ML14141A058

Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 3

ML14141A058
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	04/18/2014
From:	KLD Engineering, PC
To:	Document Control Desk, NRC/FSME, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML14141A046	List: ML14141A047 ML14141A048 ML14141A049 ML14141A050 ML14141A051 ML14141A053 ML14141A054 ML14141A055 ML14141A056 ML14141A057 ML14141A058 ML14141A059 ML14141A060 ML14141A061 ML14141A062 ML14141A063 ML14141A064 ML14141A065 ML14141A066 ML14141A067 RS-14-151, Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 5 RS-14-151, Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, and Peach Bottom - 10 CFR 50, Appendix E - Evacuation Time Estimate Analysis Information RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4 RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4 RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4 RS-14-151, Braidwood, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 1, Kld TR-635, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4 RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4 RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4 RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4 RS-14-151, Byron, Units 1 and 2 - Attachment 2, Kld TR-637, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4 RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 3 RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 3 RS-14-151, Clinton, Unit 1 - Attachment 3, Kld TR-632, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 3 RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 4 RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 4 RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 4 RS-14-151, Dresden, Units 2 and 3 - Attachment 4, Kld TR-634, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 4 of 4 RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 1 of 5 RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 2 of 5 RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 3 of 5 RS-14-151, Peach Bottom, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Attachment 5, Kld TR-636, Rev. 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates. Part 5 of 5
References
RS-14-151 KLD TR-632, Rev. 0
Download: ML14141A058 (103)

Text

Attachment 3Clinton Power StationDevelopment of Evacuation Time Estimates CLINTON POWER STATONDevelopment of Evacuation Time Estimates Work performed for Exelon Generation, by:KLD Engineering, P.C.1601 Veterans Memorial

Highway, Suite 340Islandia, NY 11749mailto: kweinisch@kldcomoanies.com April 18, 2014Final Report, Rev. 0KLD TR -632 Table of ContentsI INTRODUCTIO N ..................................................................................................................................

1-11.1 Overview of the ETE Process ......................................................................................................

1-21.2 The Clinton Pow er Station Location

...........................................................................................

1-31.3 Prelim inary Activities

.................................................................................................................

1-51.4 Com parison w ith Prior ETE Study ..............................................................................................

1-92 STUDY ESTIM ATES AND ASSUM PTIONS .............................................................................................

2-12.1 Data Estim ates ...........................................................................................................................

2-12.2 Study M ethodological Assum ptions ..........................................................................................

2-22.3 Study Assum ptions .....................................................................................................................

2-53 DEM AND ESTIM ATION .......................................................................................................................

3-1341 Perm anent Residents

.................................................................................................................

3-23.1.1 Special Facilities

.................................................................................................................

3-23.2 Shadow Population

....................................................................................................................

3-73.3 Transient Population

................................................................................................................

3-103.4 Em ployees ................................................................................................................................

3-143.5 M edical Facilities

......................................................................................................................

3-183.6 Total Dem and in Addition to Perm anent Population

..............................................................

3-183.7 Special Event ............................................................................................................................

3-183.8 Sum m ary of Dem and ...............................................................................................................

3-214 ESTIM ATION OF HIGHW AY CAPACITY

................................................................................................

4-14.1 Capacity Estim ations on Approaches to Intersections

..............................................................

4-24.2 Capacity Estim ation along Sections of Highw ay ........................................................................

4-44.3 Application to the CLN Study Area .............................................................................................

4-64.3.1 Tw o-Lane Roads .................................................................................................................

4-64.3.2 M ulti-Lane Highw ay ...........................................................................................................

4-64.3.3 Freew ays ............................................................................

................................................

4-74.3.4 Intersections

......................................................................................................................

4-84.4 Sim ulation and Capacity Estim ation ..........................................................................................

4-85 ESTIM ATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIM E ......................................................................................

5-15.1 Background

................................................................................................................................

5-15.2 Fundam ental Considerations

.....................................................................................................

5-35.3 Estim ated Tim e Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5 ...................................................

5-65.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Tim e Distribution

....................................................................

5-115.4.1 Statistical Outliers

............................................................................................................

5-125.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation

.................................................................................

5-155.4.3 Trip Generation for W aterw ays and Recreational Areas .................................................

5-176 DEM AND ESTIM ATION FOR EVACUATIO N SCENARIOS

.....................................................................

6-17 GENERAL POPULATION EVACUATIO N TIM E ESTIM ATES (ETE) ..........................................................

7-17.1 Voluntary Evacuation and Shadow Evacuation

.........................................................................

7-17.2 Staged Evacuation

......................................................................................................................

7-1Clinton Power Station i KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 7.3 Patterns of Traffic Congestion during Evacuation

.....................................................................

7-27.4 Evacuation Rates ........................................................................................................................

7-37.5 Evacuation Tim e Estim ate (ETE) Results ....................................................................................

7-47.6 Staged Evacuation Results .........................................................................................................

7-57.7 Guidance on Using ETE Tables ...................................................................................................

7-68 TRANSIT-DEPENDENT AND SPECIAL FACILITY EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES

.................................

8-18.1 Transit Dependent People Dem and Estim ate ............................................................................

8-28.2 School Population

-Transit Dem and .........................................................................................

8-38.3 M edical Facility Dem and ............................................................................................................

8-48.4 Evacuation Tim e Estim ates for Transit Dependent People .......................................................

8-48.5 Special Needs Population

...........................................................................................................

8-98.6 Correctional Facilities

...............................................................................................................

8-109 TRAFFIC M ANAGEM ENT STRATEGY

...................................................................................................

9-110 EVACUATION ROUTES ..................................................................................................................

1 0-111 SURVEILLANCE OF EVACUATION O PERATIONS

...........................................................................11-112 CO NFIRM ATIO N TIM E ..................................................................................................

....12-113 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................................

13-1List of Appendices A. GLOSSARY OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TERM S ..............................................................................

A-1B. DYNAMIC TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION MODEL ...................................................

B-1C. DYNEV TRAFFIC SIM ULATION M ODEL ..........................................................................................

C-1C.1 M ethodology

..............................................................................................................................

C-5C.1.1 The Fundam ental Diagram .............................................................................................

C-5C.1.2 The Sim ulation M odel ...................................................................................................

C-5C.1.3 Lane Assignm ent ..............................................................................................................

C-12C.2 Im plem entation

.......................................................................................................................

C-12C.2.1 Com putational Procedure

................................................................................................

C-12C.2.2 Interfacing w ith Dynam ic Traffic Assignm ent (DTRAD) ..............................................

C-15D. DETAILED DESCRIPTION O F STUDY PROCEDURE

..............................................................................

D-1E. SPECIAL FACILITY DATA ......................................................................................................................

E-1F. TELEPHONE SURVEY ...........................................................................................................................

F-1F.1 Introduction

...............................................................................................................................

F-1F.2 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................

F-1F.2.1 Household Dem ographic Results ...........................................................................................

F-2F.2.2 Evacuation Response

.............................................................................................................

F-4F.2.3 Tim e Distribution Results .......................................................................................................

F-6F.3 Conclusions

................................................................................................................................

F-9Clinton Power Station ii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 G. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .....................................................................................................

G-1G .i T raffic C o ntro l Po ints ................................................................................................................

G -iG .2 A ccess Co ntro l Po ints ................................................................................................................

G -iH. EVACUATION REGIONS .....................................................................................................................

H-1J. REPRESENTATIVE INPUTS TO AND OUTPUTS FROM THE DYNEV II SYSTEM .....................................

J-1K. EVACUATION ROADWAY NETWORK .............................................................................................

K-iL. Sub-area BO U N D A R IES ......................................................................................................................

L-1M. EVACUATION SENSITIVITY STUDIES ..........................................................................................

M-1M.1 Effect of Changes in Trip Generation Times .......................................................................

M-1M.2 Effect of Changes in the Number of People in the Shadow Region W ho Relocate

.................

M-2M.3 Effect of Changes in EPZ Resident Population

.........................................................................

M-3M.4 Enhancements in Evacuation Time ..........................................................................................

M-4N .ET E C R IT ERIA C H EC KLIST ...................................................................................................................

N -1Note: Appendix I intentionally skippedClinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateiiiKLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 List of FiguresFig u re 1-1. C LN Lo catio n ...........................................................................................................................

1-4Figure 1-2. CLN Link-Node Analysis Netw ork ............................................................................................

1-7Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology

.......................................................................................

2-4Fig u re 3 -1 .C LN E PZ ...................................................................................................................................

3 -3Figure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by Sector .............................................................................

3-5Figure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................

3-6Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by Sector .................................................................................................

3-8Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by Sector .....................................................................................................

3-9Figure 3-6. Transient Population by Sector .............................................................................................

3-12Figure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by Sector .................................................................................................

3-13Figure 3-8. Em ployee Population by Sector ............................................................................................

3-16Figure 3-9. Em ployee Vehicles by Sector ................................................................................................

3-17Figure 4-1. Fundam ental D iagram s ............................................................................................................

4-9Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation Trip ..............................................................

5-5Figure 5-2. Evacuation M obilization Activities

........................................................................................

5-10Figure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

......................................................

5-14Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions

.......................................................................

5-18Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the2 to 5 M ile R eg io n ....................................................................................................................................

5-20Figure 6-1. C LN EPZ Sub-areas

..................................................................................................................

6-5Figure 7-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology

.....................................................................................

7-13Figure 7-2. CLN Shadow Region ..............................................................................................................

7-14Figure 7-3. Congestion Patterns at 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate

....................................

7-15Figure 7-4. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour after the Advisory to Evacuate

............................................

7-16Figure 7-5. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 30 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate

..................

7-17Figure 7-6. Congestion Patterns at 1 Hour and 55 Minutes after the Advisory to Evacuate

..................

7-18Figure 7-7. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 1 for Region R02 ......................................................

7-19Figure 7-8. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 2 for Region R02 ......................................................

7-19Figure 7-9. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 3 for Region R02 ......................................................

7-20Figure 7-10. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 4 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-20Figure 7-11. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 5 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-21Figure 7-12. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 6 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-21Figure 7-13. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 7 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-22Figure 7-14. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 8 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-22Figure 7-15. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 9 for Region R02 ....................................................

7-23Figure 7-16. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 10 for Region R02 ..................................................

7-23Figure 7-17. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 11 for Region R02 ..................................................

7-24Figure 7-18. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 12 for Region R02 ..................................................

7-24Figure 7-19. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 13 for Region R02 ..................................................

7-25Figure 7-20. Evacuation Time Estimates

-Scenario 14 for Region R02 ..................................................

7-25Figure 8-1. Chronology of Transit Evacuation Operations

......................................................................

8-11Figure 8-2. Transit Dependent Bus Routes .............................................................................................

8-12Figure 10-1. G eneral Reception Centers ..................................................................................................

10-2Figure 10-2. M ajor Evacuation Routes ...................................................................................................

10-3Figure B-1. Flow Diagram of Simulation-DTRAD Interface

....................................................................

B-5Clinton Power Station iv KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure C-i. Representative Analysis Network ...........................................................................................

C-4Figure C-2. Fundam ental Diagram s ...........................................................................................................

C-6Figure C-3. A UNIT Problem Configuration w ith t, > 0 ..............................................................................

C-6Figure C-4. Flow of Sim ulation Processing (See Glossary:

Table C-3) ....................................................

C-14Figure D-1. Flow Diagram of Activities

.................................................................................................

D-5Figure E-1. Schools w ithin the CLN EPZ .....................................................................................................

E-7Figure E-2, Preschools

/ Daycares within the CLN EPZ ..............................................................................

E-8Figure E-3, Day Cam ps within the CLN EPZ ...............................................................................................

E-9Figure E-4, M edical Facilities w ithin the CLN EPZ ..............................................................................

E-1OFigure E-5. M ajor Em ployers within the CLN EPZ ..............................................................................

E-11Figure E-6, Recreational Areas w ithin the CLN EPZ .................................................................................

E-12Figure E-7. Lodging Facilities within the CLN EPZ ....................................................................................

E-13Figure E-8. Correctional Facilities within the CLN EPZ .............................................................................

E-14Figure F-1. Household Size in the EPZ .......................................................................................................

F-2Figure F-2, Household Vehicle Availability

................................................................................................

F-2Figure F-3. Com m uters in Households in the EPZ .....................................................................................

F-3Figure F-4, Num ber of Vehicles Used for Evacuation

...............................................................................

F-4Figure F-5. Com m uter Evacuation Response

........................................................................................

F-5Figure F-6, Tim e Required to Prepare to Leave W ork ...............................................................................

F-6Figure F-7. W ork to Hom e Travel Tim e .....................................................................................................

F-7Figure F-8, Tim e to Prepare Hom e for Evacuation

....................................................................................

F-8Figure F-9. Tim e to Clear Driveway of 6"-8" of Snow ...............................................................................

F-9.Figure G-1. Traffic and Access Control Points for the Clinton Power Station ..........................................

G-2Figure H-i. Region R01 .............................................................................................................................

H-3Figure H-2. Region R02 .............................................................................................................................

H-4Figure H-3. Region R03 .............................................................................................................................

H-5Figure H-4. Region R04 .............................................................................................................................

H-6Figure H-5. Region R05 .............................................................................................................................

H-7Figure H-6. Region R06 .............................................................................................................................

H-8Figure H-7. Region R07 .............................................................................................................................

H-9Figure H-8. Region R08 ...........................................................................................................................

H-1OFigure H-9. Region R09 ...........................................................................................................................

H-11Figure H-10. Region RiO .........................................................................................................................

H-12Figure H-11. Region R11 .........................................................................................................................

H-13Figure H-12. Region R12 .........................................................................................................................

H-14Figure H-13. Region RI3 .........................................................................................................................

H-15Figure H-14. Region R14 .........................................................................................................................

H-16Figure H-15. Region R15 .........................................................................................................................

H-17Figure H-16. Region Ri6 .........................................................................................................................

H-18Figure J-1. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

1) ..............

J-8Figure J-2. ETE and Trip Generation:

Sum m er, M idweek, M idday, Rain (Scenario

2) ...............................

J-8Figure J-3. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

3) ..........

J-9Figure J-4. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

4) ..........................

J-9Figure J-5. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek,

Weekend, Evening, GoodW eather (Scenario

5) ...............................................................................................................................

J-1OFigure J-6. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

6) ..............

J-10Figure J-7. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Rain (Scenario

7) ...........................

J-11Clinton Power Station v KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure J-8. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek, Midday, Snow (Scenario

8) ..........................

-11Figure J-9. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather (Scenario

9) ..............

J-12Figure J-10. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Rain (Scenario

10) ...........................

J-12Figure J-11. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Snow (Scenario

11) .........................

J-13Figure J-12. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Midweek,

Weekend, Evening, GoodW eathe r (Sce nario 12) .............................................................................................................................

J-13Figure 1-13. ETE and Trip Generation:

Winter, Weekend, Midday, Good Weather,Special Event (Scenario

13) ......................................................................................................................

J-14Figure J-14. ETE and Trip Generation:

Summer, Midweek, Midday, Good Weather,Roadw ay Im pact (Scenario

14) ................................................................................................................

J-14Figure K-1. Clinton Power Station Link-Node Analysis Network ...............................................................

K-2Figure K-2. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 1 ......................................................................................

K-3Figure K-3. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 2 ......................................................................................

K-4Figure K-4. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 3 ................................................................................

K-5Figure K-5. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 4 ......................................................................................

K-6Figure K-6. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 5 ......................................................................................

K-7Figure K-7. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 6 ......................................................................................

K-8Figure K-8. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 7 ......................................................................................

K-9Figure K-9. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 8 ..............................................................................

K-10Figure K-10. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 9 ............................................................................

K-11Figure K-1l. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 10 ................................................................................

K-12Figure K-12. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 11 ................................................................................

K-13Figure K-13. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 12 ................................................................................

K-14Figure K-14. Link-Node Analysis Network-Grid 13 ................................................................................

K-15Figure K-i5. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 14 ............................................................................

K-16Figure K-16. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 15 ................................................................................

K-17Figure K-17. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 16 ................................................................................

K-18Figure K-18. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 17 ................................................................................

K-19Figure K-19. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 18 ................................................................................

K-20Figure K-20. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 19 ................................................................................

K-21Figure K-21. Link-Node Analysis Network -Grid 20 ................................................................................

K-22Clinton Power Station vi KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 List of TablesTable 1-1. Stakeholder Interactio n ...........................................................................................................

1-1Table 1-2. H ighw ay Characteristics

...........................................................................................................

