M7PI:V323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿ"ÿagÿe_k[fÿÿldefg1

012 EFGHI<J664:K9L785=M<N:O<LPQN<89L5<O:P=R<98<87@5<B:LLP854<SH<8:<Q:L6=585<645674789:;<T:4<=57>9;C<O:4@<:4<Q:==5C5<649:4<8:<U87489;C<8N5<8496<N:L5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

0)2 WT<X>54<H<Y:P4U<T:4<ZP5U89:;<EFGH[<\65Q9TM<Y545

]^_`^ÿa]_bcÿdeÿfghiÿ_bjk^iÿegiÿlh^jmdgbÿ#ÿdjÿhbn^iÿÿoghij2

6+,ÿ-8ÿ./ 0-+89ÿ12 345674789:;<8:<=57>5<?:4@AB:==5C5 0D2 EFGEI<J664:K9L785=M<N:O<LPQN<89L5<O:P=R<98<87@5<B:LLP854<SE<8:<Q:L6=585<645674789:;<T:4<=57>9;C<O:4@<:4<Q:==5C5<649:4<8:<U87489;C<8N5<8496<N:L5V 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

ÿ

0ÿ

00ÿ

0ÿ

ÿ

ÿÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!#ÿ$ÿÿ!%ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿ0ÿÿ%'ÿÿ!ÿÿ

$&ÿÿ!ÿÿÿ%'ÿÿ!

"ÿÿ!

'(ÿÿ%

2 WT<X>54<H<Y:P4U<T:4<ZP5U89:;<EFGE[<\65Q9TM<Y545

]^_`^ÿa]_bcÿdeÿfghiÿ_bjk^iÿegiÿlh^jmdgbÿ#ÿdjÿhbn^iÿÿoghij2

012 BCDEF:G4428H7I563;J:K8L:IMNK:67I3:L8M;O:76:65>3:@8IIM632:PE:68:N8I4;363:42345256789:Q82:;35<79A:L82>:82:N8;;3A3:42782:68:R652679A:6K3:6274:K8I3S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 TQ:U<32:E:V8M2R:Q82:WM3R6789:BCDEX:Y43N7QJ:V323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿ1"ÿagÿe_k[fÿÿldefg2 02 BCDmF:G4428H7I563;J:K8L:IMNK:67I3:L8M;O:76:65>3:@8IIM632:Pm:68:N8I4;363:42345256789:Q82:;35<79A:L82>:82:N8;;3A3:42782:68:R652679A:6K3:6274:K8I3S 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

1ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

010ÿ

0ÿ

1ÿ

ÿÿ1ÿ

!ÿ1ÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ1ÿÿ$&ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿ

%ÿ1ÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

002 TQ:U<32:E:V8M2R:Q82:WM3R6789:BCDmX:Y43N7QJ:V323 Z[\][ÿ^Z\_`ÿabÿcdefÿ\_gh[fÿbdfÿie[gjad_ÿ1"ÿagÿe_k[fÿÿldefg2 (6)*ÿ+8ÿ,- .+)89ÿ/0 12345256789:68:;35<3:=82>?@8;;3A3

012 *+,*-./00123456789:.;2<.5=>;.7458.<2=9?.47.76@8.A255=781.B*.72.>2509878.0180616742C.D21.986E4CF.<21@.21.>2998F8.01421.72.G76174CF.7;8.7140.;258H 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

01ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ01ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

02 ID.JE81.K.L2=1G.D21.M=8G742C.*+,*N.O08>4D:.L818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿ"ÿW]ÿ[UaQ\ÿÿbZ[\]2 0(2 *+,K-./00123456789:.;2<.5=>;.7458.<2=9?.47.76@8.A255=781.BK.72.>2509878.0180616742C.D21.986E4CF.<21@.21.>2998F8.01421.72.G76174CF.7;8.7140.;258H 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

1ÿÿÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

ÿ

1ÿ

0ÿ

001ÿ

01ÿ

111ÿ

1ÿÿÿ

!ÿÿ"ÿ#ÿÿ $ÿÿÿ1ÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿÿ

%ÿÿÿÿÿ$&ÿÿÿ01ÿ

%ÿÿÿ0ÿÿ$&ÿÿ

!ÿÿ

&'ÿÿ$

0)2 ID.JE81.K.L2=1G.D21.M=8G742C.*+,KN.O08>4D:.L818 PQRSQÿTPRUVÿWXÿYZ[\ÿRU]^Q\ÿXZ\ÿ_[Q]`WZUÿ"ÿW]ÿ[UaQ\ÿÿbZ[\]2

012 ?@ABC:2DDE6F4G85=9H:I6J:G<KI:54G=:J6<93:45:58L=:M6GG<5=E:NB:56:K6GD9=5=:DE=D8E85467:O6E:9=8P47Q:J6EL:6E:K699=Q=:DE46E:56:>58E547Q:5I=:5E4D:I6G=R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

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 SO:TP=E:U:V6<E>:O6E:;<=>5467:?@ABW:XD=K4OH:V=E=

YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿ#ÿfÿd^jZeÿÿkcdef2

2 ?@AlC:2DDE6F4G85=9H:I6J:G<KI:54G=:J6<93:45:58L=:M6GG<5=E:Nl:56:K6GD9=5=:DE=D8E85467:O6E:9=8P47Q:J6EL:6E:K699=Q=:DE46E:56:>58E547Q:5I=:5E4D:I6G=R 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿ

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 SO:TP=E:U:V6<E>:O6E:;<=>5467:?@AlW:XD=K4OH:V=E=