1-5Table 1-3. ETE Study Com parisons

............................................................................................................

1-9Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

...............................................................................................

2-3Table 2-2. M odel Adjustm ent for Adverse W eather .................................................................................

2-6Table 3-1. EPZ Perm anent Resident Population

.......................................................................................

3-4Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area

.....................................................

3-4Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by Sector .............................................................................

3-7Table 3-4. Sum m ary of Transients and Transient Vehicles

.....................................................................

3-11Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles

......................................

3-15Table 3-6. External Traffic Traveling through the CLN Study Area .........................................................

3-20Table 3-7. Sum m ary of Population Dem and ...........................................................................................

3-22Table 3-8. Sum m ary of V ehicle Dem and .................................................................................................

3-23Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities

................................................................................

5-3Table 5-2. Tim e Distribution for Notifying the Public ...............................................................................

5-6Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave Work ...................................................

5-7Table 5-4. Tim e Distribution for Com m uters to Travel Hom e ..................................................................

5-8Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to Evacuate

.......................................................

5-8Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow ........................................................

5-9Table 5-7. M apping Distributions to Events ............................................................................................

5-11Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions

.............................................................................................

5-12Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation

.....................

5-19Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation

.......................

5-21Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation Regions ...........................................................................................

6-4Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions

...............................................................................................

6-6Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios

............................................

6-7Table 6-4. V ehicle Estim ates by Scenario

..................................................................................................

6-8Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population

...........................

7-9Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population

.......................

7-10Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Radius within the Indicated Region .........................

7-11Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Radius within the Indicated Region .......................

7-11Table 7-5. Description of Evacuation Regions .........................................................................................

7-12Table 8-1. Transit-Dependent Population Estim ates ..............................................................................

8-13Table 8-2. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Population Demand Estimates

........................................

8-14Table 8-3. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Reception Centers ...........................................................

8-15Table 8-4. M edical Facility Transit Dem and ............................................................................................

8-16Table 8-5. Sum m ary of Transportation Resources

..................................................................................

8-17Table 8-6. Bus Route Descriptions

..........................................................................................................

8-18Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather ...................

8-19Table 8-8. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain ...................................

8-20Table 8-9. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow ..................................

8-21Table 8-10. Sum m ary of Transit-Dependent Bus Routes ........................................................................

8-22Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather ........................................

8-23Table 8-12. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain .........................................................

8-24Table 8-13. Transit Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow .......................................................

8-25Clinton Power Station vii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 8-14. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good Weather .............................................

8-26Table 8-15. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Rain ..............................................................

8-27Table 8-16. Medical Facility Evacuation Time Estimates

-Snow ............................................................

8-28Table 8-17. Homebound Special Needs Population Evacuation Time Estimates

....................................

8-28Table 12-i. Estimated Number of Telephone Calls Required for Confirmation of Evacuation

..............

12-2Table A-i. Glossary of Traffic Engineering Terms .................................................................................

A-iTable C-i. Selected Measures of Effectiveness Output by DYNEV II ........................................................

C-2Table C-2. Input Requirements for the DYNEV II Model ...........................................................................

C-3T a b le C -3 .G lo ssa ry ....................................................................................................................................

C -7Table E-i. Schools w ithin the EPZ .............................................................................................................

E-2Table E-2. Preschools

/ Daycares w ithin the EPZ ......................................................................................

E-2Table E-3. Day Cam ps w ithin the EPZ ........................................................................................................

E-3Table E-4. M edical Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-3Table E-5. M ajor Em ployers w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-4Table E-6. Recreational Areas w ithin the EPZ ............................................................................................

E-5Table E-7. Lodging Facilities w ithin the EPZ ..............................................................................................

E-6Table E-8. Correctional Facilities w ithin the EPZ .......................................................................................

E-6Table H-i. Percent of Sub-area Population Evacuating for Each Region .................................................

H-2Table J-i. Characteristics of the Ten Highest Volume Signalized Intersections

....................................

J-2Table J-2. Sam ple Sim ulation M odel Input ...............................................................................................

J-3Table J-3. Selected Model Outputs for the Evacuation of the Entire EPZ (Region R02) ...........................

J-4Table J-4. Average Speed (mph) and Travel Time (min) for Major Evacuation Routes(R e g io n R0 2, Sce n a rio 1) ............................................................................................................................

J-5Table J-5. Simulation Model Outputs at Network Exit Links for Region R02, Scenario 1 .........................

J-6Table K-1. Evacuation Roadway Network Characteristics

......................................................................

K-23Table K-2. Nodes in the Link-Node Analysis Network which are Controlled

...........................................

K-59Table M-1. Evacuation Time Estimates for Trip Generation Sensitivity Study ...................................

M-1Table M-2. Evacuation Time Estimates for Shadow Sensitivity Study ....................................................

M-2Table M-3. ETE Variation with Population Change .................................................................................

M-4Table N-1. ETE Review Criteria Checklist

............................................................................................

N-1Clinton Power Station viii KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to developEvacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Clinton Power Station (CLN) located in DeWitt County,Illinois.

ETE are part of the required planning basis and provide Exelon and state and localgovernments with site-specific information needed for Protective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by FederalGovernmental agencies.

Most important of these are:" NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation TimeEstimate Studies,"

November 2011. (NRC, 2011a)." NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times forEmergency Planning Zones," November, 1980. (NRC, 1980a)." NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation ofRadiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear PowerPlants,"

November 1980. (NRC, 1980b)" NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studiesfor Nuclear Power Plants,"

January 2005. (NRC, 2005)." Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 -Emergency Planning andPreparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 2011. (NRC, 2011b).Overview of Proiect Activities This project began in November, 2013 and extended over a period of 5 months. The majoractivities performed are briefly described in chronological sequence:

" Accessed U.S. Census Bureau data files for the year 2010. Studied Geographical Information Systems (GIS) maps of the area in the vicinity of CLN, then conducted adetailed field survey of the highway network.* Synthesized this information to create an analysis network representing the highwaysystem topology and capacities within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), plus aShadow Region covering the region between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15miles radially from the plant." Analyzed the results of a telephone survey of residents within the EPZ to gather focuseddata needed for this ETE study that were not contained within the census database.

Thesurvey instrument was reviewed and modified by the licensee and offsite responseorganization (ORO) personnel prior to conducting the survey." Data pertaining to employment, transients, and special facilities in the EPZ wereprovided by Exelon, and state and county agencies.

Clinton Power Station ES-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

" The traffic demand and trip-generation 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) computedusing the results of the telephone survey of EPZ residents.

" The EPZ is subdivided into 8 Sub-areas.

Following federal guidelines, these Sub-areas are grouped within circular areas or "keyhole" configurations (circles plus radial sectors)that define a total of 16 Evacuation Regions." The time-varying external circumstances are represented as Evacuation Scenarios, eachdescribed in terms of the following factors:

(1) Season (Summer, Winter);

(2) Day ofWeek (Midweek, Weekend);

(3) Time of Day (Midday, Evening);

and (4) Weather (Good,Rain, Snow). One special event scenario

-Apple and Pork Festival

-was considered.

One roadway impact scenario was considered wherein a single lane was closed on US-51South from US-51 Business to County Route 18 (CR-18)." Staged evacuation was considered wherein the 2 mile radius evacuates immediately, while population downwind to 5 miles shelters-in-place.

• As per NUREG/CR-7002, the Planning Basis for the calculation of ETE is:" A rapidly escalating accident at CLN that quickly assumes the status of GeneralEmergency such that the Advisory to Evacuate is virtually coincident with thesiren alert, and no early protective actions have been implemented.

" While an unlikely accident

scenario, this planning basis will yield ETE, measuredas the elapsed time from the Advisory to Evacuate until the stated percentage ofthe population exits the impacted Region, that represent "upper bound"estimates.

This conservative Planning Basis is applicable for all initiating events." If the emergency occurs while schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps are insession, the ETE study assumes that the children will be evacuated by bus directly toreception centers located outside the EPZ. Parents, relatives, and neighbors are advisedto not pick up their children at schools, preschools/daycares, and day camps prior to thearrival of the buses dispatched for that purpose.

The ETE for children at schools,preschools/daycares, and day camps are calculated separately.

" Evacuees who do not have access to a private vehicle will either ride-share withrelatives, friends or neighbors, or be evacuated by buses provided as specified in thecounty evacuation plans. Those in special facilities will likewise be evacuated withpublic transit, as needed: bus, wheelchair van, or ambulance, as required.

Separate ETEare calculated for the transit-dependent

evacuees, for homebound special needspopulation, and for those evacuated from special facilities.

Computation of ETEA total of 224 ETE were computed for the evacuation of the general public. Each ETE quantifies the aggregate evacuation time estimated for the population within one of the 16 Evacuation Regions to evacuate from that Region, under the circumstances defined for one of the 14Clinton Power Station ES-2 KILD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Evacuation Scenarios (16 x 14 = 224). Separate ETE are calculated for transit-dependent

evacuees, including schoolchildren for applicable scenarios.

Except for Region R02, which is the evacuation of the entire EPZ, only a portion of the peoplewithin the EPZ would be advised to evacuate.

That is, the Advisory to Evacuate applies only tothose people occupying the specified impacted region. It is assumed that 100 percent of thepeople within the impacted region will evacuate in response to this Advisory.

The peopleoccupying the remainder of the EPZ outside the impacted region may be advised to takeshelter.The computation of ETE assumes that 20% of the population within the EPZ but outside theimpacted region, will elect to "voluntarily" evacuate.

In addition, 20% of the population in theShadow Region will also elect to evacuate.

These voluntary evacuees could impede those whoare evacuating from within the impacted region. The impedance that could be caused byvoluntary evacuees is considered in the computation of ETE for the impacted region.The entire 2-mile radius and 5-mile radius for CLN is comprised of a single Sub-area

-Sub-area1. In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002, Sub-area 1 wasdivided into two pieces -the 2-mile radius and the remainder of the Sub-area excluding the 2-mile radius -as shown in Appendix H, Figure H-16. This postulated division of Sub-area 1 ispurely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETE impact of staged evacuation) and does notimply or require Exelon or the offsite agencies to divide the Sub-area in the public information or in their emergency plans. In the staged evacuation

analysis, the population within the 2-mileradius will evacuate immediately.

The population within the balance of Sub-area 1 will shelter-in-place until 90% of those in the 2-mile radius have evacuated across the 2-mile radius.The computational procedure is outlined as follows:" A link-node representation of the highway network is coded. Each link represents aunidirectional length of highway; each node usually represents an intersection or mergepoint. The capacity of each link is estimated based on the field survey observations andon established traffic engineering procedures.

• The evacuation trips are generated at locations called "zonal centroids" located withinthe EPZ and Shadow Region. The trip generation rates vary over time reflecting themobilization

process, and from one location (centroid) to another depending onpopulation density and on whether a centroid is within, or outside, the impacted area.* The evacuation model computes the routing patterns for evacuating vehicles that arecompliant with federal guidelines (outbound relative to the location of the plant), thensimulate the traffic flow movements over space and time. This simulation processestimates the rate that traffic flow exits the impacted region.The ETE statistics provide the elapsed times for 90 percent and 100 percent, respectively, of thepopulation within the impacted region, to evacuate from within the impacted region. Thesestatistics are presented in tabular and graphical formats.

The 90th percentile ETE have beenidentified as the values that should be considered when making protective action decisions because the 100th percentile ETE are prolonged by those relatively few people who take longerClinton Power Station ES-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 to mobilize.

This is referred to as the "evacuation tail" in Section 4.0 of NUREG/CR-7002.

Traffic Management This study references the comprehensive traffic management plan provided by the IllinoisEmergency Management Agency (IEMA).The ETE simulations discussed in Section 7.3 indicate minimal traffic congestion within the EPZ.As such, no additional traffic control points (TCPs) or access control points (ACPs) are identified as a result of this study. The existing traffic management plans are adequate.

See Section 9 andAppendix G.Selected ResultsA compilation of selected information is presented on the following pages in the form ofFigures and Tables extracted from the body of the report; these are described below." Figure 6-1 displays a map of the CLN EPZ showing the 8 Sub-areas that comprise, inaggregate, the EPZ." Table 3-1 presents the estimates of permanent resident population in each Sub-areabased on the 2010 Census data." Table 6-1 defines each of the 16 Evacuation Regions in terms of their respective groupsof Sub-areas.

" Table 6-2 defines the Evacuation Scenarios.

• Tables 7-1 and 7-2 are compilations of ETE. These data are the times needed to clearthe indicated regions of 90 and 100 percent of the population occupying these regions,respectively.

These computed ETE include consideration of mobilization time and ofestimated voluntary evacuations from other regions within the EPZ and from theShadow Region." Tables 7-3 and 7-4 present ETE for the 2-mile radius for un-staged and stagedevacuations for the 90th and 100th percentiles, respectively.

" Table 8-7 presents ETE for the schoolchildren in good weather." Table 8-11 presents ETE for the transit-dependent population in good weather." Figure H-8 presents an example of an Evacuation Region (Region R08) to be evacuated under the circumstances defined in Table 6-1. Maps of all regions are provided inAppendix H.Conclusions

" General population ETE were computed for 224 unique cases -a combination of 16unique Evacuation Regions and 14 unique Evacuation Scenarios.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2document these ETE for the 90th and 100th percentiles.

These ETE range from 1:10(hr:min) to 4:05 (special event) at the 90th percentile.

" Inspection of Table 7-2 indicates that the 100th percentile ETE for all Regions and for allScenarios, with the exception of the special event, are approximately equal tomobilization time. This result implies that the minimal congestion within the EPZdissipates prior to the end of mobilization; see Figure 7-3 through Figure 7-6.Clinton Power Station ES-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

" Inspection of Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 indicates that a staged evacuation protective action strategy provides no benefits to the population within the 2-mile radius. SeeSection 7.6 for additional discussion.

• Comparison of Scenarios 9 and 13 in Table 7-1 indicates that the Special Event -theApple and Pork Festival in Clinton -has a significant impact on the 90th percentile ETE(increases of up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 35 minutes) and on the 100th percentile ETE (increases ofup to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 30 minutes) for regions involving the evacuation of Clinton and therest of Sub-area

7. See Section 7.5 for additional discussion.

" Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 14 in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 indicates that events suchas adverse weather or traffic accidents which cause a roadway closure -i.e., one lanesouthbound on US-51 from US-51 Business to CR-18 -do not have a an impact on ETE atthe 90th or 100th percentiles.

" Clinton is the only area within the EPZ that experiences traffic congestion.

Allcongestion within the EPZ clears by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 55 minutes after the Advisory toEvacuate.

See Section 7.3 and Figures 7-3 through 7-6.* Separate ETE were computed for schools, preschools/daycares, day camps, medicalfacilities, transit-dependent

persons, and homebound special needs persons.

Theaverage single-wave ETE for these facilities are 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> longer than the generalpopulation ETE at the 90th percentile.

See Section 8." Table 8-5 indicates that there are enough buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances available to evacuate the transit-dependent population within the EPZ in a single wave.* The general population ETE at the 100th percentile is sensitive to changes in the basetrip generation time of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes.

CLN is a low population site withminimal congestion; therefore, ETE is dictated by trip generation.

See Table M-1." The general population ETE is unaffected by the voluntary evacuation of vehicles in theShadow Region. See Table M-2.* An increase in permanent resident population within the EPZ of 121% or more results in90th percentile ETE changes which meet the federal criteria for updating ETE betweendecennial Censuses.

See Section M.3.Clinton Power Station ES-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. CLN EPZ Sub-areas Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-6KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Su-ra20gopultio 2010 Poplaio11,6001,6492 211 2073 471 4884 169 1585 181 1706 1,007 9647 8,181 8,0958 1,004 944EPZ Population Growth: -1.16%Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-7KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation RegionsRegionI Sub-area IiDescription 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 .5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1Sub-areaRegionWind Direction Toward: 1 1.......

1 1 1I Region I Wind Direction Toward:2-Mile RadiusI Remainder of Sub-area 1 II R16 I5-Mile RegionClinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-8KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Se1 Sumeo iDoWeek id Day Weatp N ea1 Summer Midweek Midday Good None2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain NoneSumme~r ; Evnng GodNn5SummerWeekendEveningGoodNone6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good NoneWeekend13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Apple and PorkFestivalSingle Lane14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-51South1 Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn).

Summer assumes that school is notin session.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-9KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-1. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 90 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter SummerMidweek Weekend MdekMidweek Weekend MdekWeekend MidweekWeekend WeekendMidday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday MiddayRegion Good Good Good Good Rain Snow Rain Snow Good Special Roadway RegionWeather Weather r Weather Wethe ImpactEntire 2 and 5-Mile Region, and EPZR01 1:20 1:25S 1:10 11:10 1:25 J1:30 1:30 [1:55 1:20 ]1:20 1:50 1 1:25 T1:20 1:201 R01R02 1:55 1:55 1:45 1:50 1:45 1:55 11:55 12:10 1:50 1 1:50 2:05 1:45 1 4:00 1:55 R022 and 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ BoundaryR03 1:25 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:25 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:20 1:25 1:50 1:30 1:20 1:25 R03R04 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 R04ROS 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 1:55 ROSR06 1:55 1:55 1:50 1:50 1:50 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:55 1:55 2:00 1:50 1:55 1:55 R06R07 1:25 1:30 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:25 1:25 1:55 1:30 1:25 1:25 R07R08 1:25 1:25 1:15 1:15 1:30 1:35 1:35 2:00 1:25 1:25 1:50 1:30 1:25 1:25 R08R09 1:35 1:35 1:20 1:20 1:30 1:45 1:45 2:10 1:30 1:30 2:00 1:30 1:30 1:35 R09RIO 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:10 1:35 4:05 1:45 RIOR11 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:05 1:35 4:05 1:45 Rl1R12 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:35 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:35 1:40 2:10 1:35 4:00 1:45 R12R13 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:30 1:35 2:05 1:35 4:05 1:45 R13R14 1:45 1:45 1:30 1:30 1:35 1:50 1:50 2:15 1:30 1:35 2:10 1:35 4:05 1:45 R14R15 1:30 1:30 1:15 1:20 1:30 1:40 1:40 2:05 1:25 1:25 2:00 1:30 1:25 1:30 R15Staged Evacuation Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 MilesR16 1:20 1:25 1:15 11:15 1:25 1:30 1 1:301 1:55 1 1:20 1 1:20 1:50 1:25 1:20 1:20 R16Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-10KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-2. Time to Clear the Indicated Area of 100 Percent of the Affected Population Summer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter SummerMidweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend WeekendMidday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday MiddayRegion Good Rain Good Rain Good Good 1 Good Ra Good Special Roadway RegionWeather Weather Weather Weather Snow Weather Event ImpactEntire 2 and 5-Mile Region, and EPZR01 3:15 3:15 T3:15 3:15 3:15 ]3:15 3:15 14:15 [3:15 ]3:15 4:15 T3:15 [3:15 [3:15 [R01R02 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20] 4:20 [ 3:20 1 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:50 3:20 R022 and 5-Mile Region and Keyhole to EPZ BoundaryR03 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R03R04 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R04ROS 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 ROSR06 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R06R07 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R07RO8 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R08R09 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R09RIO 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:50 3:20 RIOR11 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:45 3:20 R11R12 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:45 3:20 R12R13 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:40 3:20 R13R14 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 5:40 3:20 R14R1S 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 4:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 R1SStaged Evacuation Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 MilesR16 3:15 13:15 3:15 13:15 3:15 1 3:20 13:201 4:15 3:15 13:151 4:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 R16Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-11KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 7-3. Time to Clear 90 Percent of the 2-Mile Radius within the Indicated RegionSummer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter SummerMidweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend WeekendMidday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday MiddayRegion Good Good R Good Good Good Rain Snow Good Special Roadway RegionRgo God Rain God Rain Rod God ain Snow R ainaSnow Weather Event Ipc ____Weather Weather Weather Weather Weather IWt ImpactUn-staged Evacuation Mile Radius2-Mile 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:05 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:00 11:00 1:05 1:05 1:00 1:00 2-MileRadius IJ RadiusUn-staged Evacuation Mile and 5-Mile RegionR01 1:00 1:00 1:00 11:00 1:05 1:00 11:00 1:00 1 1:00 I1:00 1:05 1:05 1:00 1:00 RO0Staged Evacuation Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 MilesR16 1:00 1:00 1:00 I1:00 1:05 1:00 I1:001 1:00 1:00 1:00 1:05 1:05 1:00 1:00 R16Table 7-4. Time to Clear 100 Percent of the 2-Mile Radius within the Indicated RegionSummer Summer Summer Winter Winter Winter Winter SummerMidweek Weekend Midweek Midweek Weekend Midweek Weekend MidweekWeekend WeekendMidday Midday Evening Midday Midday Evening Midday MiddayRegion Good i Good Good Good Good i Good Special Roadway RegionrRain W rRain WRain Snowh Rain Snow Weather Event ImpactWeather Weather Weather Weather WeatherUn-staged Evacuation Mile Radius2-Mile 2-MileRadius 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 4:15 3:15 3:15 4:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 RadiusUn-staged Evacuation Mile and S-Mile RegionR01 3:15 3:15 3:15 13:15 3:15 3:15 13:151 4:15 1 3:15 13:15 1 4:15 3:15 3:15 3:15 R01Staged Evacuation Mile Radius and Keyhole to 5 MilesR16 3:15 T3:151 3:15 13:151 3:15 3:15 13:151 4:15 1 3:15 13:151 4:15 1 3:15 1 3:15 1 3:15 R16Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-12KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-7. School, Preschool, and Day Camp Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good WeatherClinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-13KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 8-11. Transit-Dependent Evacuation Time Estimates

-Good WeatherWeldonFire HouseI120 I 6.3 I 55.073021.5235103730ClintonAssembly of 1-3 120 6.6 55.0 7 30God ChurchClintonFirst Christian 1-2 120 9.3 55.0 10 30ChurchWapella FireHouseMaximum ETE:Average ETE:12.3 13 5 10 27 3016.4 18 5 10 38 3016.4185102830Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-14KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure H-8. Region R08Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time EstimateES-15KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the analyses undertaken and the results obtained by a study to developEvacuation Time Estimates (ETE) for the Clinton Power Station (CLN), located in DeWitt County,Illinois.

ETE provide State and local governments with site-specific information needed forProtective Action decision-making.

In the performance of this effort, guidance is provided by documents published by FederalGovernmental agencies.

Most important of these are:* NUREG/CR-7002, SAND 2010-0061P, "Criteria for Development of Evacuation TimeEstimate Studies,"

November 2011. (NRC, 2011a)* NUREG/CR-1745, "Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times forEmergency Planning Zones," November, 1980. (NRC, 1980a)* NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation ofRadiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of NuclearPower Plants,"

November 1980. (NRC, 1980b)* NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900, "Development of Evacuation Time EstimateStudies for Nuclear Power Plants,"

January 2005. (NRC, 2005)* Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix E to Part 50 -Emergency Planningand Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, 2011. (NRC, 2011b)The work effort reported herein was supported and guided by local stakeholders whocontributed suggestions, critiques, and the local knowledge base required.

Table 1-1 presents asummary of stakeholders and interactions.

Table 1-1. Stakeholder Interaction Stkeole Naur of Stkeole Interaction Provided data (telephone survey, employees, transients, special facilities, transit resources)

Exelon needed for the study. Coordinated information exchange with offsite response organizations.

Reviewed draft report and provided comments.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) Provided existing emergency plan, including trafficDeWitt County and access control points and other information Macon County critical to the ETE study. Provided special facilityMcLean County data. Engaged in the ETE development andPiatt County informed of the study results.Provided data for the Special Event -Apple andDeWitt County Museum AssociationFestival.

Clinton Power Station 1-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 1.1 Overview of the ETE ProcessThe 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 Exelon.b. Conducted bi-weekly conference calls with Exelon to identify issues to beaddressed and resources available.

c. Conducted a detailed field survey of the highway system and of area trafficconditions within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) and Shadow Region.d. Obtained demographic data from the 2010 Census and from Exelon.e. Obtained results of a random sample telephone survey of EPZ residents fromExelon.f. Obtained data from Exelon and local offsite response organizations (OROs) toidentify and describe

schools, special facilities, major employers, transient attractions, transportation providers, and other important information.

2. Estimated distributions of Trip Generation times representing the time required byvarious population groups (permanent residents, employees, and transients) to prepare(mobilize) for the evacuation trip. These estimates are primarily based upon therandom sample telephone survey.3. Defined Evacuation Scenarios.

These scenarios reflect the variation in demand, in tripgeneration distribution and in highway capacities, associated with different

seasons, dayof week, time of day and weather conditions.

4. Reviewed the existing traffic management plan to be implemented by local and statepolice in the event of an incident at the plant. Traffic and access control are applied atspecified Traffic Control Points (TCP) and Access Control Points (ACP) located within thestudy area.5. Utilized the 8 existing Sub-areas which generally follow township boundaries and majorroadways to define Evacuation Regions.

"Regions" are groups of contiguous Sub-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 thatapproximate circular areas, approximates a "key-hole section" within the EPZ asrecommended by NUREG/CR-7002.

6. Estimated demand for transit services for persons at special facilities and for transit-dependent persons at home.7. Prepared the input streams for the DYNEV II system.a. Estimated the evacuation traffic demand, based on the available information derived from Census data, and from data provided by local and state agencies, Clinton Power Station 1-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Exelon and from the telephone survey.b. Applied the procedures specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual to thedata acquired during the field survey, to estimate the capacity of all highwaysegments comprising the evacuation routes (TRB, 2010).c. Developed the link-node representation of the evacuation

network, which isused as the basis for the computer analysis that calculates the ETE.d. Calculated the evacuating traffic demand for each Region and for each Scenario.

e. Specified selected candidate destinations for each "origin" (location of each"source" where evacuation trips are generated over the mobilization time) tosupport evacuation travel consistent with outbound movement relative to thelocation of the CLN.8. Executed the DYNEV II model to determine optimal evacuation routing and compute ETEfor all residents, transients and employees

("general population")

with access to privatevehicles.

Generated a complete set of ETE for all specified Regions and Scenarios.

9. Documented ETE in formats in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002.

10. Calculated the ETE for all transit activities including those for special facilities (schools, preschools, day camps, and medical facilities),

for the transit-dependent population andfor homebound special needs population.

1.2 The Clinton Power Station LocationThe CLN is located along the shores of Lake Clinton in DeWitt County, Illinois.

The site isapproximately 135 miles south-southwest of Chicago, IL and 145 miles west-northwest ofIndianapolis, Indiana.

The EPZ consists of parts of DeWitt, Macon, McLean, and Piatt Counties inIllinois.

Figure 1-1 displays the area surrounding the CLN. This map shows the location of plantrelative to nearby major cities, and identifies the population centers and major roads in thearea.Clinton Power Station 1-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 1-1. CLN LocationClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate1-4KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 1.3 Preliminary Activities These activities are described below.Field Surveys of the Highway NetworkKLD personnel drove the entire highway system within the EPZ and the Shadow Region whichconsists of the area between the EPZ boundary and approximately 15 miles radially from theplant. The characteristics of each section of highway were recorded.

These characteristics areshown in Table 1-2:Table 1-2. Highway Characteristics

• Number of lanes 0 Posted speed* Lane width 0 Actual free speed* Shoulder type & width 0 Abutting land use* Interchange geometries 0 Control devices* Lane channelization

& queuing 0 Intersection configuration (including capacity (including turn bays/lanes) roundabouts where applicable)

• Geometrics:

curves, grades (>4%) 0 Traffic signal type* Unusual characteristics:

Narrow bridges, sharp curves, poor pavement, flood warningsigns, inadequate delineations, toll booths, etc.Video and audio recording equipment were used to capture a permanent record of the highwayinfrastructure.

No attempt was made to meticulously measure such attributes as lane widthand shoulder width; estimates of these measures based on visual observation and recordedimages were considered appropriate for the purpose of estimating the capacity of highwaysections.

For example, Exhibit 15-7 in the HCM indicates that a reduction in lane width from 12feet (the "base" value) to 10 feet can reduce free flow speed (FFS) by 1.1 mph -not a materialdifference

-for two-lane highways.

Exhibit 15-30 in the HCM shows little sensitivity for theestimates of Service Volumes at Level of Service (LOS) E (near capacity),

with respect to FFS, fortwo-lane 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 thetraffic control devices observed during the road survey; this information was referenced whilepreparing the input stream for the DYNEV II System.As documented on page 15-5 of the HCM 2010, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1,700passenger cars per hour in one direction.

For freeway sections, a value of 2,250 vehicles perhour per lane is assigned, as per Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. The road survey has identified several segments which are characterized by adverse geometrics on two-lane highways whichare reflected in reduced values for both capacity and speed. These estimates are consistent with the service volumes for LOS E presented in HCM Exhibit 15-30. These links may beClinton Power Station 1-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 identified by reviewing Appendix K. Link capacity is an input to DYNEV II which computes theETE. Further discussion of roadway capacity is provided in Section 4 of this report.Traffic signals are either pre-timed (signal timings are fixed over time and do not change withthe traffic volume on competing approaches),

or are actuated (signal timings vary over timebased on the changing traffic volumes on competing approaches).

Actuated signals requiredetectors 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 thesignal masts and pointed toward the intersection approaches.

If detectors were observed onthe approaches to a signalized intersection during the road survey, detailed signal timings werenot collected as the timings vary with traffic volume. TCPs at locations which have controldevices are represented as actuated signals in the DYNEV II system.If no detectors were observed, the signal control at the intersection was considered pre-timed, and detailed signal timings were gathered for several signal cycles. These signal timings wereinput to the DYNEV II system used to compute ETE, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

Figure 1-2 presents the link-node analysis network that was constructed to model theevacuation roadway network in the EPZ and Shadow Region. The directional arrows on the linksand the node numbers have been removed from Figure 1-2 to clarify the figure. The detailedfigures provided in Appendix K depict the analysis network with directional arrows shown andnode numbers provided.

The observations made during the field survey were used to calibrate the analysis network.Telephone SurveyThe results of a telephone survey conducted in 2011 were obtained to gather information needed for the evacuation study. Appendix F presents the survey instrument, the procedures used and tabulations of data compiled from the survey returns.These data were utilized to develop estimates of vehicle occupancy to estimate the number ofevacuating vehicles during an evacuation and to estimate elements of the mobilization process.This database was also referenced to estimate the number of transit-dependent residents.

Computing the Evacuation Time Estimates The overall study procedure is outlined in Appendix D. Demographic data were obtained fromseveral sources, as detailed later in this report. These data were analyzed and converted intovehicle demand data. The vehicle demand was loaded onto appropriate "source" links of theanalysis network using GIS mapping software.

The DYNEV II system was then used to computeETE for all Regions and Scenarios.

Analytical ToolsThe 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 undercontract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Clinton Power Station 1-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 1-2. CLN Link-Node Analysis NetworkClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate1-7KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 DYNEV II consists of four sub-models:

• A macroscopic traffic simulation model (for details, see Appendix C)." A Trip Distribution (TD), model that assigns a set of candidate destination (D) nodes foreach "origin" (0) located within the analysis

network, where evacuation trips are"generated" over time. This establishes a set of O-D tables.* A Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA), model which assigns trips to paths of travel(routes) which satisfy the O-D tables, over time. The TD and DTA models are integrated to form the DTRAD (Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Distribution) model, as described inAppendix 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 outputtables.The dynamics of traffic flow over the network are graphically animated using the softwareproduct, EVAN (EVacuation ANimator),

developed by KLD. EVAN is GIS based, and displaysstatistics such as LOS, vehicles discharged, average speed, and percent of vehicles evacuated, output by the DYNEV II System. The use of a GIS framework enables the user to zoom in onareas of congestion and query road name, town name and other geographical information.

The procedure for applying the DYNEV II System within the framework of developing ETE isoutlined in Appendix D. Appendix A is a glossary of terms.For the reader interested in an evaluation of the original model, I-DYNEV, the following references are suggested:

" NUREG/CR-4873, PNL-6171, "Benchmark Study of the I-DYNEV Evacuation TimeEstimate Computer Code," (NRC, 1988a)." NUREG/CR-4874, PNL-6172, "The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes inInput Parameters for the I-DYNEV Computer Code," (NRC, 1988b).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 trafficdemand 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 theCLN.DYNEV II provides a detailed description of traffic operations on the evacuation network.

Thisdescription enables the analyst to identify bottlenecks and to develop countermeasures thatare designed to represent the behavioral responses of evacuees.

The effects of thesecountermeasures may then be tested with the model.Clinton Power Station 1-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 1.4 Comparison with Prior ETE StudyTable 1-3 presents a comparison of the present ETE study with the 2006 ETE study. The ETEvalues obtained in this study are 15 minutes longer than those in the 2006 study. The following summarizes major differences in this study relative to the 2006 study:" Trip-generation rates are based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents and are up to 45 minutes longer in this study for households awaiting the return ofcommuters prior to evacuating.