YZ[\Zÿ]Y[^_ÿaÿbcdeÿ[^fgZeÿaceÿhdZfic^ÿ0#ÿfÿd^jZeÿÿkcdef2

)6*+ÿ,8ÿ-. /,*89ÿ01 2334546789:;<=>5467>

012 (()*+,*-./*0121*3456714*8-*9.:39*3/;<.26;617*;.*153:/3;1=*<.0*>/:<*;6>1*0./94*6;*;3?1*;<1*<./71<.94*;.*@3:?*:9.;<6AB=*>146:3;6.A7=*71:/21*;<1*<./71=*9.34*;<1*:32=

3A4*:.>@91;1*@21@323;6.A7*@26.2*;.*153:/3;6AB*;<1*3213C 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿ0ÿ

01ÿ

10ÿ

ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ1ÿ

!ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ

1ÿ ÿÿ1ÿ ÿ0ÿ

1ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ ÿ1ÿ

1ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ1ÿ ÿ0ÿ

1ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ0ÿ

0ÿ ÿÿ0ÿ ÿ1ÿ

0ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ

" ÿÿ

ÿÿ"$

%$ÿÿ

02 +,*D512*E*F./27*,.2*G/17;6.A*((=*H@1:6,-*F121 IJKLJÿMIKNOÿPQÿRSTUÿKNVWJUÿQSUÿXTJVYPSNÿ'ÿPVÿTNZJUÿÿ[STUV2 002 (\)*+,*;<121*321*E]^*6A:<17*.,*7A.0*.A*-./2*4265103-*.2*:/28=*0./94*-./*A114*;.*7<.519*./;*;.*153:/3;1C*+,*-17=*<.0*>/:<*;6>1=*.A*35123B1=*0./94*6;*;3?1*-./*;.

9132*;<1*E]^*6A:<17*.,*7A.0*;.*>.51*;<1*:32*,2.>*;<1*4265103-*.2*:/28*;.*81B6A*;<1*153:/3;6.A*;26@C*_77/>1*;<1*2.347*321*@3773891) 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿ0ÿ

01ÿ

10ÿ

ÿÿ&ÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ1ÿ

ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿÿ ÿ0ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ1ÿ

!ÿ ÿ1ÿÿÿ!ÿ ÿ0ÿ

!ÿ ÿÿÿÿ1ÿ

'ÿ#ÿÿ"ÿ

" ÿ1ÿ

%$ÿÿ

02 +,*D512*`*F./27*,.2*G/17;6.A*(\=*H@1:6,-*F121 IJKLJÿMIKNOÿPQÿRSTUÿKNVWJUÿQSUÿXTJVYPSNÿ!'ÿPVÿTNZJUÿ1ÿ[STUV2

012 TUVMJWKXPKMPYKZQ[\ML]KMSO^_K`MR[MYKRYWKMQSM\RO`M]ROPK]RWaMb]RMKcOQKMPYKZQXWML`XSPYR`LXLQRSMaO`QSdMXSMKeXZOXLQRSMXSaML]KML\YKMR[ML`XSPYR`LXLQRSMSKKaKaf 3456ÿ89 ÿ89 ÿ84ÿ 5ÿ58

- ; < I g ?ÿ ÿg G"

?&ÿG"B8

C&ÿ6&&""$ÿ8&

6#$ &

02 hYKZQ[\MijL]K`iMk`XSPYR`LXLQRSMlKKaMmKWRb 02 TnVMJWKXPKMZ]RRPKMRSKMR[ML]KM[RWWRbQSdf 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ##$"ÿÿ%&ÿ'2

ÿÿ%&ÿ( )ÿ ÿ#ÿÿ"ÿ##$"ÿ2

&ÿÿ+

,-2 TopVMq^K`dKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXaeQPKM\ROMLRMP]KWLK`rQSrYWXZKMsPLX\MXLM]R^KtMbR`uMR`MZO``KSLMWRZXLQRSvMQSMXSMK^K`dKSZ\M_KZXOPKM\ROMX`KMSRLMQSML]KMX`KXMR[MQPuVMwROWa

\ROf 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+./01/23435067/

/867961/

/704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,;2 TomVMq^K`dKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXaeQPKM\ROMLRMP]KWLK`rQSrYWXZKMsPLX\MXLM]R^KtMbR`uMR`MZO``KSLMWRZXLQRSvMSRbMQSMXSMK^K`dKSZ\MXSaMYRPPQ_W\MKeXZOXLKMWXLK`Mb]QWKMYKRYWKMQS RL]K`MX`KXPMX`KMXaeQPKaMLRMKeXZOXLKMSRbVMwROWaM\ROf 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

+./01/23435067/

/867961/

/704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,<2 ToxVMq^K`dKSZ\MR((QZQXWPMXaeQPKM\ROMLRMKeXZOXLKMaOKMLRMXSMK^K`dKSZ\VMw]K`KMbROWaM\ROMKeXZOXLKMLRy 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

6ÿ2/0618/=+ÿ:2ÿ>2/4*=+ÿ.:?/

6ÿ2/7/51:4ÿ7/41/2 6ÿ.:1/0@ÿ?:1/0ÿ:2ÿ76?5A2:94*

6ÿ+/7:4*B+/6+:460ÿ.:?/

C:90*ÿ4:1ÿ/867961/

4D1ÿE4:C

1./2ÿF+(&!)ÿGH

/704/ÿ1:ÿ+161/

,I2 zQWWMQSMjk{qlMXSPbK`PM[R`McOKPLQRSMTox JKLMNOKPLQRSP

012 HIJKL#M# NOPO$MQR!ST!UP"VO$"WOXR!STO$YZ#UO$"WOXZX"P!#V[\

3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿ

!"#$!

0%2 HI]K^NOMQ#_QR!ST!UP"VO$"WOXR!STO$YZ#UO$"WOXZX"P!#V[Y#M# NOP\

+, -6ÿ4ÿ.,4.ÿ4//

0

12

23

42

562ÿ42

74

48

0

30

42ÿ5ÿ395ÿ:;(<=>?ÿ1(@ABC

42ÿ20ÿ395ÿ:;(<=>?ÿ1(@ABC

&'()*

002 3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

ÿÿ

!"#$!

0D2 HI`K^NOa# XYM# Y#a"NM# UQR!ST!UP"VO$"WOXR!STO$YZ#UO$"WOXZX"P!#V["_M# NOY#POV O\

3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

8ÿ3ÿE4ÿ5ÿÿÿ42

8ÿ3ÿE4ÿ5ÿ5E42ÿ

Fÿ3ÿÿ45

ÿÿ

!"#$!

0G2 HILKL#M# NOP!__"V"$U##W"$M# UPN"VXR!S#POV Oa"NM# UQR!ST!UP"VO$"WOXR!STO$YZ#UO$"WOXZX"P!#V[T"$VXY"$bO$M!QQ#Uc "QW$

$YY\

3456ÿ89 ÿ89ÿ84

Eÿ6ÿÿ22

ÿÿ

&'()*

APPENDIX G Traffic Management Plan

G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1 indicates that the existing Traffic Control Points (TCPs) and Access Control Points (ACPs) identified by the offsite agencies should be used in the evacuation simulation modeling. The traffic and access control plans for the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) are described in MoNAP Nuclear Power Plant Accident Plan, dated December 2019 and the State of Nebraska Radiological Emergency Response Plan for Nuclear Power Station Incidents, dated April 30, 2015.

These plans were reviewed and the TCPs and ACPs were modeled accordingly.

G.1 Traffic Control Points As discussed in Section 9, TCPs at intersections (which are controlled) are modeled as actuated signals. If an intersection has a pretimed signal, stop, or yield control, and the intersection is identified as a TCP, 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.

Table K1 provides the number of nodes with each control type. If the existing control was changed due to the point being a TCP or ACP, the control type is indicated as a TCP/ACP in Table K1. The TCPs within the study area are mapped as red dots in Figure G1.

This study did not identify any additional intersections that should be identified as TCPs, as little congestion exists within the EPZ.

G.2 Access Control Points As discussed in Section 3.9, external traffic was considered on I29 which traverses the EPZ in this analysis. The generation of the external trips (1,610 vehicles during day conditions, 644 vehicles in evening conditions) on I29 ceased at 60 minutes after the advisory to evacuate (ATE) in the simulation due to the ACPs.

The ACPs within the study area are mapped as light green dots in Figure G1. It is assumed that ACPs will be established within 60 minutes of the ATE to discourage through travelers from using major through routes which traverse the EPZ G.3 Analysis of Key TCP and ACP Locations As discussed in Section 5.2 of NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1, manual traffic control (MTC) at intersections could benefit from ETE analysis. The TCP and ACP locations contained within the traffic management plan were analyzed to determine key locations where MTC would be most useful and can be readily implemented. Controlled intersections (stop signs and yield signs) were changed to actuated traffic signals to represent the MTC that would be implemented according to the traffic management plan.

Cooper Nuclear Station G1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1 shows a list of the controlled intersections that were identified as TCPs or ACPs in the traffic management plan, 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 entire EPZ (Region R03) was simulated wherein these intersections were left as is (without MTC). The results were compared to the results presented in Section 7. There was no difference in the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs, when MTC was not present at these intersections.

As shown in Figure 73 through Figure 76, the EPZ experiences very little traffic congestion. As a result, the TCPs and ACPs in the EPZ do very little to help the ETE overall. In addition, traffic congestion clears prior to the completion of trip generation. The 100th percentile ETE is dictated by mobilization. As such, the impact of MTC at TCPs and ACPs will have little to no impact on the 100th percentile ETE.

While TCPs and ACPs are not necessary to evacuate the EPZ expediently, staffing these locations does still provide value during an evacuation such as guiding those evacuees who are not familiar with the area and serving as fixed point surveillance if there is an incident on one of the major evacuation routes.

Cooper Nuclear Station G2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table G1. List of Key TCP/ACP Locations TCP/ACP UNITES Node # Previous Control Missouri ACPs 4 207 No Control 5 234 No Control 7 210 No Control 9 232 No Control 15 267 Stop Control 25 161 No Control 26 149 Stop Control 28 3 Stop Control 34 124 No Control 39 148 Stop Control 47 151 Stop Control 51 203 No Control 53 422 No Control 54 146 Stop Control Nebraska TCPs 31 341 No Control 33 339 Stop Control 35 345 Stop Control 43 78 Stop Control 47 50 Stop Control 58 346 Stop Control 59 343 No Control 510 442 No Control 103 56 Stop Control 106 76 No Control 107 350 No Control 1010 414 No Control 1013 349 No Control 1018 336 Stop Control 1019 318 No Control 1022 327 No Control Cooper Nuclear Station G3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure G1. TCP and ACP Locations within the CNS EPZ Cooper Nuclear 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 H21). 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station H1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table H1. Percent of Area Population Evacuating for Each Region Radial Regions Area Region Description 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R01 2Mile Region 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R02 5Mile Region 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R03 Full EPZ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to 5 Miles Wind From Area Region (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R04 347 to 58 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R05 59 to 76 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R06 77 to 148 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R07 149 to 193 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R08 302 to 346 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Evacuate 2Mile Region and Downwind to the EPZ Boundary Wind From Area Region (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R09 347 to 35 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20%

R10 36 to 58 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 100% 100% 20%

R11 59 to 76 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100% 20%

N/A 77 to 148 Refer to R06 N/A 149 to 166 Refer to R07 R12 167 to 193 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

R13 194 to 279 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

R14 280 to 346 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20%

R15 347 to 350 100% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 20%

Staged Evacuation 2Mile Region Evacuates, then Evacuate Downwind to 5 Miles Wind From Area Region (in Degrees) 1 2 11 12 13E 13W 14 15 R16 5Mile Region 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R17 347 to 58 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R18 59 to 76 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 20%