This can prolong ETE." Vehicle occupancy is based on the results of a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Basedon the results of the survey, average vehicle occupancy is 27% which results in 27%more evacuating vehicles and can lead prolong ETE." Voluntary and shadow evacuations are considered, which can prolong ETE." Resident population has decreased slightly (1%); employee population has decreased by75% as the previous study considered a refueling outage at the plant; transient population has decreased by 69% -the transient estimates in the 2006 study areoverstated as the facilities lack the parking and amenities to accommodate the peopleand vehicles estimated.

All of these reductions in population can reduce ETE." The highway representation is far more detailed, which can reduce ETE." Dynamic evacuation modeling used which adjusts routing to avoid traffic congestion tothe extent feasible (similar to a modern GPS), which can reduce ETE.Those factors which can prolong ETE outweigh those factors that reduce ETE, resulting in theincreased ETE in this study relative to the 2006 study.Table 1-3. ETE Study Comparisons To-ic Prviu 0 T Std Curn tdResident Population Basis2000 Census DataPopulation

= 12,830ArcGIS Software using 2010 US Census blocks;area ratio method used.Population

= 12,6752.23 persons/household, 1.25 evacuating Resident Population 2.44 persons per vehicle (one 2 e rsons/householdyielding cua.78Vehicle Occupancy vehicle per household).

persons/vehicle.

Data reproduced from 1993study. Employee estimates based on information provided by Exelon, phone calls to someEmployee Employees

= 2,612 employers, supplemented with US CensusPopulation Number of employees at CLN Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics.

during outage considered Employees

= 418(1,700)Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate1-9KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 To-ic Prviu ET StdIurn tdTransit-Dependent Population Not considered Estimates based upon U.S. Census data, resultsof the telephone survey, and data provided byDeWitt County. A total of 200 people who donot have access to a vehicle, requiring 7 busesto evacuate.

An additional 14 homebound special needs persons needed specialtransportation to evacuate, all of which requirea wheelchair-accessible vehicle.Transient estimates based upon information Data reproduced from 1993 provided by Exelon, supplemented with aerialTransient study. imagery of parking lots of some of theTransients

= 15,521 recreation facilities.

Transients

= 4,867Special facility population based on information provided by Exelon and phone calls to someData reproduced from 1993 medical facilities.

study. Current census = 248Special Facilities Special Facility Population

= Buses Required

= 5Population 308 Wheelchair Vans Required

= 26Vehicles originating at special Ambulances Required

= 0facilities

= 114 Current Census includes 80 individuals atDeWitt County Jail, which shelters-in-place.

Therefore no buses are required for the jail.Data reproduced from 1993study. School population based on information School enrollment

= 2,900 provided by Exelon.School Population Preschool enrolment

= 176 School enrollment

= 2,153Vehicles originating at schools Preschool enrollment

= 110and preschools

= 474 Day Camp enrollment

= 540Day camps included in Buses required

= 62transient population Voluntary evacuation from 20 percent of the population within the EPZ,within EPZ in areas Not considered but not within the Evacuation Region (seeoutside region to be Figure 2-1)evacuated 20% of people outside of the EPZ within theShadow Evacuation Not considered Shadow Region(see Figure 7-2)Network Size 115 links 875 links; 735 nodesClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate1-10KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 To-icPeiuT

-S td Curn -T StudRoadway Geometric DataTaken from 1993 studyField surveys conducted in January 2014. Roadsand intersections were video archived.

Road capacities based on 2010 HCM.Direct evacuation to Direct evacuation to designated Reception designated Reception Center. Center.Ridlesharing Not considered 50 percent of transit-dependent persons willevacuate with a neighbor or friend.The assumptions and Based on residential telephone survey ofdeparture time distributions specific pre-trip mobilization activities:

used for the ETE analysis are Residents with commuters returning leavethe same as those used for the between 30 and 195 minutes.Trip Generation for 1993 study. Residents without commuters returning leaveEvacuation between 15 and 150 minutes.Residents leave within 150 Employees and transients leave between 15minutes.

and 105 minutes.No other values specified.

All times measured from the Advisory toEvacuate.

Normal, Rain, or Snow. The Normal, Rain, or Snow. The capacity and freecapacity and free flow speed flow speed of all links in the network areWeather of all links in the network are reduced by 10% in the event of rain and 20%reduced by 20% in the event for snow.of rain and 30% for snow.Modeling NetVac2 DYNEV II System -Version 4.0.18.0Apple and Pork FestivalSpecial Events None considered Special Event Population

= 62,263 additional transients 16 Regions (central sector wind direction andEvacuation Cases 15 Regions and 4 Scenarios each adjacent sector technique used) and 14Scenarios producing 224 unique cases.ETE reported for the 100th tETE epoted or he 1 0th ETE reported for 90th and 100th percentile Evacuation Time percentile population.

Results po rted f ra 1ent ilepopulation.

Results presented by Region andEstimates Reporting presented by Region and Scenario.

Scenario.

Winter Weekday Midday, Winter Midweek Midday,Evacuation Time Good Weather:

3:05 Good Weather:

3:20Estimates for theentire EPZ, 100thpercentile Summer Weekend, Midday, Summer Weekend, Midday,Good Weather:

3:05 Good Weather:

3:201-11 KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate1-11KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 2 STUDY ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS This section presents the estimates and assumptions utilized in the development of theevacuation time estimates.

2.1 Data Estimates

1. Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data.2. Estimates of employees who reside outside the EPZ and commute to work within theEPZ are based upon data provided by Exelon, phone calls to individual employers, andthe US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics tools (see Section 3.4).3. Population estimates at special and transient facilities are based on data provided byExelon, state and county agencies, and phone calls to medical facilities.

4. Roadway capacity estimates are based on field surveys and the application of theHighway Capacity Manual 2010.5. Population mobilization times are based on a statistical analysis of data acquired from arandom sample telephone survey of EPZ residents (see Section 5 and Appendix F).6. The relationship between resident population and evacuating vehicles is developed from the telephone survey. Average values of 2.23 persons per household (SeeAppendix F, Figure F-i) and 1.25 evacuating vehicles per household (Figure F-4) areused. The relationship between persons and vehicles for employees, transients, and thespecial event is as follows:a. Employees:

one employee per vehicle.b. Transients:

varies from 2.00 to 2.23 persons per vehicle depending on the typeof facility.

c. Special Event: Apple and Pork Festival has an estimated occupancy of 2.23persons per vehicle (average household size from telephone survey).Clinton Power Station 2-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 2.2 Study Methodological Assumptions

1. ETE are presented for the evacuation of the 90th and 100th percentiles of population foreach Region and for each Scenario.

The percentile ETE is defined as the elapsed timefrom the Advisory to Evacuate issued to a specific Region of the EPZ, to the time thatRegion is clear of the indicated percentile of evacuees.

A Region is defined as a group ofSub-areas that is issued an Advisory to Evacuate.

A scenario is a combination ofcircumstances, including time of day, day of week, season, and weather conditions.

2. The ETE are computed and presented in tabular format and graphically, in a formatcompliant with NUREG/CR-7002.

3. Evacuation movements (paths of travel) are generally outbound relative to the plant tothe extent permitted by the highway network.

All major evacuation routes are used inthe analysis.

4. Regions are defined by the underlying "keyhole" or circular configurations as specified inSection 1.4 of NUREG/CR-7002.

These Regions, as defined, display irregular boundaries reflecting the geography of the Sub-areas included within these underlying configurations.

5. As indicated in Figure 2-2 of NUREG/CR-7002, 100% of people within the impacted"keyhole" evacuate.

20% of those people within the EPZ, not within the impactedkeyhole, will voluntarily evacuate.

20% of those people within the Shadow Region willvoluntarily evacuate.

See Figure 2-1 for a graphical representation of these evacuation percentages.

Sensitivity studies explore the effect on ETE of increasing the percentage of voluntary evacuees in the Shadow Region (see Appendix M).6. A total of 14 "Scenarios" representing different temporal variations (season, time ofday, day of week) and weather conditions are considered.

These Scenarios are outlinedin Table 2-1.7. Scenario 14 considers the closure of a single lane on US-51 South from US-51 Businessto County Road (CR) 18.8. The models of the I-DYNEV System were recognized as state of the art by the AtomicSafety & Licensing Board (ASLB) in past hearings (NRC, 1988a). The models havecontinuously 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.

The DYNEVII System is used to compute ETE in this study.Clinton Power Station 2-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 2-1. Evacuation Scenario Definitions 1SummerMidweekMiddayGoodNone2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None5 Summer Midweek, Evening Good NoneSummer Weekend6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None12 Wnter Midweek,12 Winter Weekend Evening Good None13 Winter Weekend Midday Good Apple and PorkFestivalSingle Lane14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-51SouthI Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn).

Summer assumes that school is notin session.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate2-3KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure 2-1. Voluntary Evacuation Methodology Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate2-4KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 2.3 Study Assumptions

1. The Planning Basis Assumption for the calculation of ETE is a rapidly escalating accidentthat requires evacuation, and includes the following:

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

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

c. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

2. It is assumed that everyone within the group of Sub-areas forming a Region that isissued an Advisory to Evacuate will, in fact, respond and evacuate in general accord withthe planned routes.3. 53 percent of the households in the EPZ have at least 1 commuter (see Figure F-3); 51percent of those households with commuters will await the return of a commuterbefore beginning their evacuation trip (see Figure F-5), based on the telephone surveyresults.

Therefore 27 percent (53% x 51% = 27%) of EPZ households will await the returnof a commuter, prior to beginning their evacuation trip.4. The ETE will also include consideration of "through" (External-External) trips during thetime that such traffic is permitted to enter the evacuated Region. "Normal" traffic flowis assumed to be present within the EPZ at the start of the emergency.

5. Access Control Points (ACP) will be staffed within approximately 120 minutes following the siren notifications, to divert traffic attempting to enter the EPZ. Earlier activation ofACP locations could delay returning commuters.

It is assumed that no through traffic willenter the EPZ after this 120 minute time period.6. Traffic Control Points (TCP) within the EPZ will be staffed over time, beginning at theAdvisory to Evacuate.

Their number and location will depend on the Region to beevacuated and resources available.

The objectives of these TCP are:a. Facilitate the movements of all (mostly evacuating) vehicles at the location.

b. Discourage inadvertent vehicle movements towards the plant.c. Provide assurance and guidance to any traveler who is unsure of the appropriate actions or routing.d. Act as local surveillance and communications center.e. Provide information to the emergency operations center (EOC) as needed, basedon direct observation or on information provided by travelers.

In calculating ETE, it is assumed that evacuees will drive safely, travel in directions identified in the plans, and obey all control devices and traffic guides.7. Buses will be used to transport those without access to private vehicles:

a. If schools are in session, transport (buses) will evacuate students directly to thedesignated Reception Centers.b. If preschools and day camps are in session, transport (buses) will evacuatestudents directly to the designated Reception Centers.Clinton Power Station 2-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

c. Buses, wheelchair vans, and ambulances will evacuate patients at medicalfacilities within the EPZ as needed.d. Transit-dependent general population will be evacuated to Reception Centers.e. Schoolchildren, if school is in session, are given priority in assigning transitvehicles.

f. Bus mobilization time is considered in ETE calculations.

g. Analysis of the number of required round-trips

("waves")

of evacuating transitvehicles is presented.

8. Provisions are made for evacuating the transit-dependent portion of the generalpopulation to reception centers by bus, based on the assumption that some of thesepeople will ride-share with family, neighbors, and friends, thus reducing the demand forbuses. We assume that the percentage of people who rideshare is 50 percent.

Thisassumption is based upon reported experience for other emergencies, and on guidancein Section 2.2 of NUREG/CR-7002 (IES, 1981).9. Two types of adverse weather scenarios are considered.

Rain may occur for eitherwinter or summer scenarios; snow occurs in winter scenarios only. It is assumed that therain or snow begins earlier or at about the same time the evacuation advisory is issued.No weather-related reduction in the number of transients who may be present in theEPZ is assumed.

It is assumed that roads are passable and that the appropriate agenciesare plowing the roads as they would normally when snowing.Adverse weather scenarios affect roadway capacity and the free flow highway speeds.The factors applied for the ETE study are based on recent research on the effects ofweather on roadway operations; the factors are shown in Table 2-2 (Agarwal, 2005).10. School buses used to transport students are assumed to transport 70 students per busfor elementary schools and preschools and 50 students per bus for middle and highschools and 30 students per bus for day camps. Transit buses used to transport thetransit-dependent general population are assumed to transport 30 people per bus.Buses evacuating patients from medical facilities can transport 30 ambulatory peopleper bus; 4 wheelchair bound persons per wheelchair van; and 2 bedridden patients perambulance.

Table 2-2. Model Adjustment for Adverse WeatherRain 90% 90% No EffectSnow 80% 80% Clear driveway before leaving home (See Figure F-9)*Adverse weather capacity and speed values are given as a percentage of good weatherconditions.

Roads are assumed to be passable.

Clinton Power Station 2-6 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 criticalelement in developing an evacuation plan. These estimates consist of three components:

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

employee, transient).

2. An estimate, for each population group, of mean occupancy per evacuating vehicle.

This estimate is used to determine the number of evacuating vehicles.

3. An estimate of potential double-counting of vehicles.

Appendix E presents much of the source material for the population estimates.

Our primarysource of population data, the 2010 Census, however, is not adequate for directly estimating some transient groups.Throughout the year, vacationers and tourists enter the EPZ. These non-residents may dwellwithin the EPZ for a short period (e.g. a few days or one or two weeks), or may enter and leavewithin one day. Estimates of the size of these population components must be obtained, sothat the associated number of evacuating vehicles can be ascertained.

The potential for double-counting people and vehicles must be addressed.

For example:" A resident who works and shops within the EPZ could be counted as a resident, again asan employee and once again as a shopper." A visitor who stays at a hotel and spends time at a park, then goes shopping could becounted three times.Furthermore, the number of vehicles at a location depends on time of day. For example, motelparking lots may be full at dawn and empty at noon. Similarly, parking lots at area parks, whichare full at noon, may be almost empty at dawn. Estimating counts of vehicles by simply addingup the capacities of different types of parking facilities will tend to overestimate the number oftransients and can lead to ETE that are too conservative.

Analysis of the population characteristics of the CLN EPZ indicates the need to identify threedistinct 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 specificpurpose (camping, visit a park) and then leave the area." Employees

-people who reside outside of the EPZ and commute to businesses withinthe EPZ on a daily basis.Estimates of the population and number of evacuating vehicles for each of the population groups are presented for each Sub-area and by polar coordinate representation (population rose). The CLN EPZ is subdivided into 8 Sub-areas.

The EPZ is shown in Figure 3-1.Clinton Power Station 3-1 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. Theaverage household size (2.23 persons/household

-See Figure F-i) and the number ofevacuating vehicles per household (1.25 vehicles/household

-See Figure F-4) were adaptedfrom the telephone survey results.Population estimates are based upon Census 2010 data. The estimates are created by cuttingthe census block polygons by the Sub-area and EPZ boundaries.

A ratio of the original area ofeach census block and the updated area (after cutting) is multiplied by the total blockpopulation to estimate what the population is within the EPZ. This methodology assumes thatthe population is evenly distributed across a census block. Table 3-1 provides the permanent resident population within the EPZ by Sub-area based on this methodology.

The year 2010 permanent resident population is divided by the average household size andthen multiplied by the average number of evacuating vehicles per household in order toestimate the number of vehicles.

Permanent resident population and vehicle estimates arepresented in Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 present the permanent resident population and permanent resident vehicle estimates by sector and distance from CLN. This "rose" wasconstructed using GIS software.

It can be argued that this estimate of permanent residents overstates,

somewhat, the numberof evacuating

vehicles, especially during the summer. It is certainly reasonable to assert thatsome portion of the population would be on vacation during the summer and would travelelsewhere.

A rough estimate of this reduction can be obtained as follows:" Assume 50 percent of all households vacation for a two-week period over the summer." Assume these vacations, in aggregate, are uniformly dispersed over 10 weeks, i.e. 10percent of the population is on vacation during each two-week interval.

" Assume half of these vacationers leave the area.On this basis, the permanent resident population would be reduced by 5 percent in the summerand by a lesser amount in the off-season.