R19 77 to 148 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 100% 100%

R20 149 to 193 100% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%

N/A 194 to 301 Refer to R01 R21 302 to 346 100% 20% 100% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Area(s) ShelterinPlace until 90% ETE for Area(s) Evacuate Area(s) ShelterinPlace R01, then Evacuate Cooper Nuclear Station H2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H1. Region R01 Cooper Nuclear Station H3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H2. Region R02 Cooper Nuclear Station H4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H3. Region R03 Cooper Nuclear Station H5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H4. Region R04 Cooper Nuclear Station H6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H5. Region R05 Cooper Nuclear Station H7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H6. Region R06 Cooper Nuclear Station H8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H7. Region R07 Cooper Nuclear Station H9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H8. Region R08 Cooper Nuclear Station H10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H9. Region R09 Cooper Nuclear Station H11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H10. Region R10 Cooper Nuclear Station H12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H11. Region R11 Cooper Nuclear Station H13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H12. Region R12 Cooper Nuclear Station H14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H13. Region R13 Cooper Nuclear Station H15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H14. Region R14 Cooper Nuclear Station H16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H15. Region R15 Cooper Nuclear Station H17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H16. Region R16 Cooper Nuclear Station H18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H17. Region R17 Cooper Nuclear Station H19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H18. Region R18 Cooper Nuclear Station H20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H19. Region R19 Cooper Nuclear Station H21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H20. Region R20 Cooper Nuclear Station H22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure H21. Region R21 Cooper Nuclear Station H23 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 144 source links (origins) in the model. The source links are shown as centroid points in Figure J1. On average, evacuees travel a straightline distance of 7.2 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. The summer rain scenarios (Scenario 2 and Scenario 4), winter rain/light snow scenarios (Scenario 7 and Scenario 10) and winter heavy snow scenarios (Scenario 8 and Scenario 11) exhibit slower average speeds, higher delays and longest average travel times than the good weather scenarios. Delays in these scenarios are due to the reduced capacity and speeds the from rain, rain/light snow and heavy snow conditions, when compared to the good weather conditions.

Table J3 provides statistics (average speed and travel time) for the major evacuation routes -

Interstate (I)29, CR67, US75, US136 - for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R03) under Scenario 1 conditions. As discussed in Section 7.3 and shown in Figures 73 through 76, congestion is minimal and no longer exists after 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes. Therefore, the speeds are relatively close to the free flow speed on these evacuation routes for the entirety of the evacuation.

Table J4 provides the number of vehicles discharged and the cumulative percent of total vehicles discharged for each link exiting the analysis network, for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region 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.

As seen in Figure J2 through Figure J15, the curves are mostly close together as a result of the limited traffic congestion in the EPZ, for all scenarios except winter midday scenarios. During the winter midday scenarios (Scenarios 6, 7, and 8), the large number of vehicles at Peru State College (which are at their peak during the winter midday scenarios), congestion exists until 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes following the ATE. As seen in Figure J7 through Figure J9, the curves are spatially separated for about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months during these scenarios and then become closer together as a result of the minimal traffic congestion in the EPZ after this time, which was discussed in detail in Section 7.3.

1 Computed as the difference of the average travel time and the average ideal travel time under free flow conditions.

Cooper Nuclear Station J1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J1. Sample Simulation Model Input Vehicles Entering Link Upstream Downstream Network Directional Destination Destination Number Node Node on this Link Preference Nodes Capacity 8287 1,700 276 201 199 64 N 8288 1,275 8229 1,700 8287 1,700 391 295 225 18 NE 8288 1,275 8229 1,700 8229 1,700 122 93 94 12 NW 8187 1,575 8185 4,500 8321 1,700 430 334 349 41 SW 8323 1,700 92 62 56 18 NW 8013 1,275 468 370 322 6 SW 8323 1,700 8081 1,700 40 29 28 26 W 8321 1,700 8323 1,700 8276 1,575 332 247 244 7 E 8287 1,700 8241 1,575 8276 1,575 376 279 275 22 NE 8287 1,700 8288 1,275 Cooper Nuclear 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 Travel Time 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average Delay Time 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average Speed (mph) 60.0 54.8 60.0 55.5 58.2 57.0 51.7 Total Vehicles Exiting Network 6,800 6,837 6,003 6,038 4,392 7,451 7,487 Scenario 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NetworkWide Average Travel Time 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average Delay Time 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Min/VehMi)

NetworkWide Average Speed (mph) 49.3 60.0 55.6 52.3 58.2 55.4 60.0 Total Vehicles Exiting Network 7,468 5,890 5,925 5,916 4,392 9,410 6,801 Table J3. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes (Region R03, Scenario 1)

Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Travel Length Speed Time Travel Travel Travel Travel Route# (miles) (mph) (min) Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time Speed Time I29 North 34.6 70.1 29.6 70.0 29.6 70.1 29.6 69.1 30.0 64.5 32.2 I29 South 34.6 70.1 29.6 70.0 29.6 70.1 29.6 68.0 30.5 69.5 29.9 CR 67 South 10.2 53.3 11.5 53.6 11.4 53.7 11.4 55.3 11.1 50.0 12.2 US 136 East 10.2 52.6 11.7 51.5 11.9 51.6 11.9 53.7 11.4 53.5 11.5 US 136 West 9.6 49.4 11.6 49.4 11.6 49.4 11.6 49.8 11.5 38.2 15.0 US 75 North 10.5 57.9 10.9 58.3 10.8 58.6 10.8 58.3 10.8 57.8 10.9 US 75 South 17.8 58.1 18.3 57.4 18.6 57.6 18.5 57.5 18.5 52.5 20.3 Cooper Nuclear Station J3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Table J4. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R03, Scenario 1 Elapsed Time (hours) 1 2 3 4 5 Network Upstream Downstream Exit Link Node Node Cumulative Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Cumulative Percent of Vehicles Discharged by the Indicated Time Interval 32 240 372 417 425 109 80 81 1% 5% 6% 6% 6%