Given the uncertainty in this estimate, we elected toapply no reductions in permanent resident population for the summer scenarios to account forresidents who may be out of the area.3.1.1 Special Facilities The DeWitt County Jail and several medical facilities are located within the EPZ (see Table E-4and Table E-8). These facilities have permanent residents that are included in the Census;however, the correctional facility will shelter-in-place (based on discussions with Exelon),

andthe medical facilities are transit dependent (will not evacuate in personal vehicles) and areaddressed in Section 8. As such, the residents of these facilities are included in the EPZ residentpopulation, but no evacuating vehicles are considered for these residents.

The vehicles in Table3-2 and Figure 3-3 have been adjusted accordingly.

Clinton Power Station 3-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Figure 3-1. CLN EPZClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-3KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-1. EPZ Permanent Resident Population Sub-area 2000 Oouoto. o11,6001,6492 211 2073 471 4884 169 1585 181 1706 1,007 9647 8,181 8,0958 1,004 944EPZ Population Growth: -1.16%Table 3-2. Permanent Resident Population and Vehicles by Sub-area1 1,649 9342 207 1173 488 2714 158 875 170 986 964 5397 8,095 4,4358 944 529Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-4KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNWF68-- 0N1l391NNEI 207%- --0 70 -WNWE795]ENEF577W3,9114-jIIE1l62-WSW %99SW431--Resident Population ESEF-80-1-S 0SSW2 10--0SF7-91F105I10 Miles to EPZ BoundaryN/0/0 EMiles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 0 01-2 47 472-3 368 41533-4 332 7474-5 296 1,0435-6 1,246 2,2896-7 4,236 6,5257-8 4,323 10,8488-9 771 11,6199-10 531 12,15010 -EPZ 525 12,675Total: 12,675WInset 2 Miles SFigure 3-2. Permanent Resident Population by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-5KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNWNF-78INNEl1919-38--0 -WNWF4451ENEF3221IWWSW-JIIEF9-3!-ESEF45-- 0SSWF12-00SF45Resident VehiclesMiles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 0 01-2 26 262-3 208 2343-4 188 4224-5 168 5905 -6 698 1,2886- 7 2,336 3,6247-8 2,369 5,9938-9 428 6,4219-10 295 6,71610 -EPZ 294 7,010Total: 7,01010 Miles to EPZ BoundaryN130 0 00 40-~ 0 0 EWInset0 -2 Miles SFigure 3-3. Permanent Resident Vehicles by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-6KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.2 Shadow Population A portion of the population living outside the evacuation area extending to 15 miles radiallyfrom the CLN (in the Shadow Region) may elect to evacuate without having been instructed todo so. Based upon NUREG/CR-7002

guidance, it is assumed that 20 percent of the permanent resident population, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, in this Shadow Region will elect toevacuate.

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

Table 3-3, Figure 3-4, and Figure 3-5 present estimates of the shadow population and vehicles, by sector.Note there is a medical facility

-Farmer City Rehab and Health Care -within the ENE sector ofthe Shadow Region. The Census block for this facility indicates a resident population with nohouseholds assigned.

This block was filtered out and not included as part of the shadowpopulation as medical facilities outside of the EPZ would shelter-in-place.

Table 3-3. Shadow Population and Vehicles by SectorSeco Poplaio Evcatn VeiceN241137NNE 3,864 2,171NE 98 55ENE 2,255 1,240E 119 70ESE 616 342SE 258 148SSE 478 264S 1,312 738SSW 474 268SW 1,671 931WSW 659 363W 296 165WNW 157 90NW 2,978 1,674NNW 982 554Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-7KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 N241NNWNNEWNW157W296659ENE3239E10 57 191066 ESEF616SEF-258 E-, EPZ Boundary to 11 MilesSSW LjL- SSE47 F-478F1,3 12Shadow Population Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative TotalEPZ -11 1,623 1,62311- 12 4,592 6,21512- 13 6,154 12,36913- 14 2,425 14,79414- 15 1,664 16,458Total: 16,458Figure 3-4. Shadow Population by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-8KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNNWNNE2,171WNW90WwSw363ENE1,2421E5 3S 7ESE342- jSE.3EPZ Boundary to 11 MilesSSW ~43 SSE268 ~S26F738Shadow VehiclesMiles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative TotalEPZ -11 908 90811- 12 2,542 3,45012- 13 3,453 6,90313- 14 1,362 8,26514-15 945 9,210Total: 9,210Figure 3-5. Shadow Vehicles by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-9KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.3 Transient Population Transient population groups are defined as those people (who are not permanent residents, nor commuting employees) who enter the EPZ for a specific purpose (camping, visit a park).Transients may spend less than one day or stay overnight at campgrounds or lodgingfacilities.

Data for these facilities were provided by Exelon. The CLN EPZ has a number of areasand facilities that attract transients, including:

" Lodging Facilities

-129 transients; 66 vehicles; 2.00 people per vehicle" Campgrounds

-588 transients; 264 vehicles; 2.23 people per vehicle" Parks -2,340 transients; 1,049 vehicles; 2.23 people per vehicle (NOTE: Local parks arenot included; visitors to these facilities are local residents and have already beencounted as permanent residents in Section 3.1.)* Golf Courses -90 transients; 41 vehicles; 2.23 people per vehicle* Marinas -1,607 transients; 721 vehicles; 2.23 people per vehicle" YMCA -113 transients; 51 vehicles; 2.23 people per vehicleIt is assumed that families will travel to campgrounds, parks, marinas, and other recreational facilities together in a single vehicle.

Thus, the average household size in the EPZ of 2.23persons (Figure F-i) is used as the vehicle occupancy for these facilities.

It is further assumedthat there are 2 people and 1 vehicle per occupied room at lodging facilities.

Note there are multiple facilities within the EPZ that attract vehicle types other than passenger vehicles.

These vehicles, such as vehicles with boat trailers and Recreational Vehicles (RVs), arerepresented as two passenger vehicles because of their larger size and more sluggish operating characteristics.

The Lake Clinton State Recreation Area located in Sub-area 1 of the CLN EPZ encompasses over9,000 acres1 and includes multiple facility types such as boat launches,

beaches, andcampgrounds.

These facilities are spread throughout the entire facility; see Figure E-6. Toensure accurate transient population estimates, aerial imagery was used to count the totalnumber of parking spaces at these facilities.

The average household size of 2.23 persons wasthen applied to the number of spaces to calculate the total number of transients.

The mainfacility, Lake Clinton State Recreation Area (Mascoutin) located 2.5 miles east south-east ofCLN, includes a beach, one boat launch, and a campground.

These three facilities are allincluded within Lake Clinton State Recreation Area (Mascoutin).

There are approximately 380parking spaces available for passenger

vehicles, 276 spots for RVs, and 60 spaces for vehicleswith trailers.

Since vehicles with trailers and RVs are represented as 2 vehicles, it isconservatively assumed that 1,052 vehicles (380 + (276 x 2) + (60 x 2)) and 1,597 transients

((380+276+60) x 2.23) are visiting the Lake Clinton State Recreation Area (Mascoutin) duringpeak times. This same methodology was applied for all other boat launches within the State'http://www.reserveamerica.com/camping/clinton-lake-state-recreation-area/r/campgroundDetails.do?contractCode=IL&parkld=451791 Clinton Power Station 3-10 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Recreation Area. RVs and vehicles with boat trailers are represented as 2 vehicles in Table 3-4,but are represented as single vehicles in Table E-6.Weldon Springs State Park, located 6.0 miles southwest of CILN in Sub-area 6, encompasses over550 acres2 and is both a park and campground.

Again, to ensure accurate transient population estimates, aerial imagery was used to count the total number of parking spaces. The averagehousehold size of 2.23 persons was then applied to the number of spaces to calculate the totalnumber of transients.

There are approximately 140 parking spaces available for passenger vehicles and 48 spaces for RVs. Since RVs are represented as 2 vehicles, it is conservatively estimated that 236 transient vehicles (140 + (48 x 2)) and 420 transients

((140+48) x 2.23) arevisiting Weldon Springs State Park during peak times.Appendix E summarizes the transient data that was gathered for the EPZ. Table E-6 presentsthe number of transients and vehicles at recreational areas; vehicles with boat trailers and RVsare represented as a single vehicle in this table. Table E-7 presents the number of transients and vehicles at lodging facilities within the EPZ.In total, there are 4,867 transients evacuating in 2,192 vehicles, an average of 2.22 transients per vehicle.

Table 3-4 presents transient population and transient vehicle estimates by Sub-area3.Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7 present these data by sector and distance from the plant.Table 3-4. Summary of Transients and Transient VehiclesSubae rninsTasetVhce 13,7482,1332 0 03 67 604 0 05 0 06 810 4127 242 1178 0 0http://www.reserveamerica.com/campinpJweldon-springs-state-park/r/camopgroundDetails.do?contractCode=lL&parkld=455441 3 Table 3-4 and Figure 3-7 represent vehicles with boat trailers and RVs as two passenger vehicles.

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-11KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNWS 0NNNEF-0 --' 7 --WNWw---ENE67- -/WI--WSW33-g-1 '-h01EF20 8' ESE1,590SSWF262I0S1,080Transients Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 150 1501 -2 1,242 1,3922 -3 1,801 3,1933-4 347 3,5404-5 208 3,7485-6 420 4,1686-7 487 4,6557-8 122 4,7778-9 90 4,8679-10 0 4,86710 -EPZ 0 4,867Total: 4,86710 Miles to EPZ BoundaryN00 0000 0 EWInset0 -2 Miles SFigure 3-6. Transient Population by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-12KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNWE63--0NNNEF-0 - --' 0 --7-WNWLi-iIL-W33-1 5WSWENEF60EF157ESEZ Boundary--0SSWF118I0S7IIF4-8 5NTransient VehiclesMiles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 68 681-2 581 6492-3 1,171 1,8203-44 156 1,9764-5 157 2,1335-6 236 2,3696-7 250 2,6197-8 62 2,6818-9 41 2,7229-10 0 2,72210 -EPZ 0 2,722Total: 2,722WEInset 2 Miles SFigure 3-7. Transient Vehicles by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-13KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0

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 residentpopulation.

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

Maximum shift employment data were provided by Exelon for most of the major employers (generally speaking 50 or more employees in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002) in the EPZ. TheIEMA requested that major employers listed in the county emergency plans be considered inthis study. These employers

-some of which have less than the 50 employees typical of a majoremployer

-are listed in Table E-5 along with the major employers in the EPZ. Phone calls wereplaced to some of these employers to gather data.Data obtained from the US Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics OnTheMapCensus analysis tool4 were used to estimate the number of employees commuting into the EPZto avoid double counting.

This tool allows the user to draw a cordon around any area in the USand a report of the number of employees commuting into and out of the cordoned area isproduced.

The tool was used to draw a cordon around the EPZ. The inflow/outflow report forthe EPZ was then used to calculate the percent of employees that work within the EPZ but liveoutside.

This value, 30.5%, was applied to the maximum shift employment to compute thenumber of people commuting into the EPZ to work at peak times.In Table E-5, the Employees (Max Shift) column is multiplied by the percent of employees commuting into the EPZ (30.5%) factor to determine the number of employees who are notresidents of the EPZ. This percentage has been supplemented by data obtained through phonecalls for some facilities.

It is conservatively assumed for all major employers that there is 1employee per vehicle as carpooling in the US is minimal.Table 3-5 presents employees commuting into the EPZ and their vehicles by Sub-area.

Figure3-8 and Figure 3-9 present these data by sector.4 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

Clinton Power Station 3-14 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 3-5. Summary of Non-EPZ Resident Employees and Employee Vehicles1 201 2012 0 03 0 04 0 05 0 06 0 07 217 2178 0 03-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-1SKLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW-0No1850NNE0 'WNWI---ENEW001EWSW 0201- j!IESEz-z--]-0SSWE-0- -SF -SE10 Miles to EPZ BoundaryN000185 00 00-0 0 EEmployees Miles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 185 1851-2 0 1852-3 0 1853-4 0 1854-S 0 1855-6 27 2126-7 105 3177-8 101 4188-9 0 4189-10 0 41810 -EPZ 0 418Total: 418WInset0 -2 Miles SFigure 3-8. Employee Population by SectorClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-16KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 NNW~0INF1-85-0-NNE0 'WNWENEILWW 0WSW201- j01-jEw---' ESE-----]-. 0SSWw----0 -Sz-5--1Employee VehiclesMiles Subtotal by Ring Cumulative Total0-1 185 1851-2 0 1852-3 0 1853-4 0 1854-5 0 1855-6 27 2126-7 105 3177-8 101 4188-9 0 4189-10 0 41810 -EPZ 0 418Total: 41810 Miles to EPZ BoundaryN~ EWInset0 -2 Miles SFigure 3-9. Employee Vehicles by SectorClinton Power Station KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-17KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.5 Medical Facilities Data were provided by Exelon and DeWitt County Emergency Management for each of themedical facilities within the EPZ. Phone calls were made to some facilities to determine thenumber of ambulatory and non-ambulatory persons.

Table E-4 in Appendix E summarizes thedata provided.

Section 8 details the evacuation of medical facilities and their patients.

Thenumber and type of evacuating vehicles that need to be provided depend on the patients' stateof health. It is estimated that buses can transport up to 30 people; wheelchair vans, up to 4people; and ambulances, up to 2 people.3.6 Total Demand in Addition to Permanent Population Vehicles will be traveling through the study area (external-external trips) at the time of anaccident.

After the Advisory to Evacuate is announced, these through-travelers will alsoevacuate.

These through vehicles are assumed to travel on the major routes traversing thestudy area 72 and 1-74. It is assumed that this traffic will continue to enter the study areaduring the first 120 minutes following the Advisory to Evacuate.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data was obtained from the Federal HighwayAdministration (HPMS, 2013) to estimate the number of vehicles per hour on theaforementioned routes. The AADT was multiplied by the K-Factor (TRB, 2010), which is theproportion of the AADT on a roadway segment or link during the design hour, resulting in thedesign hour volume (DHV). The design hour is usually the 301h highest hourly traffic volume ofthe year, measured in vehicles per hour (vph). The DHV is then multiplied by the D-Factor (TRB,2010), which is the proportion of the DHV occurring in the peak direction of travel (also knownas the directional split). The resulting values are the directional design hourly volumes (DDHV),and are presented in Table 3-6, for each of the routes considered.

The DDHV is then multiplied by 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (access control points -ACP -are assumed to be activated at 120 minutes after theadvisory to evacuate) to estimate the total number of external vehicles loaded on the analysisnetwork.

As indicated, there are 6,948 vehicles entering the study area as external-external trips prior to the activation of the ACP and the diversion of this traffic.

This number is reducedby 60% for evening scenarios (Scenarios 5 and 12) as discussed in Section 6.3.7 Special EventOne special event (Scenario

13) is considered for the ETE study -the Apple and Pork Festival, which occurs annually the last full weekend in September.

The event occurs in Clinton on thegrounds of the C.H. Moore Homestead.

The event is one of the biggest and most popular fallfestivals in the state, and can draw upwards of ten times the population of Clinton into thearea.Event personnel indicated that the total attendance from last year (September 28-29, 2013)was 98,000 people over two days. Event personnel also indicated that peak attendance for theevent occurs during the day on Saturday, accounting for approximately 70% of the totalweekend attendance.

Event personnel indicated that approximately half of the local residents Clinton Power Station 3-18 KLD Engineering.

P.C.Evacuation Time EstimateRev. 0 in the surrounding area attend the event (12,675 total EPZ residents from Table 3-1). Withfamilies and couples attending the event, the average household size of 2.23 people perhousehold will be used to determine the number of vehicles.

Thus, the total attendance duringthe Saturday peak is 98,000 x 70% = 68,600 people, evacuating in 30,762 vehicles.

Subtracting out half of local residents results in 68,600 -0.5 x 12,675 = 62,263 transients, evacuating in27,921 vehicles during Saturday of the Apple and Pork Festival.

Event personnel indicated that Center Street in downtown Clinton is closed for pedestrian

activity, but that the road could be quickly re-opened in the event of an emergency.

It isassumed that Center Street would be re-opened by the time transients at the event gathertheir belongings and return to their vehicles to begin their evacuation trip. Vehicles wereloaded on local streets near the event for this scenario.

There are shuttle buses which transport attendees to parking lots in the area; however, these buses would not be used to evacuate anyof the attendees.

It is assumed that the time to take the shuttle bus to the parking lot isincluded in the mobilization time for transients.

3-19 KLD Engineering, p.c.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-19KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-6. External Traffic Traveling through the CLN Study Area8408 677 1-72 East 9,850 0.118 0.5 581 1,1628394 394 1-72 West 9,850 0.118 0.5 581 1,1628003 3 1-74 East 21,600 0.107 0.5 1,156 2,3128028 28 1-74 West 21,600 0.107 0.5 1,156 2,312-..-.-.-

I -I-.- --Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-20KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 3.8 Summary of DemandA summary of population and vehicle demand is provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8,respectively.

This summary includes all population groups described in this section.

Additional population groups -transit-dependent, special facility and school population

-are described ingreater detail in Section 8. A total of 24,503 people and 19,114 vehicles are considered in thisstudy.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-21KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-7. Summary of Population Demand1 1,649 31 3,748 201 0 0 0 0 5,6292 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2073 488 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 5554 158 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 2365 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1706 964 0 810 0 0 120 0 0 1,8947 8,095 151 242 217 248 2,185 0 0 11,1388 944 18 0 0 0 420 0 0 1,382Shadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,292 0 3,292Region-ik --- ---5Special Facilities include medical facilities and the DeWitt County Jail6 Shadow Population has been reduced to 20%. Refer to Figure 2-1 for additional information.

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-22KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 3-8. Summary of Vehicle Demand1 934 2 2,133 201 0 0 0 0 3,2702 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1173 271 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 3314 87 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 935 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 539 0 412 0 0 8 0 0 9597 4,435 10 117 217 36 82 0 0 4,8978 529 2 0 0 0 28 0 0 559ShadowShadow 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,842 6,948 8,790Region7Vehicles with boat trailers and RVs are counted as two passenger vehicles.

8 Vehicles for special facilities include wheelchair vans, ambulances and buses. Buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

No vehicles are considered for theDeWitt County Jail as it shelters-in-place.

9School buses represented as two passenger vehicles.

Refer to Section 8 for additional information.

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

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate3-23KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 4 ESTIMATION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITYThe ability of the road network to service vehicle demand is a major factor in determining howrapidly an evacuation can be completed.

The capacity of a road is defined as the maximumhourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point oruniform section of a lane of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway,traffic and control conditions, as stated in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2010).In discussing

capacity, different operating conditions have been assigned alphabetical designations, A through F, to reflect the range of traffic operational characteristics.

Thesedesignations have been termed "Levels of Service" (LOS). For example, LOS A connotesfree-flow and high-speed operating conditions; LOS F represents a forced flow condition.

LOS Edescribes traffic operating at or near capacity.

Another concept, closely associated with capacity, is "Service Volume" (SV). Service volume isdefined as "The maximum hourly rate at which vehicles, bicycles or persons reasonably can beexpected to traverse a point or uniform section of a roadway during an hour under specificassumed conditions while maintaining a designated level of service."

This definition is similar tothat for capacity.

The major distinction is that values of SV vary from one LOS to another, whilecapacity is the service volume at the upper bound of LOS E, only.This distinction is illustrated in Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010. As indicated there, the SV varieswith 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 shoulderwidth have only a limited influence on Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS1) according to Exhibit 15-7of the HCM. Consequently, lane and shoulder widths at the narrowest points were observedduring the road survey and these observations were recorded, but no detailed measurements of lane or shoulder width were taken. Horizontal and vertical alignment can influence both FFSand capacity.

The estimated FFS were measured using the survey vehicle's speedometer andobserving local traffic, under free flow conditions.

Capacity is estimated from the procedures of1 A very rough estimate of BFFS might be taken as the posted speed limit plus 10 mph (HCM 2010 Page 15-15)Clinton Power Station 4-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 the 2010 HCM. For example, HCM Exhibit 7-1(b) shows the sensitivity of Service Volume at theupper bound of LOS D to grade (capacity is the Service Volume at the upper bound of LOS E).As discussed in Section 2.3, it is necessary to adjust capacity figures to represent the prevailing conditions during inclement weather.

Based on limited empirical data, weather conditions suchas rain reduce the values of free speed and of highway capacity by approximately 10percent.

Over the last decade new studies have been made on the effects of rain on trafficcapacity.

These studies indicate a range of effects between 5 and 20 percent depending onwind speed and precipitation rates. As indicated in Section 2.3, we employ a reduction in freespeed and in highway capacity of 10 percent and 20 percent for rain and snow, respectively.

Since congestion arising from evacuation may be significant, estimates of roadway capacitymust be determined with great care. Because of its importance, a brief discussion of the majorfactors 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 orcrossing traffic at the intersection.

Due to these differences, separate estimates of capacitymust be made for each section.

Often, the approach to the intersection is widened by theaddition of one or more lanes (turn pockets or turn bays), to compensate for the lower capacityof 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 At-grade intersections are apt to become the first bottleneck locations under local heavy trafficvolume 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 atcritical intersections will often be provided by traffic control personnel assigned for thatpurpose, whose directions may supersede traffic control devices.

The existing trafficmanagement plans documented in the county emergency plans are extensive and wereadopted without change.The per-lane capacity of an approach to a signalized intersection can be expressed (simplistically) in the following form:Qca~m= 3600) (G-L) (3600)Qcap,m C hm=(-T--)

X Pmwhere:Qcap,m Capacity of a single lane of traffic on an approach, which executesmovement, m, upon entering the intersection; vehicles per hour (vph)Clinton Power Station 4-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 hm Mean queue discharge headway of vehicles on this lane that are executing

movement, m; seconds per vehicleG Mean duration of GREEN time servicing vehicles that are executing

movement, m, for each signal cycle; secondsL Mean "lost time" for each signal phase servicing

movement, m; secondsC = Duration of each signal cycle; secondsPm = 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 theintersection:

through, left-turn, right-turn, and diagonal.

The turn-movement-specific mean discharge headway hm, depends in a complex way uponmany 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,hm = fm(hsat, F1, F2, ...)where:hsat = Saturation discharge headway for through vehicles; seconds per vehicleF1,F2 = The various known factors influencing hmfM() = Complex function relating hm to the known (or estimated) values of hsat,F1, F2, ...The estimation of hm for specified values of hsat, F1, F2, ... is undertaken within the DYNEV IIsimulation model by a mathematical model (Lieberman, 1980), (McShane, 1980), (Lieberman, 2012). The resulting values for hm always satisfy the condition:

hm > hsatThat is, the turn-movement-specific discharge headways are always greater than, or equal tothe saturation discharge headway for through vehicles.

These headways (or its inverseequivalent, "saturation flow rate"), may be determined by observation or using the procedures of the HCM 2010.The above discussion is necessarily brief given the scope of this ETE report and the complexity of the subject of intersection capacity.

In fact, Chapters 18, 19 and 20 in the HCM 2010 addressthis topic. The factors, F1, F2,..., influencing saturation flow rate are identified in equation (18-5)of the HCM 2010.Clinton Power Station 4-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 The traffic signals within the EPZ and Shadow Region are modeled using representative phasingplans and phase durations obtained as part of the field data collection.

Traffic responsive signalinstallations allow the proportion of green time allocated (Pm) for each approach to eachintersection to be determined by the expected traffic volumes on each approach duringevacuation circumstances.

The amount of green time (G) allocated is subject to maximum andminimum phase duration constraints; 2 seconds of yellow time are indicated for each signalphase and I second of all-red time is assigned between signal phases, typically.

If a signal is pre-timed, the yellow and all-red times observed during the road survey are used. A lost time (L) of2.0 seconds is used for each signal phase in the analysis.

4.2 Capacity Estimation along Sections of HighwayThe capacity of highway sections

-- as distinct from approaches to intersections

-- is a functionof roadway geometrics, traffic composition (e.g. percent heavy trucks and buses in the trafficstream) and, of course, motorist behavior.

There is a fundamental relationship which relatesservice volume (i.e. the number of vehicles serviced within a uniform highway section in a giventime period) to traffic density.

The top curve in Figure 4-1 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 service volumeincreases as demand volume and density increase, until the service volume attains its maximumvalue, which is the capacity of the highway section.

As traffic demand and the resulting highwaydensity increase beyond this "critical" value, the rate at which traffic can be serviced (i.e. theservice volume) can actually decline below capacity

("capacity drop"). Therefore, in order torealistically represent traffic performance during congested conditions (i.e. when demandexceeds capacity),

it is necessary to estimate the service volume, VF, under congested conditions.

The value of VF can be expressed as:VF = R x Capacitywhere:R Reduction factor which is less than unityWe have employed a value of R=0.90. The advisability of such a capacity reduction factor isbased upon empirical studies that identified a fall-off in the service flow rate when congestion occurs at "bottlenecks" or "choke points" on a freeway system. Zhang and Levinson describe aresearch program that collected data from a computer-based surveillance system (loopdetectors) installed on the Interstate Highway System, at 27 active bottlenecks in the twin citiesmetro area in Minnesota over a 7-week period (Zhang, 2004). When flow breakdown occurs,queues are formed which discharge at lower flow rates than the maximum capacity prior toobserved breakdown.

These queue discharge flow (QDF) rates vary from one location to thenext and also vary by day of week and time of day based upon local circumstances.

The citedreference presents a mean QDF of 2,016 passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl).

This figurecompares with the nominal capacity estimate of 2,250 pcphpl estimated for the ETE andClinton Power Station 4-4 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 indicated in Appendix K for freeway links. The ratio of these two numbers is 0.896 whichtranslates into a capacity reduction factor of 0.90.Since the principal objective of evacuation time estimate analyses is to develop a "realistic" estimate of evacuation times, use of the representative value for this capacity reduction factor(R=0.90) is justified.

This factor is applied only when flow breaks down, as determined by thesimulation model.Rural roads, like freeways, are classified as "uninterrupted flow" facilities.

(This is in contrastwith 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 sameeffects as freeways in the event traffic demand exceeds the nominal capacity, resulting inqueuing 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 atintersections 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 roadwaygeometrics.

Sections of roadway with adverse geometrics are characterized by lower free-flow speeds and lane capacity.

Exhibit 15-30 in the Highway Capacity Manual was referenced toestimate saturation flow rates. The impact of narrow lanes and shoulders on free-flow speedand on capacity is not material, particularly when flow is predominantly in one direction as isthe case during an evacuation.

The procedure used here was to estimate "section"

capacity, VE, based on observations madetraveling over each section of the evacuation

network, based on the posted speed limits andtravel behavior of other motorists and by reference to the 2010 HCM. The DYNEV II simulation model determines for each highway section, represented as a network link, whether itscapacity would be limited by the "section-specific" service volume, VE, or by theintersection-specific capacity.

For each link, the model selects the lower value of capacity.

Clinton Power Station 4-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 4.3 Application to the CLN Study AreaAs part of the development of the link-node analysis network for the study area, an estimate ofroadway capacity is required.

The source material for the capacity estimates presented hereinis contained in:2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)Transportation Research BoardNational Research CouncilWashington, D.C. (TRB, 2010)The highway system in the study area consists primarily of three categories of roads and, ofcourse, intersections:

" Two-Lane roads: Local, State" Multi-Lane Highways (at-grade)

" FreewaysEach of these classifications will be discussed.

4.3.1 Two-Lane RoadsRef: HCM Chapter 15 (TRB, 2010)Two lane roads comprise the majority of highways within the EPZ. The per-lane capacity of atwo-lane highway is estimated at 1700 passenger cars per hour (pc/h). This estimate isessentially independent of the directional distribution of traffic volume except that, forextended distances, the two-way capacity will not exceed 3200 pc/h. The HCM procedures thenestimate Level of Service (LOS) and Average Travel Speed. The DYNEV II simulation modelaccepts the specified value of capacity as input and computes average speed based on thetime-varying demand: capacity relations.

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

" Most sections of two-lane roads within the EPZ are classified as "Class I", with "levelterrain";

some are "rolling terrain".

• "Class II" highways are mostly those within urban and suburban centers.4.3.2 Multi-Lane HighwayRef: HCM Chapter 14 (TRB, 2010)Exhibit 14-2 of the HCM 2010 presents a set of curves that indicate a per-lane capacity rangingfrom approximately 1900 to 2200 pc/h, for free-speeds of 45 to 60 mph, respectively.

Based onobservation, the multi-lane highways outside of urban areas within the EPZ service traffic withfree-speeds in this range. The actual time-varying speeds computed by the simulation modelreflect the demand: capacity relationship and the impact of control at intersections.

AClinton Power Station 4-6 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 1900 pc/h is adopted for this study for multi-lane highways outside of urban areas, as shown in Appendix K.4.3.3 FreewaysRef: HCM Chapters 10, 11, 12, 13 (TRB, 2010)Chapter 10 of the HCM 2010 describes a procedure for integrating the results obtained inChapters 11, 12 and 13, which compute capacity and LOS for freeway components.

Chapter 10also presents a discussion of simulation models. The DYNEV II simulation model automatically performs this integration process.Chapter 11 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for "BasicFreeway Segments".

Exhibit 11-17 of the HCM 2010 presents capacity vs. free speed estimates, which are provided below.Free Speed (mph): 55 60 65 70+Per-Lane Capacity (pc/h): 2250 2300 2350 2400The inputs to the simulation model are highway geometrics, free-speeds and capacity based onfield observations.

The simulation logic calculates actual time-varying speeds based on demand:capacity relationships.

A conservative estimate of per-lane capacity of 2250 pc/h is adopted forthis study for freeways, as shown in Appendix K.Chapter 12 of the HCM 2010 presents procedures for estimating

capacity, speed, density andLOS for freeway weaving sections.

The simulation model contains logic that relates speed todemand volume: capacity ratio. The value of capacity obtained from the computational procedures detailed in Chapter 12 depends on the "Type" and geometrics of the weavingsegment and on the "Volume Ratio" (ratio of weaving volume to total volume).Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010 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 on-ramp orimmediately upstream of an off-ramp; the capacity of the ramp roadway; and the maximumflow rate entering the ramp influence area. In most cases, the freeway capacity is thecontrolling factor. Values of this merge area capacity are presented in Exhibit 13-8 of the HCM2010, and depend on the number of freeway lanes and on the freeway free speed. Rampcapacity is presented in Exhibit 13-10 and is a function of the ramp free flow speed. The DYNEVII simulation model logic simulates the merging operations of the ramp and freeway traffic inaccord with the procedures in Chapter 13 of the HCM 2010. If congestion results from anexcess of demand relative to capacity, then the model allocates service appropriately to thetwo entering traffic streams and produces LOS F conditions (The HCM does not address LOS Fexplicitly).

Clinton Power Station 4-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

4.3.4 Intersections

Ref: HCM Chapters 18, 19, 20, 21 (TRB, 2010)Procedures for estimating capacity and LOS for approaches to intersections are presented inChapter 18 (signalized intersections),

Chapters 19, 20 (un-signalized intersections) and Chapter21 (roundabouts).

The complexity of these computations is indicated by the aggregate lengthof these chapters.

The DYNEV II simulation logic is likewise complex.The simulation model explicitly models intersections:

Stop/yield controlled intersections (both2-way and all-way) and traffic signal controlled intersections.

Where intersections arecontrolled by fixed time controllers, traffic signal timings are set to reflect average (non-evacuation) traffic conditions.

Actuated traffic signal settings respond to the time-varying 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 specificlocations where it is advisable or where existing plans call for overriding existing traffic controlto implement manned control, the model will use actuated signal timings that reflect thepresence of traffic guides. At locations where a special traffic control strategy (continuous left-turns, contra-flow lanes) is used, the strategy is modeled explicitly.

Where applicable, thelocation and type of traffic control for nodes in the evacuation network are noted in AppendixK. The characteristics of the ten highest volume signalized intersections are detailed inAppendix J.4.4 Simulation and Capacity Estimation Chapter 6 of the HCM is entitled, "HCM and Alternative Analysis Tools." The chapter discusses the use of alternative tools such as simulation modeling to evaluate the operational performance of highway networks.

Among the reasons cited in Chapter 6 to consider usingsimulation as an alternative analysis tool is:"The system under study involves a group of different facilities or travel modes withmutual interactions invoking several procedural chapters of the HCM. Alternative toolsare able to analyze these facilities as a single system."This statement succinctly describes the analyses required to determine traffic operations acrossan area encompassing an EPZ operating under evacuation conditions.

The model utilized forthis study, DYNEV II, is further described in Appendix C. It is essential to recognize thatsimulation models do not replicate the methodology and procedures of the HCM -they replacethese procedures by describing the complex interactions of traffic flow and computing Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) detailing the operational performance of traffic over time andby location.

The DYNEV II simulation model includes some HCM 2010 procedures only for thepurpose of estimating capacity.

All simulation models must be calibrated properly with field observations that quantify theperformance parameters applicable to the analysis network.

Two of the most important ofClinton Power Station 4-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 these are: (1) Free flow speed (FFS); and (2) saturation

headway, hsat. The first of these isestimated by direct observation during the road survey; the second is estimated using theconcepts of the HCM 2010, as described earlier.