16 121 139 145 146 250 180 187 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

967 1,583 1,678 1,721 1,725 461 363 185 41% 30% 26% 26% 25%

217 637 851 934 946 462 364 360 9% 12% 13% 14% 14%

0 5 7 7 7 463 365 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

35 162 243 270 274 464 366 321 1% 3% 4% 4% 4%

75 234 322 358 364 466 368 323 3% 4% 5% 5% 5%

50 108 134 144 146 469 371 326 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

1 16 25 30 31 472 374 308 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3 48 63 68 70 475 377 311 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

27 181 234 249 252 480 382 241 1% 3% 4% 4% 4%

35 228 306 328 333 493 393 276 1% 4% 5% 5% 5%

18 134 188 206 210 496 396 287 1% 3% 3% 3% 3%

8 68 100 110 112 497 397 288 0% 1% 2% 2% 2%

15 74 84 88 89 498 398 229 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

874 1,451 1,588 1,661 1,673 537 429 49 37% 27% 25% 25% 25%

Cooper Nuclear Station J4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure J1.Network Sources/Origins Cooper Nuclear Station J5 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J2. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 1)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J3. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 2)

Cooper Nuclear Station J6 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J4. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 3)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J5. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 4)

Cooper Nuclear Station J7 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 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J7. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario 6)

Cooper Nuclear Station J8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J8. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario 7)

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Midweek, Midday, 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, Snow (Scenario 8)

Cooper Nuclear Station J9 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 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 (Scenario 10)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J11. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario 10)

Cooper Nuclear Station J10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Winter, Weekend, Midday, 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, 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 Elapsed Time (h:mm)

Figure J13. ETE and Trip Generation: Winter, Midweek, Weekend, Evening, Good Weather (Scenario 12)

Cooper Nuclear Station J11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J14. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather, Special Event (Scenario 13)

ETE and Trip Generation Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Trip Generation ETE 100%

Percent of Total Vehicles 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

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

Figure J15. ETE and Trip Generation: Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather, Roadway Impact (Scenario 14)

Cooper Nuclear Station J12 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 31 more detailed figures (Figure K2 through Figure K32) 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 December 2020.

Table K1 summarizes the number of nodes by the type of control (stop sign, yield sign, pre timed signal, actuated signal, traffic control point [TCP] or access control points [ACP],

uncontrolled).

Table K1. Summary of Nodes by the Type of Control Number of Control Type Nodes Uncontrolled 358 Pretimed 0 Actuated 2 Stop 69 TCP/ACP 30 Yield 0 Total: 459 Cooper Nuclear Station K1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K1. CNS LinkNode Analysis Network Cooper Nuclear Station K2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K2. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 1 Cooper Nuclear Station K3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K3. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 2 Cooper Nuclear Station K4 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K4. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 3 Cooper Nuclear Station K5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K5. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 4 Cooper Nuclear Station K6 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K6. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 5 Cooper Nuclear Station K7 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K7. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 6 Cooper Nuclear Station K8 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K8. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 7 Cooper Nuclear Station K9 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K9. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 8 Cooper Nuclear Station K10 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K10. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 9 Cooper Nuclear Station K11 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K11. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 10 Cooper Nuclear Station K12 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K12. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 11 Cooper Nuclear Station K13 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K13. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 12 Cooper Nuclear Station K14 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K14. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 13 Cooper Nuclear Station K15 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K15. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 14 Cooper Nuclear Station K16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K16. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 15 Cooper Nuclear Station K17 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K17. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 16 Cooper Nuclear Station K18 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K18. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 17 Cooper Nuclear Station K19 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K19. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 18 Cooper Nuclear Station K20 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K20. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 19 Cooper Nuclear Station K21 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K21. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 20 Cooper Nuclear Station K22 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K22. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 21 Cooper Nuclear Station K23 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K23. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 22 Cooper Nuclear Station K24 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K24. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 23 Cooper Nuclear Station K25 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K25. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 24 Cooper Nuclear Station K26 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K26. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 25 Cooper Nuclear Station K27 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K27. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 26 Cooper Nuclear Station K28 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K28. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 27 Cooper Nuclear Station K29 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K29. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 28 Cooper Nuclear Station K30 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K30. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 29 Cooper Nuclear Station K31 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K31. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 30 Cooper Nuclear Station K32 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Figure K32. LinkNode Analysis Network - Grid 31 Cooper Nuclear Station K33 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

APPENDIX L Area Boundaries

L. AREA BOUNDARIES Area 1 County: Atchison Defined as the area within the following boundary: Area bounded to the west by the Missouri River, to the north by 152nd St and continuing across the High Creek Ditch Levee, to the east by Interstate(I)29 and to the south by the Atchison County Line. This includes the towns of Watson, Langdon and Nishnabotna. This does not include the Truck Stop Area west of I29 on either side of U.S. Route 136, which is within the city limits of Rock Port.

Area 2 County: Atchison Defined as the area within the following boundary: Area bounded to the west by I29 and includes the interstate, to the north by the High Creek Levee, Route B, Geneva Road, and 165th St, to the east by K Avenue, Route Y, across U.S. 136 to continue south on Route J, then Route W, and to the south by the Atchison County line. This includes the Brickyard Hill Conservation area, the Town of Rock Port and that portion within the city limits that extends to the west of I29 along U.S. Route 136.

Area 11 County: Nemaha Defined as the area within the following boundary: From the Brownville Bridge on U.S. Highway 136, south along the west bank of the Missouri River to the confluence of the Little Nemaha with the Missouri River, northwest along the north bank of the Little Nemaha River, to U.S. Highway 67, then north to the intersection of Iowa Street and U.S. Highway 67 in Nemaha. Then following the southern and western boundary of Nemaha to Nebraska Avenue (which turns into Country Road 725A) to the intersection of Country Road 725A and 647 Avenue. North to the Intersection of 647 Avenue and U.S. Highway 136, then east on U.S. Highway 136 to the intersection of U.S. Highway 136 and Nebraska Highway 67, then by and on a line following the western and northern boundaries of the Brownville City limits east to the Missouri River.

This Area includes the Villages of Brownville and Nemaha, the Brownville State Recreation Area, and the Steamboat Trace Trail.

Cooper Nuclear Station L1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Area 12 County: Nemaha Defined as the area within the following boundary: From the Little Nemaha bridge on Nebraska Highway 67 along the southern bank of the Little Nemaha River to the confluence of the Missouri River, along the Missouri River east and south to the northern boundary of Indian Cave State Park. Then west and south along the western boundary of Indian Cave State Park to Nebraska 64E Spur (Nemaha and Richardson County Line/County Road 720). Then west on Nebraska 64E Spur to Nebraska Highway 67 and north on Nebraska Highway 67 to the Little Nemaha River bridge.

Area 13E County: Richardson Defined as the area within the following boundary: From the intersection of Nebraska Spur 64E (Nemaha and Richardson County Line/County Road 720) and Nebraska Highway 67 east to, and including all of Indian Cave State Park, then south along the Missouri River (the parks eastern boundary) to the southeast corner of the park. From the southeast corner of the park by and on a line southwest to the intersection of County Road 717 and 651 Avenue, then west to Nebraska Highway 67. Then North on Nebraska Highway 67 to the intersection of Nebraska 64E Spur (Nemaha & Richardson County Line/County Road 720) Nebraska Highway 67.

Area 13W County: Richardson Defined as the area within the following boundary: From the intersection of Nebraska Highway 67 and Nebraska 64E Spur (Nemaha & Richardson County Line/County Road 720) south to the intersection of Nebraska Highway 67 and County Road 717, then by and on a line northwest to the intersection of Nebraska Highway 62 and County Avenue 645, and continuing to the intersection of County Road 720 and 643 Avenue, then east to the intersection of Nebraska Highway 67 and Nebraska 64E Spur (Nemaha & Richardson County Line/County Road 720). This area includes the Village of Shubert.

Cooper Nuclear Station L2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Area 14 County: Nemaha Defined as the area within the following boundary: From the Union Pacific Railroad tracks crossing US Highway 136 east of Auburn to the intersection of US Highway 136 and County Avenue 647. South on County Avenue 647 to the intersection of 725A Road and 647 Avenue, south and east on Road 725A (which turns into Nebraska Street in the Village of Nemaha), east and south to the intersection of Iowa Street and Nebraska Highway 67. Then south on Nebraska Highway 67 to the intersection of Nebraska 64E Spur (Nemaha &

Richardson County Line/County Road 720) and Nebraska Highway 67. West on Nemaha & Richardson County Line/County Road 720 to the intersection with 643 Avenue. Then by and on a line northwest to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks at County Road 724, (West side of Howe) continuing on a line north to the intersection of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks crossing US Highway 136 east of Auburn. This area includes the Unincorporated village of Howe.

Area 15 County: Nemaha Defined as the area within the following boundary: By and on a line from the intersection of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and US Highway 136 east of Auburn, northeast to the MCI Radio Tower (which is two miles east of U.S.

Highway 75 just South of Nebraska Highway 67), continuing by and on a line northeast to the northern boundary of the Peru City limits and then by and on a line with the northern boundary of the Peru City limits east to the Missouri River. Then south along the west bank of the Missouri River to the Brownville Bridge on U.S. Highway 136 and west on U.S. Highway 136 to the intersection of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks east of Auburn and U.S. Highway 136. This area includes the city of Peru and the Steamboat Trace Trail.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Estimate (ETE) to changes in some base evacuation conditions.

M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times A sensitivity study was performed to determine whether changes in the estimated trip generation time have an effect on the ETE for the entire Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ).

Specifically, if the tail of the mobilization distribution were truncated (i.e., if those who responded most slowly to the Advisory to Evacuate (ATE), could be persuaded to respond much more rapidly) or if the tail were elongated (i.e., spreading out the departure of evacuates 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 ETE is reduced by 25 minutes, and the 100th percentile ETE is reduced by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months - a significant change. An increase in mobilization time by 1 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months increases the 90th and 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

As indicated in Section 7.3, traffic congestion within the EPZ clears at about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE, well before the completion of trip generation time. As such, congestion dictates the 100th percentile ETE until 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes after the ATE. After this time, trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE.

M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region Who Relocate A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the percentage of people who decide to relocate from the Shadow Region. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation for the entire EPZ. The movement of people in the Shadow Region has the potential to impede vehicles evacuating from an Evacuation Region within the EPZ. Refer to Sections 3.2 and 7.1 for additional information on population within the Shadow Region.

Table M2 presents the ETE for each of the cases considered. The results show that eliminating shadow evacuation (0%), tripling shadow evacuation (60%) or a full shadow evacuation (100%) has no impact to the 90th and 100th percentile ETEs.

Note, the demographic survey results presented in Appendix F, indicates that approximately 8% of households would elect to evacuate if advised to shelter, which differs from the assumption of 20% compliance suggested in NUREG/CR7002, Rev. 1. A sensitivity study was considered using the 8% shadow evacuation and the 90th and 100th percentile ETE were not impacted.