These parameters are listed in Appendix K, foreach network link.Volume, vphDropRSpeed,4VfR vc -mphFree Forced:_----...I ......I .....Density, vpm.- Density, vpmk* VIt -Figure 4-1. Fundamental DiagramsClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate4-9KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5 ESTIMATION OF TRIP GENERATION TIMEFederal Government guidelines (see NUREG/CR-7002) specify that the planner estimate thedistributions of elapsed times associated with mobilization activities undertaken by the publicto prepare for the evacuation trip. The elapsed time associated with each activity isrepresented as a statistical distribution reflecting differences between members of the public.The quantification of these activity-based distributions relies largely on the results of thetelephone survey. We define the sum of these distributions of elapsed times as the TripGeneration Time Distribution.

5.1 Background

In general, an accident at a nuclear power plant is characterized by the following Emergency Classification Levels (see Appendix 1 of NUREG 0654 for details):

1. Unusual Event2. Alert3. 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 State and Local offsite authorities.

As a Planning Basis we will adopt a conservative

posture, in accordance with Section 1.2 of NUREG/CR-7002, that a rapidly escalating accident willbe considered in calculating the Trip Generation Time. We will assume:1. The Advisory to Evacuate will be announced coincident with the siren notification.

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

3. ETE are measured relative to the Advisory to Evacuate.

We emphasize that the adoption of this planning basis is not a representation that these eventswill occur within the indicated time frame. Rather, these assumptions are necessary in orderto:1. Establish a temporal framework for estimating the Trip Generation distribution in theformat recommended in Section 2.13 of NUREG/CR-6863 (NRC, 2005).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.

Forexample, suppose one hour elapses from the siren alert to the Advisory to Evacuate.

In thiscase, it is reasonable to expect some degree of spontaneous evacuation by the public duringthis one-hour period. As a result, the population within the EPZ will be lower when theAdvisory to Evacuate is announced, than at the time of the siren alert. In addition, many willengage in preparation activities to evacuate, in anticipation that an Advisory will be broadcast.

Thus, the time needed to complete the mobilization activities and the number of peopleremaining to evacuate the EPZ after the Advisory to Evacuate, will both be somewhat less thanClinton Power Station 5-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 the estimates presented in this report. Consequently, the ETE presented in this report arehigher 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 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 337 square miles and is engaged in awide variety of activities.

It must be anticipated that some time will elapse between thetransmission 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 thatperson is, what that person is doing, and related factors.

Furthermore, some persons who willbe directly involved with the evacuation process may be outside the EPZ at the time theemergency is declared.

These people may be commuters, shoppers and other travelers whoreside 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/CR-6863, the estimated elapsed times for the receipt ofnotification can be expressed as a distribution reflecting the different notification times fordifferent people within, and outside, the EPZ. By using time distributions, it is also possible todistinguish between different population groups and different day-of-week and time-of-day 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 tonealert and/or radio (if available).

Those well outside the EPZ will be notified by telephone, radio,TV and word-of-mouth, 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, butdispersed during the day. In this respect, weekends will differ from weekdays.

As indicated in Section 4.1 of NUREG/CR-7002, the information required to compute tripgeneration times is typically obtained from a telephone survey of EPZ residents.

Such a surveywas conducted in support of this ETE study. Appendix F discusses the survey sampling plan anddocuments the survey instrument and survey results.

The remaining discussion will focus onthe application of the trip generation data obtained from the telephone survey to thedevelopment of the ETE documented in this report.Clinton Power Station 5-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 5.2 Fundamental Considerations The environment leading up to the time that people begin their evacuation trips consists of asequence of events and activities.

Each event (other than the first) occurs at an instant in timeand is the outcome of an activity.

Activities are undertaken over a period of time. Activities may be in "series" (i.e. to undertake an activity implies the completion of all preceding events) or may be in parallel (two or moreactivities may take place over the same period of time). Activities conducted in series arefunctionally dependent on the completion of prior activities; activities conducted in parallel arefunctionally independent of one another.

The relevant events associated with the public'spreparation for evacuation are:Event Number Event Description 1 Notification 2 Awareness of Situation 3 Depart Work4 Arrive Home5 Depart on Evacuation TripAssociated with each sequence of events are one or more activities, as outlined below:Table 5-1. Event Sequence for Evacuation Activities 1 2 Receive Notification 12 -> 3 Prepare to Leave Work 22,3 -)4 Travel Home 32,4 -> 5 Prepare to Leave to Evacuate 4N/A Snow Clearance 5These relationships are shown graphically in Figure 5-1.* 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 leavework, travel home)As such, a completed Activity changes the 'state' of an individual (e.g. the activity,

'travel home'changes the state from 'depart work' to 'arrive home'). Therefore, an Activity can be described asan 'Event Sequence';

the elapsed times to perform an event sequence vary from one person to thenext and are described as statistical distributions on the following pages.An employee who lives outside the EPZ will follow sequence (c) of Figure 5-1. A household Clinton Power Station 5-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 within the EPZ that has one or more commuters at work, and will await their return beforebeginning the evacuation trip will follow the first sequence of Figure 5-1(a). A household withinthe EPZ that has no commuters at work, or that will not await the return of any commuters, willfollow the second sequence of Figure 5-1(a), regardless of day of week or time of day.Households with no commuters on weekends or in the evening/night-time, will follow theapplicable sequence in Figure 5-1(b). Transients will always follow one of the sequences ofFigure 5-1(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 5-1, that the Trip Generation time (i.e. the total elapsed time from Event 1to 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 obtainestimates of the time distributions of all preceding events. For this study, we adopt theconservative posture that all activities will occur in sequence.

In some cases, assuming certain events occur strictly sequential (for instance, commuterreturning home before beginning preparation to leave, or removing snow only after thepreparation to leave) can result in rather conservative (that is, longer) estimates of mobilization times. It is reasonable to expect that at least some parts of these events will overlap for manyhouseholds, but that assumption is not made in this study.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-4KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 1A111112AMl3Am4Ak5-AfResidents Residents

-b~ b~w1MWWWHouseholds waitfor Commuters 1Households withoutCommuters andhouseholds who do notwait for Commuters 2-Ah5Mr -W _WI (a) Accident occurs during midweek, at miy; year roundIResidents, Transients away fromResidence Residents, Transients atResidence 1Af24AIMl5AkReturn to residence, then evacuate--b~ b~w1-w2-AIIIIII1 wW5Residents at home;transients evacuate directlyW -W -W(b) Accident occurs during weekend or during the eveni1 2 3,5(c) Employees who live outside the EPZACTIVITIES 1 -2 Receive Notification 2 -3 Prepare to Leave Work2, 3 _ 4 Travel Home2, 4 _ 5 Prepare to Leave to EvacuateActivities Consume TimeEVENTS1. Notification

2. Aware of situation

3. Depart work4. Arrive home5. Depart on evacuation trip01 Applies for evening and weekends also if commuters are at work.2 Applies throughout the year for transients.

Figure 5-1. Events and Activities Preceding the Evacuation TripClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-5KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5.3 Estimated Time Distributions of Activities Preceding Event 5The time distribution of an event is obtained by "summing" the time distributions of all priorcontributing activities.

(This "summing" process is quite different than an algebraic sum since itis performed on distributions

-not scalar numbers).

Time Distribution No. 1, Notification Process:

Activity I -* 2Federal regulations (10CFR 50 Appendix E, Item IV.D.3) stipulate,

"[t]he design objective of theprompt public alert and notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially completethe initial alerting and initiate notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZwithin about 15 minutes" (NRC, 2011b). Furthermore, Item 2 of Section B in Appendix 3 ofNUREG/CR-0654/FEMA-REP-1 states that "[s]pecial arrangements will be made to assure 100%coverage within 45 minutes of the population who may not have received the initial notification within the entire plume exposure EPZ" (NRC, 1980b). Given the federal regulations and guidance, and the presence of sirens within the EPZ, it is assumed that 100% of the population in the EPZ canbe notified within 45 minutes.

The assumed distribution for notifying the EPZ population isprovided in Table 5-2.Table 5-2. Time Distribution for Notifying the PublicElase Tim Pecn of(iue)Ppulaio Notifie00%5 7%10 13%15 27%20 47%25 66%30 87%35 92%40 97%45 100%Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-6KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 2, Prepare to Leave Work: Activity 2 -> 3It is reasonable to expect that the vast majority of business enterprises within the EPZ will electto shut down following notification and most employees would leave workquickly.

Commuters, who work outside the EPZ could, in all probability, also leave quickly sincefacilities outside the EPZ would remain open and other personnel would remain. Personnel orfarmers responsible for equipment/livestock would require additional time to secure theirfacility.

The distribution of Activity 2 -> 3 shown in Table 5-3 reflects data obtained by thetelephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2.Table 5-3. Time Distribution for Employees to Prepare to Leave WorkCumulative PercentElapsed Time Employees (Minutes)

Leaving Work00%15 76%30 94%45 98%60 98%75 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" response.

That is, the sample was reduced insize to include only those households who responded to this question.

The underlying assumption is that thedistribution of this activity for the "Don't know" responders, if the event takes place, would be the same as thoseresponders who provided estimates.

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-7KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 3, Travel Home: Activity 3 -> 4These data are provided directly by those households which responded to the telephone survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-4.Table 5-4. Time Distribution for Commuters to Travel HomeCumuativElaped Prcen00%15 56%30 88%45 98%60 99%75 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" responseDistribution No. 4, Prepare to Leave Home: Activity 2, 4 --> 5These data are provided directly by those households which responded survey. This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-5.Table 5-5. Time Distribution for Population to Prepare to EvacuateCumulativ to the telephone 00%20 35%40 78%60 91%90 95%120 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" responseClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-8KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Distribution No. 5, Snow Clearance Time Distribution Inclement weather scenarios involving snowfall must address the time lags associated withsnow clearance.

It is assumed that snow equipment is mobilized and deployed during thesnowfall to maintain passable roads. The general consensus is that the snow-plowing effortsare generally successful for all but the most extreme blizzards when the rate of snowaccumulation exceeds that of snow clearance over a period of many hours.Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the highway system will remain passable

-albeitat a lower capacity

-under the vast majority of snow conditions.

Nevertheless, for the vehiclesto gain access to the highway system, it may be necessary for driveways and employee parkinglots to be cleared to the extent needed to permit vehicles to gain access to the roadways.

These clearance activities take time; this time must be incorporated into the trip generation time distributions.

This distribution is plotted in Figure 5-2 and listed in Table 5-6.The data in Table 5-6 are adapted from a survey conducted of households in the Duane ArnoldEnergy Center (DAEC) telephone survey conducted in 2012. DAEC is located in Iowa,approximately 200 miles northwest of CLN. Average snowfall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (within theDAEC EPZ) is about 35% higher than in cities within the CLN EPZ. It is conservatively assumedthat snow removal time in the CLN EPZ is comparable to snow removal time in the DAEC EPZ.Table 5-6. Time Distribution for Population to Clear 6"-8" of Snow046%15 60%30 82%45 88%60 96%75 97%90 98%105 98%120 100%NOTE: The survey data was normalized to distribute the "Don't know" responseClinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-9KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Mobilization Activities 100%04-U.002CE.2C-0CL80%60%40%20%-Notification

-Prepare to Leave Work-Travel Home-Prepare to Leave Home-Clear Snow0%01530 45 60 75 90Elapsed Time from Start of Mobilization Activity (min)105120Figure 5-2. Evacuation Mobilization Activities Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-10KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 5.4 Calculation of Trip Generation Time Distribution The time distributions for each of the mobilization activities presented herein must becombined to form the appropriate Trip Generation Distributions.

As discussed above, this studyassumes that the stated events take place in sequence such that all preceding events must becompleted before the current event can occur. For example, if a household awaits the returnof a commuter, the work-to-home 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 isnecessary to "sum" the distributions associated with these prior activities.

The distribution summing algorithm is applied repeatedly as shown to form the required distribution.

As anoutcome of this procedure, new time distributions are formed; we assign "letter" designations to these intermediate distributions to describe the procedure.

Table 5-7 presents the summingprocedure to arrive at each designated distribution.

Table 5-7. Mapping Distributions to EventsDistribumion" Aloit T Distribution a Event DDistributions 1 and 2 Distribution A Event 3Distributions A and 3 Distribution B Event 4Distributions B and 4 Distribution C Event 5Distributions 1 and 4 Distribution D Event 5Distributions C and 5 Distribution E Event 5Distributions D and 5 Distribution F Event STable 5-8 presents a description of each of the final trip generation distributions achieved after thesumming process is completed.

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-11KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-8. Description of the Distributions Distrbto Desciption Time distribution of commuters departing place of work (Event 3). Also appliesA 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 hometo begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).D Time distribution of residents without commuters returning home, leaving hometo begin the evacuation trip (Event 5).E Time distribution of residents with commuters who return home, leaving hometo begin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).Time distribution of residents with no commuters returning home, leaving tobegin the evacuation trip, after snow clearance activities (Event 5).5.4.1 Statistical OutliersAs already mentioned, some portion of the survey respondents answer "don't know" to somequestions or choose to not respond to a question.

The mobilization activity distributions are basedupon actual responses.

But, it is the nature of surveys that a few numeric responses areinconsistent with the overall pattern of results.

An example would be a case in which for 500responses, almost all of them estimate less than two hours for a given answer, but 3 say "fourhours" and 4 say "six or more hours".These "outliers" must be considered:

are they valid responses, or so atypical that they should bedropped from the sample?In assessing

outliers, there are three alternates to consider:

1) Some responses with very long times may be valid, but reflect the reality that therespondent really needs to be classified in a different population

subgroup, based uponspecial needs;2) Other responses may be unrealistic (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to return home from commuting

distance, or 2 days to prepare the home for departure);

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

The issue of course is how to make the decision that a given response or set of responses are to beconsidered "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 orin groups, much of which assumes the data is normally distributed and some of which uses non-Clinton Power Station 5-12 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 parametric methods to avoid that assumption.

The literature cites that limited work has beendone 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.nooverlap 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 arecreated (see Figure 5-1, Table 5-7, Table 5-8);3) Outliers can be eliminated either because the response reflects a special population (e.g.special needs, transit dependent) or lack of realism, because the purpose is to estimate tripgeneration patterns for personal vehicles;

4) To eliminate

outliers, a) the mean and standard deviation of the specific activity are estimated from theresponses, b) the median of the same data is estimated, with its position relative to the meannoted,c) the histogram of the data is inspected, andd) all values greater than 3.5 standard deviations are flagged for attention, takingspecial note of whether there are gaps (categories with zero entries) in thehistogram display.In general, only flagged values more than 4 standard deviations from the mean are allowedto be considered

outliers, with gaps in the histogram expected.

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

Clinton Power Station 5-13 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0

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 thatresults is shown below in Figure 5-3.100.0% ,90.0%80.0%6k 70.0%M/60.0%L3 50.0%20.0%40.0%10.0%. ......LQ Lq Lq Lq LQ LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAý LA LA(N rý r-4 (N N. r N N ( Ný r .(NZ rq f-, r- N r4 rr4 ~-4 r14 M M m ~ LA LA k 00 WC -4Center of Interval (minutes)

-Cumulative Data --Cumulative NormalFigure 5-3. Comparison of Data Distribution and Normal Distribution

6) In particular, the cumulative distribution differs from the normal distribution in two keyaspects, 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 thenetwork loads faster for the first 80-85% of the vehicles, potentially causing more (andearlier) congestion than otherwise modeled;The last 10-15% 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 thatis used to describe the mobilization activities, not a "normal" curve fit to the data. Onecould consider other distributions, but using the shape of the actual data curve isunambiguous and preserves these important features;

7) With the mobilization activities each modeled according to Steps 1-6, including preserving the features cited in Step 6, the overall (or total) mobilization times are constructed.

Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-14KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 This is done by using the data sets and distributions under different scenarios (e.g. commuterreturning, no commuter returning, no snow or snow in each). In general, these are additive, usingweighting based upon the probability distributions of each element; Figure 5-4 presents thecombined trip generation distributions designated A, C, D, E and F. These distributions arepresented on the same time scale. (As discussed

earlier, the use of strictly additive activities is aconservative

approach, because it makes all activities sequential

-preparation for departure follows the return of the commuter; snow clearance follows the preparation for departure, and soforth. In practice, it is reasonable that some of these activities are done in parallel, at least tosome extent -for instance, preparation to depart begins by a household member at home whilethe commuter is still on the road.)The mobilization distributions that result are used in their tabular/graphical form as direct inputsto later computations that lead to the ETE.The DYNEV II simulation model is designed to accept varying rates of vehicle trip generation foreach 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 inTable 5-9 (Distribution B, Arrive Home, omitted for clarity).