Cooper Nuclear Station M1 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

The Shadow Region for CNS is sparsely populated except near population centers like Auburn (near Area 15). As shown in Figure 73 through 76, congestion never exists within the Shadow Region, such that the EPZ evacuees would be delayed. Therefore, any additional shadow residents that decide to voluntarily evacuate are accommodated by the excess capacity available in the study area such that ETE are not significantly impacted. In addition, the trip generation (plus a 10 minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE.

M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population A sensitivity study was conducted to determine the effect on ETE due to changes in the permanent resident population within the study area (EPZ plus Shadow Region). As population in the study area changes over time, the time required to evacuate the public may increase, decrease, or remain the same. Since the ETE is related to the demand to capacity ratio present within the study area, changes in population will cause the demand side of the equation to change and could impact ETE.

As per the NRCs response to the Emergency Planning Frequently Asked Question (EPFAQ) 2013001, the ETE population sensitivity study must be conducted to determine what percentage increase in permanent resident population causes an increase in the 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 50%.

Changes in population were applied to permanent residents only (as per federal guidance), in both the EPZ area 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 the sensitivity study (Scenario 8 - Winter, Midweek, Midday, with Snow Condition).

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. Note that the base ETE value for the 2Mile Region (R01) are less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; R01 criterion for updating is 23 minutes (90 minutes multiplied by 25%). Base ETE value for the 5Mile Region (R02) and for the entire EPZ (R03) are greater than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ; 25 percent of these base ETE is always equal or greater than 30 minutes. Therefore, the R02 and R03 criteria for updating is 30 minutes.

Cooper Nuclear Station M2 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Those percent population changes which result in the longest 90th percentile ETE change greater than the respective criterion for each region are highlighted in red in Table M3 - a 50%

or greater increase in the 5Mile Region permanent resident population. NPPD will have to estimate the 5Mile Region on an annual basis. If the 5Mile Region population increases by 50% 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 results was 2.69 people per household. The difference between the Census data (2.55 people per household) and survey data is 5.5%, which exceeds the sampling error of 5%. Upon discussions with NPPD, it was decided that the estimated household size from the 2020 Census data would be used in the 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 permanent resident and shadow vehicles were changed for this sensitivity study. The case considered was Scenario 6, Region 3; a winter, midweek, midday, with good weather evacuation of the 2Mile Region, 5 Mile Region, and entire EPZ. Table M4 presents the results of this study.

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of people and evacuating vehicles) by 5.5% has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes at most) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE. As discussed in Section 7.3, there is minimal congestion that exists within the EPZ for the first 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and 50 minutes and after that, the ETE is dictated by the trip generation time. In addition, the trip generation (plus a 10minute travel time to the EPZ boundary), dictates the 100th percentile ETE.

M.5 Enhancements in Evacuation Time This appendix documents sensitivity studies on critical variables that could potentially impact ETE. Possible improvements to ETE are further discussed below:

Reducing or prolonging the trip generation time an hour impacts the 90th percentile ETE by 25 minutes to 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months and the 100th percentile ETE by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months , since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE. (Section M.1). Thus, public outreach encouraging evacuees to mobilize more quickly will decrease the ETE.

Increasing the percent shadow evacuation has no material impact on ETE (Section M.2).

Nonetheless, public outreach could be considered to inform those people within the EPZ (and potentially beyond the EPZ) that if they are not advised to evacuate, they should not.

Population growth results in more evacuating vehicles, which could significantly increase ETE (Section M.3). Public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle would reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and could reduce ETE or offset the impact of population growth.

Cooper Nuclear Station M3 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Increasing the average household size (decreasing the total number of people and evacuating vehicles) by 5.5% has little impact on ETE (decreasing the 90th percentile ETE by 5 minutes at most) and no impact to the 100th percentile ETE, since trip generation within the EPZ dictates ETE (Section M.4). Thus, public outreach to inform people within the EPZ to evacuate as a family in a single vehicle could reduce the number of evacuating vehicles and reduce the 90th percentile ETE.

Table M1. ETE for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study Trip Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Generation Time 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months and 30 minutes 1:45 3:40 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and 30 minutes (Base) 2:10 4:40 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months and 30 minutes 3:10 5:40 Table M2. ETE for Shadow Sensitivity Study Percent Evacuating Evacuation Time Estimate for Entire EPZ Shadow Shadow Evacuation Vehicles1 90th Percentile 100th Percentile 0 0 2:10 4:40 8 445 2:10 4:40 20 (base) 1,113 2:10 4:40 40 2,226 2:10 4:40 60 3,339 2:10 4:40 80 4,452 2:10 4:40 100 5,565 2:10 4:40 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station M4 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 48% 49% 50%

Population 5,410 8,007 8,061 8,115 th ETE for the 90 Percentile Population Change Region Base 48% 49% 50%

2MILE 1:30 1:45 1:45 1:45 5MILE 2:10 2:35 2:35 2:40 FULL EPZ 2:55 3:05 3:05 3:05 ETE for the 100th Percentile Population Change Region Base 48% 49% 50%

2MILE 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5MILE 5:50 5:50 5:50 5:50 FULL EPZ 5:55 5:55 5:55 5:55 Table M4. ETE Results for Average Household Size Base Case Sensitivity Case Average Household Size Average Household Size (2.55 people per (2.69 people per EPZ and 20% Shadow household) household)

Permanent Resident Population 5,410 people 5,128 people ETE for the 90th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 1:20 1:20 5MILE 1:45 1:40 FULL EPZ 2:10 2:10 ETE for the 100th Percentile Region Base Case Sensitivity Case 2MILE 4:30 4:30 5MILE 4:35 4:35 FULL EPZ 4:40 4:40 Cooper Nuclear Station M5 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 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 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. Table 11, 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 discussed.

b. A table similar to Table 15, Evacuation Areas for a Staged Yes Table 73, Table 74 Evacuation, is provided for staged evacuations identifying the ERPAs considered for each ETE calculation by downwind direction.

2.0 Demand Estimation

a. Demand estimation is developed for the four population Yes Section 3 groups (permanent residents of the EPZ, transients, special facilities, and schools).

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 Yes N/A 2020 used as the base year of the reflect population estimates to the year of the ETE. analysis Cooper Nuclear 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 E4 through Table E5 included, and peak and average attendance for these facilities is listed. The source of information used to develop attendance values is provided.

b. Major employers are listed. Yes Section 3.4, Table E3

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 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 3.6 to determine the number of transit dependent residents is discussed.

b. The State and local evacuation plans for transit dependent Yes Section 8.1 residents are used in the analysis.

c. The methodology used to determine the number of people Yes Section 3.6, page 37 and Section 8.1 with disabilities and those with access and functional needs Local authorities confirmed that no one who may need assistance and do not reside in special registered access and/or functional facilities is provided. Data from local/county registration needs person.

programs are used in the estimate.

d. Capacities are provided for all types of transportation Yes Item 3 of Section 2.4 resources. Bus seating capacity of 50 percent is used or justification is provided for higher values.

e. An estimate of the transit dependent population is provided. Yes Section 3.6, Table 38

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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 E2 lists all medical facilities and average population, are listed. Special facility staff is Table E3 lists all correctional facilities included in the total special facility population. by 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, Table 37 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 and Section 8.2 other correctional facilities) are discussed when appropriate.

2.4 Schools

a. A list of schools including name, location, student Yes Table 39, Table E1, Section 3.7 population, and transportation resources required to support the evacuation, is provided. The source of this information should be identified.

b. Transportation resources for elementary and middle schools Yes Section 3.7 are based on 100 percent of the school capacity.

c. The estimate of high school students who will use personal Yes Section 3.7 vehicle to evacuate is provided and a basis for the values used is given.

d. The need for return trips is identified. Yes Section 8.1 Cooper Nuclear Station N5 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

Addressed in ETE NRC Review Criteria Comments Analysis (Yes/No/NA) 2.5 Other Demand Estimate Considerations 2.5.1 Special Events

a. A complete list of special events is provided including Yes Section 3.8 information on the population, estimated duration, and season of the event.

b. The special event that encompasses the peak transient Yes Section 3.8 population is analyzed in the ETE.

c. The percentage of permanent residents attending the event Yes Section 3.8 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 3.9 and Section 3.10 based on the average daytime traffic. Values may be reduced for nighttime scenarios.

Cooper Nuclear 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, 11 and is described. 12 Section 2.5 Section 3.9 and Section 3.10 Table 63 - External Through Traffic footnote

c. Passthrough traffic is assumed to have stopped entering the Yes Section 2.5, Section 3.9 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Assumptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 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 and Table C3 measures and parameters used in the analysis.

4.3 Trip Generation Time

a. The process used to develop trip generation times is Yes Section 5 identified.

b. When surveys are used, the scope of the survey, area of the Yes Appendix F survey, number of participants, and statistical relevance are provided.

c. Data used to develop trip generation times are summarized. Yes Appendix F, Section 5 Cooper Nuclear 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 No uncertainty existed 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 3.8 special events where a large number of transients are expected is considered.

Cooper Nuclear 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 Transit Dependent Population

b. The means of evacuating ambulatory and nonambulatory Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit residents are discussed. Dependent Population

c. Logistical details, such as the time to obtain buses, brief Yes Section 8.1, Figure 81 drivers and initiate the bus route are used in the analysis.

d. The estimated time for transit dependent residents to Yes Section 8.1 under Evacuation of Transit prepare and then travel to a bus pickup point, including the Dependent Population expected means of travel to the pickup point, is described.

e. The number of bus stops and time needed to load Yes Section 8.1, Table 85 though Table 87 passengers are discussed.

f. A map of bus routes is included. Yes Figure 102

g. The trip generation time for nonambulatory persons Yes Section 8.2 including the time to mobilize ambulances or special vehicles, time to drive to the home of residents, time to load, and time to drive out of the EPZ, is provided.

h. Information is provided to support analysis of return trips, if Yes Section 8.1 necessary.

Cooper Nuclear 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, Table 88 provided. through Table 810

b. The logistics of evacuating wheelchair and bed bound Yes Section 8.1, Table 88- no wheelchair or residents are discussed. bed bound residents exist within the EPZ.

c. Time for loading of residents is provided. Yes Section 2.4, Section 8.1, Table 88 and Table 89

d. Information is provided that indicates whether the Yes Section 8.1 and 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 and 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 and 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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 confidence. For DYNEV/DTRAD, it is a mesoscopic simulation and uses dynamic traffic assignment model to obtain the "average" (stable) network

b. If one run of a single random seed is used to produce each N/A work flow distribution. This is different ETE result, the report includes a sensitivity study on the 90 from microscopic simulation, which is percent and 100 percent ETE using 10 different random montecarlo random sampling by seeds for evacuation of the full EPZ under Summer, nature relying on different seeds to Midweek, Daytime, Normal Weather conditions. establish statistical confidence. Refer to Appendix B for more details Cooper Nuclear 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 76 (e.g., at 2, 4, 6 hrs.) during a full EPZ evacuation scenario, identifying areas where congestion exists.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear 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.

Cooper Nuclear Station N16 KLD Engineering, P.C.

Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

NLS2022035, Evacuation Time Estimate Report for Cooper Nuclear Station

Contents

Text

Subject:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

NLS2022035, Evacuation Time Estimate Report for Cooper Nuclear Station

Text

Subject:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosure:

SUMMARY

5.1 Background

Navigation menu

Search