The final time period (15) is 600 minutes long. This time period is added to allow the analysisnetwork to clear, in the event congestion persists beyond the trip generation period. Note thatthere are no trips generated during this final time period.5.4.2 Staged Evacuation Trip Generation As defined in NUREG/CR-7002, staged evacuation consists of the following:

1. Sub-areas comprising the 2 mile region are advised to evacuate immediately

2. Sub-areas comprising regions extending from 2 to 5 miles downwind are advised toshelter in-place while the 2 mile region is cleared3. As vehicles evacuate the 2 mile region, sheltered people from 2 to 5 miles downwindcontinue preparation for evacuation

4. The population sheltering in the 2 to 5 mile region are advised to begin evacuating whenapproximately 90% of those originally within the 2 mile region evacuate across the 2mile region boundary5. Non-compliance with the shelter recommendation is the same as the shadowevacuation percentage of 20%Assumptions

1. The entire 2-mile radius and 5-mile radius for CLN is comprised of a single Sub-area

-Sub-area

1. In order to consider a staged evacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002, Sub-area 1 was divided into two pieces -the 2-mile radius and the remainder ofthe Sub-area excluding the 2-mile radius -as shown in Appendix H, Figure H-16. Thispostulated division of Sub-area 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETEClinton Power Station 5-15 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 impact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Exelon or the offsiteagencies to divide the Sub-area in the public information or in their emergency plans. Inthe staged evacuation

analysis, the population within the 2-mile radius will evacuateimmediately.

The population within the balance of Sub-area I will shelter-in-place until90% of those in the 2-mile radius have evacuated across the 2-mile radius.2. The EPZ population in Sub-areas beyond 5 miles will react as does the population in the2 to 5 mile region; that is they will first shelter, then evacuate after the 90th percentile ETE for the 2 mile region.3. The population in the Shadow Region beyond the EPZ boundary, extending toapproximately 15 miles radially from the plant, will react as they do for all non-staged evacuation scenarios.

That is 20% of these households will elect to evacuate with noshelter delay.4. The transient population will not be expected to stage their evacuation because of thelimited sheltering options available to people who may be at parks, on a beach, or atother venues. Also, notifying the transient population of a staged evacuation wouldprove difficult.

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

Procedure

1. Trip generation for population groups in the 2 mile radius will be as computed basedupon the results of the telephone survey and analysis.

2. Trip generation for the population subject to staged evacuation will be formulated asfollows:a. Identify the 90th percentile evacuation time for the population within the 2 mileradius. This value, Tscen*, is obtained from simulation results.

It will become thetime at which the region being sheltered will be told to evacuate for eachscenario.

b. The resultant trip generation curves for staging are then formed as follows:i. The non-shelter trip generation curve is followed until a maximum of 20%of the total trips are generated (to account for shelter non-compliance).

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 non-shelter trip generation curve (if Tscen is < max trip generation time) or2. by stepping up to 100% (if TScen* is > max trip generation time)c. Note: This procedure implies that there may be different staged trip generation distributions for different scenarios.

NUREG/CR-7002 uses the statement "approximately 90th percentile" as the time to end staging and begin evacuating.

The value of Tscen* is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> for all scenarios (see Table 7-3).3. Staged trip generation distributions are created for the following population groups:a. Residents with returning commuters Clinton Power Station 5-16 KLD Engineering.

P.C.Evacuation Time EstimateRev. 0

b. Residents without returning commuters

c. Residents with returning commuters and snow conditions

d. Residents without returning commuters and snow conditions Figure 5-5 presents the staged trip generation distributions for both residents with and withoutreturning commuters; the 90th percentile two-mile radius evacuation time is 60 minutes for allscenarios.

At the 90th percentile evacuation time, 20% of the population (who normally wouldhave completed their mobilization activities for an un-staged evacuation) advised to shelter hasnevertheless departed the area. These people do not comply with the shelter advisory.

Alsoincluded on the plot are the trip generation distributions for these groups as applied to theregions 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 tomeet the balance of the non-staged trip generation distribution.

Following time Tscen , thebalance of staged evacuation trips that are ready to depart are released within 15 minutes.

AfterTscen*+15, the remainder of evacuation trips are generated in accordance with the un-staged tripgeneration distribution.

Table 5-10 provides the trip generation histograms for staged evacuation.

5.4.3 Trip Generation for Waterways and Recreational AreasAccording to the Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents (IPRA) for CLN (IPRA, 2013), the IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources will warn and evacuate visitors at Clinton Lake StateRecreation Area and Weldon Springs State Park.As indicated in Table 5-2, this study assumes 100% notification in 45 minutes.

Table 5-9indicates that all transients will have mobilized within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minutes.

It is assumed thatthis 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 45 minute timeframe is sufficient time for boaters, campers and othertransients to return to their vehicles and begin their evacuation trip.Clinton Power Station 5-17 KLD Engineering.

P.C.Evacuation Time EstimateRev. 0 Trip Generation Distributions

-Employees/Transients

-Residents with Commuters

-Residents with no Commuters

-Res with Comm and Snow -Res no Comm with Snow0.i-to.E-ruCLUCCOC.24-0...W04..CL0.1008060MWMMM__//Z//OOF-402000306090 120 150 180Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)210240270Figure 5-4. Comparison of Trip Generation Distributions 5-18 KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-18KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-9. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Un-staged Evacuation 1 15 5% 5% 0% 2% 0% 1%2 15 32% 32% 0% 12% 0% 6%3 15 41% 41% 4% 26% 2% 16%4 15 16% 16% 13% 27% 7% 20%5 15 4% 4% 20% 17% 13% 18%6 15 1% 1% 21% 7% 17% 14%7 15 1% 1% 17% 3% 16% 9%8 15 0% 0% 10% 2% 14% 5%9 15 0% 0% 6% 3% 10% 4%10 15 0% 0% 4% 1% 7% 3%11 15 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 2%12 30 0% 0% 3% 0% 6% 2%13 30 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%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 1-2) using Distributions C and E for good weather and snow, respectively.

• Special event vehicles are loaded using Distribution A.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-19KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Staged and Un-staged Evacuation Trip Generation

-Employees

/ Transients

-Residents with no Commuters

-Res no Comm with Snow-Staged Residents with no Commuters

.........

Staged Residents with no Commuters (Snow)-Residents with Commuters

-Res with Comm and Snow-Staged Residents with Commuters

-Staged Residents with Commuters (Snow)100.2CO00.6CL80604020Ile001Z1000orl 00306090120150180210240270Elapsed Time from Evacuation Advisory (min)Figure 5-5. Comparison of Staged and Un-staged Trip Generation Distributions in the 2 to 5 Mile Region5-20 KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-20KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 5-10. Trip Generation Histograms for the EPZ Population for Staged Evacuation Pecn of To.a Tis Geeae Wihi Iniae Tim Period*Reiet ReidntReiet wit W ithu Reiet0itihu Tim Duato Comtr Comtr Commter Sno Comtr SnoPeio (Mn (Dsrbto C) (Dsrbto D) (Dsrbto E) (Dsrbto F)1150%0%0%0%2 15 0% 3% 0% 1%3 15 1% 5% 0% 4%4 15 2% 5% 2% 4%5 15 34% 71% 20% 52%6 15 21% 7% 17% 14%7 15 17% 3% 16% 9%8 15 10% 2% 14% 5%9 15 6% 3% 10% 4%10 15 4% 1% 7% 3%11 15 2% 0% 5% 2%12 30 3% 0% 6% 2%13 30 0% 0% 2% 0%14 30 0% 0% 1% 0%15 600 0% 0% 0% 0%*Trip Generation for Employees and Transients (see Table 5-9) is the same for Un-staged and Staged Evacuation.

5-21 KID Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate5-21KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 6 DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR EVACUATION SCENARIOS 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 Sub-areas that forms either a "keyhole" sector-based area, or a circular area within the EPZ, that must be evacuated inresponse 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 theaffected population groups and their respective mobilization time distributions.

A total of 16 Regions were defined which encompass all the groupings of Sub-areas considered.

These Regions are defined in Table 6-1. The Sub-area configurations are identified in Figure6-1. Each keyhole sector-based area consists of a central circle centered at the power plant,and three adjoining

sectors, each with a central angle of 22.5 degrees, as per NUREG/CR-7002 guidance.

The central sector coincides with the wind direction.

These sectors extend to the EPZboundary (Regions R03 through R15). Regions R01 and R02 represent evacuations of circularareas with radii of 2 and 5 miles and 10 miles, respectively.

The entire 2-mile radius and 5-mileradius for CLN is comprised of a single Sub-area

-Sub-area

1. In order to consider a stagedevacuation in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002, Sub-area I was divided into two pieces -the 2-mile radius and the remainder of the Sub-area excluding the 2-mile radius -as shown in FigureH-16. This postulated division of Sub-area 1 is purely for analytical purposes (to quantify the ETEimpact of staged evacuation) and does not imply or require Exelon or the offsite agencies todivide the Sub-area in the public information or in their emergency plans. Region R16 isidentical to Region 01; however, the portion of Sub-area 1 between 2 miles and 5 miles isstaged until 90% of the 2-mile radius has evacuated.

Each Sub-area that intersects the keyhole is included in the Region, unless specified otherwise in the Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) determination flowchart on page CL 4-4 of theExelon Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for CLN (Exelon, 2013). There are instances when a small portion of a Sub-area is within the keyhole and the population within that smallportion is low (500 people or 10% of Sub-area population, whichever is less). Under thosecircumstances, the Sub-area would not be included in the Region.A total of 14 Scenarios were evaluated for all Regions.

Thus, there are a total of 16 x 14 = 224evacuation cases. Table 6-2 is a description of all Scenarios.

Each combination of Region and Scenario implies a specific population to be evacuated.

Table6-3 presents the percentage of each population group estimated to evacuate for each Scenario.

Table 6-4 presents the vehicle counts for each Scenario for an evacuation of Region R02 -theentire EPZ.Clinton Power Station 6-1 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 The vehicle estimates presented in Section 3 are peak values. These peak values are adjusteddepending on the Scenario and Region being considered, using Scenario and Region specificpercentages, such that the average population is considered for each evacuation case. TheScenario percentages are presented in Table 6-3, while the regional percentages are provided inTable H-i. The percentages presented in Table 6-3 were determined as follows:The number of residents with commuters during the week (when workforce is at its peak) is theproduct of 53% (the number of households with at least one commuter

-see Figure F-3) and51% (the number of households with a commuter that would await the return of the commuterprior to evacuating

-see Figure F-5) which equals 27%. See assumption 3 in Section 2.3. It isestimated for weekend and evening scenarios that 10% of households with returning commuters will have a commuter at work during those times.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 onthe estimation that 50% of the employees commuting into the EPZ will be on vacation for aweek during the approximate 12 weeks of summer. It is further estimated that those takingvacation will be uniformly dispersed throughout the summer with approximately 4% ofemployees vacationing each week. It is further estimated that only 10% of the employees areworking in the evenings and during the weekends.

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

Transient activity during the week in the summertime is estimated to be 60%. Transient activityis estimated to be significantly less during winter -30% on weekends and 20% during the week-due to the majority of facilities within the EPZ that are closed during winter months. Withonly a few lodging facilities and campgrounds within the EPZ that offer overnight accommodations, transient activity during the evening is estimated to be 15% in the summerand 10% in the winter.As noted in the shadow footnote to Table 6-3, the shadow percentages are computed using abase of 20% (see assumption 5 in Section 2.2); to include the employees within the shadowregion 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 6-4 for Scenario 1, the shadow percentage is computed asfollows:K 40120% x (1 + 1,877 + 5,133) 21 %One special event -the Apple and Pork Festival

-was considered as Scenario

13. Thus, thespecial event traffic is 100% evacuated for Scenario 13, and 0% for all other scenarios.

It is estimated that summer school enrollment is approximately 10% of enrollment during theregular school year for summer, midweek, midday scenarios.

School is not in session duringweekends and evenings, thus no buses for school children are needed under thoseClinton Power Station 6-2 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 circumstances.

As discussed in Section 7, schools are in session during the winter season,midweek, midday and 100% of buses will be needed under those circumstances.

Transit buses for the transit-dependent population are set to 100% for all scenarios as it isassumed that the transit-dependent population is present in the EPZ for all scenarios.

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

6-3 KLD Engineering, P.C.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate6-3KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-1. Description of Evacuation RegionsRegionI ~Sub-areaI Description 11121314151617181 Sub-areaRegionWind Direction Toward:1 1 2 1 3 1 1 S 678I Region I Wind Direction Toward:7-Mnila W"-tl1 nI wmm2infltr n'i %mihnh-lar 1Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate6-4KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Figure 6-1. CLN EPZ Sub-areas Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate6-5 KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-2. Evacuation Scenario Definitions Scnai Sesn Day of We. Tim of Day Wea.e Specia1SummerMidweekMiddayGoodNone2 Summer Midweek Midday Rain None3 Summer Weekend Midday Good None4 Summer Weekend Midday Rain None5 summer Midweek, Evening Good NoneSummer Weekend6 Winter Midweek Midday Good None7 Winter Midweek Midday Rain None8 Winter Midweek Midday Snow None9 Winter Weekend Midday Good None10 Winter Weekend Midday Rain None11 Winter Weekend Midday Snow None12 Winter Midweek, Evening Good NoneWeekendApple and Pork13 Winter Weekend Midday Good FestivalSingle Lane14 Summer Midweek Midday Good Closure on US-51South' Winter assumes that school is in session (also applies to spring and autumn).

Summer assumes that school is notin session.Clinton Power StationEvacuation Time Estimate6-6KLD Engineering, P.C.Rev. 0 Table 6-3. Percent of Population Groups Evacuating for Various Scenarios 1 27% 73% 96% 60% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100%2 27% 73% 96% 60% 21% 0% 10% 100% 100%3 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%4 3% 97% 10% 100% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%5 3% 97% 10% 15% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%6 27% 73% 1 100% 20% 1 21% 1 0% 100% 100%100%7 27% 73% 100% 20% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100%8 27% 73% 100% 20% 21% 0% 100% 100% 100%9 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%10 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%11 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100%12 3% 97% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 100% 40%13 3% 97% 10% 30% 20% 100% 0% 100% 100%14 27% 73% 96% 60% 21% 0% 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 EPZTransients

..................................................

People who are in the EPZ at the time of an accident for recreational or other (non-employment) purposes.

Shadow ......................................................

Residents and employees in the shadow region (outside of the EPZ) who will spontaneously decide to relocate during the evacuation.

The basis forthe values shown is a 20% relocation of shadow residents along with a proportional percentage of shadow employees.

Special Event ..............................................

Additional vehicles in the EPZ due to the identified special event.School and Transit Buses ............................

Vehicle-equivalents present on the road during evacuation servicing schools and transit-dependent people (1 bus is equivalent to 2 passenger vehicles).

External Through Traffic .............................

Traffic on interstates/freeways and major arterial roads at the start of the evacuation.

This traffic is stopped by access control 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> after theevacuation begins.Clinton Power Station 6-7 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0 Table 6-4. Vehicle Estimates by ScenarioRe u n n Re u n n.pca ch o r ni h o g Sce ai1 1,877 5,133 401 1,633 1,947 -12 14 6,948 17,9652 1,877 5,133 401 1,633 1,947 -12 14 6,948 17,9653 188 6,822 42 2,722 1,853 --14 6,948 18,5894 188 6,822 42 2,722 1,853 -14 6,948 18,5895 188 6,822 42 408 1,853 -14 2,779 12,1066 1,877 5,133 418 544 1,952 -124 14 6,948 17,0107 1,877 5,133 418 544 1,952 -124 14 6,948 17,0108 1,877 5,133 418 544 1,952 -124 14 6,948 17,0109 188 6,822 42 817 1,853 --14 6,948 16,68410 188 6,822 42 817 1,853 -14 6,948 16,68411 188 6,822 42 817 1,853 -14 6,948 16,68412 188 6,822 42 272 1,853 -14 2,779 11,97013 188 6,822 42 817 1,853 27,921 14 6,948 44,60514 1,877 5,133 401 1,633 1,947 -12 14 6,948 17,965Note: Vehicle estimates are for an evacuation of the entire EPZ (Region R02)Clinton Power Station 6-8 KLD Engineering, P.C.Evacuation Time Estimate Rev. 0